cubbieinexile

It wasn't a comparison. A question was asked about whether any team has kept up that pace for that long. I pointed out a team that did it. Nor is it the only one.

The problem is that 3/4 isn't good enough. The Cubs need to play .800 ball in order to win the 93-95 games it's going to take to win the WC. I'm not sure if any team has ever maintained that level of play for that long of a stretch. The 1906 Cubs went 50-8 to end the season, a .862 winning %. On July 24th the Cubs were 61-28 at the end of the season they had 36 losses and had another 55 wins.

The Cubs are 6.5 games back and have 5 teams ahead of them. Surpassing Houston is not the only obstacle to the Wild Card. The Cubs most definitely will need to win at least 90 games to even have a serious shot at the wild card. To achieve 90 wins they need to play .750 ball here on out for 44 games. Even if we lock everybody else into their current winning % the Cubs would need to win 88 games to win the Wild CArd which would mean the Cubs would need to win 31 games and have a .705 winning %. No matter how you slice it the Cubs are a long shot. Now if the Cubs had been in second place for the Wild Card and 6.5 games back with 10 games against the Wild Card leader in 44 games I would say that a decent shot, not a good or great shot but a good one. Unfortunately the Cubs are not in second place for the wild card.

Taking away the intentional walk and the Kingmans fall to 7 runs a game.

I got curious so I ran it through a simulator and a 1979 lineup of 9 Kingmans would score 1152 runs against 1979 competition. Good for 7.1 runs a game. Of course that is with the IBB which be almost certainly down close to zero. About the only time an IBB would be allowed is to provide a force at every base.

RC says a team of 9 Dave Kingmans would score about 7.5 runs a game. Personally I don't buy that. I think it would be less because of the double plays and in all probability less walks.

Well actually Beane added a caveat and Olney left it out. Beane did not say he would take 9 Kingman's. He said he would take 9 Kingman's that also walked/ Considering that Kingman did not do this then I would say that Beane would not want 9 Kingmen.

Buster Olney has an agenda. That agenda is the productive out and he will look for support where ever it may be even if it doesn't exist. Olney is simply latching on to boy genius by turning his statements about making contact into making productive outs.

You can download PBP data for the last couple of years off the internet and you can also go back over a decade using ASS software. It is not easy but can be done with that stuff. The only other option would be to pay for it.

Davey Johnson or Larry Dierker. Both are unemployed and both would give the Cubs a great head start going into the new season. Who knows perhaps Davey gets them into the playoffs this year.

Tom Ruane did a study once and on one of his lists Derrek Lee's name is on it. Unfortunately it has to do with underperforming in RBI opps. I think we are going to have to settle for Derrek Lee winning the "better" Triple Crown which is leading the league in AVG, OBP, and SLG. Not as rare as the "lesser" triple crown but definitely more important. At one point he looked like he could have led the majors but I don't think he will make it.

The thing about the beaning is that if it affected him it took awhile for it to happen, which doesn't really make sense. In the bext 5 games he goes he goes 7 for 20. The real culprit to that year was him going on the DL with the bad toe. Once that problem clears up he was back, take a look at his splits for June, July and August. They were very good. I don't think it was the beaning but that he was getting old and his body recovering as fast as it used too. By 2002 Sosa was showing that he was slowing down and he was taking more time off.

Another look at how things change over time. February 2002 Caution is the word of the day.

That's just stupid. I am sure Hawkins and everyone else is acutely aware of his performance without Cubs fans enlightening them. Believe it or not, knowing Hawkins sucks does not require acting like a boob. I don't think one can actually use the phrase "acting like a boob" and still remain above the fray. Why not? he's right. Says you

That's just stupid. I am sure Hawkins and everyone else is acutely aware of his performance without Cubs fans enlightening them. Believe it or not, knowing Hawkins sucks does not require acting like a boob. I don't think one can actually use the phrase "acting like a boob" and still remain above the fray.

Does Hawkins suck? Yes he does. Stating the obvious in public is not ignorant, ignoring the obvious and acting like it isn't true is ignorant. Hawkins sucks and he, his team, and the World should know it.

I always just miss history when it involves Greg Maddux. Last year I could have seen Maddux win his 300th in Milwuakee if it wasn't for stinkin Latroy Hawkins blowing a Maddux win. Now this year I could have gotten to see Maddux get his 3000th K and I miss it because while suffering through one of the worst droughts in over 100 years it decides to rain on the one day I was going to go to the game. I just can't catch a break when it comes to Greg Maddux.

