Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 37 of 82 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 555 of 1224
  1. #541
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,673
    vCash
    1500
    Extremely closely.

    We had a net bWAR of 12, and bWAR scales to 52-win replacement level, so 64 wins. We had a pythagorean record of 65 wins and an actual record of 61 wins.

  2. #542
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    3,316
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gaughan333 View Post
    If you take the bWAR of the cubs players while they were on the team last year, how closely does it relate to the teams actual wins? (if you calculated that)
    I would guess the bullpen killed it.

  3. #543
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,119
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    Extremely closely.

    We had a net bWAR of 12, and bWAR scales to 52-win replacement level, so 64 wins. We had a pythagorean record of 65 wins and an actual record of 61 wins.
    Cool, thanks.
    Save the kittens, ignore sbs' posts
    Red Sox hater since 10/2011

    It is anyway, not anyways.

  4. #544
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Champaign, IL
    Posts
    4,797
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    Broken down. I got tired of pasting it in so many different forums and sites so I put it online:

    http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com...ersion-10.html
    Just read that. I liked most of your support for your reasoning behind a the projection.

    Like how you left some upside in Castro, Rizzo and Shark too.

  5. #545
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,673
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gaughan333 View Post
    Cool, thanks.
    bWAR is nice that way, because it tracks very close to actual run-scoring events and just assigns them to players. For that reason, it's pretty good at describing what happened, but not as good at predicting what will happen in the future.

    fWAR, especially for pitchers, is more predictive. If a pitcher gives up 50 runs, but his peripherals said he should have only given up 30 with neutral luck, then fWAR credits him for giving up 30. That makes it very bad at describing what happened, but much better at predicting what will happen in the immediate future.

  6. #546
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,193
    vCash
    1500
    Evan Grant:

    Michael Young... has indicated a willingness to accept a trade that will send him to Philadelphia, according to two major league sources.

    The deal, however, is still not finalized because of complications around the amount of money involved. Young is not likely to officially waive his no-trade clause without some sort of compensation. The Rangers must also still gain approval of MLB commissioner Bud Selig due to the large amount of cash (more than $10 million) the Rangers are sending Philadelphia. As with all deals, it would not be official until Young passes a physical for Philadelphia.

  7. #547
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Jordan
    Posts
    33,939
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    bWAR is nice that way, because it tracks very close to actual run-scoring events and just assigns them to players. For that reason, it's pretty good at describing what happened, but not as good at predicting what will happen in the future.

    fWAR, especially for pitchers, is more predictive. If a pitcher gives up 50 runs, but his peripherals said he should have only given up 30 with neutral luck, then fWAR credits him for giving up 30. That makes it very bad at describing what happened, but much better at predicting what will happen in the immediate future.
    Is this you by any chance?

    http://thecubcontrarian.blogspot.com...in-infamy.html

    Chicago Bears #23
    Kyle "Cheetah" Fuller

  8. #548
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,673
    vCash
    1500
    It is.

    How does this sound for the remaining offseason:

    Edwin Jackson for deepen the rotation
    Jason Grilli to solidify the bullpen
    Ronny Cedeno as the utility infielder (may be tough to convince him he'll get enough playing time)
    Andreas Torres as the 5th outfielder/CF platoon partner.

  9. #549
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Champaign, IL
    Posts
    4,797
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    It is.

    How does this sound for the remaining offseason:

    Edwin Jackson for deepen the rotation
    Jason Grilli to solidify the bullpen
    Ronny Cedeno as the utility infielder (may be tough to convince him he'll get enough playing time)
    Andreas Torres as the 5th outfielder/CF platoon partner.
    I would like it. Still would want a couples trades in their though from a prospect perspective

  10. #550
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    42,741
    vCash
    7100
    Quote Originally Posted by {Ron!n} View Post
    Obviously it is, and that is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I feel stupider for having read it.





  11. #551
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,673
    vCash
    1500
    Yeah, I thought about turning that into a whole half-serious schtick, but I just didn't have the juice to keep it going. Now I just use it as a place to dump the insanely long walls of text I would normally put in message board posts.

  12. #552
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,815
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Assman22 View Post
    Our starting lineup/rotation if the season started tomorrow...Over/Under 75 wins?

    C Castillo
    1B Rizzo
    2B Barney
    SS Castro
    3B Stewart...
    LF Soriano
    CF DeJesus
    RF Schierholtz

    Garza, Shark, Feldman, Baker, Wood
    It would be under because a number of these players will be traded. The real over/under should be how many are traded ? I would set the over/under at 5

  13. #553
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale
    Posts
    1,890
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by 1972 Cubs View Post
    It would be under because a number of these players will be traded. The real over/under should be how many are traded ? I would set the over/under at 5
    how many did we trade last season?

  14. #554
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,673
    vCash
    1500
    From our original starting 13? Just four, I think.

  15. #555
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    7,258
    vCash
    1500
    Who has that much time on their hands? I swear some of you guys care more about WAR and debating off-season moves than actually watching the games.

    1934 1938 1961 2010 2013

Page 37 of 82 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •