IST: Cubs @ Brewers

[SilenceS]

Ommy, you see what kind of mongoloid-ism I have to to deal with now? Being a mod isnt easy when kids that eat paint chips are involved.

 

[beckdawg]

When did I walk into an Ornithology discussion?

 

[chibears55]

That sucked...

6 of 10 losses are to teams under .500
Rockies (2 losses) are 2 over
Pirates and Cardinals are other two

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[Bear Pride]

Ommy, you see what kind of mongoloid-ism I have to to deal with now? Being a mod isnt easy when kids that eat paint chips are involved.

 

[Bear Pride]

When did I walk into an Ornithology discussion?

 

[Omeletpants]

Jorge Soler has divided this forum

 

[Bear Pride]

Jorge Soler has divided this forum

 

[Boobaby1]

That sucked...

6 of 10 losses are to teams under .500
Rockies (2 losses) are 2 over
Pirates and Cardinals are other two

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

It happens. I believe the Cubs got swept by Philly of all teams last year at home, and still won 97 games. Take the good with the bad.

 

[SilenceS]

Weird game. They smoked the ball the first 3 innings. Nothing fell and he settled in. Hendricks saw the lineup for the third time and they tee'd off. Pretty simple lost.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

Anderson had like 7.00+ ERA heading into last night. I thought we were going to score 10 runs.

Oh well. We'll probably massacre them tonight. Can't win 162 games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TC in Mississippi]

A correction was coming. I've been saying it for awhile. That doesn't mean that the team is going to suck, it means that they're not going to play .700-.800 ball anymore. This is a very good team that seems to sometimes get not quite as up for bad teams as it does for good ones. It happens. If they play .550 ball the rest of the way they win 96 games. If they play .600 ball, which is what I think they will do or close to it, they'll win 102 games. People were talking 110 wins or more when only 9 teams in 100 years have won more than 104. That said I don't like to see scrubs making like Cy Young but thems the breaks I suppose.

 

[beckdawg]

A correction was coming. I've been saying it for awhile. That doesn't mean that the team is going to suck, it means that they're not going to play .700-.800 ball anymore. This is a very good team that seems to sometimes get not quite as up for bad teams as it does for good ones. It happens. If they play .550 ball the rest of the way they win 96 games. If they play .600 ball, which is what I think they will do or close to it, they'll win 102 games. People were talking 110 wins or more when only 9 teams in 100 years have won more than 104. That said I don't like to see scrubs making like Cy Young but thems the breaks I suppose.

We've had this debate else where but I disagree. Over the last 100 games they're 72-28 and a lot of that was without having Zobrist, Heyward and Lackey who in theory make this team substantially better than roughly 2/3's of that stretch that occurred last season. Now obviously they aren't likely to play .800 ball because no one does that. But saying they can play .700 ball isn't even a stretch because they've literally done it for the better part of a "season." I'd also suggest examining how they lost thus far.

Loss 1 April 8th: 3-2 AZ
Loss 2 April 16th: 6-1 COL
Loss 3 April 17: 2-0 COL
Loss 4 April 20: 5-3 STL
Loss 5 April 23: 13-5 CIN
Loss 6 May 1: 4-3 in 10 ATL
Loss 7 May 11: 7-4 SD
Loss 8 May 11: 1-0 SD
Loss 9 May 15: 2-1 PIT
Loss 10 May 17: 4-2 MIL

So in their combined 10 losses they were -26 and 8 and 5 of that came in 2 games. The other 8 games they were -13 meaning they lost on average by a little over 1.5 runs. Now you're going to lose some one run games. Teams do that every year. But the fact that 80% of their losses have been games they could have won if couple of things had gone better suggests to me they aren't in a slump and they aren't going to fall off much if at all win wise.

If I had to make an educated guess, I'd suggest that Szczur and Montero going down had a fair amount to do with their "struggles." Soler wasn't hitting and likely hurt their offensive output since the start of may. Ross is hitting .200/.323/.360 in May. Additionally, Heyward's not hitting like he can, the BABIP gods hate Rizzo thus far(.238 despite a ridiculous .265/.399/.588 triple slash), and some regression from Fowler/Baez has lead to some lower scoring games.

