shysocks

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 12:57 PM) All under the assumption LA wins: There should be no other choice than optimizing Kershaw and Greinke. If I'm losing a series it's going to be off of those two. Game 1: Kershaw - Three days rest Game 2: Greinke - Three days rest Game 3: Wood/Anderson Game 4: Kershaw - Three days rest Game 5: Greinke - Three days rest Game 6: Wood/Anderson Game 7: Kershaw - Three days rest I'd personally rather throw out this schedule, relying on three days rest for the entire series, then a schedule such as: Game 1: Wood/Anderson Game 2: Kershaw - Four days rest Game 3: Greinke - Five days rest Game 4: Wood/Anderson Game 5: Kershaw - Three days rest Game 6: Greinke - Three days rest Game 7: Wood/Anderson Three potential starts of a non Kershaw/Greinke combo, including a possible Game 7, is terrible. All the more incentive for LA to give the Cubs their aces, end the series as quick as possible, then rest for the world series. Lose with your best. Worry about their arms falling off later Greinke is scheduled to go in game 7 tomorrow. That would only be two days rest, and while I agree LA should ride its aces, that might be asking too much.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 10:36 AM) No. The Sox fans don't allow the team to operate that way. I could come up with a lot more examples of teams who can't operate that way than you can cite teams who can. If only they all played in a national landmark, with a ready supply of tourists to help fill it even if they're bad.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 10:30 AM) Handwaving the truth away doesn't change the impact it has on how the two franchises do business. Because of the differences in fan bases, the White Sox will never be able to do what the Cubs did. Those two things are absolutely 100% related. It also doesn't have to be that way, but then again, Sox fans take pride in emptying their stadium. Who's handwaving? You're the one who consistently compares them, when nobody can operate like the Cubs do.

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 10:17 AM) It's been said before but the Cubs are an anomaly. There is statistical evidence that suggests that the Cubs are the only team which draws in correlation with the price of beer, not wins and losses. Quoted for emphasis, because he still either doesn't get it or conveniently ignores it.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 10:07 AM) I agree with some of the points being made including regarding the Cubs but...you also have to consider this. In 35 years the Cubs have made the playoffs now, what eight times? That's not good but it's a lot better than the Sox' five times in that same span. If the Cubs are bad historically (and they are) what does that stat say about the Sox franchise? Just wondering. Mark In some ways it's fair to judge baseball seasons as a binary - either you made the playoffs or you didn't. In most ways, though, it doesn't tell the full story. In the last 35 seasons the Sox have the 10th best winning percentage in baseball. The Cubs are 23rd. Three teams below them have been expansion teams in this era. Only the Pirates, Royals, and Mariners have lost more games. The Sox deserve a lot more credit than they get for not bottoming out (before the last few years, of course).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 09:04 AM) According to the Tribune, the Cubs are now the favorites to win the WS. I bet it has a lot to do with them being the only team that has advanced to the next round. If the remaining teams were all exactly even, the Cubs would be twice as likely to win.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 08:58 AM) It would be different if we didn't have an example of it right here in Chicago. Every time this topic comes up you pretend the Cubs aren't an anomaly. Stop it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 08:40 AM) I'd love to know the stats of the Cubs/Cards guy from last night. He was awful. I didn't see most of the Cubs ABs, but I would imagine he was just as bad for them. And it's not just accuracy, it's consistency. If you are giving everyone 2 inches off the plate, that's fine, just don't be "accurate" and then call the pitch 1 inch off the plate a strike sometimes. I mentioned the Cruz AB. He correctly according to their zone called a pitch high, and then later called a pitch that was even higher, a strike. All true. I think in general, strike zone plots on broadcasts are being applied incorrectly. There's more to it than these plots would make evident. Whether there should be more to it is another topic.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 07:46 AM) Some have said TBS's zone is off a bit, but I don't think so. I agree, there were some bad calls. Unless where they have the ball in those zones are off, there were pitches in the zone called balls and way out of the zone called strikes. There were pitches called balls in an AB correctly because they were high, and then a strike called on a pitch that was even higher. They used to assign umpires playoff series based on merit. I do not think that is the case anymore, and while umpiring a MLB game is a lot different than other levels, if you miss by an inch you are a fool for everyone to see, they need to have their most consistent umpiring playoff games. In fact, I would go one further, I think the guys that grade the best behind the plate, IMO especially with replay the most important, should umpire every game behind the plate. No rotation in the playoffs. The WS should have the best balls and strikes umpire calling each game. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/playoff...ls-and-strikes/

f*** the Cubs. That is all.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 13, 2015 -> 09:40 AM) Josh Hamilton is something like 0 for his last 32 in the postseason. I think he went 2 for 3 the other night, which prompted Harold Reynolds to exclaim "That's why you play him right there. Every so often he'll just get a hold of one." Yes Harold. That's why you play him. So he can hit a couple singles every 30 at bats.

QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Oct 13, 2015 -> 08:56 AM) I heard it all this morning from cubs fans at work. Not worried if they win this series because they never thought they would be there, next year will be a cake walk, and lackey will be in a cub uniform in 2016. I don't get these people at all. I mean... okay. That'll show you?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 13, 2015 -> 08:25 AM) I'm not sure Colorado would trade Arenado for Sale straight up. Maybe since they need pitching so badly, but that's how valuable pre-arb positional stars are. Come on man, yes they would. Anyway, from the article: Though Avisail Garcia is only 24, it’s time to try someone else in right field. Hahn says he’s still confident in Garcia, but the team can’t afford another replacement level season as they hope for him to develop. Garcia should be shopped to rebuilding clubs for something useful this winter, and sent to Triple-A if no good offers come in.

