The numbers don't lie. We are a .500 team.
by tharr on Sep 6, 2009 4:32 PM CDT
Email
Print
For all intents and purposes, our playoff chances are gone. Our mathematical odds are now down to 1%. The common belief is that our offense was the cause of our failure. And while there certainly was a fall off from 2008, our numbers are actually league average by most widely accepted standards. Here are some comparisons showing the 2009 team number, league average and 2008 team average,
2009 Cubs 2009 league avg. 2008 Cubs
OPS .741 ,741 .797
Runs/game 4.37 4.44 5.31
BAbip .294 .298 .321
Slg .412 .410 .443
Power/Speed Num 68.6 95 118.1
BA/RISP .245 .268 .278
Clearly, our team has not hit the ball like last year, and that is the comparison many of us make. However, we are at league average in most categories. The one huge drop has been in team speed, or the use of team speed. Measurably we are worst in the league whereas last year we were well above average. As an example, we have not had a stolen base the past 15 games and have been caught 4 times.
The one question we do have to ask is whether this team is a .500 team offensively or we can expect a significant bounce back to above average performance. Finally, I have not yet tried to evaluate the numbers for our pitching staff. I'll publish that later.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
179 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Boy
I knew they were bad compared to last year, however not this bad. For the most part the starters have kept the Cubs from being a .450 team.
the cubs are the bestest
don’t be a meanie, everyone knows the cubbies are the best team ever and they are gonna win the world series lots of times today.
by Uncle Stanley McGoober on Sep 6, 2009 4:39 PM CDT reply actions
Boy if i didnt know any better I'd say you are a typical airhead that posts here frequently!!
Lets Go Hawks!
or hes a typical sarcastic airhead that posts here frequently
hmm
people who swing at the first pitch should get punched in the face
by jesus christos on Sep 6, 2009 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Hard to take someone seriously with a name like McGoober?
is that a cross between Ronald McDonald and Goober Pyle?
by LT on Sep 6, 2009 9:29 PM CDT up reply actions
ive met plenty of mcgoobers in my life
people who swing at the first pitch should get punched in the face
by jesus christos on Sep 6, 2009 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Hard to take someone seriously with a name like McGoober?
is that a cross between Ronald McDonald and Goober Pyle?
by LT on Sep 6, 2009 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Pressure!!
EVERYONE is putting so much pressure on this team to win a series, that the players are getting to swamped by the pressure. I have loved to Cubs for almost as long as I have been alive, and always will love the Cubs. But they will win when the win. So everyone, lets loosen our grip on winning the series and take it in strides!
Speaking on .500 teams
Anyone see that walkoff celebration from the Brewers.
Would be nice to see Cubs having a little fun the last 25+ games even if they’re out of it. Not every game has to feel so intense.
Way out of proportion,
was that celebration. It’s a friggin’ game winning HR, when you are out of competition, not the 7th game of a World Series. Sickening, really. Fielder may as well taken his damn uniform off and run the bases in his underwear.
Professionalism? Hard to find in MLB, unless your name is Ted Lilly.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Sep 6, 2009 8:25 PM CDT up reply actions
whatd the suds do
people who swing at the first pitch should get punched in the face
by jesus christos on Sep 6, 2009 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Well I guess we're on different sides of the fence
I really thought it was a fun celebration.
Of course had they done it against the Cubs I might feel differently. But it was nice seeing these guys having fun. You don’t see Cubs having too much fun even when they win.
Triple Play
They turned a triple play in the 6th, so that might have had something to do with it.
Way to go Cubs
You, the Cubs, gave some hope to the people of New York. This was the first series they have won since the end of July.
The sun will shine in '69
And before this series...
… the Mets were only 4-11 in rubber games of series.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Rev. Bayes might disagree
As a null hypothesis, .500 seems perfectly adequate. To quantify that “no,” one needs an alternate hypothesis and either a prior probability or at least a decision level.
Case studies quote patients reporting a sensation of "giving way," a "bursting noise" or "sudden explosion."
The prior would be their preseason projections
Which were for about a .580 W%. Right now, they have played .500 in 120 games or so, which is perfectly in the realm for the binomial of a .580 projection. Without doing a proper Bayesian Analysys, the Cubs projection from a statistical point of view (IE, not adjusting for playing time or injuries) would be somewhere at about 89 wins over a full season and a .550 winning percentage.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 8, 2009 12:47 AM CDT up reply actions
so the projections are right
and reality is wrong
I think I am understanding how it works now
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
You are still not understanding the point of projections
And the extraordinary variance in sample performance. Stop engaging me about his until you do.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 8, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
I think what he is saying...
…is no team has ever been handed a championship based on projections. Team’s usually win because of what happens on the field, and that is often independent of what the best projections may spit out.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Sep 8, 2009 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions 4 recs
+ projected 3 rec's
but reality, is at the time of this being rec’d by me, it is only 1 rec.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
That's not what he is saying
And that’s not what I am saying. I’m trying to say the Cubs aren’t as bad as there current record so far. They are probably closer to their preseason projections.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 8, 2009 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions
The problem with projections...
