#truth #2016

_________________

I agree with you that Cleveland didn't choke. I don't agree that the Cubs are "just plain better". A ball bounces a different way and you're crying and not saying that. There's no evidence that the Cubs are definitively better. They won. Isn't that enough? Now all Chicago baseball fans have celebrated a World Series victory. Welcome to the club.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

I'll wait for the Sox fans who constantly mock "variance" to jump on you like they do when I say essentially the same thing.

_________________

Without their best power hitter

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

78-84

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

The Cubs were as better as they needed to be and as better as we'll ever know them to be. It was as close a World Series as we'll see for quite some time. I agree, we should just be happy (if so inclined).

_________________

Really? Bryant played every game.

Anyway, the Indians were without their best player for most of the season and didn't have their 2 and 3 starters in the postseason.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

And yet they won the AL pennant and completely wrecked the Red Sox and Blue Jays while doing so.

AL doesn't seem like the hot shit to me.

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.

The Cubs were clearly a different team and offense with Babe Schwarber in the lineup.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

You said the Cubs were better in this very thread when you complained about how beat up the Indians were.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Any advantage the Cubs had was offset by Maddon and some of his curious moves. Maddon was like the added weight some horses have to carry to even things out.

_________________

The Cubs were the better team.
That Indians outfield... woof. I mean they're pretty bad. Indians held the bullpen advantage. Cubs had the starting pitching advantage. Cubs have the offensive advantage.
Now go ahead and say injuries and whatever you want... when I'm saying the Cubs were the better team I'm not talking about April thru Nov I'm talking about the teams as they were heading into the world series.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Except when they're 35 games over head to head vs. the NL. Keep up.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

Clearly? They went ten innings in the seventh game to win.

You guys repeat "small sample size, small sample size!" like parrots, but when the sample is a tiny tenth inning deciding who is better, suddenly that's enough to make statements using adjectives like "clearly" and "just plain".

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

In the end all that matters is who won the most games in the seven game series. Period.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

As far as I know, no one has attempted to take the Cubs' trophy away.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8

IMO The Cubs were the best team in baseball this year, most wins.. Locked up the division the fastest and kicked ass from start to finish. If they won game 3 and slapped Tomlin around( should have) nobody is even having this discussion. They beat Texas, Seattle handily in interleague and played poorly and beat the hottest team in the AL in a series.

_________________

Well, "variance" obviously exists in a game 7 extra inning game. The Indians and Cubs were very evenly matched and 7 games proved it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Fuck the Indians

_________________

Variance "exists" everywhere. The smaller the sample size, the more randomness.

_________________

They were 3-1 with him in the lineup and all the wins came on the road. That's more than half of the series. The offense was clearly better with him in the lineup

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

To be fair, I think I am primarily the one who talks about small sample size, and I haven't said the Cubs were "clearly better." I do believe the Cubs made the best case you can that they were the best team in baseball by having the most wins in the RS and winning the WS, something few teams have done in the modern era.

_________________

Yesterday Don Tiny does it and today Nas does it. JORR's "W/L" argument is on fire!

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Do you (leash or anyone) have a source on that? I'd like to read about it. I've read about this issue before (these issues: small sample size and "randomness"), but nothing written in the age of sabermetrics. Anyway, that's why if anyone has any sources, let me know.

_________________

I'm talking in life in general, but in baseball you can use a really simple example...

Rajai Davis hit a home run in the last game, but Kris Bryant didn't. If you looked at just that game, you would think Davis has more power than Bryant. But if you look at the series, Bryant hit 2 (though still not a great sample size). If you look at the regular season, clearly Bryant has more power. Larger sample size = more accurate results. Baseball is more like this than any other sport because scoring is rare. The best hitters in baseball get on base maybe 35 - 45% of the time? And unless it's a homer, there have to be multiple hits in an inning to score. Therefore, in small sample sizes, it can skew results. If you or I took a major league at-bat, closed our eyes, and ran into an Aroldis Chapman fastball that went 400 feet, we would look great at baseball. Over a season, we wouldn't.

_________________

I like their casinos.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

Does variance mean "a key pitcher is injured on not just the teams we faced but every team we could have possibly faced?" If so, then yeah, the cubs experienced some variance this October.

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

Now you sound like Ditka.

No, I get what you're saying. I have wondered about this since I was a kid and met some Brooklyn Dodgers fans who assured me that they always had the best team in the 50s, but they lost every year in the World Series to the Yankees "because of that damn seven game thing."

_________________

Of course. The mistake many people make when contradicting my point here is they think it's a Cubs thing. It's not. I don't equate it with anything Cubs-related specifically.

_________________

The run differential for the series was zero. They both scored 20 runs. Seven games is a short sample, but that suggests the teams are pretty even and the series could have gone either way.

The most notable incident of the best team losing is the 1960 Yankees who outscored Pittsburgh 55-27.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8