The home/away carp just a convenient excuse for Baker. The Cubs offense is better at home then away. The Cubs pitching staff is actually better at Home then away. The problem isn't the stadium the problem is that the Cubs offense in terms of run scoring is average and their pitching in terms of Runs allowed is average. In otherwords this team is playing at the level one would expect an average to be at. In otherwords .500.

I don't think a simple % of the mean would do it. Because we are not simply looking for the lowest spread but also a high average. Or if we were to include the pitchers (to make sure it isn't simply the best players gravitating to one side or the other) so kind of middle ground where we would feel there is harmony between hitting and pitching. Would we really think a league is of high quality if they have a low overall average but a relatively low STD spread? I personally wouldn't consider that high quality league, at least in regards to hitters.

I wanted to see if the league quality has improved and if so could it be found using the statistics. My parameters were as follows: American League only Players must have at least 300 at bats in a season I then looked at the batting average of the individuals as well as tallied the batting average of all the selected players combined. I then found the standard deviation for each season. This is what I found: Year STD AL-AVG Rank-STD Rank-AVg Rank-Dis Distance 1901 0.035 0.291 19 22 60 -3 1902 0.037 0.292 11 21 70 -10 1903 0.036 0.273 18 58 93 -40 1904 0.034 0.258 25 97 100 -72 1905 0.030 0.254 47 101 96 -54 1906 0.037 0.265 15 90 101 -75 1907 0.029 0.263 62 94 89 -32 1908 0.029 0.252 63 103 93 -40 1909 0.037 0.263 13 93 103 -80 1910 0.037 0.266 10 85 101 -75 1911 0.044 0.296 1 18 76 -17 1912 0.043 0.285 2 29 85 -27 1913 0.039 0.279 6 39 90 -33 1914 0.035 0.266 20 82 98 -62 1915 0.035 0.266 21 80 97 -59 1916 0.036 0.266 17 87 99 -70 1917 0.039 0.264 3 92 104 -89 1918 0.037 0.273 14 56 95 -42 1919 0.034 0.285 23 27 64 -4 1920 0.039 0.302 4 7 60 -3 1921 0.032 0.307 35 3 15 32 1922 0.038 0.300 8 10 59 -2 1923 0.038 0.299 7 11 64 -4 1924 0.032 0.306 34 4 18 30 1925 0.039 0.308 5 2 52 3 1926 0.036 0.297 16 14 55 2 1927 0.037 0.303 12 6 48 6 1928 0.034 0.297 22 15 46 7 1929 0.034 0.302 24 8 34 16 1930 0.037 0.309 9 1 44 8 1931 0.033 0.298 31 13 32 18 1932 0.031 0.293 44 20 25 24 1933 0.030 0.288 46 23 28 23 1934 0.030 0.300 48 9 9 39 1935 0.025 0.295 96 19 1 77 1936 0.033 0.306 29 5 25 24 1937 0.033 0.298 27 12 39 15 1938 0.028 0.296 72 16 2 56 1939 0.028 0.296 69 17 4 52 1940 0.033 0.286 28 26 55 2 1941 0.034 0.283 26 32 66 -6 1942 0.028 0.276 71 45 21 26 1943 0.026 0.262 92 95 60 -3 1944 0.027 0.275 80 50 18 30 1945 0.025 0.270 98 73 24 25 1946 0.033 0.277 30 42 72 -12 1947 0.030 0.272 50 65 75 -15 1948 0.032 0.281 36 33 52 3 1949 0.026 0.281 88 34 3 54 1950 0.032 0.286 39 25 40 14 1951 0.026 0.278 84 41 6 43 1952 0.027 0.270 79 68 41 11 1953 0.026 0.277 93 43 5 50 1954 0.031 0.271 40 66 84 -26 1955 0.030 0.275 57 51 48 6 1956 0.032 0.276 37 46 68 -9 1957 0.033 0.272 32 63 86 -31 1958 0.029 0.274 61 53 44 8 1959 0.031 0.269 43 74 86 -31 1960 0.023 0.272 103 61 7 42 1961 0.028 0.274 78 52 21 26 1962 0.026 0.270 91 67 25 24 1963 0.024 0.261 100 96 50 4 1964 0.023 0.264 101 91 42 10 1965 0.025 0.258 95 98 60 -3 1966 0.023 0.255 104 100 50 4 1967 0.028 0.253 66 102 92 -36 1968 0.026 0.249 86 104 78 -18 1969 0.025 0.267 99 77 29 22 1970 0.030 0.265 58 89 86 -31 1971 0.026 0.265 87 88 58 -1 1972 0.026 0.257 90 99 68 -9 1973 0.028 0.266 67 81 74 -14 1974 0.029 0.266 64 84 80 -20 1975 0.029 0.266 60 83 83 -23 1976 0.029 0.266 65 86 82 -21 1977 0.031 0.273 41 54 73 -13 1978 0.023 0.270 102 70 15 32 1979 0.028 0.277 70 44 21 26 1980 0.030 0.279 53 37 34 16 1981 0.028 0.273 75 59 34 16 1982 0.027 0.272 81 60 30 21 1983 0.030 0.273 49 57 67 -8 1984 0.030 0.272 45 64 79 -19 1985 0.027 0.269 83 76 46 7 1986 0.030 0.270 59 69 70 -10 1987 0.031 0.272 42 62 80 -20 1988 0.030 0.270 54 71 76 -17 1989 0.026 0.269 85 75 42 10 1990 0.026 0.267 94 78 34 16 1991 0.032 0.270 38 72 91 -34 1992 0.025 0.267 97 79 32 18 1993 0.030 0.275 52 