David
-
Posts
32,468 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
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
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by David
-
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41jpsbIzCHL._SS500_.jpg
-
The Fenway variety appears to be $20 for 3 lbs.
-
Is anyone remotely excited for this season?
David replied to RegulusBlue's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
. -
But variance is so hugely in play in a 50/50 scenario that adjusting that projection by that much after that many occurrences and with that many still to come is almost meaningless. That said, I completely understand the point you're making.
-
The part that you're missing is that nobody is disagreeing with Kyle in an absolute/technical sense.
-
What nonsense are you babbling? You literally have no idea what you think you're arguing about. Well, I guess that settles it. I've been proven wrong. Make a point with any substance to it and I'll gladly take it back. Go ahead. ONE HUNDRED AND TWO YEARS. THAT'S THE POINT.
-
The law of averages is usually misapplied and turns into gambler's fallacy. You expect a .500-team to play .500 for the future. You don't expect them to play better to make up for playing worse before. The main reason it is misapplied is when it is used on a small sample size. The law of large numbers supports the belief that, over time, a .500 team will play .500 baseball. To look at a sample of two games and make a determination is pointless. Pretty much. Even though technically, Kyle is 100% right, I'm not sure why he's acting like his point has any real substance to it. Yes, a team with an expectation of winning half its games that starts out 0-2 is then "expected" to go 80-82. So what?
-
What nonsense are you babbling? You literally have no idea what you think you're arguing about.
-
You seriously have to just be trolling/trying to be contrarian on purpose. What? Who is better than Grabow the Cubs could have? It was one game, give the guy a break. Yes he blew the game, but the offense didn't do their part. Wuertz There's one I agree with you on.
-
You seriously have to just be trolling/trying to be contrarian on purpose. What? Who is better than Grabow the Cubs could have? It was one game, give the guy a break. Yes he blew the game, but the offense didn't do their part. One game? Look at his numbers. He's terribly mediocre.
-
You seriously have to just be trolling/trying to be contrarian on purpose.
-
BALLGAME GUYS WITNESS MY CLAIRVOYANT POWERS
-
Maybe Sori can actually do something.. he's sure to see some fastballs
-
what? as for the bullpen, i'll just let that randomness play out... but we need to stop acting like grabow belongs in high leverage spots I'm not sure you can call a Zambrano, Dempster, Wells, Gorzalanny, Silva rotation anything but that. When Lilly comes back I'll go with average. You think a Zambrano, Dempster, Lilly, Wells, random guy rotation is average?
-
Caridad. LOL still applies, though. Timely choice, Lou. I had been informed wrong :oops:
-
If you think the rotation is "below average" I think you should have a look at some of the rotations around baseball. seriously... W T F?
-
what? as for the bullpen, i'll just let that randomness play out... but we need to stop acting like grabow belongs in high leverage spots
-
lol at bringing marmol in NOW
-
am i crazy or did that seem catchable
-
thank god that kept rolling
-
ugh
-
is anyone else's directv acting like the HD feed is a PPV channel now and telling you you need to call to order it?
-
mclouth trying to pull another fast one
-
maybe heyward hasn't quite mastered hitting lefties yet
-
That sucks Byrd has been pretty freaking good so far
