IST: Cubs @ Tigers

[TL1961]

Whoever had Rizzo wins the solo HR pool.

 

[chibears55]

Last 7 games, they bookend 8 runs..lol

8 1 1 1 1 1 8

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[chibears55]

With the solo shots games this week, no one noticed that the Cubs have a nice homerun game streak going for themselves...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[chibears55]

Yea there never a good time to see him pitch..
But
Why waste Kintzler with a 6 run lead and not use Chatwood

2nd game of a 23 game stress with no days off

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CubsFaninMN]

Whoever had Rizzo wins the solo HR pool.

I rejected the solo home run pool and called for at least two innings where the Cubs posted crooked numbers. If they broke out of the pattern they had been in.

Which is exactly what happened. This team is binary; they either score a bunch, or not many at all. It didn't surprise me at all that they scored more than the four runs they went into the last couple of innings with.

That said, it's a lot easier for the 'pen to cope when they have a lead than when they don't, isn't it?

 

[CSF77]

Not picking Baez. He goes he explodes. O’s lacking ties to his production.

I’m picking a blow out myself. 12-1 Cubs make them pay for their transgressions

almost but I'll take it

 

[CSF77]

Yea there never a good time to see him pitch..
But
Why waste Kintzler with a 6 run lead and not use Chatwood

2nd game of a 23 game stress with no days off

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Because they are using Chatwood in the rotation. Suck doesn’t it.

But with Yu out and Montgomery on the DL it is what it is.

 

[chibears55]

Because they are using Chatwood in the rotation. Suck doesn’t it.

But with Yu out and Montgomery on the DL it is what it is.

I didn't see them announce that, last i heard Friday starter was still undetermined

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

I didn't see them announce that, last i heard Friday starter was still undetermined

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

They have no one as of now. That doesn’t mean that they are done but they are not playing a card with out having that in the deck

 

[chibears55]

They have no one as of now. That doesn’t mean that they are done but they are not playing a card with out having that in the deck

Im 99.9% sure Chatwood not starting Friday night..
They have lost total confidence in him as he probably has in himself

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

But over all great game. Bryant should be back in a limited capacity I believe with the talk coming from Joe. You have to figure Sept 1 he returns and he shares AB’s with Bote.

Murphy is pretty much the starting 2B now. Joe did everything but strait out and say it today. What ever works.

Baez goes the O goes. Pretty much the story of this team right now.

Well with Hamels on the hill I’m expecting another happy day. Swear really liking how they approached the market this year.

 

[kapooncha]

What frustrates me is as mentioned the lack of perspective. 2 weeks ago all this same talk was oh the cubs are never going to fend of MIL playing the way they are. Since the start of August they are 7-11. Now all the talk is oh how are they going to fend off the cardinals. The same cardinal team that prior to August 1st was 54-53. Sure they are hot going 16-4 in August but the point here is they aren't going to continue to win at that rate. No team ever does. Neither of those two teams added an MVP caliber player. they are just playing well/poorly comparable to their season record. But as I've said seemingly thousands of times now that's baseball. There is no team that is consistently great. The M's that set the win record didn't even make it to the world series because they started playing bad baseball at the wrong time. The 2016 cubs were terrible before the all star break....etc.

Make that 17-4 in August and a sweep of the Dodgers in LA. You say they aren't going to continue to win at that rate but who's to say for sure? What is your reason for thinking they won't? Regression to the mean? The team underperformed with Matheny as manager, they've underperformed for years. Now under Schildt, they are kicking butt. Cards are only 4 back in the L column and they finish the season with 3 games in Chicago (lots of ground could be made up if needed).

The only saving grace for the Cubs is that they don't have a murderers row schedule coming up so they might be able to run out the clock. But I don't understand the reasoning of just saying the "Cards won't continue to win at this rate."

 

[beckdawg]

Make that 17-4 in August and a sweep of the Dodgers in LA. You say they aren't going to continue to win at that rate but who's to say for sure? What is your reason for thinking they won't? Regression to the mean? The team underperformed with Matheny as manager, they've underperformed for years. Now under Schildt, they are kicking butt. Cards are only 4 back in the L column and they finish the season with 3 games in Chicago (lots of ground could be made up if needed).

