UMFan83
-
Posts
94,553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
67
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by UMFan83
-
5 more games that start after 7:40 PM including tonight 5/20 @ Giants 9:15 8/5 @ A's 9:05 8/22 @ Padres 9:10 8/23 @ Padres 9:10 8/26 @ Dodgers 9:10 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy So when the Cubs were like 21-6 or whatever, it was a fallacy to bet that the rate they were winning at would not continue? Honest question. What you are describing is more of 'regression to the mean' (i think), in that the Cubs probably aren't an .800 winning % baseball team (because no team has ever been one in MLB history). So eventually they will play to their true talent level, which is maybe something like .625-.650. Gambler's fallacy would be saying "the Cubs are a .650 team that has been playing .800 ball, thus they are more likely go on a losing streak right now'
-
Please explain in detail. Well, I feel like most teams don't play 1.000 ball. So if a team is playing 1.000 percent over the course of seven games, the odds would suggest that they would then lose some to balance that. Now, even though the odds are against them continuing to win every game, it can happen for a lot longer. But I feel like the odds are not in their favor for that to continue. I might be wrong, though. I'm not good at math. I mean that's pretty much exactly gambler's fallacy described. If you flip a coin 7 times and it lands heads, what is the chances the next one is tails? If a .500 team wins 7 games in a row, what are the odds they win the next game? And the game after that? Basically whatever you do, don't go to a roulette wheel with that logic.
-
Winning Cubs baseball is like heroin. At first its the greatest thing ever and over time its still awesome but you need more (like run differential wins) to get the same high. Then suddenly its ripped away from you (losing a few games) and you start getting irritated and irrational. You get pissed when you don't have access to the stuff (like an offday after a loss, or a 9pm start tomorrow after a day game). If you just quit watching the Cubs, maybe after 6 months or so you could just enjoy them in moderation, but horsefeathers that Bryant is up with 2 men on, I will quit tomorrow.
-
SEE? This is the [expletive] that I'm talking about. Calling a game over when the best team in baseball who has scored the 2nd most runs in baseball and who tied up the game against the closer about 13 hours ago, still has 3 outs to work with? Stupid. Oh yeah, real stupid. Hahahahaha, I hope you are kidding around.
-
I'm glad we have a level headed and rational manager because if it were up to me, Jorge would to toiling away in AAA, Contreras would be tearing the cover off the ball for the Cubs and Heyward would be hitting 8th. I understand the logic at keeping Heyward 2nd and not overreacting, but man do I get so frustrated every time he comes up in a relatively big situation and knowing that someone like Russell or Zobrist could be there instead
-
and apparently Heyward watched some meatballs Watched or fouled off?
-
K-ward strikes again 0-4, 2 K, 2 weak ground outs
-
.
-
time to turn your season around Heyward
-
Ha that went from 'routine fly' to 'omg its carrying' to 'omg its a HR' to 'oh crap an out'
-
Come on Dex, pretend like you are in Colorado and its April 2015
-
That T-Fed AB yesterday was worse.
-
That not not a great AB by Javy. There are certain ABs where the pitcher is one step ahead of him and he struggles mightily.
-
Oh Javier
-
please homer Javy
-
Please let this dude keep pitching!
-
We've already failed to score runs against pitchers just as [expletive]. No. we haven't. These guys are nowhere near that bad. The difference between a newish pitcher with a mediocre ERA who most guys have never seen before and an old pitcher with a terrible ERA that hitters have seen a ton of times is significant.
-
Can you imagine making that same comment in like 2012 when they were both All-Stars?
-
T-Fed, Ross, Miggy and sadly for now Heyward are 4 guys I'd want Jorge up over in that situation. I'd definitely take Montero over Jorge and probably Heyward too if only because anecdotally he seems to actually make contact more often, but really, we're comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges at that point. This is not based on any statistics, all antecdotal, but I feel like Miggy strikes out in those situations a lot. I guess Jorge does too, but for whatever reason I trust him a little more
-
SEE? This is the horsefeathers that I'm talking about. Calling a game over when the best team in baseball who has scored the 2nd most runs in baseball and who tied up the game against the closer about 13 hours ago, still has 3 outs to work with? Stupid. Cowering at the idea of your 28-11 or 29-10 team having to play a good but lesser team on the road with the reigning Cy Young winner and Jon horsefeathering Lester going the first 2 games? STUPID
-
Well I mean I would agree regardless of the result of this series.
-
I want 2 of 3 from SF this weekend to maintain our streak of .500 or better weeks
-
T-Fed, Ross, Miggy and sadly for now Heyward are 4 guys I'd want Jorge up over in that situation.
-
Is Rizzo really that much slower than Javy? Uh, probably? He may be but I think Riz is rated fairly well as a baserunner overall.
