Backtobanks

Which team is more likely to have a good season is getting into projections rather than actual records. At this point in your scenario, both teams are actually 1-2. Obviously using the pythagorean method, the first team is more likely to have a better season. While you're playing fast and loose with statistics, small sample sizes, and projections, do you really think that team 2 will only win 9% of the games (their pythagorean win ratio) during the whole season? Of course not. Obviously in that tiny of a sample size, a million variables come into play. The margin of error is so high. Even after 162, there is still margin of error on both Pythagorean records and actual records. Neither records a team's talent level accurately, although obviously the margin is much smaller than the microscopic 3 game sample. I personally don't agree with throwing out either number when coming up with projections. The Pythagorean record is a very good allocation of the things that translate into wins (runs scored/runs allowed), but at the same time we don't know exactly why a team overperforms/underperforms it. A projection that ends up somewhere between the two records (before taking into account changes in the roster) would probably be the most reasonable approach IMO. Using actual records is a good starting point for a projection, but I don't know why that wouldn't be amended using the data we have that might suggest a team is better or worse than their record. To get back to the beginning of the discussion, I'm not sure why you would want to throw out the Cubs Pythagorean record when making a projection for next year. It's an important data point even though it definitely still has error in it. While it's fun and interesting to project and predict what might happen, the bottom line is that the actual W-L record is all that counts. If you're a 70 win team that projects to be a 78 win team, you still have to gain 11 actual wins, not 3, to be .500. With the CBA, money being tight, and more teams locking up young stars, it's making it much harder to gain 8-10 wins in a season.

Which team is more likely to have a good season is getting into projections rather than actual records. At this point in your scenario, both teams are actually 1-2. Obviously using the pythagorean method, the first team is more likely to have a better season. While you're playing fast and loose with statistics, small sample sizes, and projections, do you really think that team 2 will only win 9% of the games (their pythagorean win ratio) during the whole season?

This is kind of backwards. It's pretty good at telling you whether a team is overperforming or underperforming in terms of W/L... it's not all that effective on its own at telling you anything about what the weaknesses of your team are. The run differential compared to where your team ranks in runs scored and/or runs allowed would allow you to see which area (offense or pitching) needs improvement. or you could just look at how many runs they've scored and allowed Which kind of gets back to my initial point of looking at what's happening on the field instead of fantasy projections of what the team is doing.

This is kind of backwards. It's pretty good at telling you whether a team is overperforming or underperforming in terms of W/L... it's not all that effective on its own at telling you anything about what the weaknesses of your team are. The run differential compared to where your team ranks in runs scored and/or runs allowed would allow you to see which area (offense or pitching) needs improvement.

I don't know how valuable Barney would be on the bench. I would rather have a bench guy who could hit more than basically being a defensive replacement. Some team that is looking for a solid defensive IF might want him in a trade

I agree that the Pythagorean method should be looked at to try to analyze the weaknesses of your team, but it shouldn't be used to placate fans into believing that the team is far better than what it shows on the field. Also, it's going to be hard to project next year's team based on this year's numbers because of the large turnover of players.

For our purposes, pythagorean wins mean more than their actual record. Soriano is not very good and Garza was here for 10 starts. Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games. Of course, that's the end goal. So let me ask you this...why do you think the Cubs have under performed their pythagorean win record? Is it luck, is it the result of a bad bullpen, or is it something else in your opinion? I really don't have an answer except that the bullpen would obviously be at least part of the problem.

Who cares how many games they win in the regular season? I want them to build a team that can win in the playoffs. BOOM. Meatball one-upped! In the pythagorean playoffs or the actual playoffs. :yahoo:

Except right now this team has been about a 78 win team and the only thing lost is Garza (and Soriano's below average production) while adding players with the salary off the books and one can pretty reasonably expect better production out of Castro and Rizzo next year as well as a likely better bullpen. Right now they are on a pace to win 74 games (with Garza and Soriano), so a below 70 win season is very likely. I would expect better production out of Castro and Rizzo, but there's a very real possibility that players like Schierholtz, Valbuena, and Wood might be less productive. Obviously it depends on the FAs signed (in your scenario) and hoping that Olt is productive enough to play 3B everyday. For our purposes, pythagorean wins mean more than their actual record. Soriano is not very good and Garza was here for 10 starts. Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games.

Except right now this team has been about a 78 win team and the only thing lost is Garza (and Soriano's below average production) while adding players with the salary off the books and one can pretty reasonably expect better production out of Castro and Rizzo next year as well as a likely better bullpen. Right now they are on a pace to win 74 games (with Garza and Soriano), so a below 70 win season is very likely. I would expect better production out of Castro and Rizzo, but there's a very real possibility that players like Schierholtz, Valbuena, and Wood might be less productive. Obviously it depends on the FAs signed (in your scenario) and hoping that Olt is productive enough to play 3B everyday.