The only saving grace for the Cubs is that they don't have a murderers row schedule coming up so they might be able to run out the clock. But I don't understand the reasoning of just saying the "Cards won't continue to win at this rate."

How many teams play at an 80.9% win rate over 2 months? I'll save you some time... the best team ever record wise(2001 M's) had their best month of baseball in April that year playing 20-5 baseball. They then went 20-7 in May. So over 2 months they were 40-12 or 76.9% win rate. So, yes regression to the mean because literally no team ever plays this well over that many games.

You want to argue that Mattheny was the problem fine. But you don't go from being a .500 team to a team that's well over 100 wins(in terms of win%) by just changing your manager. Let's humor this argument and say best case they play like a 100 win team over their remaining games. 100 wins is 61.7% win rate meaning they would win roughly 21 of the 34 remaining games giving them 92 wins. That means the cubs who have 72 wins need another 20 to tie. Difference is the cubs play 3 more games meaning they can go 20-17(.540) and still tie a cards team vastly overplaying anything close to their season record.

Point here being if you just look at the math of things it tells you all you need to know. And even if by some oddity that does happen and the cubs miss out on winning the division they are still the overwhelming favorite for the home game in the wild card. And I'm sorry but do people seriously believe a team with a starting rotation of John Gant, Miles Mikolas, Jack Flaherty, Daniel Poncedeleon, and Austin Gomber is capable of playing like a 100 win team over 2 months? Flaherty is legit. Mikolas is more like a decent #3 or #4. Ditto for Gant. Poncedeleon had a 4.70 bb/9 in AAA this year. Gomber's ERA/FIP is 2.98/4.29 indicating he's been very fortunate.

Offensively it's not much better. Carpenter is playing like an MVP sure, but what else is there? Jose Martinez is playing decently with a 130 wRC+. After those two it falls off HARD. Bader drops to 116 wRC+. Then you have Molina at 110. Munoz, gyorko, dejong, and Pham are slightly above league average bats. Everything else is below league average.

Compare that to a legitimate 100 win type offense. The 2016 cubs had Bryant(149 wRC+) and Rizzo(148) who were both MVP candidates. Fowler(128), Contreras(125), and zobrist(123) were at least all star caliber bats. You had cogs on the bench at 112 wRC+ with La Stella, Ross, Almora and Soler all better than league average bats. That's what a 100 win offense looks like. Like wise the 2017 dodgers had 5 hitters over 120 wRC+ and another 4 over 100.

 

[TL1961]

You don't understand someone saying the Cards can't maintain an .809 clip?

 

[kapooncha]

How many teams play at an 80.9% win rate over 2 months? I'll save you some time... the best team ever record wise(2001 M's) had their best month of baseball in April that year playing 20-5 baseball. They then went 20-7 in May. So over 2 months they were 40-12 or 76.9% win rate. So, yes regression to the mean because literally no team ever plays this well over that many games.

You want to argue that Mattheny was the problem fine. But you don't go from being a .500 team to a team that's well over 100 wins(in terms of win%) by just changing your manager. Let's humor this argument and say best case they play like a 100 win team over their remaining games. 100 wins is 61.7% win rate meaning they would win roughly 21 of the 34 remaining games giving them 92 wins. That means the cubs who have 72 wins need another 20 to tie. Difference is the cubs play 3 more games meaning they can go 20-17(.540) and still tie a cards team vastly overplaying anything close to their season record.

Point here being if you just look at the math of things it tells you all you need to know. And even if by some oddity that does happen and the cubs miss out on winning the division they are still the overwhelming favorite for the home game in the wild card. And I'm sorry but do people seriously believe a team with a starting rotation of John Gant, Miles Mikolas, Jack Flaherty, Daniel Poncedeleon, and Austin Gomber is capable of playing like a 100 win team over 2 months? Flaherty is legit. Mikolas is more like a decent #3 or #4. Ditto for Gant. Poncedeleon had a 4.70 bb/9 in AAA this year. Gomber's ERA/FIP is 2.98/4.29 indicating he's been very fortunate.

