It is currently Thu Nov 28, 2024 10:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40651
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
formerlyknownas wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Image

Nothing wrong with a die hard Sox fan having a different view on 2005. Everyone enjoys their championships differently. He chooses to reflect quietly by himself and credit luck. It's all fair and square.

He looks Latino


I am sure MANY have wanted to slug him then as well as now.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82260
312player wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
312player wrote:
They were " lucky" I don't listen to that horseshit show but if that's his premise...he's correct, lightning in a bottle n won't be replicated anytime soon


Lucky....define that for me in the context of what we are discussing.

The team was in 1st place wire to wire.






Never said they weren't a very good team for that season...can't deny that, but it was wasn't built got any sustainability.. It was lightning in a bottle.


90 wins the next season

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82260
leashyourkids wrote:
If he really said they were "lucky," he's an idiot. It wouldn't even matter if you thought that... when a team wins a title, the ends always justify the means. At the end of the day, they still have a WS title. I agree with his philosophy moving forward, but there is no criticism to be had of a team that wins the World Series, especially a team who was as dominant as the Sox were.

Now excuse me while I throw up...


Sir was throwing out the "regular season is the judge of the best team" stuff yesterday.

Like it or not, the playoffs are how we decide a champion and have for a century. The Mariners are not considered the best team of all time.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82260
leashyourkids wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
2004: 83 wins
2005: 99 wins (Won a World Series)
2006: 90 wins
2007: 72 wins
2008: 88 wins (Won Division)

That's not a bad 5 year run.


If you win a WS, there's nothing to justify. You won a WS.


If you win a WS first,there's nothing to justify

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
good dolphin wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
If he really said they were "lucky," he's an idiot. It wouldn't even matter if you thought that... when a team wins a title, the ends always justify the means. At the end of the day, they still have a WS title. I agree with his philosophy moving forward, but there is no criticism to be had of a team that wins the World Series, especially a team who was as dominant as the Sox were.

Now excuse me while I throw up...


Sir was throwing out the "regular season is the judge of the best team" stuff yesterday.

Like it or not, the playoffs are how we decide a champion and have for a century. The Mariners are not considered the best team of all time.


I agree with him that the regular season is a better indicator of who the best team is. What he fails to mention is that it's a moot point because we judge the winner by a playoff system. It doesn't matter who the "best" team is. It matters who won.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
good dolphin wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
2004: 83 wins
2005: 99 wins (Won a World Series)
2006: 90 wins
2007: 72 wins
2008: 88 wins (Won Division)

That's not a bad 5 year run.


If you win a WS, there's nothing to justify. You won a WS.


If you win a WS first,there's nothing to justify


Don't ruin my good will. And don't think I didn't see this before when you screwed up the bold function.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40651
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
leashyourkids wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
If he really said they were "lucky," he's an idiot. It wouldn't even matter if you thought that... when a team wins a title, the ends always justify the means. At the end of the day, they still have a WS title. I agree with his philosophy moving forward, but there is no criticism to be had of a team that wins the World Series, especially a team who was as dominant as the Sox were.

Now excuse me while I throw up...


Sir was throwing out the "regular season is the judge of the best team" stuff yesterday.

Like it or not, the playoffs are how we decide a champion and have for a century. The Mariners are not considered the best team of all time.


I agree with him that the regular season is a better indicator of who the best team is. What he fails to mention is that it's a moot point because we judge the winner by a playoff system. It doesn't matter who the "best" team is. It matters who won.



The Golden State Warriors do not like your thoughts.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
pittmike wrote:
formerlyknownas wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Image

Nothing wrong with a die hard Sox fan having a different view on 2005. Everyone enjoys their championships differently. He chooses to reflect quietly by himself and credit luck. It's all fair and square.

He looks Latino


I am sure MANY have wanted to slug him then as well as now.


