UBlink

Well maybe they should sell the media and keep the Cubs.

:D :) :P I was afraid I might have been too subtle (or just unfunny)

That makes ??? number 3. Neifi

I understand the theories behind the impact of team chemistry and agree that they make sense theoretically. What I'm trying to do is provide a test of the predictive value of the theories. I hope this doesn't come across as flaming, but how do you think team chemistry will impact the NL Central division this year? Can you identify any team with particularly good or bad team chemistry? The PECOTA people have some faith in their statistics as predictors and have chosen to publish them before the season. Is it unrealistic to ask for a at least a ranking of team chemistry?

That's it exactly!! I'm just asking you, and everyone else, to rank the teams of the NL Central solely on the basis of team chemistry. It's easy. Only if you have access to all teams. We cannot judge the team chemistry because we have no idea how well the players get along. But that makes it even better. If you have identified a significant factor in the success of a team that is difficult for the average person to observe, you can take advantage of that by spending the time to learn about team chemistry and "outperform the market" betting the sports book. If at this time last year you knew that the White Sox had outstanding chemistry that would propel them to the World Series, you could have made a bundle in Vegas. Maybe that's why no one is sharing their rankings, because they are afraid we would all take advantage of them and reduce the odds.

That's it exactly!! I'm just asking you, and everyone else, to rank the teams of the NL Central solely on the basis of team chemistry. It's easy.

I grew tired of all the theoretical arguments both ways relating to chemistry, and the beginning of a new season is a great time to put the theory to the test. For the concept of chemistry to be useful, it has to have some predictive ability - we can't wait until after the fact, see one team overachieved and deduce, ouila, it must have been chemistry. It needs to be more like, this team doesn't look so impressive on paper, but because of their chemistry they are going to overachieve. Or, alternatively, this team has crappy chemistry and I don't care what they look like on paper they're going to suck. And this is a test to show how that works. So let's see some chemistry rankings.

I just googled news on Felix and they haven't picked this up - without a link it's worthless as Rusch on a boar hog.

Just think where we'd be without Mr. Miles. Thank you, Bruce.

I only have data from 1990-2004 (no 2005 yet on retrosheet.org, but should be there soon). Here are the most dominant games in that period (9 inning complete games only): 105 5/ 6/1998 Houston at Chicago (Kerry Wood 1 hit 20k) 101 5/ 1/1991 Toronto at Texas (Nolan Ryan no hitter) 100 5/18/2004 Arizona at Atlanta (Randy Johnson's perfect game, 17th in history) 100 4/ 7/2002 Arizona at Milwaukee (Schilling 1 hit 17k) 99 4/26/1990 White Sox at Texas (Ryan, 1 hit 16k) 99 8/25/1998 KC at Toronto (Rocket, 3 hits 18k) 99 10/ 6/1991 Mets at Philadelphia (David Cone 3 hit 19k, final game of year) 99 6/11/1990 Texas at Oakland (Ryan no hitter, 2 bb 14k) 99 5/25/2001 Toronto at Boston (Nomo 1 hit 0 bb 14k) 99 6/23/1994 KC at Oakland (Witt 1 hit 0 bb 14k) Wow, 3 Nolan's! That guy was pretty good.

OK, a few months back there was a long thread or two arguing the existence or significance of team chemistry in baseball. Some said it's insignificant, some said it is significant but not subject to objective measurement, but like pornography, they know it when they see it. So I propose a small experiment, and I suggest limiting it to the NL Central. We have the PECOTA predictions for 2006 results. I challenge those who believe in chemistry to rank the NL Central teams in order of their team chemistry, and at the end of the year we can see if team chemistry adds significantly to the predictive value of the PECOTA projections alone. I'm suggesting just a rank ordering, but if someone who really understands team chemistry wants to assign an index to the relative strength or weakness of team chemistry that would be useful too. Actually there are 2 tests here. The first is a test of the robustness of the concept - will several different observers of these teams give similar judgements about chemistry? If there is a wide disparity among rankings it would detract from the concept that chemistry can be consistently observed even if it can't be objectively measured. Or it might mean that some are better observers than others. But to compare it to the pornography example, even if a group of people may not agree on a definition of pornography, I would be surprised if rankings of pornographic material were wildly inconsistent. The second test is the signinificance of chemistry. It would be very strong support for the existence of chemistry if a broad consensus of chemistry rankings improved the predictive value of PECOTA alone. Now is the time to put it to the test.

Like it or not, Pierre is the only legitimate option as a leadoff hitter for this team. You can talk about Pie all you want, but he is not a leadoff hitter and if the Cubs try to make him into one I think they will regret it. If the Cubs do trade Pierre they had better find someone to bat first in the lineup unless they plan on putting Hairston or Walker in the leadoff spot. And that would be a problem because ...? Walker or Hairston leading off, Murton moved to 2 and Pie taking Murton's spot. Sounds like plenty of RBI opportunities for DLee and ARam to me.

Ducks aren't a stat....yet. I'd say WHIP, ERA+, k/9 and BAA are good ones. The best is probably ERA+ Co-sign. I agree 100%. I like K/9 to show how dominant a pitcher can be. I like OPSA and OBPA.

Um. This bolded thing. Not really true. In fact, Maddux is probably the most groundball-oriented pitcher we've got, except maybe Z (I unfortunately don't have GB-FB ratios with me, so I could be wrong about the past year or two, but in general, Maddux has been a groundball pitcher throughout his career). And our pitchers tend to get A LOT of strikeouts. Those aren't the same thing as groundouts. Link MPrior is right - it's Maddux, then Z, Williams, Rusch, with Prior and Wood bringing up the rear.

But they have Sisco!

If it doesn't include amphetamines as well it's bogus.

I'm not too surprised about Wood's progress. I don't like the sound of this:

Babe Ruth Nolan Ryan Dizzy Dean Alex Rodriguez Ivan Rodrigez

this has been known for about 2 weeks now. erik had other things on his mind 2 weeks ago.

I can guarantee there will be at least some moves that will surprise even the minor league fanatics. Note signature

I'm also happy that Vance's team got him.

That's Craig (of the Matt variety).

Sisco and

crap, I hope we trade this Dow Jones guy, of course if we trade him to the Yankees then he would do well. Jerk. It's probably the bold that rattled them.

Also, for those inclined, see the thread in the Minor Leagues forum where some of us have pitched in to help support the NSBB sponsorship.