LeonDurham

I think experience is a big factor. But here's my reasoning. Not necessary because experience makes you better. Playoff baseball is a completely different animal from regular season baseball. I think pressure is very real, and some players play better and some play worse. The fact that the Cubs won last year at least proves that they can excel at playoff baseball, even granting that luck contributes to a large degree in series that are 5 or 7 games. You have no idea if the Nats are full of a bunch of Clayton Kershaws who underachieve in the playoffs (although I do know that Murphy scares the horsefeathers out of me). You at least know the Cubs aren't.

Ian Happ has been a far better hitter than Zobrist this year. It's not particularly close. Zobrist is also a worse outfielder. OK. Fine, maybe I'm a meatball. But Maddon is going with experience here. WS MVP. Back to back WS champ.

Out of curiosity, I decided to investigate my hunch that Happ swings and misses pitches in the zone an awful lot. And its true. According to fangraphs, his Z-Contact% (contact % on pitches in the strike zone) is 77.9 with the average being 85.5. Zobrist, btw is 93.1% with a career average over 90%. Not claiming this is a critical stat, but still. Just thought it was interesting.

I like Zobrist in there. Don't be haters. He's very likely to slap a ball down the line in a critical moment. Happ is likely to swing and miss at 3 pitches right in the middle of the strike zone.

http://calacanis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/whacked.gif Here's my take. Its way simpler than yours. Team that plays better will win. On paper, Nats had a better year. Most experts picking them. But pressure is completely on them. Team keeps getting bounced early. Cubs have playoff experience. Sure Strasburg and Scherzer are scary, but the Cubs beat Bumgarner, Kershaw and Kluber last year. I don't believe in "most important players" or "keys to the series". This is media bunk. The most important players are obviously the best players. Strasburg, Harper, Murphy, Bryant, Rizzo, Hendricks, etc because you expect these guys to perform. But the series can easily be decided by Jon Jay or Ben Zobrist. I think this is where my homerness will give the Cubs the advantage. Most guys on the roster have had big ABs in big playoff series.

I always think Vegas is much smarter than ESPN analysts. Vegas has Cubs +100, Nationals -120. Very close to even money. I'd actually bet the Cubs if I gambled on sports. They opened at +110. Cubs have been playing better lately, and they have experience winning a WS. I don't think its meatball at all to say experience is really important. Cubs in 4. :flythew:

This is terrible sciencing. Peyton Manning played 7,000 games in college and was as prepared to play from Day 1 in the NFL than anybody in history. What drives me crazy is people being apoplectic when you say you prefer a guy with limited college playing time to at least sit for a while to start his pro career. I think starting Mitch from week 1 would have been a mistake. I think starting him now is the right decision. Completely disagree. There is no control. You can't point to Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder and say that starting early ruined them. Because you have no data on what they would've been if they sat. Consequently, you can't point to Rodgers and say it helped him. Because you have no data otherwise. This is my point. You pointing to Peyton's career starts is basically a rationalization of your point of view that Mitch should've sat. But despite those zillion career starts, he was still horrible for a year. How do you reconcile that? And what about Cam Newton? He had few starts like Mitch. Would've he have been better if he sat? What data do you have? Sitting Mitch may very well have been the right thing to do. But using individual anecdotes as proof is silly. There are anecdotes supporting both points of view, and none of them are appropriately controlled.

You know what drives me crazy? When someone believes its better to sit a QB, they point out how Aaron Rodgers sat and he became awesome. And they point to all the QBs that didn't sit- ie Blaine Gabbert, who are awful. Explain why this is such a hard concept to grasp. YOU WILL NEVER KNOW HOW RODGERS WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DIDN'T SIT AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BLAINE GABBERT WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DID. But odds are, Rodgers would probably still be awesome and Gabbert would still suck. And why do they ignore Peyton Manning, who was put in right away and because one of the best of all time? I'm a scientist so it drives me crazy. Sorry for the rant.

I agree this is what it should be and Maddon usually gets this stuff right. I trust Hendricks the most and arrieta the least at this point. I could go either way with Lester and q. Personally I'd go with Q. I guess Lester has been good the last few and has the track record. I'd feel better about him if he could throw to a damn base.

The whole Glennon thing is a head scratcher. He has no talent. I think butt fumbler would've been better. I just don't get paying that guy 18 million.

I can't see how Mitch isn't starting next week. There will be a revolt.

No excuses whatsoever for that play. But you wonder how much of the frustration comes from playing decently and having a horrible qb who gives you no chance.

That looked really bad. And dirty.

The worst part about this is that the bears might actually be winning this 21 point blowout with competent qb play.

Good god he sucks. I'm actually pissed that the bears care even less about winning than the fans. They surely can't believe this clown gives them ten best chance of winning.

You want to believe Pace hit a home run with Trubisky. But he gave 18 million to this guy?? Makes me lose all faith that he has any clue when evaluating a QB.

That walk was maddening. But thanks Dex.

1. Don't buy it. 3 games is enough to know he's not a starter in this league. He's got 18 million reasons to be thankful for the opportunity he got and didn't deserve to begin with. 2. A win in spite of his horrible play. 3. OK. Fair enough. This is the only point I'm buying. 4. He's going to have to face a tough team sooner or later. He's going to lose sooner or later. He's going to get hit sooner or later.

I'm just saying that there is absolutely nothing out there that keeps me from thinking that Mitch is starting Thursday. People are basing it on what Pace and Fox have said, but neither of them say anything of substance to the media. Otherwise, it is everyone out there speculating. What I am saying is that there are a lot of smart people out there that say its time to start the Mitch. It seems like its a reasonable thing to do. And based on this, it won't shock me if he's starting Thursday. If he were, they certainly wouldn't announce it. In fact, they'd probably make a statement like the one below (on Glennon starting). “We’re not going to announce our starting lineup probably until pretty close to game time,” Fox told reporters. “But I think that would probably be a fairly proper assessment.”

I call BS. Because the organization that had everyone believing they were trading up for Solomon Thomas and routinely censors reporters for dumb stuff at practice isn't going to let it leak when Trubisky is going to start. I'm going to hold out hope it's week 5. Hell im going to hope Mitch throws for 4 TDs Thursday night.

horsefeathers it. Let the Packers scheme and prepare for a run-heavy attack and a stationary QB who doesn't throw it over 10 yards. And then start Mitch on Thursday.

Writing's on the wall. I think Mitch is in week 5, as many people predicted.

amazing! hes usually unclutch!

That's as hard as Jay is capable of hitting it the other way.

Yeah!! Stick a knife right through their hearts.