That is definitely a very punchable face.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
pittmike wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
If he really said they were "lucky," he's an idiot. It wouldn't even matter if you thought that... when a team wins a title, the ends always justify the means. At the end of the day, they still have a WS title. I agree with his philosophy moving forward, but there is no criticism to be had of a team that wins the World Series, especially a team who was as dominant as the Sox were.

Now excuse me while I throw up...


Sir was throwing out the "regular season is the judge of the best team" stuff yesterday.

Like it or not, the playoffs are how we decide a champion and have for a century. The Mariners are not considered the best team of all time.


I agree with him that the regular season is a better indicator of who the best team is. What he fails to mention is that it's a moot point because we judge the winner by a playoff system. It doesn't matter who the "best" team is. It matters who won.



The Golden State Warriors do not like your thoughts.


Neither do the 16-0 Patriots.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:24 am
Posts: 38636
Location: RST Video
pizza_Place: Bill's Pizza - Mundelein
pittmike wrote:
Hell of a lucky run through those 2005 playoffs. How many losses?

1

_________________
Darkside wrote:
Our hotel smelled like dead hooker vagina (before you ask I had gotten a detailed description from beardown)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:08 pm
Posts: 3717
Location: East of Eden
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
Chus wrote:
pittmike wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
If he really said they were "lucky," he's an idiot. It wouldn't even matter if you thought that... when a team wins a title, the ends always justify the means. At the end of the day, they still have a WS title. I agree with his philosophy moving forward, but there is no criticism to be had of a team that wins the World Series, especially a team who was as dominant as the Sox were.

Now excuse me while I throw up...


Sir was throwing out the "regular season is the judge of the best team" stuff yesterday.

Like it or not, the playoffs are how we decide a champion and have for a century. The Mariners are not considered the best team of all time.


I agree with him that the regular season is a better indicator of who the best team is. What he fails to mention is that it's a moot point because we judge the winner by a playoff system. It doesn't matter who the "best" team is. It matters who won.



The Golden State Warriors do not like your thoughts.


Neither do the 16-0 Patriots.

or the '34 and '43 Bears (I might be wrong about those dates, but they did have two undefeated seasons, only to lose in the championship)

_________________
rogers park bryan wrote:
This registered sex offender I regularly converse with on the internet just said something really stupid


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:10 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79590
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
formerlyknownas wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Image

Nothing wrong with a die hard Sox fan having a different view on 2005. Everyone enjoys their championships differently. He chooses to reflect quietly by himself and credit luck. It's all fair and square.

He looks Latino



He looks like he was trying to get into a frat party hosted by Tucker Max.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
11-1 in the playoffs and wire-to-wire is some kind of luck.

If you have a healthy Frank Thomas/Ordonez in 2004 there would have been another playoff run. Healthy Thomas in 2005, and that team is even greater. Dan is such a corporate bitch that he has to build in pre-excuses for the Cubs, while shitting on a departed 10-year radio partner that the Score did a terrible job promoting.

Dan knows that the Cubs are the only thing the once-entertaining station has. So this sackless bitch has to go scorched earth on anything that "tarnishes" the golden goose.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82260
leashyourkids wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
If he really said they were "lucky," he's an idiot. It wouldn't even matter if you thought that... when a team wins a title, the ends always justify the means. At the end of the day, they still have a WS title. I agree with his philosophy moving forward, but there is no criticism to be had of a team that wins the World Series, especially a team who was as dominant as the Sox were.

Now excuse me while I throw up...


Sir was throwing out the "regular season is the judge of the best team" stuff yesterday.

Like it or not, the playoffs are how we decide a champion and have for a century. The Mariners are not considered the best team of all time.


I agree with him that the regular season is a better indicator of who the best team is. What he fails to mention is that it's a moot point because we judge the winner by a playoff system. It doesn't matter who the "best" team is. It matters who won.


The "best team" changes throughout a season with regular season win total being almost as arbitrary as 11 post season wins in determining "best".

