Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

The Cubs
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=96451		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  JORR [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:04 am ]
Post subject:  The Cubs
Are the Cubs a good team?
Author:  jimmypasta [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
97 wins answer that!
Author:  JORR [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
jimmypasta wrote:
97 wins answer that!



Some people seem to think those wins belong to the manager.
Author:  Juiced [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Where is option 3?

The Cubs are an up and coming young team that have a very talented young core of players, a deep farm system and revenue to put them in a very good position to win a world series over the next decade.
Author:  IMU [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Wins belonging to a manager is just as stupid as wins belonging to a pitcher.

#greinkeforcyyoung
Author:  JORR [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Juiced wrote:
Where is option 3?

The Cubs are an up and coming young team that have a very talented young core of players, a deep farm system and revenue to put them in a very good position to win a world series over the next decade.



The poll isn't about their future. It's about the 2015 Chicago Cubs. Are they good players or bums who owe their success to a particular manager. It's a simple poll.
Author:  jimmypasta [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
I never believed a manager is worth just 1 or 2 wins a season. They are much more than that with every lineup and pitching change they make. Bunting or swinging away decisions all factor in with the manager. Where the infield is positioned,OF shallow or deep. There is no way all that = a few games a year.

Having said that,this Cubs team still win over 90 with Renteria.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Not like Dolphin, who is a simple Pol.
Author:  JORR [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
IMU wrote:
Wins belonging to a manager is just as stupid as wins belonging to a pitcher.

#greinkeforcyyoung



So, you're advocating for Kershaw and his superior Fangraphs WAR for Cy Young? It would be pretty ironic since all Cy Young is known for is winning 511 games.
Author:  JORR [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
jimmypasta wrote:
I never believed a manager is worth just 1 or 2 wins a season. They are much more than that with every lineup and pitching change they make. Bunting or swinging away decisions all factor in with the manager. Where the infield is positioned,OF shallow or deep. There is no way all that = a few games a year.



Except that in about 95% of those situations every guy is going to make the same decisions.
Author:  Juiced [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
jimmypasta wrote:
97 wins answer that!



Some people seem to think those wins belong to the manager.


Cubs don't win 97 games without Maddon. If this was a veteran team, my answer would be different. The Cubs always answered a losing streak with a long winning streak. Every time you thought they would slide and inexperience would take over, they found a way to get out of it. Benching Castro was absolutely the right move along with starting Arietta in the one playoff game. He pushed all the right buttons this year and all the prospects responded with respectable years.
Author:  jimmypasta [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
jimmypasta wrote:
I never believed a manager is worth just 1 or 2 wins a season. They are much more than that with every lineup and pitching change they make. Bunting or swinging away decisions all factor in with the manager. Where the infield is positioned,OF shallow or deep. There is no way all that = a few games a year.



Except that in about 95% of those situations every guy is going to make the same decisions.


95% of the NL managers didn't bat the pitcher 8th this season. I still hate that.
Author:  IMU [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
IMU wrote:
Wins belonging to a manager is just as stupid as wins belonging to a pitcher.

#greinkeforcyyoung



So, you're advocating for Kershaw and his superior Fangraphs WAR for Cy Young? It would be pretty ironic since all Cy Young is known for is winning 511 games.

Pitcher Wins mattered more in 1892. In fact, the entire world was quite different in 1892.

Also, fangraphs WAR is inferior to bWAR.
Author:  JORR [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Juiced wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
jimmypasta wrote:
97 wins answer that!



Some people seem to think those wins belong to the manager.


Cubs don't win 97 games without Maddon.



If you're going to state something like that as a fact, there should be evidence to back up the conclusion.
Author:  JORR [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
jimmypasta wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
jimmypasta wrote:
I never believed a manager is worth just 1 or 2 wins a season. They are much more than that with every lineup and pitching change they make. Bunting or swinging away decisions all factor in with the manager. Where the infield is positioned,OF shallow or deep. There is no way all that = a few games a year.



Except that in about 95% of those situations every guy is going to make the same decisions.


95% of the NL managers didn't bat the pitcher 8th this season. I still hate that.



So maybe they would have won 105 games with a normal manager!
Author:  jimmypasta [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
jimmypasta wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
jimmypasta wrote:
I never believed a manager is worth just 1 or 2 wins a season. They are much more than that with every lineup and pitching change they make. Bunting or swinging away decisions all factor in with the manager. Where the infield is positioned,OF shallow or deep. There is no way all that = a few games a year.



Except that in about 95% of those situations every guy is going to make the same decisions.


95% of the NL managers didn't bat the pitcher 8th this season. I still hate that.



So maybe they would have won 105 games with a normal manager!


Image
Author:  Darkside [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Stupid thread. Dumbassed choices. Typical JORR. It's either ALL MADDON or ALL PLAYERS. Agenda filling bullshit. Of course there's only two crazy extremes! Of course there's no correct answer! Of course he's DEMANDING PROOF of something to which quantifiable data doesn't exist, at least to the extent to which would satisfy him.