Offensively it's not much better. Carpenter is playing like an MVP sure, but what else is there? Jose Martinez is playing decently with a 130 wRC+. After those two it falls off HARD. Bader drops to 116 wRC+. Then you have Molina at 110. Munoz, gyorko, dejong, and Pham are slightly above league average bats. Everything else is below league average.

Compare that to a legitimate 100 win type offense. The 2016 cubs had Bryant(149 wRC+) and Rizzo(148) who were both MVP candidates. Fowler(128), Contreras(125), and zobrist(123) were at least all star caliber bats. You had cogs on the bench at 112 wRC+ with La Stella, Ross, Almora and Soler all better than league average bats. That's what a 100 win offense looks like. Like wise the 2017 dodgers had 5 hitters over 120 wRC+ and another 4 over 100.

The issue is that people have been saying the same thing when the Cards were hot for 10 games, and then 12 games, and then 15 games, and now it's 21 games. Ultimately the games are played on the field, not in stat books. Cards are 2.5 games behind the Cubs with 35+ games to go, including a 3 game head to head series to finish the season.

You say the Cubs would be the overwhelming favorite to win the wild card game. Maybe, maybe not. What happens if the opponent is the Dodgers and they trot Kershaw out there. That 1 game is 100% about the pitching matchup and nothing else. A possible scenario is that with 3 games left, Cards Cubs and Team X are definitely going to the playoffs but Cards/Cubs have to duke it out for the division. What does that mean? It means that Team X gets to decide who they want to start the Wild Card game while the Cubs and Cards are putting their best guys out to try and win the division. Cubs might be in a position where they're forced to start Quintana in the playoff game. My point is we can't say the Cubs would be the overwhelming favorite in the wild card game (even if it is at Wrigley). It's all about the pitchers.

 

[beckdawg]

You say the Cubs would be the overwhelming favorite to win the wild card game

I didn't say that at all. I said the cubs would be the overwhelming favorite to win the wild card as in make the playoffs not win the play in game.

Also do I really need to explain streaks? You can say games aren't played on paper but that's being fairly ignorant. Baseball has been played for well over 100 years. We've basically reached the point where statistical anomalies are out of the game. And to sit here and say that this cards team is going to be the first to win at that sort of rate over two months is pretty silly. Is it possible? I mean I suppose anything is possible but why are we talking about something that is that low of a chance?

Fangraphs runs their simulations over 10,000 times. The give the cubs an 81.0% chance of winning the division. If you want to argue nothing is ever a "lock" fine but the point here is people are acting like the cubs aren't the favorites to win the division because the cards have had a good month. And again I literally gave you the math. If the cubs go at least 20-17(.540) over the remaining games they are basically as close as you get to a lock. Their season win% is .576.

So, you're talking about the cubs having to play well below their season win rate and for the cards to frankly play way better than they have any right to. If they go 21-13 on top of the 17-4 they have already played in August you're looking at them winning 38-17 which is a .691 win%. That's a 113 win pace. You're talking about them having to do something historic just to have a shot to tie the cubs if the cubs play semi-medicore ball.

And sure Boston is currently at a .695 win% but that team has literally been one of the best in baseball all year and it's obvious they are really good. To go from a .500 team to that level adding no major pieces and moving a guy like Carlos Martinez out of your starting rotation just wont happen.

 

[ijustposthere]

Beckdawg, I love your posts. Remember you from back in the day on the Cubs board, and I was pretty thrilled to see you on here when I ventured over. You are, without a doubt, one of the best posters on this entire site. Just wanted to give you kudos because your analysis and logic are always top notch.

 

[beckdawg]

Beckdawg, I love your posts. Remember you from back in the day on the Cubs board, and I was pretty thrilled to see you on here when I ventured over. You are, without a doubt, one of the best posters on this entire site. Just wanted to give you kudos because your analysis and logic are always top notch.

Thanks. I do what I can. All that time i spent writing papers in college makes me quite wordy but I do feel like my logic tends to be fairly sound. That plus I like numbers. To me baseball is a much more interesting case of gambling. I don't think many people view it that way but on a spectrum of true skill to true luck baseball is definitely closer to the luck side. That's why the best players in the league only get on base 40% of the time and the worst imaginable team can still win 30% of their games. That's not quite a coin flip on every game but the better team is still only winning less than 70% of the time if that.