It's not really even worthy of conversation but it seems to be a hot topic with Score people this week

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82260
leashyourkids wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
2004: 83 wins
2005: 99 wins (Won a World Series)
2006: 90 wins
2007: 72 wins
2008: 88 wins (Won Division)

That's not a bad 5 year run.


If you win a WS, there's nothing to justify. You won a WS.


If you win a WS first,there's nothing to justify


Don't ruin my good will. And don't think I didn't see this before when you screwed up the bold function.


You should have seen what it looked like before I submitted it

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82260
Chus wrote:
pittmike wrote:
formerlyknownas wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Image

Nothing wrong with a die hard Sox fan having a different view on 2005. Everyone enjoys their championships differently. He chooses to reflect quietly by himself and credit luck. It's all fair and square.

He looks Latino


I am sure MANY have wanted to slug him then as well as now.


That is definitely a very punchable face.


poured the beer on himself and then asked the waitress to take a picture of him..."Look mom and dad, I have friends!"

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:55 am
Posts: 6549
pizza_Place: Giordano's
good dolphin wrote:
312player wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
312player wrote:
They were " lucky" I don't listen to that horseshit show but if that's his premise...he's correct, lightning in a bottle n won't be replicated anytime soon


Lucky....define that for me in the context of what we are discussing.

The team was in 1st place wire to wire.






Never said they weren't a very good team for that season...can't deny that, but it was wasn't built got any sustainability.. It was lightning in a bottle.


90 wins the next season



100%


To win the WS, it seems that you need a few things.

Clutch hitting (Konerko, Dye)
Catch lightning in the bottle (jose contreras, Jenks)
Career year (Politte, Cotts, Garland)
Consistency (Buehrle)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 16490
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
11-1 in the playoffs and wire-to-wire is some kind of luck.

If you have a healthy Frank Thomas/Ordonez in 2004 there would have been another playoff run. Healthy Thomas in 2005, and that team is even greater. Dan is such a corporate bitch that he has to build in pre-excuses for the Cubs, while shitting on a departed 10-year radio partner that the Score did a terrible job promoting.

Dan knows that the Cubs are the only thing the once-entertaining station has. So this sackless bitch has to go scorched earth on anything that "tarnishes" the golden goose.


Spot on.

He and DiCaro complained about the Chapman signing lessening the joy of certain Cubs' fans, but his slurpage almost makes me want to root for the Giants.

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Cashman wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
312player wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
312player wrote:
They were " lucky" I don't listen to that horseshit show but if that's his premise...he's correct, lightning in a bottle n won't be replicated anytime soon


Lucky....define that for me in the context of what we are discussing.

The team was in 1st place wire to wire.






Never said they weren't a very good team for that season...can't deny that, but it was wasn't built got any sustainability.. It was lightning in a bottle.


90 wins the next season



100%


To win the WS, it seems that you need a few things.

Clutch hitting (Konerko, Dye)
Catch lightning in the bottle (jose contreras, Jenks)
Career year (Politte, Cotts, Garland)
Consistency (Buehrle)


So, you need to be great in every phase. Got it.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:09 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79590
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Franky T wrote:
There is no such thing as "clutch", because you can't quantify it. But, there is such a thing as "luck" according to Danny. I wonder how "luck" is quantified? Variance I guess.


Luck is when a bunch of teams are tanking and you only have to play 50 games vs. teams over .500 on your way to a 103 win season.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Franky T wrote:
There is no such thing as "clutch", because you can't quantify it. But, there is such a thing as "luck" according to Danny. I wonder how "luck" is quantified? Variance I guess.


Luck is when a bunch of teams are tanking and you only have to play 50 games vs. teams over .500 on your way to a 103 win season.


Yeah... think about how bad that makes the teams who are trying and still sock.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 16490
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Franky T wrote:
There is no such thing as "clutch", because you can't quantify it. But, there is such a thing as "luck" according to Danny. I wonder how "luck" is quantified? Variance I guess.


Luck is when a bunch of teams are tanking and you only have to play 50 games vs. teams over .500 on your way to a 103 win season.