Cueto has yet to record an out in the 2nd innings and has allowed 4 hits and 2 walks.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Oct 9, 2015 -> 02:41 PM) Someone more versed in WAR: How much better than Trayce Thompson does Avi have to hit just to be of equal value given their difference in defensive performance? To me, there is just no way that Avi is a better baseball player than Trayce as of April 2016. Plus there's hope the Sox might use the opportunity of the protected pick to sign one of the big FAs, many of whom are outfielders. Avi in AAA might get the message across that he's not an everyday player unless he gets a lot better. Let's assume for simplicity that Eaton has center field covered, so our right fielder is either Trayce or Avi. Let's also assume that Avi can be a -10 run defender next year (that's generous) and Trayce can be +5 (that's pretty realistic). Let's also assume that Avi is a -2 baserunner and Trayce is +3. That means Avi would have to make up 20 runs, or 2 WAR, with his bat. That's probably a difference of about 25-30 wRC+. In our park that's roughly the difference between Melky Cabrera's .273/.314/.394/.709 and Adam Eaton's .287/.361/.431/.792. Trayce could definitely put up worse than Melky's line, but I see no reason to believe Avi could do better than Eaton's.

QUOTE (LVSoxFan @ Oct 9, 2015 -> 01:17 PM) Look at one thing: if they do win it all this year, at least people will finally SHUT UP about it already, being 100 years+. For that alone I totally support them winning. So their fans will STFU, LOL. "Shut up" isn't in a Cub fan's vocabulary. Winning will make them louder.

WHY CAN'T THEY JUST BE HAPPY FOR US

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 9, 2015 -> 09:36 AM) I noticed that he was really quiet when the other announcers were pointing out that the Astros young players were very good at being patient and taking pitches. Ha! That might have something to do with him being the seventh greatest hacker of all time. PS: Keep striving for greatness, Avi.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 9, 2015 -> 08:36 AM) So what, Sox fans hate the Cubs. Cubs fans hate the Sox. Go to Wrigley Field the next game and go to any stand outside selling hats and t shirts, and Sox Suck t-shirts can be had at any of them. But they don't care about the Sox. LMAO. The Giants/ Dodgers rivalry started when they were on the East Coast. It was fine to hate the other team then. Why is it not fine to hate the Cubs now? The Sox do play them every year in games that count. They have received a ton more attention for doing less the last 30 years. I encourage every White Sox fan to hate the Cubs. They still suck. Hear hear!

Pete Rose made a bunch of dumbs*** comments during the KC-HOU broadcast about Donaldson getting a bump on the head and having to leave the game, "he's the MVP??", he passed the concussion test so (in d-bag tone) "he'll be fine", how Rose had about 15 concussions when he played and he kept going out there, blah blah blah. Yeah asshole, you also messed up a guy's career by colliding with him in an exhibition game. You're the King of Toughness, we get it. Why do networks keep letting these idiots on TV?

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 8, 2015 -> 12:21 PM) Ten years ago Wednesday, Chris Berman (die hard Red Sox fan) was not pleased...LOL: http://www.chicagonow.com/soxnet/2015/10/t...s-the-carmines/ Mark Berman put on a dreadful performance that whole series.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Oct 8, 2015 -> 09:24 AM) The annoying thing about this series is we get to hear about how great the rivalry is between these two teams, yet in the last 70 years both teams have been over .500 in the same season all of 14 times. By comparison, the Red Sox and Yankees have both been over .500 in the same season 43 times over the same time period. If one of the rivals is usually terrible, it's not a great rivalry. Between that coverage angle, the BFIB Cards attitude, and my hatred for all things Cubbish, this series has the potential to be the most annoying thing that has ever happened in sports. I'll probably just avoid it.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 7, 2015 -> 01:10 PM) i haven't been there is over 12 yrs... but any hot dog or polish sausage .... they have it the best. Yes. There's a Superdawg in that area, kids should enjoy the drive-in factor and the big plastic Superdawg on the roof.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 7, 2015 -> 09:05 AM) IIRC, no one wanted him on the ridiculous long term deals that were being talked about (something like 6/100 at one point). I don't think Rasmus was ever near that range, he was being pegged for more like 3/30. Turns out he was an even bigger bargain (or maybe the Astros would rather have him for 3 years, who knows with him).

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 12:10 PM) OK, good, looks like I have found somebody who studies these things. Maybe you can explain: why does BABIP fluctuate so much year to year considering a random coin flip or die roll would never give such wild results. For example if the true odds of a weighted coin were 30% heads, over 400 flips (full season balls in play), the odds of getting 36 or 38% heads would be very very small. Yet for a given player, BABIP is supposed to be random. Moving my response to the advanced stat thread. I would say it's because baseball isn't a controlled probability experiment like flipping a coin. It's more complicated. There are dozens of factors that determine what happens to a ball in play. It involves a human being hitting a round ball hurled by another human being at varying speeds and trajectories with a cylindrical bat; the ball can then travel to any part of a 3-dimensional playing field, where any of nine human beings must react to turn it into an out. To get less fluctuation you could do two things. One is simplify the experiment. I would bet that if you could have the same pitcher in front of the same defense throw straight fastballs down the middle of the zone at the same velocity to a hitter for 400 ABs, his BABIP would fluctuate a lot less. Two, you could increase the sample. For a coin flip 400 is a lot of trials, but with all the factors in baseball, it's not that many. But in the last five years, with 180,000 plate appearances per season, the league BABIP has only ranged from .295 to .299.