PDA

View Full Version : Why the Cubs record was inflated..........


jamokes
10-05-2008, 10:33 AM
I had a long talk with a cub fan and tried to explain to him that the cubs really are not as good as they look on paper.

Why? Baseball needs to realign the Central Division, that's why. The cubs play 18 games against four of the worse teams in baseball. Equal out all the divisions into five teams and you take away 18 easy games for the cubs. Their win total is inflated, stats are pumped up and fans are giddy over how "good" they are.

Hey cub fans, just keep shelling out all that money!!

Go Sox!

illini81887
10-05-2008, 10:41 AM
Only the pirates and reds were awful in that division

doublem23
10-05-2008, 10:52 AM
There's no long explanation needed; they choked. Just like the Sox in 2000, just like the Yankees in the '04 ALCS, etc. They didn't play a meaningful game in over a month and when the lights shined brightest, they weren't up to the task.

PatK
10-05-2008, 10:56 AM
Only the pirates and reds were awful in that division

Houston was atrocious for a little more than the first half of the year.

Billy Ashley
10-05-2008, 11:07 AM
There's no long explanation needed; they choked. Just like the Sox in 2000, just like the Yankees in the '04 ALCS, etc. They didn't play a meaningful game in over a month and when the lights shined brightest, they weren't up to the task.

How about simply, they lost a short series. It's actually fairly common. I'd venture a guess and say that half the teams entering a short series happen to lose.

LA is a good team. They're not as good as the Cubs, but going into any short series no one's any better than maybe only small edge against another good team. LA outplayed them but the result doesn't mean their team was poorly built. If the White Sox lose today, getting KO'd in round one doesn't change the fact that they're a good team either.

The point is that over 5 games nothing is certain.

voodoochile
10-05-2008, 11:10 AM
I had a long talk with a cub fan and tried to explain to him that the cubs really are not as good as they look on paper.

Why? Baseball needs to realign the Central Division, that's why. The cubs play 18 games against four of the worse teams in baseball. Equal out all the divisions into five teams and you take away 18 easy games for the cubs. Their win total is inflated, stats are pumped up and fans are giddy over how "good" they are.

Hey cub fans, just keep shelling out all that money!!

Go Sox!

If you even out all the divisions, you have to have days off or interleague play every day of the year.

voodoochile
10-05-2008, 11:14 AM
How about simply, they lost a short series. It's actually fairly common. I'd venture a guess and say that half the teams entering a short series happen to lose.

LA is a good team. They're not as good as the Cubs, but going into any short series no one's any better than maybe only small edge against another good team. LA outplayed them but the result doesn't mean their team was poorly built. If the White Sox lose today, getting KO'd in round one doesn't change the fact that they're a good team either.

The point is that over 5 games nothing is certain.

See this is why people dismiss stat heads. The Dodgers absolutely spanked the "superior" flubbies in this series. This was a no doubt about it whupping.

So go ahead and say what you want about the two teams "paper" ratings, the Dodgers proved they were the superior team this year when it counted. Call it the Torre factor. Call it the Manny factor. Call it superior pitching (and that's a no brainer). Call it whatever you want. The Dodgers are the better team, period and no amount of stats or paper can change that fact.

If this were a 7 game series, do you really think the results would be different?

Edit: If/When the Dodgers go on to win the NL Pennant, will you change your tune then or will you still make excuses?

PatK
10-05-2008, 11:14 AM
LA is a good team. They're not as good as the Cubs, but going into any short series no one's any better than maybe only small edge against another good team. LA outplayed them but the result doesn't mean their team was poorly built.

You also have to realize that this Dodgers team wasn't the same team that the Cubs saw earlier in the year, while they were virtually the same.

doublem23
10-05-2008, 11:14 AM
How about simply, they lost a short series. It's actually fairly common. I'd venture a guess and say that half the teams entering a short series happen to lose.

LA is a good team. They're not as good as the Cubs, but going into any short series no one's any better than maybe only small edge against another good team. LA outplayed them but the result doesn't mean their team was poorly built. If the White Sox lose today, getting KO'd in round one doesn't change the fact that they're a good team either.

The point is that over 5 games nothing is certain.

I would buy that more if the Cubs were even moderately competitive in any of the three games they played. It's not like there was a fluke occurrence that flipped the momentum of the series, the Cubs were dominated by LA basically from start to finish of this series. They were atrociously awful, and when compared to how good they looked for so long, it's my opinion that they just plainly and simply, choked. You could have played this series out to a best of 7, 9, 11, etc. and it wouldn't have mattered.

nsolo
10-05-2008, 11:50 AM
How about simply, they lost a short series. It's actually fairly common. I'd venture a guess and say that half the teams entering a short series happen to lose.

LA is a good team. They're not as good as the Cubs, but going into any short series no one's any better than maybe only small edge against another good team. LA outplayed them but the result doesn't mean their team was poorly built. If the White Sox lose today, getting KO'd in round one doesn't change the fact that they're a good team either.

The point is that over 5 games nothing is certain.

You venture to guess that half the teams in a short series lose!?!?!?!?!? Does that mean the other half wins?

Hitmen77
10-05-2008, 12:15 PM
Houston was atrocious for a little more than the first half of the year.

....and Milwaukee wasn't very impressive for most of the 2nd half even though they ended up w/ the wild card. They totally laid down for the Cubs in their face-to-face matchups. St. Louis wasn't awful, but they aren't a great team either.

I don't think it's fair to say the Cubs are a "better" team than the Dodgers. The thing about baseball in recent years is that many times there is a team that gets off to a mediocre start and then catches fire down the stretch and wins the pennant. It happened to the '03 Marlins, the '05 Astros, and the '07 Rockies in recent years. (Perhaps this is easier to do in the NL were there isn't as much tough competition at the top to keep a team from making such runs.)

I think the Cubs were a very good team, but Cub fans and the media got a little ahead of themselves drinking the blue kool-aid thinking the pennant and the WS title were in the bag. They conveniently forgot that they have to face other good teams once they make the playoffs - not the usual also-rans that they beat up on day in and day out.

SBSoxFan
10-05-2008, 01:07 PM
See this is why people dismiss stat heads. The Dodgers absolutely spanked the "superior" flubbies in this series. This was a no doubt about it whupping.

So go ahead and say what you want about the two teams "paper" ratings, the Dodgers proved they were the superior team this year when it counted. Call it the Torre factor. Call it the Manny factor. Call it superior pitching (and that's a no brainer). Call it whatever you want. The Dodgers are the better team, period and no amount of stats or paper can change that fact.

If this were a 7 game series, do you really think the results would be different?

Edit: If/When the Dodgers go on to win the NL Pennant, will you change your tune then or will you still make excuses?

What's Billy's IP address? I'm starting to believe he must be based in California ... Oakland ... Mcafee stadium?

