MSG T

Yes, it is. In that number of PA's roughly 25% of players can be +/- 100 points of their actual production. The other 75% of players will be +/- 50 points. That's purely through luck. You need At Least 1000 PAs to start getting a good handle on their real ability. As was alluded to earlier, what if he goes off for a .326/.395/.515/.910 line over his next 323 PA's? Does that mean he's a #3 hitter? Does that mean he was unlucky those first 323 PAs, or was he really lucky the second 323 PA's. You're basing your proclamation on the equivalent of a half season of production. That's nowhere near enough of a sample. You just made that number up. My point isn't that it's predicative. My point is that there is a reason. Randomness isn't it. His true talent level during those 323 PAs was not his career average. Yes, randomness is it. That's why he could very easily put up the numbers I listed in his next 323 PAs. If the 323 PAs was his actual ability, those numbers would be very close to his overall career numbers (assuming that's his true ability). In looking at 323 PAs, it's very possible he just isn't good as a three hitter, it's also very possible he was just unlucky in those 323 PAs. The point is, with that few PAs, you just don't know what the reason is. As for your first statement, I didn't make them up, I took what Tom Tango, Andrew Dolphin and Michael Lichtman found in their research for The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball and roughly translated them to 300 PAs (they skip from 200 to 500 PAs). They did the research on random fluctuations and the percentage of players that would fall within one and two standard deviations of their actual talent level. Like I said earlier, they are rough translations, not exact. My point was that a player can perform well under his true ability, due to bad luck, and that will make a huge difference in his numbers in half a seasons PAs.

I too have been foolishly checking the Brandon Webb thread for Brandon Webb news. [-X I figured you were paying more attention to the Garza thread to see if you needed to organize that lynching.

Yes, it is. In that number of PA's roughly 25% of players can be +/- 100 points of their actual production. The other 75% of players will be +/- 50 points. That's purely through luck. You need At Least 1000 PAs to start getting a good handle on their real ability. As was alluded to earlier, what if he goes off for a .326/.395/.515/.910 line over his next 323 PA's? Does that mean he's a #3 hitter? Does that mean he was unlucky those first 323 PAs, or was he really lucky the second 323 PA's. You're basing your proclamation on the equivalent of a half season of production. That's nowhere near enough of a sample. Haven't you ever seen a guy that hit really well one half of a season and not so well the other half? There's about 5 Cubs that fell into that last season. Now, if you want to look at his overall career numbers and say that he's not a #3 hitter, then OK, that makes a better argument. That sample covers 3600 PA's. That's a sample size that will give you a fair indication of the quality of hitter he is. It may not tell the whole story (you'd be including PA's from 8 years ago), but it tells a better story.

I'm actually having a tough time understanding this sentence. But I've thought all along this team could compete in the NL Central, namely because it is the NL Central. I think they can compete, but yeah its because its the Central. Cubs could be a very good team if a lot of things go right: Zambrano has to be an ace and not a side show the remains of Brandon Webb have to be successfully reanimated Monster walk years from Aramis and Pena repeat of 2010 from Byrd Soriano to earn his money Soto, Castro, and Colvin to be the 1st successful trio of farm grown Cubs position players since Banks, Williams, and Santo Blake Dewitt reaches his ceiling of an OK ballplayer Koyie Hill doesnt make it past spring training A solid bullpen with Marmol, Marshall, Guzman and maybe O Day If all of this happens, we might just have ourselves a ballclub. If number 2 and 3 happen, the Cubs will compete for the Central crown. Add in you last one and Cubs have a fine team. Soriano will never be worth his contract, I just hope for his complete suckiness to be delayed as long as possible. The rest of what you listed only need to be decent, not great.

I fully expect Jacobsen to firebomb the court if either team scores more than 50.

Pitcher's arm strength peaks in their early to mid 20s. Young Zambrano got away with poor command because of his velocity. Even though his velocity is only a notch down from where it once was, it's allowed hitters to square up more often and hit more consistently off of him, causing a drop in his production. Had Zambrano learned control to compensate, perhaps it'd be a different story. He hasn't. Dusty Baker had nothing to do with Zambrano not being as good as he was circa 2004. So your position is that all of the concern with how Dusty Baker handled pitchers like Z was a waste of time, as it was inevitable his career would begin a steady decline at the age of 26? While I think NB's description has an effect, albeit possibly a small one, to me the major difference is that Z's mechanics aren't the train wreck that Prior and Wood's are. He has decent mechanics, which should have allowed him to escape Dusty without as much damage. Plus, going back to Baseball Prospectus' PAP chart (I know, it's not the end all be all), he has never been abused the way Wood and Prior were in 2003. Between their horrible mechanics and what Dusty did to them in 03, that pretty much explains Prior and Wood. Z is a completely different animal. His problems are largely command, and keeping his head on straight.

Umm. No! I give Hendry lots of credit for the mediocrity of the Cubs. This. A lot of the Cubs problems can be blamed directly on poor personnel moves by Hendry. So could a lot of the successes... The Cubs in the '00's have not been mediocre in comparison to previous decades Being better than Larry Himes doesn't necessarily mean good. He's just a better version of bad.

