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
-
3/17 Cubs vs Diamondbacks @ 6:05pm on ESPN
UMFan83 replied to Banedon's topic in Fred Hornkohl Game Thread Forum
mother horsefeathering horsefeathers -
wtf is UBI? edit: nevermind got it
-
Yeah it doesn't really matter if we place 1st, 2nd or 3rd. As long as we don't finish 4th as I don't want to play the Kings in the first round (although might be easier to go through their division in the second round). I came to the conclusion that the Hawks basically replaced 25% of their forwards less than a month ago, finding comfort with your new teammates is sometimes difficult at first. That plus the annual March swoon, these guys have played so much hockey over the last 4 seasons. I figured the new blood would be relatively fresh and give us a boost but oh well. The Hawks have done this often enough that its tough to legit worry until they prove that it wasn't a swoon and they just aren't good enough.
-
3/17 Cubs vs Diamondbacks @ 6:05pm on ESPN
UMFan83 replied to Banedon's topic in Fred Hornkohl Game Thread Forum
-
The Jets and Pats are in an arms race to sign former Bears. Who will win??
-
3/17 Cubs vs Diamondbacks @ 6:05pm on ESPN
UMFan83 replied to Banedon's topic in Fred Hornkohl Game Thread Forum
Beautiful. I might even switch from the tourney for a bit to watch. -
Well over the last 6 months my teams are 2-0 in play-in games
-
1 win in our last 6 games, yuck
-
Yep. I'm the biggest spring training is meaningless guy and the combination of how terrible he's been plus the high leverage innings he'll be getting has me worried. *cough*plexiglassprinciple*cough* I kid
-
I don't necessarily fault the White Sox here, but any day the White Sox and Cardinals look like bad guys in the media is a good day.
-
Sounds like the White Sox didn't want his kid in the locker room anymore. Guess he had him around all the time with his own locker and stuff. He's 14. [tweet] [/tweet] Boom, NSBB'd
-
Hmm, I was assuming that the NMC players would count towards the players you can protect, not as additional keepers
-
Should be fun to speculate: [tweet] [/tweet]
-
http://deadspin.com/an-nhl-expansion-draft-could-be-pretty-fun-1765254501 Thought this was interesting. If there is an expansion draft for 1 new team after next year, the rules for protecting players would be either: a) 1 goalie, 7 forwards, 3 defensemen b) 1 goalie, any 8 skaters This is a little hard to do because we only know about 16 skaters and 2 goalies that will be on the roster at the end of next year but if the Hawks had to protect their guys who would they protect. My guess: Goalie - Crawford (assuming he can justify his $6m cap hit next season) Forwards - Kane, Toews, Anisimov, Teravainen, Panarin (if resigned), Kruger D - Keith, Hjalmarsson This leaves one forward and one blue liner available to protect Choices for forwards - Hossa, Desjardins, Kyle Baun? (do you have to protect players in Rockford?) Choices for defensemen - Seabrook, Gustafsson, TVR? I think the obvious choice is to expose Hossa, but I highly doubt an expansion team is going to pick up his deal at his age. But still it doesn't make sense to protect him. And on the blue line, Seabrook has a cap hit of nearly $7m. Perhaps he's coasting to the playoffs but he's been really poor defensively (look at his terrible possession numbers!). If he doesn't step it up it might make sense to protect a young defenseman and hope someone takes Seabs contract. Agree? Disagree?
-
Casual fans see it as Blue blood vs. play-in winner and pick accordingly. I have Arizona winning it but it was more of a toss up for me...haven't really liked how Arizona has played the last 6 weeks or so.
-
Not sure who will be broadcasting but it will be a Cubs broadcast on CSN today and it's being billed as "commercial free" so that sounds cool. 11 of the Cubs 17 remaining Spring Games will be broadcast in Chicago, 9 of those being Cubs broadcasts on CSN or WGN.
-
As a kid of the 90's I got a few chuckles out of this: [bbvideo=560,315] [/bbvideo]
-
Why do they need giant graphics that take up a chunk of the screen?
-
Some guys on Twitter were speculating 92-94 but not really sure how credible that is.
-
Heyward with a bases clearing double, Cubs up 8-0 now. I'm loving the bats coming alive.
-
thats insane
-
[tweet] [/tweet]
-
All Things Spring Training 2016 (except games)
UMFan83 replied to David's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
[tweet] [/tweet] Have they tried having him recite Playboy articles as hes making the throws? -
I honestly can't even wrap my head around whatever it is you're trying to say here. If the foundation of the argument rests on the win gap between 2015 and 2014, it is already extremely specious. That is literally the foundation of Sheehan citing the plexiglas principle. Did you read the article? If so send it to me please. The argument was that teams that improve by 20+ games often do so because they get both great improvements from their roster and benefit from good fortune. Some of the specific reasons he mentioned are: outlier seasons, injury luck (and specifically mentioned how durable the Cubs rotation was last year), Pythagorean variance (the Cubs were +7 there), and bullpen variance (which he said applies to the Cubs..not so sure but he said something about Grimm, strop and rondon having outlier years). There were some others too.
-
They are independent events. Luck doesn't really "even out". Whether we were lucky last season or not, we are equally likely to have good and bad luck in 2016. Correct. But many if not most of the teams that improve by 20 games get a boost from luck. And they could get the same or even better luck the next year maybe they will not follow the principle (1 of the 18 teams they looked at from recent years didn't follow this principle).