If you don't want to say they are a .700 team the rest of the way I can see that as being fair but quite frankly I see no way this team is a sub-.600 team and that's probably being to conservative. If I were a betting man I'd put the over under at .650 or 105 wins obviously barring injury.

 

[Mr. Cub]

First the Padres now the Brewers? Two 2 game losing streaks in like a week now? WE ARE DONE!

 

[TC in Mississippi]

We've had this debate else where but I disagree. Over the last 100 games they're 72-28 and a lot of that was without having Zobrist, Heyward and Lackey who in theory make this team substantially better than roughly 2/3's of that stretch that occurred last season. Now obviously they aren't likely to play .800 ball because no one does that. But saying they can play .700 ball isn't even a stretch because they've literally done it for the better part of a "season." I'd also suggest examining how they lost thus far.

Loss 1 April 8th: 3-2 AZ
Loss 2 April 16th: 6-1 COL
Loss 3 April 17: 2-0 COL
Loss 4 April 20: 5-3 STL
Loss 5 April 23: 13-5 CIN
Loss 6 May 1: 4-3 in 10 ATL
Loss 7 May 11: 7-4 SD
Loss 8 May 11: 1-0 SD
Loss 9 May 15: 2-1 PIT
Loss 10 May 17: 4-2 MIL

So in their combined 10 losses they were -26 and 8 and 5 of that came in 2 games. The other 8 games they were -13 meaning they lost on average by a little over 1.5 runs. Now you're going to lose some one run games. Teams do that every year. But the fact that 80% of their losses have been games they could have won if couple of things had gone better suggests to me they aren't in a slump and they aren't going to fall off much if at all win wise.

If I had to make an educated guess, I'd suggest that Szczur and Montero going down had a fair amount to do with their "struggles." Soler wasn't hitting and likely hurt their offensive output since the start of may. Ross is hitting .200/.323/.360 in May. Additionally, Heyward's not hitting like he can, the BABIP gods hate Rizzo thus far(.238 despite a ridiculous .265/.399/.588 triple slash), and some regression from Fowler/Baez has lead to some lower scoring games.

If you don't want to say they are a .700 team the rest of the way I can see that as being fair but quite frankly I see no way this team is a sub-.600 team and that's probably being to conservative. If I were a betting man I'd put the over under at .650 or 105 wins obviously barring injury.

You and I clearly think quite differently in terms of how baseball plays out as once again I make a post that I think is extremely positive in nature and you think I'm underestimating the team. Could they win 105 games? Of course they could but when you say things like barring injury I'm a bit taken aback because we know there will be injuries. There are going to be other weeks like this one, hopefully no worse but even that's possible. I don't see any way this team wins less than 96 games which will win them the division and will likely be the best record in baseball so any wins above that are going to be gravy anyway. I think 102 is probably where I'd pick them right now though and compared to your 105 that's tom-ay-to/to-mah-to. Heck they could lose those extra three games simply by resting their starters for a week before the playoffs. It's a very long season and there are bumps along the way. Two weeks ago you told me this team wasn't heading for a regression and here we are, they've regressed. Sure there are reasons for it, injuries, BABIP or what have you but those will happen all season. This is a championship caliber baseball team. Their odds of making the playoffs still sit in the very high 90's and of yesterday they still had a 17% chance of winning the WS which was the highest among expected playoff teams.

I tend to look at things through the lens of baseball history rather than looking at the team individually. I think that can get you in trouble. I've said before that I have never picked a team to win a 100 games pre-season and I don't think I ever will because that's a tough prediction when you have 162 games in front of you. It's easier when you have 125 so rather than my original prediction of 93-95 wins I now stand at 96-102. That's not really chicken little territory it's just the perspective of someone who's watched almost 50 seasons of baseball and has studied more than that.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

First the Padres now the Brewers? Two 2 game losing streaks in like a week now? WE ARE DONE!

