2016 Cubs catch-all thread

[Harry Chappas]

We're the only ones delusional enough to believe that the jersey on their backs make it true.

 

The fact is, when the media talks about "Can the Cubs win the World Series?" it's only to drum up interest but they know it's more likely now than it has ever really been. With the best baseball man in the business backed by a generous piggy bank, the Cubs look to be good for a long time.

 

And I envy them immensely because we know what the White Sox are trying and even with 2005, this "lightning in a bottle" method of going about business is draining when it fails.

 

Arrieta is the epitome of lightning in a bottle.

 

The Pirates have done as a good if not better job as the cubs at building a foundation. The major difference is theo has the fiances to now get what he needs.

 

The cubs are in good position and will make the playoffs this year but they are not the best team in baseball. They have some flaws and an injury or two and they are mediocre real quick.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Harry Chappas

[Harry Chappas]

Addison Russell was among the best defensive shortstops in the game and a defensive difference make we haven't seen on the south side in forever.

 

And you inexplicably exclude Bryant.

 

Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, and Schwarber. All under 26. The Cubs would be good without free agent signings. Their lineup now is terrifying.

 

Ramirez was a defensive difference maker two years ago.

[Panerista]

Arrieta is the epitome of lightning in a bottle.

 

The Pirates have done as a good if not better job as the cubs at building a foundation. The major difference is theo has the fiances to now get what he needs.

 

The cubs are in good position and will make the playoffs this year but they are not the best team in baseball. They have some flaws and an injury or two and they are mediocre real quick.

Are you kidding me? A couple of injuries? They have three players at each position with major league experience.

 

I know you're upset about the Cubs being special now. Time to get past it. They're much better than mediocre with "an injury or two". More delusion.

Edited February 26, 2016 by AustinIllini

[Iwritecode]

We're the only ones delusional enough to believe that the jersey on their backs make it true.

 

The fact is, when the media talks about "Can the Cubs win the World Series?" it's only to drum up interest but they know it's more likely now than it has ever really been. With the best baseball man in the business backed by a generous piggy bank, the Cubs look to be good for a long time.

 

And I envy them immensely because we know what the White Sox are trying and even with 2005, this "lightning in a bottle" method of going about business is draining when it fails.

 

By the law of averages the Cubs should have won a WS a long time ago. At the very least they should have made an appearance in one at some point after 1945. But somehow year after year they manage to screw it up in the most spectacular ways.

 

In their last 7 postseason appearances, they have lost at least 3 games in a row to get eliminated. That's hard to do.

[Panerista]

By the law of averages the Cubs should have won a WS a long time ago. At the very least they should have made an appearance in one at some point after 1945. But somehow year after year they manage to screw it up in the most spectacular ways.

 

In their last 7 postseason appearances, they have lost at least 3 games in a row to get eliminated. That's hard to do.

Law of Averages isn't a real thing. It's a layman theory not based on reality. You're assuming every year the odds of a team winning the World Series are the same for every team and even then, that's not the law of averages. The law of averages is a fallacy like the gambler's wager where awful statistics are used to justify outcomes.

 

Even if baseball were a 30 side coin, that does not mean the Cubs would win three in 100 years. Each side of the coin being equally represented is the single highest likely result, but is still unlikely.

Edited February 26, 2016 by AustinIllini

[OmarComing25]

Law of Averages isn't a real thing. It's a layman theory not based on reality. You're assuming every year the odds of a team winning the World Series are the same for every team and even then, that's not the law of averages. The law of averages is a fallacy like the gambler's wager where awful statistics are used to justify outcomes.

 

Even if baseball were a 30 side coin, that does not mean the Cubs would win three in 100 years. Each side of the coin being equally represented is the single highest likely result, but is still unlikely.

I don't buy into the whole "The Cubs have failed a lot in the past so that means they will fail this year" but baseball has so much variance that even the favorite has at most a 20-25% chance of winning it all, and that's being generous. So many people are ready to hand them the title in 2016 already but the odds are still highly against any single team winning it. This isn't the NBA.

[Harry Chappas]

Are you kidding me? A couple of injuries? They have three players at each position with major league experience.

