Hairyducked Idiot

Then you got the wrong impression on TV. For one, you can't judge the crowd based on the five rows behind home plate. And crowd volume is not consistent from telecast to telecast. It was much louder than the average Cubs game. Then they were being loud while sitting on their butts far more often than many Wrigley crowds do. No, there was more standing yesterday evening than the average Cubs game, as well. Just not after the grand slam. Then the TV broadcast was misleading, because a lot of people got the impression independently that the crowd was relatively subdued.

Then you got the wrong impression on TV. For one, you can't judge the crowd based on the five rows behind home plate. And crowd volume is not consistent from telecast to telecast. It was much louder than the average Cubs game. Then they were being loud while sitting on their butts far more often than many Wrigley crowds do.

I think he was joking about 7%. A generic team would be about 15%, we're not a generic team, we're a darned good one with favorable pitching matchups in 3 of 4 remaining games (game 3 absurdly so). I'd say closer to 25%.

Outside of the weak "chilly" excuse, none of that explains why many of us were noticing how quiet and subdued the crowd was by Wrigley standards *before* the fifth inning. Dempster boring them to sleep is a pretty good reason So if your pitcher is shutting out the opponent through four and you are winning 2-0 in the opening game of the playoffs, but the pitcher looks kinda wild doing it, that's reason enough to show less enthusiasm than a regular-season Cubs-Brewers game?

Outside of the weak "chilly" excuse, none of that explains why many of us were noticing how quiet and subdued the crowd was by Wrigley standards *before* the fifth inning.

I was watching the whole game with sound. There's no way you can tell me that crowd was as consistently enthusiastic as a normal Wrigley crowd even before the grand slam. Earlier in the year, you'd see the crowd on its feet every time a pitcher got to two strikes or the Cubs had a runner on base.

Amusingly, commentators seem to think the Cubs ace pitches today after the Dodgers ace pitched yesterday. The best pitcher on the Dodgers goes today, and the Cubs still haven't felt the need to use their best starter.

That would be kind of BS if the bandwagon Rays fans got to see a World Series and we don't. It's a choice between that and the Angels, Red Sox or White Sox fans getting to see another in short succession.

You, more than most people, should understand that that's the case for most teams. It's the nature of the playoff format. Actually, I know you do. I was alive in 84 but not old enough to remember. So for my playoff experiences, the Cubs are now 6-13 and 1-3 in series (and threatening to go 1-4). They've lost seven straight, by an average of almost four runs per game with not a single one-run loss in the stretch. The nature of the playoffs is flukey coinflip-type series, not an endless procession of beatings.

I care less this year than any other playoff year I've been through, but still more than I'd like to. Another game or two like last night should finish me off. A definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results. Getting excited about the Cubs in the playoffs always ends with the same results.

Egocentric much? I was mocking Ender, who said that it the Dodgers pitching didn't have a road problem despite their clear difference in ERA, because one lucky-good performance would negate it.

This is the Cubs we are talking about right, not the Rays, Red Sox or Angels who are all better than them? Care to explain how those teams are better than the Cubs? I'd like to hear it, considering statistics cleasrly show otherwise. If the Cubs were to play those teams, and the other teams got a slightly luck good performance, the Cubs' advantage would be negated. So therefore they have no advantage.

If you want to prove that this matchup isn't favorable to the Dodgers, breaking out recent results might not be the best way to do it. Zambrano hasn't exactly been lights-out, other than one epic start. Then he is due for a good one. The more that I think about things, the more that I realize that my confidence level is higher for tomorrow than it was for tonight. Kyle, you are just building my confidence more and more because I am realizing that your arguments are not all that strong while there are many signs that show that Billingsley is beatable. Of course he is beatable. No one ever said he wasn't. He's a little better than Zambrano, that's all. Dempster was better than Lowe, doesn't guarantee anything. Im glad that you've found an excuse to build up your own expectations, though.

Nobody said he was. They said he was very good. And better this year than Zambrano.

If you want to prove that this matchup isn't favorable to the Dodgers, breaking out recent results might not be the best way to do it. Zambrano hasn't exactly been lights-out, other than one epic start.