This is simple trolling garbage.
Author:  Darkside [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
JORR, if this is just simple therapy to assuage your deep resentment and anger over your team having a terrible season and the Cubs having a great one when you predicted the opposite, I suppose I understand.

If this is your way of feeling better about the Cubs being in postseason games when you said there was NO WAY they would, I get it.

I suppose this could also be about the fact that the Cubs won considerably more games in a tougher division than the Sox even though you repeatedly declared that the Sox have better players at nearly every position.

Maybe your baseball acumen isn't what it used to be. We all get old and confused with time. Acceptance is key.
Author:  denisdman [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
It's October, and we're talking about the Cubs and playoffs. #mehappy
Author:  JORR [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Darkside wrote:
Stupid thread. Dumbassed choices. Typical JORR. It's either ALL MADDON or ALL PLAYERS. Agenda filling bullshit. Of course there's only two crazy extremes! Of course there's no correct answer! Of course he's DEMANDING PROOF of something to which quantifiable data doesn't exist, at least to the extent to which would satisfy him.

This is simple trolling garbage.



You're very angry. The tension is building toward Wednesday night.
Author:  Scorehead [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Darkside wrote:
Stupid thread. Dumbassed choices. Typical JORR. It's either ALL MADDON or ALL PLAYERS. Agenda filling bullshit. Of course there's only two crazy extremes! Of course there's no correct answer! Of course he's DEMANDING PROOF of something to which quantifiable data doesn't exist, at least to the extent to which would satisfy him.

This is simple trolling garbage.


+1000
Author:  Darkside [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Stupid thread. Dumbassed choices. Typical JORR. It's either ALL MADDON or ALL PLAYERS. Agenda filling bullshit. Of course there's only two crazy extremes! Of course there's no correct answer! Of course he's DEMANDING PROOF of something to which quantifiable data doesn't exist, at least to the extent to which would satisfy him.

This is simple trolling garbage.



You're very angry. The tension is building toward Wednesday night.

Thank you. I appreciate the validation. Enjoy your day of trolling and trying to roll back your predictions.
Author:  JORR [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Darkside wrote:
JORR, if this is just simple therapy to assuage your deep resentment and anger over your team having a terrible season and the Cubs having a great one when you predicted the opposite, I suppose I understand.

If this is your way of feeling better about the Cubs being in postseason games when you said there was NO WAY they would, I get it.

I suppose this could also be about the fact that the Cubs won considerably more games in a tougher division than the Sox even though you repeatedly declared that the Sox have better players at nearly every position.

Maybe your baseball acumen isn't what it used to be. We all get old and confused with time. Acceptance is key.



How could the Cubs be in a "tougher division" when their league is 30 games under vs. the White Sox league? Do you mean "more competitive"?

You seem to be getting upset. Maybe you need a better manager to calm you down.
Author:  Darkside [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

How could the Cubs be in a "tougher division" when their league is 30 games under vs. the White Sox league? Do you mean "more competitive"?

Might as well can the "you're getting upset" thing. Its not going to get to me. I really don't care.

You understand that the entire NL is not in the Cubs division, right?
You're really going to sit here and deny that the Cubs were in a tougher division than the White Sox? Is that really your argument right now?
Author:  JORR [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Darkside wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

How could the Cubs be in a "tougher division" when their league is 30 games under vs. the White Sox league? Do you mean "more competitive"?

Might as well can the "you're getting upset" thing. Its not going to get to me. I really don't care.

You understand that the entire NL is not in the Cubs division, right?
You're really going to sit here and deny that the Cubs were in a tougher division than the White Sox? Is that really your argument right now?



I'm saying it should be pretty clear to anyone who can do math that the league that is 30 games over head to head is stronger than the one that is 30 games under.
Author:  Darkside [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I'm saying it should be pretty clear to anyone who can do math that the league that is 30 games over head to head is stronger than the one that is 30 games under.

So you're going to use the whole league's stats when I'm talking about the Central vs. Central.
It's pretty clear to pretty much everyone that a division where the top three teams account for 297 wins is a little better than a division where the top three teams account for 259 wins. The Cubs would lead every other division in baseball with their 97 wins. Every single one. But finish 3rd in their division. THat's about as clear as it needs to be. Game over. Thank you for playing. As a consolation prize, you get a take home version of the game.
Author:  Kirkwood [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
the al has the inherent advantage of a dh.

they'll likely always have a higher record in interleague play.
Author:  Darkside [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Kirkwood wrote:
the al has the inherent advantage of a dh.

they'll likely always have a higher record in interleague play.

And of course, there's always the fact that the entire leagues stats against an entire league doesn't really tell us anything about which division is the best. Not even sure how that could possibly be related.
Author:  Brick [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Darkside wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
the al has the inherent advantage of a dh.

they'll likely always have a higher record in interleague play.

And of course, there's always the fact that the entire leagues stats against an entire league doesn't really tell us anything about which division is the best. Not even sure how that could possibly be related.
Do you really have Division pride?
Author:  JORR [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cubs
Kirkwood wrote:
the al has the inherent advantage of a dh.

they'll likely always have a higher record in interleague play.



Why is that an "inherent advantage"? Do you know half the games are played without the DH?
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/