Was that factoid true that the Cubs only played 50 games against +.500 teams and the Red Sox played over 100? If so, that would be a concern.

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
I can't hear you hens clucking. The sound of playoff baseball is drowning you out.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:21 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79590
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Franky T wrote:
There is no such thing as "clutch", because you can't quantify it. But, there is such a thing as "luck" according to Danny. I wonder how "luck" is quantified? Variance I guess.


Luck is when a bunch of teams are tanking and you only have to play 50 games vs. teams over .500 on your way to a 103 win season.


Was that factoid true that the Cubs only played 50 games against +.500 teams and the Red Sox played over 100? If so, that would be a concern.



I don't know the exact numbers, but it's something close to that.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Franky T wrote:
There is no such thing as "clutch", because you can't quantify it. But, there is such a thing as "luck" according to Danny. I wonder how "luck" is quantified? Variance I guess.


Luck is when a bunch of teams are tanking and you only have to play 50 games vs. teams over .500 on your way to a 103 win season.


Yeah... think about how bad that makes the teams who are trying and still sock.


You sock.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Terry's Peeps wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Franky T wrote:
There is no such thing as "clutch", because you can't quantify it. But, there is such a thing as "luck" according to Danny. I wonder how "luck" is quantified? Variance I guess.


Luck is when a bunch of teams are tanking and you only have to play 50 games vs. teams over .500 on your way to a 103 win season.


Yeah... think about how bad that makes the teams who are trying and still sock.


You sock.


Hey, I was nice to the Sock in this thread. Then your people came in and shit on the Cubbie.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:52 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79590
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
I apologize for the facts I posted that are so distasteful to Cub fans.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I apologize for the facts I posted that are so distasteful to Cub fans.


Thank you, Frank, er, JORR.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Franky T wrote:
There is no such thing as "clutch", because you can't quantify it. But, there is such a thing as "luck" according to Danny. I wonder how "luck" is quantified? Variance I guess.


Luck is when a bunch of teams are tanking and you only have to play 50 games vs. teams over .500 on your way to a 103 win season.


Was that factoid true that the Cubs only played 50 games against +.500 teams and the Red Sox played over 100? If so, that would be a concern.



I don't know the exact numbers, but it's something close to that.


The Cubs played teams that finished with W-L% of .500+ a total of 56 times, going .235/.320/.381 with a 97 OPS+ relative to how The League fared against above-.500 teams.

The Sawx played 103 games against teams with a .500 or better W-L%, going: .276/.341/.457 with a 123 OPS+ relative to The League in the same split.

For comparison, the '01 Mariners had splits against above-average teams more similar to the Sawx (.283/.356/.421, 114 OPS+), but played 32 fewer games against .500+ opponents.

They (the Cubs) are bum-slayers. Really, really good bum-slayers, mind you, but they make their bones slaying bums.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40651
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Franky T wrote:
There is no such thing as "clutch", because you can't quantify it. But, there is such a thing as "luck" according to Danny. I wonder how "luck" is quantified? Variance I guess.


Luck is when a bunch of teams are tanking and you only have to play 50 games vs. teams over .500 on your way to a 103 win season.


Was that factoid true that the Cubs only played 50 games against +.500 teams and the Red Sox played over 100? If so, that would be a concern.



I don't know the exact numbers, but it's something close to that.


The Cubs played teams that finished with W-L% of .500+ a total of 56 times, going .235/.320/.381 with a 97 OPS+ relative to how The League fared against above-.500 teams.

The Sawx played 103 games against teams with a .500 or better W-L%, going: .276/.341/.457 with a 123 OPS+ relative to The League in the same split.

For comparison, the '01 Mariners had splits against above-average teams more similar to the Sawx (.283/.356/.421, 114 OPS+), but played 32 fewer games against .500+ opponents.

They (the Cubs) are bum-slayers. Really, really good bum-slayers, mind you, but they make their bones slaying bums.


Wow JLN. If that is true. Wow.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group