Here's how I look at it: The Cubs lost the first game of the season this year. It sucked. Then they won 3 of the next 4. Then they hit the road and won 3 of 4. Then they won 3 of the next 4. They've won 3 out of 4 games lots of times this year. Course the Dodgers have won 2 of 4 lots of times too, I bet. But the point is, no one wants to hear objective analysis right now. They want to bitch and whine with other people who feel as bad as they do, and maybe receive a little hope if it's available from anyone. Going around showing off how uninvested you are in the team may make you feel all superior, but it's probably not helpful to very many people, just in case you were thinking it was. Can people go four posts in this thread without telling me what my emotions are? I know how I feel, and so far it's not what you people keep trying to ascribe to me. This is the Cubs message board. We talk about the Cubs. Statistical analysis has a lot to do with our talk about the Cubs. Until I see a sign that says "no statistical analysis when it looks bad for the Cubs," I'm going to continue to post statistical analysis about the Cubs, good or bad. Still waiting for you to post the statistic I asked for Refresh my memory. Which? I believe that would be what is the all time record of teams losing game 1 of a division series. No, I was asking what the odds of the Cubs winning would be if they won tomorrow. If they win tomorrow, I'd say slightly less than they were before the series started, so somewhere in the 51-55% range.

How do we know? There's no flipping rule-book definition of a swing. (Not dogging you, just reminded of much I hate that fact.)

If you were a great regular season team, you are a great postseason team. Same rules, same field, same players, same ball. But you are right, being a great team doesn't mean that we aren't probably going home soon.

Every announcer who opined that Jason Bay wouldn't hit in the playoffs needs to own up now.

I still can't get over that. The crowd was dead quiet even in the early innings and even when the Cubs were winning. I know it's a richer crowd in the playoffs, but that was horrific.

This is going to be an epic game either way. Billingsley is really, really good, so even if good Z shows up it's probably a tight game to the end. If the Cubs win, all the energy of the regular season (hopefully) comes back. If they lose, expect some serious hell to break loose. Honestly, I wouldn't want to be around the ballpark afterwards because there might be some angry, drunk crowds. I suspect trash ends up on the field in large quantities if the Cubs are losing late. 2007 was stunning, repeating it in 2008 would be overkill and Cubs fans seem at a breaking point.

That all sound about right. If we can somehow win tomorrow, someway, we have three straight games with advantageous pitching matchups. Game 3 absurdly so.

Why don't you be a liar again. Huh? What did I lie about? 2008 Cubs differential- +184 2007 Cubs- +62 Could you please cite the quotation where I said "the 2007 and the 2008 Cubs are the same team"? There is some carryover to the team that shouldn't be ignored, but I never said they were the same team. It's rude to attribute things to people that they never said. To be fair, you did start talking about the post-WWII playoff series and games for the Cubs as a group as if that carried some predictive significance into this year. Then he should say that. And while I'm not stating that there *is* a predictive significance, I'm not dismissing it out of hand either. The sample is piling up on some epic underperformances, and there are common threads throughout the teams.

I just got 13-39 when counting on B-R. Counting by hand, so it may be give or take one.

Here's how I look at it: The Cubs lost the first game of the season this year. It sucked. Then they won 3 of the next 4. Then they hit the road and won 3 of 4. Then they won 3 of the next 4. They've won 3 out of 4 games lots of times this year. Course the Dodgers have won 2 of 4 lots of times too, I bet. But the point is, no one wants to hear objective analysis right now. They want to bitch and whine with other people who feel as bad as they do, and maybe receive a little hope if it's available from anyone. Going around showing off how uninvested you are in the team may make you feel all superior, but it's probably not helpful to very many people, just in case you were thinking it was. Can people go four posts in this thread without telling me what my emotions are? I know how I feel, and so far it's not what you people keep trying to ascribe to me. This is the Cubs message board. We talk about the Cubs. Statistical analysis has a lot to do with our talk about the Cubs. Until I see a sign that says "no statistical analysis when it looks bad for the Cubs," I'm going to continue to post statistical analysis about the Cubs, good or bad. Still waiting for you to post the statistic I asked for Refresh my memory. Which?