PKalltheway
10-05-2008, 04:40 PM
They didn't play a meaningful game in over a month and when the lights shined brightest, they weren't up to the task.
Exactly. The same thing is about to happen to the Angels as well.

SoxSpeed22
10-05-2008, 04:56 PM
You could say the same thing about the Angels this year. They feasted on that weak division and are getting beat by Boston again.

BadBobbyJenks
10-05-2008, 08:21 PM
The Cubs were the best team in the National League all season. However, they ran into a team that matched up very well with 2 very good righties and one good righty that happens to have their number. Soriano and Aram don't appear to be very "clutch".

And LA is a much better team with Manny than they were in the first half.

Billy Ashley
10-05-2008, 09:57 PM
So pointing out 5 games is a small sample size is why people hate stat heads...


The hatred of intellectualism in all its forms is why I hate most people.


I also find the notion that I'm a stat head amazing. I know maybe 1% of what there is to know about statistical analysis. An hours worth of effort and any of you would know the same reasoning behind such theories and know why most of them actually work out in the real world.

slavko
10-05-2008, 10:45 PM
I would buy that more if the Cubs were even moderately competitive in any of the three games they played. It's not like there was a fluke occurrence that flipped the momentum of the series, the Cubs were dominated by LA basically from start to finish of this series. They were atrociously awful, and when compared to how good they looked for so long, it's my opinion that they just plainly and simply, choked. You could have played this series out to a best of 7, 9, 11, etc. and it wouldn't have mattered.

Nothing even close to Another Heartbreaking Cubs Loss in the 3 games. Three Embarrassing Beatings for a team that won close to 100 games. The choking explanation is as good as any. So are the "no meaningful games for a while" and "believed their own hype" explanations. Ya got me.

StillMissOzzie
10-05-2008, 11:08 PM
So pointing out 5 games is a small sample size is why people hate stat heads...

The hatred of intellectualism in all its forms is why I hate most people.

I don't think that it's a "hatred of intellectualism" to point out some goofy logic. Let's consider your pearl of wisdom below:

How about simply, they lost a short series. It's actually fairly common. I'd venture a guess and say that half the teams entering a short series happen to lose....

See, this is what one of my professors used to call an "FGO", or "Firm Grasp of the Obvious". For a short, medium, long, or extra-long series, there will ALWAYS be EXACTLY half of the teams being winners and EXACTLY half of the teams being losers. No faux intellectualism to "venture a guess" is needed here.

But let's get back to the OP's point. I feel like the Cubs did fatten up on the weak sisters of the NL, but I have no interest in researching how they did against these teams. Suffice it to say that they did so better than the Brewers, who play essentiall the same schedule, except for interleague play (and the Brewers played the Twins, so they had no cakewalk)

What I don't know is how good the Dodgers really are. Yes, they were the tallest midgets in the pathetic NL West, and yes, they got a lot better with Manny. But, I think that the Cubs choked big time and would have been beat in this short series by just about anyone. They walked away game 1 and errored away game 2, and couldn't hit worth a lick for any of them. Scoring but 5 runs in 3 games won't win you much of anything unless your own starters hurl shutouts, which did not happen.

The truer test of how good the Dodgers really are will be vs. the Phils. I think that the Phils will rip them a new one, possibly even a sweep.

And that would make me laugh if, like last year, the team that swept the Cubs was in turn swept (like last year's Rox sweep of the D-Backs), and laugh even more if the AL supremacy plays out again like lst year's sweep by the Red Sox over the Rox)

SMO
:gulp:

voodoochile
10-06-2008, 12:07 AM
So pointing out 5 games is a small sample size is why people hate stat heads...


The hatred of intellectualism in all its forms is why I hate most people.


I also find the notion that I'm a stat head amazing. I know maybe 1% of what there is to know about statistical analysis. An hours worth of effort and any of you would know the same reasoning behind such theories and know why most of them actually work out in the real world.

Yes yes... it's my hatred of intellectualism and not your bull**** statement which is to blame for me trashing your post...:rolleyes:

Oh and for the record, I understand basic stats just fine. However when you come out and make a statement which can be proven empirically wrong (the flubbies are better than the Dodgers) then I'm going to call you on your "intellectualism" (mental masturbation? Fantasy baseball BS? Baseball Prospectus made up crap?) every ****ing time, Billy.

See, the Dodgers won the series 3-0 outscoring the flubbies a combined 20-6 in the three games. That's what we call empirical evidence. We don't have to read stat lines or make guestimates or create some new fancy BS forumla to prove what is bluntly obvious - the Dodgers were the better team.

Keep up the good fight though, I expect you'll reply, just don't expect me to give you any more leeway in this discussion. You're wrong. It's that simple. It's not based on opinion or stats, it's simply a matter of fact.

Oh and for the record it was a 3 game sample size, not 5. If it had been 5 and the Dodgers had scored the winning run on a horrible umpire ruling, you might have had an argument, as it is arguing the flubbies were the better team is simply laughable.

And for the record I predicted the flubbies in 4. In hindsight, I was full of **** too...

jabrch
10-06-2008, 12:16 AM
This Dodger team is WORLDS better than the one that played 90% of their games this season. Manny, Blake and Furcal along with Kershaw make this a MUCH better team than what existed much of the year. The Cubs caught the wrong team. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see LA beat Philly and go to the WS.

harwar
10-06-2008, 05:38 AM
I think that,in some respects,the very same media that has been pushing the cubs into the limelight all year,is the culprit,and at least part of the reason they failed ..
Those guys were under immense pressure to WIN and put in an untenable position by all of the "this is the year" and "who are we going to play in the world series" crowd ..
Now those same people in the media are swimming as fast as they can to try and explain it all ..
They built the ark and the water didn't rise ..
If it wasn't so pathetic .. it would be amusing.

C-Dawg
10-06-2008, 06:51 AM
If this were a 7 game series, do you really think the results would be different?



In a 7 game series, the Cubs would have come back and taken the Dodgers 4 games to 3!

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 08:43 AM
I don't think that it's a "hatred of intellectualism" to point out some goofy logic. Let's consider your pearl of wisdom below:



See, this is what one of my professors used to call an "FGO", or "Firm Grasp of the Obvious". For a short, medium, long, or extra-long series, there will ALWAYS be EXACTLY half of the teams being winners and EXACTLY half of the teams being losers. No faux intellectualism to "venture a guess" is needed here.

But let's get back to the OP's point. I feel like the Cubs did fatten up on the weak sisters of the NL, but I have no interest in researching how they did against these teams. Suffice it to say that they did so better than the Brewers, who play essentiall the same schedule, except for interleague play (and the Brewers played the Twins, so they had no cakewalk)

What I don't know is how good the Dodgers really are. Yes, they were the tallest midgets in the pathetic NL West, and yes, they got a lot better with Manny. But, I think that the Cubs choked big time and would have been beat in this short series by just about anyone. They walked away game 1 and errored away game 2, and couldn't hit worth a lick for any of them. Scoring but 5 runs in 3 games won't win you much of anything unless your own starters hurl shutouts, which did not happen.

