Which is why I put that disclaimer, but thanks for verifying that. And thank's Duke and David for your informative answers. Glad I have good baseball minds to bounce things like this off of.
I don't necessarily hate this, but given the apathy toward the SCF involving 2 decently supported teams, I feel like the last thing the NHL needs is more teams. They have been very fortunate that teams like Chicago and LA have been recent NHL dynasties and not like Carolina and Edmonton.
Looking at teams with a realistic shot at a WC, not including division winners as I think all 3 will win the division, this is the order I'd like to see in the Division Series (most desirable to least) 1. Marlins 2. Cardinals 3. Pirates 4. Dodgers 5. Mets
Fangraphs post on the Cubs historic BABIP allowed http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/another-thing-at-which-these-cubs-are-best/ I know there is not much to be concerned with the Cubs, even so I will say with the cavet that I believe the Cubs are a fantastic team and I have no doubts about their ability to a) make the playoffs by winning the divison with ease or b) be well positioned to compete in the October crapshoot. So really the only discussion is how awesome are the Cubs: best team ever, historically great team or 'run of the mill' 100 win team. So I hope you will allow my 'concerns' to remain in that context and not take it as a sky is falling sort of thing, but it is me so I don't know if I earned the benefit of doubt. My concern is that the pitching staff will regress quite a bit as the season goes on. These numbers are not sustainable are they? The good news is that all this would do is likely take games where we'd win by 5 runs and turn them into games we'd win by 1-2 runs. But my further concern is that I still want to pick up a top-3 type starter at the deadline, and if we are pitching as well as we are now, we might not pull the trigger on an impact guy for the playoffs. So talk me off the 'historically great or only a 100 win team' ledge. Can we sustain this, is this something to keep an eye on? Also one of the commentators in the article posted this:
That can't be right. Jake has given up 18 ER this year in 87 innings. Shields has given up 13 in 7. I am guessing this was posted during his start, as he gave up 7 runs (6 earned) in the first 3 innings. 2.2 IP - 10 ER (last Padres start) 2.0 IP - 7 ER (first Sox start) 1.1 IP - 5 ER (the start of last night's game) That would be 22 ER in 6 IP. He then recovered to allow 2 runs (1 earned) in his final 3.2 IP.
Again we had the ERA advantage in all 3 games and the FIP advantage in 2 of them. Sure on paper Scherzer and Strasburg are better than Hendricks and Hammel but based on performance this year they are close matchups. If the Cubs are a historically good team like we think they are there shouldn't be pre-series griping about not having good matchups IMO.
Is it really that odd of a stretch though? Basically shows their pitching has been excellent and when scoring league average runs they would go 7-1 in that stretch I guess if there's a weird thing to it its that the Cubs have had slightly *poor* luck in 1 run games, which is hilarious Yeah I guess it's not that odd just that they seem to go from blowout juggernaut Cubs to can't score too many runs Cubs overnight and back again the next game.
Weird stretch for the Cubs. 4-4 in their last 8 games, their 4 wins have been by 2, 7, 6 and 11 runs and they scored 6, 8, 8 and 13 runs in the games. In their losses they lost by 1, 1, 4 and 3 runs scoring 2, 2, 1 and 1.