August 24, 20205 yr 55 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Winning the World Series is literally why they play the game of baseball, so the winning of the world series really is the best justification for something working. It's part of the picture, but it doesn't answer the question by itself. No trophy is big enough to erase the correlation/causation fallacy, or to eliminate the usefulness of interrogating actual evidence. I get why fans probably don't care to use much mental energy second-guessing decisions made during a season that ended the way they wanted. But there's a reasonable debate to be had about whether every event in that season was actually the "but-for" cause of the title.
August 24, 20205 yr 7 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: As the line up stand now, they are going to be extremely streaky. The one reason I am looking forward to Madrigal is his game won't be as prone to slumps as the guys who are more boom or bust. This is going to be an extremely variable output. You can see them getting no hit one day, and 7 homers the next. The talent is absolutely there though, and hopefully they keep building the minors so that the waves keep coming and refreshing as guys leave and/or fall off. With the mass of pitching they are assembling, especially at the lower levels, that could be for making the 20's the Sox decade. Having just finished up with the Cubs, the one thing that stands out is they dealt their next wave to try to extend their window. How good would guys like Eloy and Gleybar look now pushing their window open a couple of more years? Did you see them being no hit when you took the Cubs on FanDuel ? I trust you doubled down the next day against Darvish ! Don't hurt me please !!
August 24, 20205 yr 37 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said: It's part of the picture, but it doesn't answer the question by itself. No trophy is big enough to erase the correlation/causation fallacy, or to eliminate the usefulness of interrogating actual evidence. I get why fans probably don't care to use much mental energy second-guessing decisions made during a season that ended the way they wanted. But there's a reasonable debate to be had about whether every event in that season was actually the "but-for" cause of the title. I don't see this at all. Winning the World Series is literally why you play baseball. You don't play to win trades. You play to hoist the trophy. Sure who won trades is a nice distraction, but I have yet to meet anyone who becomes a fan of a team because they win trades.
August 24, 20205 yr 26 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said: Did you see them being no hit when you took the Cubs on FanDuel ? I trust you doubled down the next day against Darvish ! Don't hurt me please !! I did make most of it up on Sunday.
August 24, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said: Winning the World Series is literally why they play the game of baseball, so the winning of the world series really is the best justification for something working. Agreed. If a team is that close then it's worth it. I wouldn't do it if is multiple pieces but that was worth.
August 24, 20205 yr 18 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: I don't see this at all. Winning the World Series is literally why you play baseball. You don't play to win trades. You play to hoist the trophy. Sure who won trades is a nice distraction, but I have yet to meet anyone who becomes a fan of a team because they win trades. Flags fly forever. The trade worked for both teams. Sometimes you're too anxious to get into a position but it works anyways. That's what happened to the Cubs. They overpaid to get into a position to win a WS but by golly they won it anyways. I mean, who can really complain? Sure it would be nice if they had a longer contention window but as you noted you play to win it all, not "contend for 5 years". They won it all, Godspeed. Edited August 24, 20205 yr by chitownsportsfan
August 24, 20205 yr 10 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: I don't see this at all. Winning the World Series is literally why you play baseball. You don't play to win trades. You play to hoist the trophy. Sure who won trades is a nice distraction, but I have yet to meet anyone who becomes a fan of a team because they win trades. You're making a different point. I'm not saying "winning trades" is more important than winning the World Series (who would ever say that?) I'm talking about the question of whether, in retrospect, the Chapman trade was strictly necessary to win the World Series, i.e. could they have won without him. Maybe yes, maybe no, we'll never know -- though it's interesting to debate.
August 24, 20205 yr 9 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said: You're making a different point. I'm not saying "winning trades" is more important than winning the World Series (who would ever say that?) I'm talking about the question of whether, in retrospect, the Chapman trade was strictly necessary to win the World Series, i.e. could they have won without him. Maybe yes, maybe no, we'll never know -- though it's interesting to debate. I think the answer is that it was. The Cubs needed an elite reliever. Chapman was the best on the market. Thus it was the necessary move. A move for a lesser reliever wouldn't have been the right one.
August 25, 20205 yr 37 minutes ago, ptatc said: I think the answer is that it was. The Cubs needed an elite reliever. Chapman was the best on the market. Thus it was the necessary move. A move for a lesser reliever wouldn't have been the right one. "...and all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds!"
.thumb.jpg.2b5d9338fbaecb392889b9f85a94ba84.jpg)
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.