The truer test of how good the Dodgers really are will be vs. the Phils. I think that the Phils will rip them a new one, possibly even a sweep.

And that would make me laugh if, like last year, the team that swept the Cubs was in turn swept (like last year's Rox sweep of the D-Backs), and laugh even more if the AL supremacy plays out again like lst year's sweep by the Red Sox over the Rox)

SMO
:gulp:


Perhaps your profs should teach you something about sarcasm which the above bolded part of your post was clearly an example of.

I love the argument "I believe he's right but I'm not going to research it". Way to go pal, please continue to validate my point about people not wanting to put in the effort to try to understand why things happen.

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 08:48 AM
In a 7 game series, the Cubs would have come back and taken the Dodgers 4 games to 3!


No they would have likely lost. I would like to see where I posted something different. I will say that over 100 games against each other, I'd suspect the Cubs to have a small edge.

It seems that the main argument here is that the Cubs feasted on poor teams in the NL central and weren't as good as their record. What are we to think of the Dodgers then? The NL west was an even bigger joke.

The cubs this season were much better at scoring runs than the Dodgers, they were almost as good preventing runs also, despite playing in a much worse pitchers park. It doesn't take a stat head to see that.

It also only takes going to statistics 101 one time, while either drunk or high to understand that a 5 game (or a 7 game series) is too short of a sample to garner any real results from. That's what makes the play offs so fun, they are inherently unpredictable.

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 08:55 AM
Yes yes... it's my hatred of intellectualism and not your bull**** statement which is to blame for me trashing your post...:rolleyes:

Oh and for the record, I understand basic stats just fine. However when you come out and make a statement which can be proven empirically wrong (the flubbies are better than the Dodgers) then I'm going to call you on your "intellectualism" (mental masturbation? Fantasy baseball BS? Baseball Prospectus made up crap?) every ****ing time, Billy.

See, the Dodgers won the series 3-0 outscoring the flubbies a combined 20-6 in the three games. That's what we call empirical evidence. We don't have to read stat lines or make guestimates or create some new fancy BS forumla to prove what is bluntly obvious - the Dodgers were the better team.

Keep up the good fight though, I expect you'll reply, just don't expect me to give you any more leeway in this discussion. You're wrong. It's that simple. It's not based on opinion or stats, it's simply a matter of fact.

Oh and for the record it was a 3 game sample size, not 5. If it had been 5 and the Dodgers had scored the winning run on a horrible umpire ruling, you might have had an argument, as it is arguing the flubbies were the better team is simply laughable.

And for the record I predicted the flubbies in 4. In hindsight, I was full of **** too...

How empirically are the Dodgers a better team? The fact that you keep going to a sample of 3 games is proof you don't know what you're talking about in regards to statistics. Take a coin out, flip it 20 times. You very well may have it land on heads 8 or 12 times but that doesn't change the fact that the probability of hit hitting heads is 50%. The more and more one flips it, the more and more the entire sample is going to reflect that 50% Flipping that coin five times isn't going to tell you much, a streak of 3 straight heads or four straight heads is very likely within to standard deviations from the mean, or statistically unremarkable. The fact that the Cubs won significantly more games over a stretch of 162 games while having a much better run differential tells me that this season, the Cubs were the better team.

Am I sad they lost? Hell no. However I'm able to think rationally about the Cubs. Something it appears the entire city of Chicago isn't (Cub and White Sox fan alike).


Additionally as far as me being wrong, regardless of statistics or opinions.... how am I wrong? I'm waiting in baited breathe for you to site the NLDS again.

jenn2080
10-06-2008, 09:09 AM
I had a long talk with a cub fan and tried to explain to him that the cubs really are not as good as they look on paper.

Why? Baseball needs to realign the Central Division, that's why. The cubs play 18 games against four of the worse teams in baseball. Equal out all the divisions into five teams and you take away 18 easy games for the cubs. Their win total is inflated, stats are pumped up and fans are giddy over how "good" they are.

Hey cub fans, just keep shelling out all that money!!

Go Sox!

I love you Sox fans who feel it is your civil duty to let the Cub fans know the deal. Why just not say nothing at all? The Cubs were actually a good team this year, they just majorly CHOKED in the playoffs.

Moses_Scurry
10-06-2008, 09:21 AM
How empirically are the Dodgers a better team? The fact that you keep going to a sample of 3 games is proof you don't know what you're talking about in regards to statistics. Take a coin out, flip it 20 times. You very well may have it land on heads 8 or 12 times but that doesn't change the fact that the probability of hit hitting heads is 50%. The more and more one flips it, the more and more the entire sample is going to reflect that 50% Flipping that coin five times isn't going to tell you much, a streak of 3 straight heads or four straight heads is very likely within to standard deviations from the mean, or statistically unremarkable. The fact that the Cubs won significantly more games over a stretch of 162 games while having a much better run differential tells me that this season, the Cubs were the better team.

Am I sad they lost? Hell no. However I'm able to think rationally about the Cubs. Something it appears the entire city of Chicago isn't (Cub and White Sox fan alike).


Additionally as far as me being wrong, regardless of statistics or opinions.... how am I wrong? I'm waiting in baited breathe for you to site the NLDS again.

You are not wrong when you are using your own criteria to claim the Cubs are better than the Dodgers. This is because it is your opinion. It is not a fact. It is very difficult to say that, in fact, any first place team of one division/league is better than the first place team in a different division/league. They don't play the same schedules, they don't face the same pitchers, etc etc. There are more acetype pitchers in the NL west (Lincecum, Haren, Webb, Peavy, Chris Young,) than there are in the central (Sabathia who was only for 1/2 season, Oswalt with a down year, no reds except MAYBE Volquez, no pirates, no cardinals).

You're not wrong if you state it is your opinion. You are wrong if you state it as a fact. In my opinion, the 2nd half Dodgers are a better team than the Cubs, based on the moves that they made and the Cubs fattening up from having no serious challenges after the 4 game Milwaukee sweep. Would you say that the 2000 Sox were better than the 2000 Yankees?

cws05champ
10-06-2008, 09:27 AM
I love you Sox fans who feel it is your civil duty to let the Cub fans know the deal. Why just not say nothing at all? The Cubs were actually a good team this year, they just majorly CHOKED in the playoffs.
Agreed. why would you point out that their record was artificially inflated? Them winning as many as 97 games makes them choking, losing three straight, even better for everyone who dislike all things Cub.