 

I know you're upset about the Cubs being special now. Time to get past it. They're much better than mediocre with "an injury or two". More delusion.

 

I am not really all that upset I just don't think they are the best team in baseball or the national league. They are good if that makes them "special" fine I agree then they are special but you act like they are the 27 Yankees.

 

The pathetic national league helps pump up their wins as it did with St Louis last year. The NL will be tighter this year but half of the teams suck.

 

Their rotation is not deep, their defense can be sketchy and they strike out too much. Those are things that keep me from handing them the best team in baseball title right now.

[Iwritecode]

Law of Averages isn't a real thing. It's a layman theory not based on reality. You're assuming every year the odds of a team winning the World Series are the same for every team and even then, that's not the law of averages. The law of averages is a fallacy like the gambler's wager where awful statistics are used to justify outcomes.

 

Even if baseball were a 30 side coin, that does not mean the Cubs would win three in 100 years. Each side of the coin being equally represented is the single highest likely result, but is still unlikely.

 

I would think that the chances of a team winning the WS in any given year are higher than the chances of single team not winning a single WS in 100+ years. Especially since they keep increasing the number of teams that make the playoffs. Yet they've somehow managed to continuously defy those odds.

[chw42]

We (White Sox fans) get no respect because we suffer from this delusion.

 

I love how fans blame the jersey logo as the reason for a failure. Jerseys don't win or lose games. Bad baseball does (we should know the last decade). If the Cubs changed their name, they would have as much of a chance to win it all as they do now.

 

I can't say for sure that they'll win one or not, but their chances are sky high compared to the perennial dumpster fire we have to watch on the south side.

 

I'm pretty sure we'd get no respect no matter what. If we all of a sudden become cozy to the Cubs, I don't think that'll earn us any more respect.

[Balta1701]

I am not really all that upset I just don't think they are the best team in baseball or the national league. They are good if that makes them "special" fine I agree then they are special but you act like they are the 27 Yankees.

 

The pathetic national league helps pump up their wins as it did with St Louis last year. The NL will be tighter this year but half of the teams suck.

 

Their rotation is not deep, their defense can be sketchy and they strike out too much. Those are things that keep me from handing them the best team in baseball title right now.

The right way to say this is that the Cubs are easily the best team on paper and it's not really close. The best team on paper does not always win the world series, the best team on paper does not even always make the playoffs. That's where those issues you note come in. No one is handing them the world series, but there's no exaggeration whatsoever to call them the best team on paper.

[shysocks]

I would think that the chances of a team winning the WS in any given year are higher than the chances of single team not winning a single WS in 100+ years. Especially since they keep increasing the number of teams that make the playoffs. Yet they've somehow managed to continuously defy those odds.

I was curious about this so I did the math.

 

If you assume that every team starts each season with an equal chance of winning the World Series, the odds of a team not winning once from 1909 until now are 0.41%. This takes into account the increasing number of teams as the league expanded, and that there was no WS in 1994.

 

0.41% is about 244/1. The team Bovada pegs to have the lowest odds at winning the title in 2016, the Phillies, is at 200/1.

 

So regardless of how or why, the Cubs have pulled off something very unlikely.

[Panerista]

I was curious about this so I did the math.

 

If you assume that every team starts each season with an equal chance of winning the World Series, the odds of a team not winning once from 1909 until now are 0.41%. This takes into account the increasing number of teams as the league expanded, and that there was no WS in 1994.

 

0.41% is about 244/1. The team Bovada pegs to have the lowest odds at winning the title in 2016, the Phillies, is at 200/1.

 

So regardless of how or why, the Cubs have pulled off something very unlikely.

 

This, of course, makes the huge assumption that the anywhere from 16-30 teams in the league between 1908 and now have the same makeup and the same chance of winning year in and year out. That assumption destroys this analysis, as the New York Yankees have a quarter of the Championships over the same time period.

 

If every team in the last 100 years had won anywhere between 3-5 championships, I would be a little more accepting of this probability calculations, but the deck is stacked against teams many years, and therefore a team like Philadelphia does not have a 1/30 chance of winning the World Series this year. The 1/30 chance is just wrong.