I'd settle for 2009. I'd settle for 2010 Adam Dunn. That's not how it works, man. Dunn is out of the Cubs budget, so Pena, Nick Johnson, et al., are now targets for Hendry. I would bet they spend more money this winter than it would take to get Dunn. And they'll spend it on worthless crap they don't need.

I'd settle for 2009. I'd settle for 2010 Adam Dunn. Yep.

And winning 88 games, the Wild Card and playing the Phillies in the first round is exponentially better than winning 76 games, missing the playoffs and seeing attendance drop to 2.4 mil. Don't forget, the Giants barely made the playoffs (winning 4 more games than 88). The Cardinals won the WS after winning 83 games in one of the worst divisions ever. Making the playoffs is the goal, once that occurs, anything can happen.

Who was assuming that? You said they didn't underperform because they played 2 games better than Pythagoras. How is one supposed to take that? No one here that I know of has based next year's projections on last years pythagorean win total. They did underperform based on their pythagorean win total. The pythagorean win totals are about the best measurement system we currently have to determine "true talent"* for a given year. Does it have any relation to next year, probably not very much. But no one here said it did. (note: there is no such thing as ture talent) You said, You can't use Pythagorean Record to determine true talent. They didn't underperform based on runs scored/runs allowed, they did underperform based on the makeup of their roster. Given the players they had, and how those players performed, they underperformed.

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/topic?f=6&t=58457 So about $116 million? I guess what will be key is how much "slightly less" will be. Evidently under $129 mil (the $116 figure plus $13 mil per for Dunn). Is $15 mil a "slight" amount? I realize it's the Ricketts team and they can do what they please, but how many people are going to come to Wrigley and see the updated bathrooms when the are winning 70 games each year? When the average fan starts expecting the team to suck when it's time to buy tickets in Feb, ticket sales will plummet. Will they drop back to early 1980's attendance figures? No, but dropping back to averages of 25-28,000 per game is quite possible. Who cares? Put money in the farm system, build a team the right way, and they'll come back when we start winning. And how long will that take? Investing in the farm system isn't going to help next year or the year after. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying don't ignore the next couple of years. They have enough talent to win now with the addition of a couple of decent players. I'd buy the "blow it up" sentiment if- a) - they were going to suck regardless of what they do in the offseason or b) - there was no one available this offseason to get them back into contention. Since neither of those are true, then do something to make this team better now. They don't have to go add $50 mil in payroll to do that.

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/topic?f=6&t=58457 So about $116 million? I guess what will be key is how much "slightly less" will be. Evidently under $129 mil (the $116 figure plus $13 mil per for Dunn). Is $15 mil a "slight" amount? I realize it's the Ricketts team and they can do what they please, but how many people are going to come to Wrigley and see the updated bathrooms when the are winning 70 games each year? When the average fan starts expecting the team to suck when it's time to buy tickets in Feb, ticket sales will plummet. Will they drop back to early 1980's attendance figures? No, but dropping back to averages of 25-28,000 per game is quite possible.

111 without Gatens. I don't know that any college has ever had such polar opposites in back to back years. My bold prediction is that they will not finish last. I don't know who will though. I didn't realize how athletic some of these kids were. It actually makes me really annoyed Lickliter held everyone back (or at least seemingly did). I am pretty excited for next Sunday. Just got home from the game. They looked pretty good. I fully realize the level of competition sucked, but under Lickliter they beat this team 76-60. It was so nice to see them destroy a far inferior opponent, that's something that hasn't happened recently. After the first 5 minutes, they pretty much did what they wanted, when they wanted. That's something I haven't seen from them since the 05-06 Alford team. They still may not be that good this year, but if they can continue that style all year, it's going to be far more entertaining. And I will say this... Eric May is a freak. It was shocking comparing him to last year. He didn't look anything like this against anyone last year. Also, I can't wait to see what Gatens is like in the new system.

So does that officially signal Kosuke's already played his last game for the Cubs, whether it makes sense or not?

My mom got Andre Dawson and my dad got Gabby Harnett, which is cool since he was born the year Hartnett hit the Homer in the Gloamin (1938).

It's Bonilla for me. 2 hours later and I'd get Wagner.

Thought you guys might find this interesting- http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5709358 Looks like the conference commishioners don't like AAU ball.

I agree, but this is also a team that fired a highly regarded hitting coach, replaced him with another highly regard hitting coach, who they then demoted in favor of another highly regarded hitting coach. This is the Cubs, weird seems to be the norm around here.

Who the hell is Doney Money? Is he/she related to Boney Maroney?

Was that the year Terry Pendelton won it? Yes. Ridiculous when you look at their stats that year. http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1991.shtml#NLmvp Agreed. But go to the next season and look at AL MVP. That makes Pendleton's win look appropriate.

A streaky hitter on a hot streak? You don't say! Sorry, I'm just bigger because I wasted a first round fantasy pick on him. Bigger? Did you eat him after the draft? ;)

That struck you? yes, i didn't realize that hitting 50 was as rare as it was before steroids. I could be off, but I think Foster was the first player with 50+ since Mays with 52 in 1965(?).

I'm rarely able to find something and be the first to post it. It's a strong talent, I think, being a half step late.

And just like that, http://thegazette.com/2010/09/29/live-coverage-washington%e2%80%99s-oglesby-to-announce-college-plans-1230-p-m/. It's Iowa.