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 09:30 AM
You are not wrong when you are using your own criteria to claim the Cubs are better than the Dodgers. This is because it is your opinion. It is not a fact. It is very difficult to say that, in fact, any first place team of one division/league is better than the first place team in a different division/league. They don't play the same schedules, they don't face the same pitchers, etc etc. There are more acetype pitchers in the NL west (Lincecum, Haren, Webb, Peavy, Chris Young,) than there are in the central (Sabathia who was only for 1/2 season, Oswalt with a down year, no reds except MAYBE Volquez, no pirates, no cardinals).

You're not wrong if you state it is your opinion. You are wrong if you state it as a fact. In my opinion, the 2nd half Dodgers are a better team than the Cubs, based on the moves that they made and the Cubs fattening up from having no serious challenges after the 4 game Milwaukee sweep. Would you say that the 2000 Sox were better than the 2000 Yankees?


yes, the 2000 White Sox were better than the 2000 Yankees. The 2000 Yankees played better in the post season, much like the 2008 Cubs were better than the 2008 Dodgers but the 2008 Dodgers have played better in the post season.

As far as the lack of aces in the NL Central, I'd argue the lack of great hitting prior to Manny being traded there evens things out. I mean who was the best hitter on an NL West team prior to Ramirez? Gonzalez? Followed by Giles?

The NL Central has Pujols, Berkman, Braun, Fielder, McClouth, Bay (for half the season), Lee and so on.

voodoochile
10-06-2008, 09:44 AM
How empirically are the Dodgers a better team? The fact that you keep going to a sample of 3 games is proof you don't know what you're talking about in regards to statistics. Take a coin out, flip it 20 times. You very well may have it land on heads 8 or 12 times but that doesn't change the fact that the probability of hit hitting heads is 50%. The more and more one flips it, the more and more the entire sample is going to reflect that 50% Flipping that coin five times isn't going to tell you much, a streak of 3 straight heads or four straight heads is very likely within to standard deviations from the mean, or statistically unremarkable. The fact that the Cubs won significantly more games over a stretch of 162 games while having a much better run differential tells me that this season, the Cubs were the better team.

Am I sad they lost? Hell no. However I'm able to think rationally about the Cubs. Something it appears the entire city of Chicago isn't (Cub and White Sox fan alike).


Additionally as far as me being wrong, regardless of statistics or opinions.... how am I wrong? I'm waiting in baited breathe for you to site the NLDS again.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Like this was some random 50% chance outcome what just happened to go against the flubbies three straight times. Goes to show how little you know about stats to boot.

If that were the case, then yes, you'd have a point. But it isn't It never was. Good teams win when the money is down. Great teams win on the road when the money is down. When one team sweeps another team despite not having home advantage during must win portion of the season, most people concur that that team was better. Were they better in June? Probably not but they are clearly the better team NOW. Average it out over the last 6 months, you might get 5 months where the flubbies were the "better team" and 2 months where the Dodgers were the better team. Those two months came at the end of the season when it counted - when the games mattered infinitely more than the games the rest of the season because losing meant - no more games.

You want to point at the 5 months of success the flubbies had and conclude - over all they were the better team. Even though the Dodgers hammered them as conclusively as one team can hammer another in a playoff setting. I find that position ludicris and like I said, it's this kind of reasoning that gives stat heads a bad name. You look at some very damning evidence that concludes the Dodgers were better in September and October and then want to talk about what happened in June.

By your logic I bet the Sox weren't the "best team" in 2005 because I doubt they led the league in run differential that year.

Right now the Dodgers are clearly the better team. It's not that hard to see or figure out, but you can go back to randomly generating coin flips if you think it will eventually prove you right...

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 10:02 AM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Like this was some random 50% chance outcome what just happened to go against the flubbies three straight times. Goes to show how little you know about stats to boot.

If that were the case, then yes, you'd have a point. But it isn't It never was. Good teams win when the money is down. Great teams win on the road when the money is down. When one team sweeps another team despite not having home advantage during must win portion of the season, most people concur that that team was better. Were they better in June? Probably not but they are clearly the better team NOW. Average it out over the last 6 months, you might get 5 months where the flubbies were the "better team" and 2 months where the Dodgers were the better team. Those two months came at the end of the season when it counted - when the games mattered infinitely more than the games the rest of the season because losing meant - no more games.

You want to point at the 5 months of success the flubbies had and conclude - over all they were the better team. Even though the Dodgers hammered them as conclusively as one team can hammer another in a playoff setting. I find that position ludicris and like I said, it's this kind of reasoning that gives stat heads a bad name. You look at some very damning evidence that concludes the Dodgers were better in September and October and then want to talk about what happened in June.

By your logic I bet the Sox weren't the "best team" in 2005 because I doubt they led the league in run differential that year.

Right now the Dodgers are clearly the better team. It's not that hard to see or figure out, but you can go back to randomly generating coin flips if you think it will eventually prove you right...

I'd argue that the 2005 White Sox were a very good team with lights out pitching. I don't know if they were indeed the best, but given how filthy their staff and pen was that season they had to be one of the favorites going in.

However, I'm done with this exchange. I provide data and you provide cleches. There is no point debating a fool. Enjoy being right by shouting down opposing views, perhaps you should apply for a job on ESPN, you and Skip Balice would be fun to watch.

spawn
10-06-2008, 10:03 AM
I love you Sox fans who feel it is your civil duty to let the Cub fans know the deal. Why just not say nothing at all? The Cubs were actually a good team this year, they just majorly CHOKED in the playoffs.
I actually had a good talk with a Cubs fan at work. Most of the people I work with are Cubs fans, but they aren't obnoxious. I asked this one in particular if he was still a Cubs fan and he said until the day he dies. We both agreed that this wasn't the same Cubs team we saw during the regular season. They were playing not to lose, and it showed. We also both agreed that much props go to the Dodgers. They pitched better, got the timely hits, and were much looser. He said he was at least happy for me that the Sox were still in it. I'm definitely not rubbing it in the faces of the Cubs fans here, because for the most part, they've been respectful, and I also know how it feels to have your team choke in the playoffs, and the last thing you want is to have someone rub it in.

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 10:06 AM
I actually had a good talk with a Cubs fan at work. Most of the people I work with are Cubs fans, but they aren't obnoxious. I asked this one in particular if he was still a Cubs fan and he said until the day he dies. We both agreed that this wasn't the same Cubs team we saw during the regular season. They were playing not to lose, and it showed. We also both agreed that much props go to the Dodgers. They pitched better, got the timely hits, and were much looser. He said he was at least happy for me that the Sox were still in it. I'm definitely not rubbing it in the faces of the Cubs fans here, because for the most part, they've been respectful, and I also know how it feels to have your team choke in the playoffs, and the last thing you want is to have someone rub it in.


Every fan has felt that way. Live long enough and you're team will disappoint you at some point or another. Unfortunately for Cubs fans, they seem to have been suffering disproportionately compared to the rest of us.

Irishsox1
10-06-2008, 10:09 AM
Game 1 - Dempster blows the game. The guy has been great all year at Wrigley and he picks game 1 of the playoffs to have his worst start of the year. Dempster flat out choked.