[shysocks]

This, of course, makes the huge assumption that the anywhere from 16-30 teams in the league between 1908 and now have the same makeup and the same chance of winning year in and year out. That assumption destroys this analysis, as the New York Yankees have a quarter of the Championships over the same time period.

 

If every team in the last 100 years had won anywhere between 3-5 championships, I would be a little more accepting of this probability calculations, but the deck is stacked against teams many years, and therefore a team like Philadelphia does not have a 1/30 chance of winning the World Series this year. The 1/30 chance is just wrong.

Never said it was realistic. Just fun with math.

[clyons]

Are you kidding me? A couple of injuries? They have three players at each position with major league experience.

 

I know you're upset about the Cubs being special now. Time to get past it. They're much better than mediocre with "an injury or two". More delusion.

 

Serious question: Who are the three at first and third?

[Panerista]

Serious question: Who are the three at first and third?

Bryant, Zobrist, Baez for third.

 

Rizzo, Bryant, Zobrist for first, and even though Bryant's experience is one game, it's first base, a traditionally offensive position. Every regular first baseman in the league last year was a minus defensively per fan graphs.

 

So in terms of first space, specifically, the fact that the Cubs are three deep isn't very impressive. The Sox could run out a number of players at first and be fine.

Edited February 27, 2016 by AustinIllini

[Quin]

After the 2006 White Sox and 2015 Nationals, I've learned that ultimately, no one is the actual favorite to win the World Series.

[Panerista]

After the 2006 White Sox and 2015 Nationals, I've learned that ultimately, no one is the actual favorite to win the World Series.

100% correct. The Braves won their division, what? 14 times in a row? One World Series in all of that time. WS are nothing to count on.

[lord chas]

The Cubs are better on paper than last year but I still expect a slight regression. They were very fortunate last year injury wise, missing aces, winning so many walk off games in ridiculous fashion, and I expect some of their young guys to struggle.

 

We keep hearing for years how Wrigley needs major repairs. It would be in true Cub fashion to have their season derailed if something crazy happens to the stadium

[Balta1701]

Cubs also signed Shane Victorino yesterday.

[Soxfest]

Can't wait for the excuses when Cubs do not win World Series yet again.

[whtsoxfan]

By the law of averages the Cubs should have won a WS a long time ago. At the very least they should have made an appearance in one at some point after 1945. But somehow year after year they manage to screw it up in the most spectacular ways.

 

In their last 7 postseason appearances, they have lost at least 3 games in a row to get eliminated. That's hard to do.

 

It's called Murphy. Est. 1945

[Middle Buffalo]

It's great to be stacked with good players and have versatility, but at some point guys are not going to want to sit or play out of position. Bryant's not going to like it when he pulls a hamstring chasing down a ball in the outfield. Fowler won't like it when he's rested, and then his replacement gets hot and Maddon can't take him out of the lineup.

 

I'm sure there's a bit of jealousy in my thinking, but I also think the Cubs rode a magic wave last season, and it's not always easy to recapture that.

 

[Panerista]

It's great to be stacked with good players and have versatility, but at some point guys are not going to want to sit or play out of position. Bryant's not going to like it when he pulls a hamstring chasing down a ball in the outfield. Fowler won't like it when he's rested, and then his replacement gets hot and Maddon can't take him out of the lineup.

 

I'm sure there's a bit of jealousy in my thinking, but I also think the Cubs rode a magic wave last season, and it's not always easy to recapture that.

Ah, to have good team problems again.

 

Cubs: "What if our franchise player gets bored?"

 

White Sox: "Which has been or never will be is going to play second base?"

[caulfield12]

Maybe you will find out soon enough.

 

Zobrist is no spring chicken. Baez might end up getting more playing time than anyone expects.

 

Can he perform on a team expected to run away with the World Series? Can Soler? Can Schwarber keep from getting injured shuffling between left and catcher? How long before Arrieta breaks down? Can Lackey and Lester stay healthy in their mid 30's? Can they rely on Kendricks for another season?

[fathom]

Ah, to have good team problems again.

 

Cubs: "What if our franchise player gets bored?"

 

White Sox: "Which has been or never will be is going to play second base?"

 

You mean the same Brett Lawrie that looked like a can't miss superstar after his first season in the majors? He had a better first season than Schwarber and Russell.