Hey Sheep:

[beckdawg]

you're conflating two disparate things, games for a team and at-bats for an individual. considering that the length of a season is 162 games, i don't understand your comment about volatility.

162 at bats isn't enough data points to remove the statistical noise. 162 games isn't enough games to remove statistical noise. MLB is the best of the sports leagues in that regard but it doesn't mean it's a great sample size. Typically when you talk about statistical data sets you want 500 of whatever you're talking about as a bare minimum and you'd like to have 1000+. Point here being that run differential would be more accurate over a larger sample size because you are able to remove the statistical noise. In the case of baseball, 162 games isn't great in that regard and that's why run differential is spotty in terms of record prediction. The example CSF77 is a perfect example of this. While an 8-0 game does occasionally happen, it isn't very common. So, over larger sample sizes that evens out more. The larger the sample size the less impact individual games like that have.

 

[diavolos]

you're just throwing out arbitrary numbers. 500, 1000? where did you get those?

team won/loss volatility has to be defined within the confines of a single season. a team's record doesn't amount to anything over the course of multiple seasons. there's a beginning and an end to each season. i get what you're saying about run differential, to me, it's only one stat that helps to tell a story. but you're way off base with your larger sample size comments. a team's won/loss record isn't averaged over multiple seasons. teams' makeup could be drastically different one year to the next.

 

[beckdawg]

you're just throwing out arbitrary numbers. 500, 1000? where did you get those?

team won/loss volatility has to be defined within the confines of a single season. a team's record doesn't amount to anything over the course of multiple seasons. there's a beginning and an end to each season. i get what you're saying about run differential, to me, it's only one stat that helps to tell a story. but you're way off base with your larger sample size comments. a team's won/loss record isn't averaged over multiple seasons. teams' makeup could be drastically different one year to the next.

You're missing the point I was trying to make. I'm talking about statistical analysis with regard to run differential. You don't run any sort of correlation on 162 items. It's not enough data. For example, if you look at run differential over 10 years and use that to run expected win loss it will be far more accurate than running it over a single season. That's what I'm getting at. My initial statement was essentially run diff is poor at predicting single season records because of this. However, run differential in general is a pretty quick way to view whether or not a team is playing close games(eg they are competitive).

Edit: let me use concrete examples here.
Last year the yankees were 85-77 with a -21 run differential. Their expected win loss based on that run differential was 78-84
On the contrary, the O's were 85-77 with a +36 run differential. Their expected win/loss was 85-77

There was 57 runs difference between those two teams and they ended with the same record. Over a larger sample size of say 10 years you will likely see a team that is +36 be closer to a .525 win% while a -21 run differential team will be closer to .481 that expected win/loss put the yanks at. So, over single seasons, run differential isn't very good at predicting record.

 

[nwfisch]

I really have a hard time saying the Cubs should be better than 12 games under 500.

 

[chibears55]

I don't think you can use wins/losses to determine how good a team is early in a season because you see a lot of teams get off to a good start and tail off in the 2nd half of the season or vice versa.

here the way I look at it with the cubs this year...

do I think the cubs are a player or 2 away from being a better team , sure if your adding a cano at 2B and nelson cruz in LF but that not happening..

right now I see 3 position players on this team that are everyday players in Castillo, Rizzo, and castro everyone else on a normal team would be bench players, or in minors.

which should tell you as is they are not close today to being a good team because they need too many new players to make them good next year..
can they add 2,3,4,5 new faces between now and opening day next year to be better ? of course they can..
but until they add to the line up you cant sit here today and say their close to being good cause their not.

best case scenario this year is they eventually bring up baez, alcantar, and Bryant and they play decent ball and hold their own to be considered as starters on opening day 2015.. then over the off season their only looking to maybe add 2 players via FA or trade to the line up.

pitching is hard to determine now because we don't know what their going to do with samardzija or hammell.. arrieta is still questionable because he only has 6 starts, though they've been good he only been going 5 innings per... wood has been a disappointment to date, can only hope he improves in 2nd half and well Jackson is Jackson.

so, this coming off season they could be looking for anywhere from 1 new starter to 4..

bullpen which we thought in ST was going to be decent started out sucking ass, but now has become what we thought back in ST with some new addition and getting rid of versa.. bullpen next year looks promising..

right now theres a lot of work needed to be done to this team to improve for next year, I think we need to wait til sept. to see who playing then and ake a little bit better determination on what they need in off season and if their any closer then at end of year to being better then now.

 

[SilenceS]

Shit, the Orioles went like 38-1 in one run games one season. I got faith! lol

 

[beckdawg]

I really have a hard time saying the Cubs should be better than 12 games under 500.

As I've tried to say, I don't think people should look at it that way. At -16 they've been relatively close in games. They are currently 4 games lower than what you would expect for win/loss based on that run differential. They are 5-10 in 1 run games. They are 1-6 in extra inning games. This is why I said it is a better indication of teams being competitive than actual win loss record. Their "missing" wins are located right there. I'm not saying they should have won them or that they will over the rest of the season. I'm saying that run differential in general shows teams that are playing close games. And the thing about playing close games is one or two players can make a difference.

Again I'll use a concrete example. Their starter ERA is 3.95 good for 17th in the majors. Their reliever ERA is 3.10 good for 9th in the majors. They are 25th in runs per game at 3.82. Obviously when you are scoring less than your starter ERA you're going to lose more games. However, slightly better positional players can flip that. I wont speak for others but when I say the team is better than people think that's what I mean. Clearly they need better hitters but if they get them it can turn around pretty easily. You could argue that Alcantara, Bryant and Baez would be worth half a run or more per game over Olt and Barney.