Game 2 - Due to the game 1 loss, the Cubs now come out pressing and make 4 errors. The team flat out choked.

Game 3 - Now the Cubs are on the road and once again come out tight. Harden pitches well, but the offense is held down pretty well. The offense was beaten.

I don't know if the Cubs performance had anything to do with the regular season and the central division, but it seemed like as soon as Dempster blew in game 1, the Cubs tightened up and didn't preform like they were capable of.

spawn
10-06-2008, 10:10 AM
However, I'm done with this exchange. I provide data and you provide cleches.
I think the only data that really matters is that head-to-head in the NLDS, the Dodgers beat the Cubs 3 games to 0, whie outscoring them 20-6. People can say the Cubs were the better team in the regular season, but when it really counted, the Dodgers were the better team. The series wasn't even close. It was totally dominated by the Dodgers.

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 10:16 AM
I think the only data that really matters is that head-to-head in the NLDS, the Dodgers beat the Cubs 3 games to 0, whie outscoring them 20-6. People can say the Cubs were the better team in the regular season, but when it really counted, the Dodgers were the better team. The series wasn't even close. It was totally dominated by the Dodgers.


Certainly, the Cubs played poorly and at the end of the day no one hangs banners stating 2008 NL run Differential Champions of the World. Nor should they. I'm just stating that the vast majority of studies on play off baseball have come to the same conclusion: The Play offs are unpredictable. This is in large part due to the fact that we're dealing with the tiniest of samples. The 2008 Cubs, as well as the 2008 Angels (who are still on life support) were excellent teams, however they were nowhere near as large of favorites as the idiots in the media have stated. We're talking about the slimmest of margins in short series baseball.

SOXPHILE
10-06-2008, 10:24 AM
Murph is hilarious today. He sounds like he's ready to put a gun in his mouth. He's ranting, raving and rambling in that annoying high pitched voice of his. He's actually almost yelling, or what passes for it. It really just sounds like some loud squeaking. Maybe I'll send him a fax, see if I can set him off even more. Hysterical. Unprofessional tool.

gn2727
10-06-2008, 10:38 AM
I want to respond to this thread as unbiased as I can. Being a Sox fan makes that hard to do after listening to all that crap from everyone about the Cubs this year. So here's my shot:

I think that 1st of all you do not have a stinkin rally when all you do is make the playoffs. One would think that might come after you do something meaningful.

If the Cubs were sooo good this year how could it all fall apart in only 3 games?

Did they go cold at the wrong time? Possibly

Did the Dodgers get hot at the right time? Time will tell (IF they can continue this thru the next series)

Did they get outplayed? Hell yeah! And outhustled & outcoached to boot.

Thats the thing about the playoffs, it doesnt matter what you did in the regular season. That all goes out the window when game 1 of the LDS starts. And if you think Im joking you can ask the LAA about that..........

southside rocks
10-06-2008, 10:41 AM
Certainly, the Cubs played poorly and at the end of the day no one hangs banners stating 2008 NL run Differential Champions of the World. Nor should they. I'm just stating that the vast majority of studies on play off baseball have come to the same conclusion: The Play offs are unpredictable. This is in large part due to the fact that we're dealing with the tiniest of samples. The 2008 Cubs, as well as the 2008 Angels (who are still on life support) were excellent teams, however they were nowhere near as large of favorites as the idiots in the media have stated. We're talking about the slimmest of margins in short series baseball.


The best teams don't always play the best baseball in a short series.

The Cubs were a much "better" team than the Dodgers for most of this year, although once Ramirez and Blake joined the Dodgers in mid-season, the team did change its character and its performance quite a bit ... I suspect that at the end of the season, the two teams were not that far apart in terms of accomplishments and ability.

But to win, you simply have to play good baseball when it counts. If you do, you can and will beat the "better" teams -- once you get to the stage where you can confront them.

The Twins were so annoying this year and refused to die because they *always* play good baseball. They don't have as good a team as they've had in other years, but they played good baseball most of the time and that kept them in it to the bitter end.

The Cubs had a very good team and they played a lot of good baseball, but they stopped that in the playoffs. I don't know why, but my guess is that the pressure of expectations is too enormous for most of those guys -- possibly including their manager -- to handle.

JMO.

voodoochile
10-06-2008, 10:54 AM
I'd argue that the 2005 White Sox were a very good team with lights out pitching. I don't know if they were indeed the best, but given how filthy their staff and pen was that season they had to be one of the favorites going in.

However, I'm done with this exchange. I provide data and you provide cleches. There is no point debating a fool. Enjoy being right by shouting down opposing views, perhaps you should apply for a job on ESPN, you and Skip Balice would be fun to watch.

No prob, Billy...

And it's not my fault you can't take the heat. You make silly statements and get called on them don't whine about getting shouted down. I haven't said you aren't entitled to your ridiculous opinion, merely that in my opinion it was ridiculous.

Oh and just for the record, aside from run differential during the regular season, what data did you provide?

And I'm not surprised by your waffling on the 2005 Sox either. See, most people would call a team that went wire to wire, had the best record in the majors and then went 11-1 in the playoffs (to tie the all time record) hands down the best team in that given year (at least I would hope so) but you stat heads want to make it about something else aside from the one empirical piece of evidence we can point to - wins. That's how great/better teams are evaluated in this sport. It's not gymnastics or figure skating, you don't get points for style. Head to head competition is what matters. We don't even allow ties - you play until someone wins regardless of how long that takes. That is the essence of baseball. It's pretty freaking simple when it comes right down to it.

Not my fault you don't get it...

Jerko
10-06-2008, 10:57 AM
2 NL central teams made the playoffs; 2 NL central teams were the first 2 eliminated from the playoffs. Maybe the win total WAS inflated due to who they played 38 times a year.

aryzner
10-06-2008, 10:59 AM
2 NL central teams made the playoffs; 2 NL central teams were the first 2 eliminated from the playoffs. Maybe the win total WAS inflated due to who they played 38 times a year.
Also the Cubs were the only team swept out of the LDS.

voodoochile
10-06-2008, 10:59 AM
Certainly, the Cubs played poorly and at the end of the day no one hangs banners stating 2008 NL run Differential Champions of the World. Nor should they. I'm just stating that the vast majority of studies on play off baseball have come to the same conclusion: The Play offs are unpredictable. This is in large part due to the fact that we're dealing with the tiniest of samples. The 2008 Cubs, as well as the 2008 Angels (who are still on life support) were excellent teams, however they were nowhere near as large of favorites as the idiots in the media have stated. We're talking about the slimmest of margins in short series baseball.

Ugh... studies... It's freaking baseball... Stats are a useful tool for evaluating individual players and sometimes for predicting how two teams will match up, but the best team in any given year is the team that fights through the marathon of a season to make the playoffs and then slogs through 3 other teams to win 11 more games over the next 5+ weeks. You don't need some bell curve to see this blunt fact.