I think you're being pretty optimistic about 82-84 win projection unless the FAs (OF & SP) really produce.

Sveum did say Garza would pitch tonight, so it's possible. :lol:

luke jackson PROS throws hard, strikes out lots of guys CONS walks lots of guys, suffers from early 2010s white man tool hair/hat malady mike olt PROS looks like a power hitting third baseman, used to hit like a power hitting third baseman CONS currently hits like [expletive] neil ramirez PROS currently striking out everyone in aa CONS is 24 in aa, is in aa because last year he was sort of a disaster at aaa, first name won out over last name and therefore is white ON THE WHOLE this would be okay i guess because i really don't think we are considering re-signing garza at all, but it would be nice if there was one prospect here without an "uhhh, this will need to change completely for him to be a real major leaguer" red flag attached. That doesn't look too exciting to me. I was hoping we could get a real "top" prospect and a couple of "interesting" prospects.

Not only is Soriano's hot streak not a sure thing, but impending trades certainly will have an effect on W-L record.

There's not as much out there through FA as there used to be because teams are extending their young stars. There are differnce makers out there in the trade market, but they will be expensive in terms prospects to be traded in exchange. Obviously timing is important because the FO needs to assess which prospects to keep and which to trade.

You think there seems to be tons of money because there is money to spend on cheaper things than a lot more payroll? Are you just saying you'd prefer the money allocated to IFA (which is relatively miniscule) and that other [expletive] to have gone into the MLB payroll? All I'm saying is the Cubs continue to be very profitable (according to all sources) and continue to tell the fans that there's no money to spend on payroll. There's money for what they choose to spend money on and they choose not to spend it on payroll. thanks for weighing in, jim. how's that position with the yankees treating you? My name isn't Jim, but if you're referring to Hendry I assume he's doing well. Why are you still obsessed with Hendry since the rest of us have moved on?

Personally, I think the only people scammed in this mess are the fans. There seems to be a ton of money for Wrigleyville real estate, training camps in Latin America, and paying 16 year-olds while pocketing a big profit.

And that's before we trade Garza, DeJesus, etc.

There's not much in the FA TOR market for the next few years, so I'm not sure it's worth it unless we get an awesome haul for Garza. Any future trade for a TOR starter will really cut into the progress made in the minor league system. Yes, we wouldn't want to cut into the waves and waves of prospects in order to acquire a good player. One of them might turn out to be a good player. I certainly would be more than willing to trade some prospects for a really good player, but unfortunately we have to wait for some of these prospects to get to the ML level so we can assess what really good player to go after. Right now there are too many holes to fill by acquiring one really good player.

There's not much in the FA TOR market for the next few years, so I'm not sure it's worth it unless we get an awesome haul for Garza. Any future trade for a TOR starter will really cut into the progress made in the minor league system.

Our motto has changed from "Wait until next year" to "Wait until next decade". I wish that wait until next decade would be your motto with respect to how frequently you post here. In case you haven't noticed, you post 9 times more frequently than I do. I don't think the sentiment was based on post volume alone. Maybe you need to look up the word "frequently".

Our motto has changed from "Wait until next year" to "Wait until next decade". I wish that wait until next decade would be your motto with respect to how frequently you post here. In case you haven't noticed, you post 9 times more frequently than I do.

Our motto has changed from "Wait until next year" to "Wait until next decade".

The FO better not wait too long on Gregg because I think the magic is going to start wearing off soon.

He's been here for 2 offseasons and found one each offseason. I'd say just looking at his Cubs track record alone says yes and expanding it to the Boston track record only helps. This has as much to do with other GMs as it does Theo, but I tend to think it's pretty likely that Theo will be able to. There was too much smoke last offseason to think there's simply no interest in Soriano out there, it's just whether the offers match our demands. That's somewhat a question only Theo can answer, but I'd guess there will be more urgency to deal him this year. This is 100% on Ricketts. If he allows the money to be spent and Theo values Choo enough, yes. If Ricketts doesn't make the cash available, no. Unless Choo has non-monetary motivations, if the Cubs (read, Ricketts) want him bad enough, then we can outbid other teams for him. Probably, but I trust Theo enough to believe he can manipulate the roster enough to get a few guys who can outperform their norms for a season. I question whether the totality of Tim's scenario would play out that way, but each individual aspect of it isn't particularly far-fetched. The thing I'm worried about the most, probably, is getting everything to work together to net Choo. Even if all of these happen, it's still pretty optimistic to think that they could win 85 games. Right now hey're on a pace for 66 wins and that's before any possible trades of Garza, Soriano, DeJesus, Gregg, etc.