PDA

View Full Version : Proof the Cubs were lucky from BP


MRKARNO
12-19-2003, 09:13 PM
Looking at Baseball Prospectus's stats I noticed two things. One, the cubs shouldnt have even one their division in the first place:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/standings.html

Two, they were the luckiest team in the postseason:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/snwlpsreport03.html

"Team Luck Totals
(teams ranked by ((SNW - E(W)) + (E(L) - SNL)):
Team E(W) E(L) W L Diff
---------------------------------------
CHC 4.2 4.5 5 4 1.2
SFG 1.4 1.3 1 0 1.0
NYY 7.4 3.7 8 5 -0.7
FLA 5.9 6.2 4 5 -0.7
BOS 4.1 4.2 3 4 -0.9
OAK 2.0 0.7 1 1 -1.2
ATL 1.5 1.5 1 3 -2.0
MIN 0.8 1.0 0 3 -2.7
---------------------------------------
ML 27.2 23.1 23 25 -6.1"

Oh and they lead the league in team pitcher abuse points:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/pap_team2003.htm

Also, every single adjusted standing says that the White Sox should have won the division, but that's another story.

So when you're down about the Cubs' success, remember that they only got there because of luck and history says that the Cubs never have back to back winning seasons and that they were good in 84 and 89, but they were FLUKES.

Just something to try to cheer everyone up

gogosoxgogo
12-19-2003, 09:16 PM
I've seen that too, but I wouldn't call that luck. I'd call it the intangibles of the game - stuff that stats can't measure. Let's face it - the Cubs played a hell of a lot better than us last season, so let's get over the jealousy and worry about our own lousy team. The fact that the stats had us to win the divison shows how lousy we really did play last year.

CubKilla
12-20-2003, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I've seen that too, but I wouldn't call that luck. I'd call it the intangibles of the game - stuff that stats can't measure. Let's face it - the Cubs played a hell of a lot better than us last season, so let's get over the jealousy and worry about our own lousy team. The fact that the stats had us to win the divison shows how lousy we really did play last year.

The Cubs played better than the White Sox in August and September. The records were almost the same up until that point and even all the way until regular season's end. While the Cubs were finishing out September with the Reds, Pittsburgh, and the Mets, the Sox were finishing out September with The Yankees, Red Sox and Twins. And like the White Sox, Houston's and St. Louis' chokes shouldn't be ruled out.

The Cubs couldn't get any closer to first place than a game or two out all the way to September until Pittsburgh had their firesale. The Cubs definitely benefitted from that and a soft schedule down the stretch.

And when the playoffs arrived, Kid BB became as hot as he's ever been for 3 starts in a row..... that is until Game 7 against Florida where, "he choked."

The Cubs got hot and rode the wave. Both Houston and St. Louis have made moves. Houston and Chicago should benefit from their moves more than St. Louis at this point. But if Houston can get Clemens, I am of the opinion that Houston becomes the NL Central favorite and the Cubs get exposed as '04 pretenders.

Lip Man 1
12-20-2003, 12:38 AM
Just like BP basically said the Twins were lucky the last two years.....

How come the Sox can never get as "lucky..."

Luck is the residual of design--Branch Rickey.

Lip

JJAustin69
12-20-2003, 12:42 AM
Stats aren't necessary to prove that the Cubs are crap. The numbers '69, '84 and '03 are proof enough.

CubKilla
12-20-2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
How come the Sox can never get as "lucky..."

Well, until 09/30, you could argue that it was JR and JM.

Now it's just JR to blame this offseason. Even though I am not a KW fan, I gotta think he'd like to make a few moves. It's just that JR won't let him. And I cannot blame Ozzie until at least April.

TaylorStSox
12-20-2003, 02:58 AM
Threads like this are the reason that stats are pointless. Also, it reminds me of how much most of you depend on stats way too much.

doublem23
12-20-2003, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I've seen that too, but I wouldn't call that luck. I'd call it the intangibles of the game - stuff that stats can't measure. Let's face it - the Cubs played a hell of a lot better than us last season, so let's get over the jealousy and worry about our own lousy team. The fact that the stats had us to win the divison shows how lousy we really did play last year.

Hell of a lot better? The Sox and Cubs very well could have both been in the post-season had the Twins played half as poorly ast Houston did in the final stretch of the season.

Regardless, they played well over their heads, and Houston is already neck-and-neck with them as is and, like CK, said will eclipse the Cubs as favorites if they get Clemens or someone like him.

And, oh yeah, the Twins have been monumentously lucky the last few years.

doogiec
12-20-2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
And, oh yeah, the Twins have been monumentously lucky the last few years.

Lucky to have only the Sox and Royals chasing them, I'd say.

doublem23
12-20-2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by doogiec
Lucky to have only the Sox and Royals chasing them, I'd say.

I'd call that the best kind of luck.

soxfan26
12-20-2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO

Also, every single adjusted standing says that the White Sox should have won the division, but that's another story.

What a bunch of nonsense. I think the Cubs were better than the Sox because my Uncle Chuck (who is a Cubs fan) did not change his purple socks once all year, except for right before game 7, because his wife threatened to leave him.

Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda... It was JM's fault, KW's, JR's, PJ Skidoos whoever you want to blame, the fact is the Cubs were a Steve Bartman away from the World Series, and the Sox CHOKED. Period.

I sure hope the Cubs don't have another winning season, but until the Sox outplay them from April to September (and hopefully October for the latter), all the nonsense stats in the world won't make me feel better.

gogosoxgogo
12-21-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
Hell of a lot better? The Sox and Cubs very well could have both been in the post-season had the Twins played half as poorly ast Houston did in the final stretch of the season.

Regardless, they played well over their heads, and Houston is already neck-and-neck with them as is and, like CK, said will eclipse the Cubs as favorites if they get Clemens or someone like him.

And, oh yeah, the Twins have been monumentously lucky the last few years.

Yeah, the Cubs did play a hell of a lot better. The Sox choked early in their schedule against sub .400 teams, late in their schedule regardless of who it was against, and couldn't beat the Detroit Tigers all year long. I'd say that the Cubs had a much better season than the Sox last year. Let's face it, we stunk last year. The Cubs outplayed us. They were not 'lucky'.

The Twinks have not been lucky, either. They've played baseball the right way and have had no competition from the sickening White Sox.

Regardless... here's to hoping Houston gets Clemens :gulp:

jimrio1970
12-21-2003, 11:14 AM
Threads like this are the reason that stats are pointless.

Statistics aren't pointless, they are a very valuable tool. That being said, stats that are poorly interpreted can be of no value whatsoever.


Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda... It was JM's fault, KW's, JR's, PJ Skidoos whoever you want to blame

Maybe the players should take some of the blame. They had something to do with it too. Them and the CIA, anti-Castro Cubans and J. Edgar Hoover.

Jim