You are missing the forest for the freaking trees, Billy...

kitekrazy
10-06-2008, 11:00 AM
But to win, you simply have to play good baseball when it counts.

The Cubs had a very good team and they played a lot of good baseball, but they stopped that in the playoffs. I don't know why, but my guess is that the pressure of expectations is too enormous for most of those guys -- possibly including their manager -- to handle.

JMO.

Most Cub fans I've heard feel the team has no clutch players in the post season.

Unfortunately that organization has screwed itself with large, long term, no trade contracts.

voodoochile
10-06-2008, 11:03 AM
Most Cub fans I've heard feel the team has no clutch players in the post season.

Unfortunately that organization has screwed itself with large, long term, no trade contracts.

If by screwing themselves you mean winning 97 games and making the playoffs, then please screw my team up...:tongue:

chaerulez
10-06-2008, 11:04 AM
The Cubs were certainly a better team top to bottom than the Dodgers. They choked, plain and simple. Yeah it's a short series and anything can happen in a 5 game set, but oh well. Good teams show up at playoff time and win these series. The Cubs in my opinion weren't as good as the Braves in 2003 but they won that NLDS. It happens. The inferior team sometimes wins a playoff game. I don't think anyone really thinks the Giants are really better than the Patriots on paper, but that day at the Super Bowl they played better football. The Cubs choked big time and for some reason the entire team just kind of gave up after Loney's home run.

jenn2080
10-06-2008, 11:36 AM
I actually had a good talk with a Cubs fan at work. Most of the people I work with are Cubs fans, but they aren't obnoxious. I asked this one in particular if he was still a Cubs fan and he said until the day he dies. We both agreed that this wasn't the same Cubs team we saw during the regular season. They were playing not to lose, and it showed. We also both agreed that much props go to the Dodgers. They pitched better, got the timely hits, and were much looser. He said he was at least happy for me that the Sox were still in it. I'm definitely not rubbing it in the faces of the Cubs fans here, because for the most part, they've been respectful, and I also know how it feels to have your team choke in the playoffs, and the last thing you want is to have someone rub it in.


Exactly. That was such a horrible series I could not even heckle any of my Cub fan friends. No reason to be disrespectful, esp when our team isn't exactly flying through the playoffs. What I don't understand and will never understand is how Sox fans love the Cubs losing more than the Sox winning.

gn2727
10-06-2008, 11:39 AM
The Cubs were certainly a better team top to bottom than the Dodgers. They choked, plain and simple. Yeah it's a short series and anything can happen in a 5 game set, but oh well. Good teams show up at playoff time and win these series. The Cubs in my opinion weren't as good as the Braves in 2003 but they won that NLDS. It happens. The inferior team sometimes wins a playoff game. I don't think anyone really thinks the Giants are really better than the Patriots on paper, but that day at the Super Bowl they played better football. The Cubs choked big time and for some reason the entire team just kind of gave up after Loney's home run.


I dont think that they were top to bottom better than the Dodgers. They might have been better at a few positions but not all. Here's something that might be hard to swallow for Cubs fans: Soriano is overrated, Lee is overrated, Fukudome belongs in AAA (he's a slightly better version of Iguchi but less clutch). Their defense fell apart when it mattered most. I didnt see this dominant pitching stafff that everyone was hailing to.

Bottom line is there was no choke job. There is no scapegoat sitting in left field to blame. The Cubs just bowed down when the spotlight shone on them plain and simple.

Or we can just say that the Dodgers came prepared to play and the Cubs didnt. Either way the better team won this series.......:whiner:

Iwritecode
10-06-2008, 11:46 AM
yes, the 2000 White Sox were better than the 2000 Yankees. The 2000 Yankees played better in the post season

:thud:

The 2000 Sox were better than the 2000 Yankees in June and July. But by the time September rolled around, that pitching staff was hanging on by a thread.

That's the other problem with stats. When you get a sample size as large as a 162 game season, the variables change. Mid-season trades can completely change the make-up of a team. Kinda like when Manny went to LA.

palehozenychicty
10-06-2008, 12:13 PM
I dont think that they were top to bottom better than the Dodgers. They might have been better at a few positions but not all. Here's something that might be hard to swallow for Cubs fans: Soriano is overrated, Lee is overrated, Fukudome belongs in AAA (he's a slightly better version of Iguchi but less clutch). Their defense fell apart when it mattered most. I didnt see this dominant pitching stafff that everyone was hailing to.

Bottom line is there was no choke job. There is no scapegoat sitting in left field to blame. The Cubs just bowed down when the spotlight shone on them plain and simple.

Or we can just say that the Dodgers came prepared to play and the Cubs didnt. Either way the better team won this series.......:whiner:


Only a few people have mentioned this in the thread, but the reality is that the Dodgers were not nearly the same team that the Cubs faced in the beginning of the year. Furcal barely played this season, the imports of Manny and Blake stabilized the lineup, and DeWitt's versatility was huge. Kent, Penny, Nomar, Pierre, and Jones were still getting serious playing time until injuries/ineffectiveness put them on the shelf.

In fact, the LA Times had a stat where the Dodgers lineup against the Cubs hadn't played together in one game during the regular season.

This Dodger team right now is clicking and had good leadership all around, from the dugout to the field. Torre looks like the 90s manager of the Yankees. The Cubs, with all their hysteria of futility, never had a chance. As someone said earlier in the thread, they quit after Loney hit the grand slam. That was really the thing that opened my eyes. They never competed. At all.

The NLCS should be a hell of a series, and there's postseason history from the late 70s and early 80s between the franchises. I really don't know whose going to win.

gn2727
10-06-2008, 12:31 PM
Only a few people have mentioned this in the thread, but the reality is that the Dodgers were not nearly the same team that the Cubs faced in the beginning of the year. Furcal barely played this season, the imports of Manny and Blake stabilized the lineup, and DeWitt's versatility was huge. Kent, Penny, Nomar, Pierre, and Jones were still getting serious playing time until injuries/ineffectiveness put them on the shelf.

In fact, the LA Times had a stat where the Dodgers lineup against the Cubs hadn't played together in one game during the regular season.

This Dodger team right now is clicking and had good leadership all around, from the dugout to the field. Torre looks like the 90s manager of the Yankees. The Cubs, with all their hysteria of futility, never had a chance. As someone said earlier in the thread, they quit after Loney hit the grand slam. That was really the thing that opened my eyes. They never competed. At all.

The NLCS should be a hell of a series, and there's postseason history from the late 70s and early 80s between the franchises. I really don't know whose going to win.