49 52 3 1994 0.033 0.284 33 31 55 2 1995 0.030 0.280 51 35 34 16 1996 0.030 0.286 56 24 15 32 1997 0.028 0.279 73 38 13 35 1998 0.028 0.278 77 40 12 37 1999 0.028 0.284 68 30 10 38 2000 0.030 0.285 55 28 20 27 2001 0.027 0.276 82 47 13 35 2002 0.028 0.273 76 55 30 21 2003 0.026 0.276 89 48 8 41 2004 0.028 0.280 74 36 10 38 First three columns should be self-explanatory. The next three columns are rankings. First is for the STD spread, second if for the league average, and the third is for the difference between the two (more on that below), and the final column is that actual raw difference of the two. Theoritically what you are looking for to determine a high league quality is a league that has a low numerical rank for average (1, 2, 3, . . .)and a high numerical rank for STD spread (101, 102, 103, . . ). To measure that I simply subtract AVG-Rank from STD-Rank and see who has the highest number. The winners? Distance Year 77 1935 56 1938 54 1949 52 1939 50 1953 43 1951 42 1960 41 2003 39 1934 38 2004 38 1999 37 1998 35 1997 35 2001 32 1921 32 1996 32 1978 According to this the years that one could say had the highest league quality were all right before integration and then when they barely had any integration. The top 6 years in this list one could argue that blacks had no effect or little effect on the league as a whole in those years. The losers? -32 1907 -33 1913 -34 1991 -36 1967 -40 1903 -40 1908 -42 1918 -54 1905 -59 1915 -62 1914 -70 1916 -72 1904 -75 1906 -75 1910 -80 1909 -89 1917 Almost all of them are deadball era years. With only 1967 and 1991 messing up the sweep. So theoritically the deadball era was the era with least overall quality. What I take from this follows: It appears if one wants to assume that a low spread and high average as an indicator of quality that white baseball had probably hit its peak just before WWII. That the infrastucture of baseball for whites was setup well enough that they were employing the best that the white could offer. Once integration happened in full force league quality went down. Why? Personally I think it is because it turned out that the lower tiered whites were not as good as the upper tiered blacks but they were not pushed out because the blacks were given a limited role. Meaning middle and lowered tiered blacks were still not allowed to play. Until around 1996 were the spread stays consistently small and the Average stays consistently high. Now does that mean I personally believe the AL was in such upheaval and radically redefining itself for over 50 years? No I don't I think the pitchers and DH have some effect on the league average which would definitely effect the rankings. When I look at the NL I will know more. I do think that it does show that early AL was a league with low quality. In otherwords a league with good chunk of great players but also a lot of bad players.

Last year was the first year in a very long time that I was actually in a location that made it possible for me to attend a Cubs games. I didn't because the tickets got snatched up so quickly. This year I went into the VWR and ended up getting all the games I wanted to go to. Home opener, Home Closer, and a game agaisnt the Giants, plus I just bought tickets for the Brewers VS. Cubs in June. The only problem of course is that as the season goes on it is virtually impossible to go to Cubs games on a whim like I could do for the Phillies or now for the Brewers. I miss those days. The last time I went to a Cubs game was in 1998 and it didn't require me to buy tickets 6 months ahead of time to get good seats.

Got to go to work now, have to shut my windows down.

I don't even know if I am going to even bother with Brewers tickets tomorrow. I didn't think I was going to have any luck today with Cubs tickets. Probably still buy Brewer tickets, they are playing the Cubs on my B-Day.

Got through again! Got tickets to the Giants game on July 26th.

EBay has ridiculous prices. I am almost tempted to put my tickets up for sale. Someone else is selling tickets for the same game I have and they are going for over 3 1/2 times the original prices. Insane!