Now obviously in the next month they likely will blow up their rotation by trading Shark and Hammel. So, that starter ERA is likely going to raise. So, perhaps the two balance each other out this season. But going forward, if they are able to add enough pitching to get near this current level in the off season and they get a boost from their young hitters they could be a lot better next year.

 

[nwfisch]

As I've tried to say, I don't think people should look at it that way. At -16 they've been relatively close in games. They are currently 4 games lower than what you would expect for win/loss based on that run differential. They are 5-10 in 1 run games. They are 1-6 in extra inning games. This is why I said it is a better indication of teams being competitive than actual win loss record. Their "missing" wins are located right there. I'm not saying they should have won them or that they will over the rest of the season. I'm saying that run differential in general shows teams that are playing close games. And the thing about playing close games is one or two players can make a difference.

Again I'll use a concrete example. Their starter ERA is 3.95 good for 17th in the majors. Their reliever ERA is 3.10 good for 9th in the majors. They are 25th in runs per game at 3.82. Obviously when you are scoring less than your starter ERA you're going to lose more games. However, slightly better positional players can flip that. I wont speak for others but when I say the team is better than people think that's what I mean. Clearly they need better hitters but if they get them it can turn around pretty easily. You could argue that Alcantara, Bryant and Baez would be worth half a run or more per game over Olt and Barney.

Now obviously in the next month they likely will blow up their rotation by trading Shark and Hammel. So, that starter ERA is likely going to raise. So, perhaps the two balance each other out this season. But going forward, if they are able to add enough pitching to get near this current level in the off season and they get a boost from their young hitters they could be a lot better next year.

But I heard whining and crying over the Cubs signing established FAs and that one or two FAs wouldn't make a difference. Now they do apparently.

They also won games 17-5, 12-5, 9-2, and 8-0.

That distorts the run differential chart quite bit. If you think the Cubs are better than 12 games under, be my guest, but I don't think they are.

 

[beckdawg]

But I heard whining and crying over the Cubs signing established FAs and that one or two FAs wouldn't make a difference. Now they do apparently.

1 or 2 FA alone don't. What you're missing is 1 or 2 FA plus probably 3 top 100 prospects. I've been consistent about saying this. You can ask Boobaby because i've had this conversation with him multiple times. The past 2 years you weren't getting the 3 top 100 prospects with the FA where as it's realistic to think Baez Bryant and Alcantara will see major playing time in 2015.

They also won games 17-5, 12-5, 9-2, and 8-0.

And they've lost 10-4, 8-2, 8-3, 11-1, 11-5, and 9-0. That distorts it the other way. Regardless, that accounts for 10(your 4 plus the 6 I listed) of their 56 games.

 

[Captain Obvious]

As I've tried to say, I don't think people should look at it that way. At -16 they've been relatively close in games. They are currently 4 games lower than what you would expect for win/loss based on that run differential. They are 5-10 in 1 run games. They are 1-6 in extra inning games. This is why I said it is a better indication of teams being competitive than actual win loss record. Their "missing" wins are located right there. I'm not saying they should have won them or that they will over the rest of the season. I'm saying that run differential in general shows teams that are playing close games. And the thing about playing close games is one or two players can make a difference.

Again I'll use a concrete example. Their starter ERA is 3.95 good for 17th in the majors. Their reliever ERA is 3.10 good for 9th in the majors. They are 25th in runs per game at 3.82. Obviously when you are scoring less than your starter ERA you're going to lose more games. However, slightly better positional players can flip that. I wont speak for others but when I say the team is better than people think that's what I mean. Clearly they need better hitters but if they get them it can turn around pretty easily. You could argue that Alcantara, Bryant and Baez would be worth half a run or more per game over Olt and Barney.

Now obviously in the next month they likely will blow up their rotation by trading Shark and Hammel. So, that starter ERA is likely going to raise. So, perhaps the two balance each other out this season. But going forward, if they are able to add enough pitching to get near this current level in the off season and they get a boost from their young hitters they could be a lot better next year.

Great points.

However, I don't think that we are going to trade Shark. I am all for trading Hammel because we can sell high on him and he has been inconsistent throughout his career. If we do trade Shark I think we'll get a king's ransom. I am a little worried about overpaying for him because he is a 3 win pitcher, per his track record. But I am okay with overpaying a little bit if it gets us a shorter contract.

 

[nwfisch]

But you just said.

And the thing about playing close games is one or two players can make a difference.

 

[beckdawg]

But you just said.

Fair enough, I didn't realize that's what you were referencing. However, the 2011 cubs were -102. The 2012 cubs were -146. The 2013 cubs were -87. So, to compare that to the current team is a bit unfair. The 2012 and 2013 teams going into those years didn't appear anywhere near as competitive though they did drop around $40 mil into FA prior to 2013. Going into 2014 -87 is close enough to where they currently sit that I'll humor the argument. Had they added 1-2 more players this year I see the argument. For example, had they signed Cruz like many here wanted maybe we're having a different conversation.

Again, I'm not against adding players via FA if it makes sense. It's completely fair to question why they didn't add more going into this year just like it will be completely fair to question them going into 2015 if they don't add anything. I don't see anything making 2012 better. And they did try to add some pieces prior to 2013 it just wasn't enough obviously especially when Jackson is your biggest signing. In hindsight, they should have dug deeper on Sanchezz and Ryu rather than signing Jackson as a back up.

 

[zack54attack]

One thing that was pointed out earlier in this thread that is huge is the Cubs scoring a ton of runs, then failing to score runs in their next 3-4 games.

 

[DewsSox79]

this thread is awesome.