Excellent analysis. I really like this Dodgers team right now and with the way they are playin its really hard not to like them. I think the Dodgers are gonna represent the NL in the World Series.......

voodoochile
10-06-2008, 12:47 PM
Only a few people have mentioned this in the thread, but the reality is that the Dodgers were not nearly the same team that the Cubs faced in the beginning of the year. Furcal barely played this season, the imports of Manny and Blake stabilized the lineup, and DeWitt's versatility was huge. Kent, Penny, Nomar, Pierre, and Jones were still getting serious playing time until injuries/ineffectiveness put them on the shelf.

In fact, the LA Times had a stat where the Dodgers lineup against the Cubs hadn't played together in one game during the regular season.

This Dodger team right now is clicking and had good leadership all around, from the dugout to the field. Torre looks like the 90s manager of the Yankees. The Cubs, with all their hysteria of futility, never had a chance. As someone said earlier in the thread, they quit after Loney hit the grand slam. That was really the thing that opened my eyes. They never competed. At all.

The NLCS should be a hell of a series, and there's postseason history from the late 70s and early 80s between the franchises. I really don't know whose going to win.

That's my point to Billy. It's not about what happened stat wise during the season. It's about who has the best team right now. Clearly that's the Dodgers and if the proof from the 3 game sweep wasn't enough you did a nice job of breaking down the rest of the reasons why the Dodgers passed the flubbies in terms of talent.

Hitmen77
10-06-2008, 01:55 PM
Exactly. That was such a horrible series I could not even heckle any of my Cub fan friends. No reason to be disrespectful, esp when our team isn't exactly flying through the playoffs. What I don't understand and will never understand is how Sox fans love the Cubs losing more than the Sox winning.

Says who? Maybe it's hard to believe because it isn't true of Sox fans in general......and people laughing at arrogant Cubs fans comeuppance doesn't "prove" your statement.

That "Sox fans like Cubs losing more than Sox winning" line is a tired old refrain from Cub fans.....along the lines of "Sox fans are white trash" and "Sox Park is always empty." Maybe you should stop believing everything Cub fans tell you. Oh wait, they can't be wrong, they're all victims of us mean bad Sox fans. We're all so mean and Cub fans are so pure of heart and lovable.:rolleyes:

spawn
10-06-2008, 02:15 PM
I think that 1st of all you do not have a stinkin rally when all you do is make the playoffs. One would think that might come after you do something meaningful.
I think this has been answered already but bears repeating. THe rally was mandated by Major League Baseball. Every team that made the playoffs had to hold a rally. The only reason the White Sox didn't have one was because they clinched their playoff spot the day before the playoffs started. In short, it wasn't arrogance on the part of Cubs management.

gn2727
10-06-2008, 02:23 PM
I think this has been answered already but bears repeating. THe rally was mandated by Major League Baseball. Every team that made the playoffs had to hold a rally. The only reason the White Sox didn't have one was because they clinched their playoff spot the day before the playoffs started. In short, it wasn't arrogance on the part of Cubs management.

Oh sorry I didnt know that. Just seems distasteful to me anyhow........

russ99
10-06-2008, 04:21 PM
IMO the way the Cubs are vastly overrated by their own fans is the support squad, not the star players.

I think even most Sox fans can agree that Lee, Soriano, Ramirez (and maybe even Soto) along with Dempster (this year), Zambozo (when he's not flying off the handle) and Harden are quality players.

It's just the Cub fans think Fukudome, a 40 year old Jim Edmonds, De Rosa, Theriot and the bench & bullpen are exceptional, when they're average at best.

This year the Dodgers had typical playoff pitching and shut down the big guys. The little guys needed to step it up, and weren't up to the task.

Eddo144
10-06-2008, 05:06 PM
IMO the way the Cubs are vastly overrated by their own fans is the support squad, not the star players.

I think even most Sox fans can agree that Lee, Soriano, Ramirez (and maybe even Soto) along with Dempster (this year), Zambozo (when he's not flying off the handle) and Harden are quality players.

It's just the Cub fans think Fukudome, a 40 year old Jim Edmonds, De Rosa, Theriot and the bench & bullpen are exceptional, when they're average at best.

This year the Dodgers had typical playoff pitching and shut down the big guys. The little guys needed to step it up, and weren't up to the task.
Yes, and no.

Many Cub fans I know (reasonable ones, at that) absolutely loathe Soriana. Many underrate Ramirez, too, because he didn't run out a ground ball once or twice.

They generally overrated Zambrano this season (he had a much worse year than his game two counterpart, Billingsley).

Fukudome was overrated to start the year, but by the end most Cub fans didn't want to see him in the lineup at all.

DeRosa and Theriot had exceptional years and were not overrated. Even Fontento had a good year.

In the playoffs, however, the whole team underperformed, and they lost. Over the course of the regular season, they were better than the Dodgers (97 wins to 84 wins, there's your evidence, voodoo). For three games in October, the Dodgers were definitely better. Does that mean the Dodgers are the better team? Perhaps, but I'd say no. If one salesman closed a good-sized sale every week, but then a different salesman, who consistently got lesser clients than the first, closed a huge deal on a day when the first salesman didn't close anything, does that mean the second salesman is better? Probably not. Upsets happen and they don't indicate the winning team is "better".

That said, of course the Dodgers are happier with their season. The goal of every team is to win the World Series, not to be the best team. Many times, the two coindcide, but don't let that convince you they are synonymous.

EndemicSox
10-06-2008, 05:50 PM
No they would have likely lost. I would like to see where I posted something different. I will say that over 100 games against each other, I'd suspect the Cubs to have a small edge.

It seems that the main argument here is that the Cubs feasted on poor teams in the NL central and weren't as good as their record. What are we to think of the Dodgers then? The NL west was an even bigger joke.

The cubs this season were much better at scoring runs than the Dodgers, they were almost as good preventing runs also, despite playing in a much worse pitchers park. It doesn't take a stat head to see that.

It also only takes going to statistics 101 one time, while either drunk or high to understand that a 5 game (or a 7 game series) is too short of a sample to garner any real results from. That's what makes the play offs so fun, they are inherently unpredictable.

Agreed...the best team over 162 games doesn't always win...it's why I like playoff baseball.

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 05:54 PM
Chili I have stopped talking to you because you are incapable of acting with any sort of civility. Not only have you made stupid arguments, you've also been incredibly rude.

It's fine to disagree. In fact, several posters have done so in a convincing manner while not being total tools.

And I can take the heat, I just don't see the point in arguing with someone like you.

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 05:56 PM
Agreed...the best team over 162 games doesn't always win...it's why I like playoff baseball.

I agree completely, every single pitch counts in play off baseball. It's amazing. During the regular season one will see managers ease up and play and pace themselves. In the play offs you see people trying to grind out long at bats in 7 run games, it's amazing.

voodoochile
10-06-2008, 06:05 PM
Chili I have stopped talking to you because you are incapable of acting with any sort of civility. Not only have you made stupid arguments, you've also been incredibly rude.

