But people are saying that Soler fell because of injuries therefore Buxton has to fall because of injuries. It's a huge leap. Not really, if you believe wrist injuries are far more concerning to a hitters' long term success than broken shins and hamstring sprains. I wouldn't even drop Buxton lower than, say, 3 (behind Correa and Bryant). So you are whining about a lack of falling by 2 spots? welcome to the minor league forum.
the app is terrible. I usually just go to the website on my phone to make lineup changes. I made those changes for you. I put peralta in your lineup (he doesn't have another start this week) to avoid you having too many people on your bench and getting zero points for the day. PLEASE look at this to make sure it is how you want it.
he's "wrong" to not be super high on a guy that has played in like 60 games the last two seasons? you guys are pathetic with your obsession over this guy.
actually reading back through this, I do seem to half remember that the rule was he had to stay on your mlb roster the whole season...does anyone have any links?
I'm reluctant to side with tim because I know he'll interpret that as him convincing me or tricking me or something, but it sounds like the guy was on the mlb roster on opening day, correct? I mean, if I'm missing something, let me know.
of the infinite number of pitcher/batter combos that could arise in a matchup between the cubs and pads, russell v quentin might be the absolute worst possible one for the cubs.
bad at what exactly? you appear to be arguing that past wins/losses aren't indicative of future wins/losses much in the way that past heads/tails are not indicative of future heads/tails. this is not correct. at all. Future baseball games are completely independent events from past baseball games, so the analogy is apt. if you were trying to predict whether a team was going to win its 101st game of the season would you want to know the results of the first 100? yes. if you were trying to predict the result of the 101st coin flip, would you want to know the results of the first 100? no.
bad at what exactly? you appear to be arguing that past wins/losses aren't indicative of future wins/losses much in the way that past heads/tails are not indicative of future heads/tails. this is not correct. at all.
Probably nobody...because they're already 11 games under .500 and I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks this is a team expected to go 11 games over .500 over 2.5 months. So what you are saying is the model isn't so great for the Cubs? No. I'm saying the Cubs have underperformed their pythag and their pythag is a better indication of how they will play going forward than their record is. If you flip a coin heads ten times in a row, tails isn't any more likely to come on the 11th than it already was. lol, what a shitty analogy. you realize that a baseball team losing 10 games in a row isn't blind luck/chance in the way that flipping a coin is, right?* *pretty sure you don't.
If that's your worry, any time through 2018 is likely to be fine. the 2014 cubs currently have a positive run differential. can't wait to see them hang the "2014 run differential champs" banner.