We should probably trade Rizzo, Arrieta and Bryant and re-build again.

 

[chibears55]

I know you all gonna think im nuts but I think they need another bat for LF. .

I just think Maddon prefers having Baez on the bench to be used later in games over starting at 3B because Soler struggling.

I think someone like Reddick or Braun would really solidify the lineup. .

Bench would be stronger with Baez as an option

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

I know you all gonna think im nuts but I think they need another bat for LF. .

I just think Maddon prefers having Baez on the bench to be used later in games over starting at 3B because Soler struggling.

I think someone like Reddick or Braun would really solidify the lineup. .

Bench would be stronger with Baez as an option

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

Baez was always going to play a lot even if Schwarber was still on the team. Maddon has figured his best defensive lineup is with Baez. The Cubs are 27-10 and people keep questioning why he does stuff. lulz.

 

[SilenceS]

 

[chibears55]

Baez was always going to play a lot even if Schwarber was still on the team. Maddon has figured his best defensive lineup is with Baez. The Cubs are 27-10 and people keep questioning why he does stuff. lulz.

Wasn't questioning anything

I just simply think Maddon prefers having the ability of using Baez whenever and wherever he wants every day over needing him to start at 3B and Bryant in LF because of Soler struggles.

With Baez on bench most every game, Maddon gets the most out of him..
a bat and a defensive replacement later in games

Which would of been the case had Schwarber not gotten hurt


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

You and I clearly think quite differently in terms of how baseball plays out as once again I make a post that I think is extremely positive in nature and you think I'm underestimating the team. Could they win 105 games? Of course they could but when you say things like barring injury I'm a bit taken aback because we know there will be injuries. There are going to be other weeks like this one, hopefully no worse but even that's possible. I don't see any way this team wins less than 96 games which will win them the division and will likely be the best record in baseball so any wins above that are going to be gravy anyway. I think 102 is probably where I'd pick them right now though and compared to your 105 that's tom-ay-to/to-mah-to. Heck they could lose those extra three games simply by resting their starters for a week before the playoffs. It's a very long season and there are bumps along the way. Two weeks ago you told me this team wasn't heading for a regression and here we are, they've regressed. Sure there are reasons for it, injuries, BABIP or what have you but those will happen all season. This is a championship caliber baseball team. Their odds of making the playoffs still sit in the very high 90's and of yesterday they still had a 17% chance of winning the WS which was the highest among expected playoff teams.

I tend to look at things through the lens of baseball history rather than looking at the team individually. I think that can get you in trouble. I've said before that I have never picked a team to win a 100 games pre-season and I don't think I ever will because that's a tough prediction when you have 162 games in front of you. It's easier when you have 125 so rather than my original prediction of 93-95 wins I now stand at 96-102. That's not really chicken little territory it's just the perspective of someone who's watched almost 50 seasons of baseball and has studied more than that.

Well I meant barring major injury. You're going to have 15 day DL stints. Also I'd like to clarify I never meant they were going to win 80% of their games going forward. But i'd hardly call what they've been through "regression." My point was always that they were playing like a team that was this good via their expected win loss. As I said, if you think they are more of a 100 win team than 105 or 110 ok but I barely think think that counts as a blip on the radar because if you win 100 games you're generally dominating a league.

Where I take issue is more when people start talking about them winning 55% of the remaining games because I see 0 way that happens unless you have another catastrophic injury and that is my point. To me quibbling between 100, 105, and 110 wins is fairly trivial because ultimately some of that comes down to.... I don't want to say luck.... I guess sequencing is the word I'm looking for. Their still at +2.89 runs against per game right now which AFAIK would still be a record. But you're gonna have some games where you blow teams out like the first 5 pirate games and then a game where they lose 1-0. Ultimately the amount of times you lose 1-0 is what will determine their end win total. But, they are still every bit as worth discussing in a historical light now as they were 2 weeks ago.