It's fine to disagree. In fact, several posters have done so in a convincing manner while not being total tools.

And I can take the heat, I just don't see the point in arguing with someone like you.

I've been rude? Sorry, didn't you call me a fool and imply that I was stupid (hating on intellectualism was the term I believe you used).

I hammered your post. You called me a stupid fool.

Then I really went off on you.

Here's my first reply to you: http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2076059&postcount=7

You countered with:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2076931&postcount=16

You don't want me to reply like that, try not to call me stupid in the future...


Oh and it's Chile (rhymes with while - slang for child). It's a Jimi Hendrix song...

Edit: oh and yeah, if I was in your shoes, I'd stop arguing with me too, because you were getting your ass handed to you. You know your ass don't you Billy? It's what most people sit on but where you appear to keep your brains.

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 06:10 PM
No, I think you're just making an ass out of yourself:

Arguments: bwhwhahahaha, you're wrong, rinse repeat. That's not an argument. That's drivel.


(And BTW, anti intellectualism isn't stupidity. It's willful rejection of critical thinking. It's much worse)

voodoochile
10-06-2008, 06:28 PM
No, I think you're just making an ass out of yourself:

Arguments: bwhwhahahaha, you're wrong, rinse repeat. That's not an argument. That's drivel.


(And BTW, anti intellectualism isn't stupidity. It's willful rejection of critical thinking. It's much worse)

Just because I don't accept your arguments that stats are the way to determine which team is the better team in the face of W/L evidence that is clear as day, doesn't mean I reject critical thinking. I just don't think much of the arguments you put out there.

One might argue that I actually value critical thinking because I wasn't willing to accept your statements at face value - hence I critically analyzed them and rejected them as drivel.

Oh and I still think they're drivel...

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 06:53 PM
Just because I don't accept your arguments that stats are the way to determine which team is the better team in the face of W/L evidence that is clear as day, doesn't mean I reject critical thinking. I just don't think much of the arguments you put out there.

One might argue that I actually value critical thinking because I wasn't willing to accept your statements at face value - hence I critically analyzed them and rejected them as drivel.

Oh and I still think they're drivel...

I would agree with that if you didn't base you're entire arguments on cliches and refer to a series of 5 games as if it's some definitive track record.

As far as my wavering about the 05 white sox, I don't know if they were the best team. They way outperformed their run differential however they also had a lights out bull pen, so is it a reasonable argument to say that strength of bull pen can help a team outperform their expected win total? Intuitively, I'd argue yes but I've never seen any data on that.

See that's what I mean by critical thinking. Looking for reasons why something occurred rather than pointing to 5 games and talking about how important wins are in one instance (you're example of the 05 White Sox) and then negating them a minute later (as you have with this years Cubs).

voodoochile
10-06-2008, 07:04 PM
I would agree with that if you didn't base you're entire arguments on cliches and refer to a series of 5 games as if it's some definitive track record.

As far as my wavering about the 05 white sox, I don't know if they were the best team. They way outperformed their run differential however they also had a lights out bull pen, so is it a reasonable argument to say that strength of bull pen can help a team outperform their expected win total? Intuitively, I'd argue yes but I've never seen any data on that.

See that's what I mean by critical thinking. Looking for reasons why something occurred rather than pointing to 5 games and talking about how important wins are in one instance (you're example of the 05 White Sox) and then negating them a minute later (as you have with this years Cubs).

I don't think you can assess baseball W/L with stats. There are too many variables. In the end the best way of determining which team is the better team comes down to W/L.

The flubbies may have been the best team for the majority of the regular season, but the Dodgers passed them in the end. Don't believe me? Go check out the W/L record and run differential over the final month of the season and playoffs.

Billy Ashley
10-06-2008, 07:18 PM
I don't think you can assess baseball W/L with stats. There are too many variables. In the end the best way of determining which team is the better team comes down to W/L.

The flubbies may have been the best team for the majority of the regular season, but the Dodgers passed them in the end. Don't believe me? Go check out the W/L record and run differential over the final month of the season and playoffs.

When have I said the Cubs outplayed the Dodgers in September? When did I say they outplayed them in October for that matter? I never have.

I have stated though, that in 2008 they were the better team (those games in April count too). However, they were not massive favorites (as I don't believe there are ever massive favorites in play off baseball). I have also stated several times that I consider the Dodgers to be a very good baseball team.

The fact that they played three piss poor games in October doesn't change anything. In fact, for Cubs fans it should hurt them worse. They were a slight favorite and they got blown out of the water because of poor execution and poor play in general. However to suggest that this week has any sort of predictive value is nonsense. Additionally to suggest that the Dodgers were very likely to win this thing is just as big a fallacy (if not more) than suggesting the Cubs were overwhelming favorites.

All I have argued is that in the Play Offs the best team doesn't always win. Given the statistics over the 2008 season, the Cubs were a better team. Getting swept doesn't change that. It just means they sucked in the post season.

voodoochile
10-06-2008, 07:29 PM
When have I said the Cubs outplayed the Dodgers in September? When did I say they outplayed them in October for that matter? I never have.

I have stated though, that in 2008 they were the better team (those games in April count too). However, they were not massive favorites (as I don't believe there are ever massive favorites in play off baseball). I have also stated several times that I consider the Dodgers to be a very good baseball team.

The fact that they played three piss poor games in October doesn't change anything. In fact, for Cubs fans it should hurt them worse. They were a slight favorite and they got blown out of the water because of poor execution and poor play in general. However to suggest that this week has any sort of predictive value is nonsense. Additionally to suggest that the Dodgers were very likely to win this thing is just as big a fallacy (if not more) than suggesting the Cubs were overwhelming favorites.

All I have argued is that in the Play Offs the best team doesn't always win. Given the statistics over the 2008 season, the Cubs were a better team. Getting swept doesn't change that. It just means they sucked in the post season.

I'm not looking to predict. I use the stats to assess what I have seen, not try to precict the future.

itsnotrequired
10-06-2008, 08:51 PM
let's all hug it out and go to jimbos

jenn2080
10-06-2008, 09:43 PM
Oh sorry I didnt know that. Just seems distasteful to me anyhow........


Was it distasteful in 2005?

DrCrawdad
10-07-2008, 06:30 AM
I would agree with that if you didn't base you're entire arguments on cliches and refer to a series of 5 games as if it's some definitive track record.

As far as my wavering about the 05 white sox, I don't know if they were the best team. They way outperformed their run differential however they also had a lights out bull pen, so is it a reasonable argument to say that strength of bull pen can help a team outperform their expected win total? Intuitively, I'd argue yes but I've never seen any data on that.

See that's what I mean by critical thinking. Looking for reasons why something occurred rather than pointing to 5 games and talking about how important wins are in one instance (you're example of the 05 White Sox) and then negating them a minute later (as you have with this years Cubs).

Excuse me if this has been addressed previously, but are you a Cubbie fan?