It also leads to interesting cases where the difference between a hall of fame player and a guy who never makes the majors is about a 10% range. If you're a .200 hitter you're not making the majors. If you're a .300 hitter you're probably a decent shot at making the hall of fame assuming your other numbers aren't garbage. That leads to a lot of interesting discussion in my eyes because the difference between 2016/17 Heyward and 2018 Heyward isn't really that stark a contrast.

As this pertains to previous comments tonight, I think the disconnect between me and some here is they don't get that. If you view the game as a pure skill or highly skilled game as opposed to one based a lot on chance you'll see a team play .500 ball for a month and think the team is crapy because how can they be a good team if they don't win? I see a team play .500 ball for a month and think of it as you would playing blackjack or some other form of gambling. A team like the cubs is going to win 58% of the time. That still means you're going to lose 42% of the time and a lot of that is going to come against supposedly inferior teams. The game as it were is to win enough times to get to the playoffs. In a typical year that's something like 56% or better to have a legit shot as typically 90 wins is a good indicator of the wildcard or better.

 

[chibears55]

How many teams play at an 80.9% win rate over 2 months? I'll save you some time... the best team ever record wise(2001 M's) had their best month of baseball in April that year playing 20-5 baseball. They then went 20-7 in May. So over 2 months they were 40-12 or 76.9% win rate. So, yes regression to the mean because literally no team ever plays this well over that many games.

You want to argue that Mattheny was the problem fine. But you don't go from being a .500 team to a team that's well over 100 wins(in terms of win%) by just changing your manager. Let's humor this argument and say best case they play like a 100 win team over their remaining games. 100 wins is 61.7% win rate meaning they would win roughly 21 of the 34 remaining games giving them 92 wins. That means the cubs who have 72 wins need another 20 to tie. Difference is the cubs play 3 more games meaning they can go 20-17(.540) and still tie a cards team vastly overplaying anything close to their season record.

Point here being if you just look at the math of things it tells you all you need to know. And even if by some oddity that does happen and the cubs miss out on winning the division they are still the overwhelming favorite for the home game in the wild card. And I'm sorry but do people seriously believe a team with a starting rotation of John Gant, Miles Mikolas, Jack Flaherty, Daniel Poncedeleon, and Austin Gomber is capable of playing like a 100 win team over 2 months? Flaherty is legit. Mikolas is more like a decent #3 or #4. Ditto for Gant. Poncedeleon had a 4.70 bb/9 in AAA this year. Gomber's ERA/FIP is 2.98/4.29 indicating he's been very fortunate.

Offensively it's not much better. Carpenter is playing like an MVP sure, but what else is there? Jose Martinez is playing decently with a 130 wRC+. After those two it falls off HARD. Bader drops to 116 wRC+. Then you have Molina at 110. Munoz, gyorko, dejong, and Pham are slightly above league average bats. Everything else is below league average.

Compare that to a legitimate 100 win type offense. The 2016 cubs had Bryant(149 wRC+) and Rizzo(148) who were both MVP candidates. Fowler(128), Contreras(125), and zobrist(123) were at least all star caliber bats. You had cogs on the bench at 112 wRC+ with La Stella, Ross, Almora and Soler all better than league average bats. That's what a 100 win offense looks like. Like wise the 2017 dodgers had 5 hitters over 120 wRC+ and another 4 over 100.

All im gonna say is, the Cardinals dont need to play 800 ball the rest of the way to pass the Cubs, they just need to be 4 games better then them over the final 40...
That basically winning 1 more game out of 10

Right now the cubs are trying to figure things out and try to get rolling again, while the Cardinals are just rolling...

September could be a dog fight for that division

Also for what it worth but i found interesting, i heard on radio yesterday that since the new manager took over for the cardinals..he used the same lineup every game


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Parade_Rain]

As of today, 538 lists the Cubs as having a 92% chance of making the playoffs and gives the Cards a 72% chance. As for winning the division, 66% for the Cubs and 21% for the Birds.