…is they are based on what each player is “projected” to do based on their past, not on how that projection may interact with the other guys in the lineup that make up the TEAM.
Let me give you an example; Lee’s 2005 season. If he was projected to hit 46 dings, hit .335 and have the slugging % he had, I would imagine he would have been projected to have a lot more than 107 RBI’s. The fact is, the one and two holes absolutely sucked that year for the Cubs, and Lee hit a boatload of solo shots and in essence, his excellent personal numbers didn’t project to the RBI’s you would have expected.
There is nothing wrong with projecting what a player is probably to do, but the most important thing is picking the right players who’s skills can compliment each other and maximize the productivity from what each player is “projected” to do.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Yes, and there is no proof that Chemisty affects team performance at all
And even if it was proven, there would be ABSOLUTELY no way of knowing which players affect more players more than others, and how those players work with eachother.
There is NO way of knowing, or even making any kind of half assed guess about how chemistry will affect the cubs or ANY team for that matter.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 8, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Who's talking about chemistry?
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Oh, you're talking about lineup construction?
Well, it’s been proven that they way a team is organized has a very minimal affect on team performance.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 8, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
so just drop the numbers into a PC
and call it a season. No need to play the games, since the projections have spoken….
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
That's not what I am fucking saying you jackass
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 8, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
no need for the language
and yes it is what you say. you continue to say that the real stats produced on the field are not valid, since players are not palying to their projected potential values.
and if that is the case, how would next seasons projections be true when they are using this seasons invalid factual stats?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
So...
…you don’t think having high OBP guys in the one and two holes in 2005 would have had a positive affect on Lee’s RBI’s and improved overall run production for that team?
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I do
But that is exactly what is encorperated into projections! Lee is awesome, but the rest of the offense sucked, which is why he had low RBI totals.
Smoltz.
and the score was closer than the scoreboard said it was
right?
NOPE. The score is the score, just like reality is truth. Projections are not reality.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I'm talking about True Talent Level
Which is basically what projections try to measure. A seasons worth of play is a sample performance, but it doesn’t properly measure a player, or a teams skill.
That is why I am saying, GOING FORWARD, projections will be more accurate than performance to date.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 8, 2009 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Vep, I've been watching the back and forth with you and Tim.
I have a question. Do you yourself, have anything to do with the projections from one of those sites? Or are you just taking a projection from a site and advocating its worth? Curious myself.
And it would be interesting to know how much error the projections have had before. Is it 5% 10% 20%? Because I think if you total all the team projections together, you couldn’t say all the teams were not playing to their projections if the reality didn’t match the projection.
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
and in future projections
would they use the prior seasons projected numbers or the actual stats that the player puts up? If you base it off the actual stats, then how are they not the true value of the player, instead of the projected (and not reached) stats?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Good point
I hadn’t thought about that either. If their true talent level is their projections, then you are right, they could not use the actual stats from any year in order to project for the next year.
In fact, stats throughout the year would be meaningless or at most would be just just to see how they are doing compared to their projections.
I’d still love to hear the error rate of these projections.
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
we wont
instead VEP will make a Blou type of reply, as he did above
That’s not what I am fucking saying you jackass
because, after all how dare we think and not just accept.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Goes to show you,
that whomever is doing the name calling is probably losing the argument.
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
Actually, I couldn't log on for some reason
Apparently, I was flagged or something.
Anyway. The average error in projections is about 8-9 games per season, which is pretty good considering all of the variables in performance.
As to my question, the answer is the projection will always be better.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/16/931675/btb-playoff-odds-july-16th
Smoltz.
Cubs were originally
projected to win 92 (IIRC) hence why I say reality will be more accurate than a projection.
VEP I understand what you are saying, I am not dumb, no matter how rude and vulgar you wish to be with insulting me trying to say I am. But a projection is a base to use, like a foundation to a home, and reality is what you have to accept and understand that all the projections in the world will not change the reality of the situation.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I agree
That’s not what I have been saying. I’m trying to guage the TRUE ABILITY of the Cubs, which is different than their record and is a lot closer to their projection.
Smoltz.
their record is who they are
and I was thinking, if a projection can be around (an acceptable) 9 games off, that is really not saying much. For example
I project the Cubs win 85 games this season
That means if they win between 76 and 94 games, I can say my projection is right.
Sorry, that alone shows the flaw in the system
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
A teams record is NOT who they are
Neither is their projection, but it’s a lot closer.
If you truly believe that a teams record represents their true abilty, than we have a fundemental difference in understanding.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 9, 2009 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions
I think your comment about semantics was right
It may not represent their talent, but it is who they are.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 9, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, shit
I wish someone could have said that a day ago.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 9, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions
Shall we sing Kumbaya now?
BTW, just for fun, I glanced at the remaining schedule for the Cubs.
I don’t like doing this when they are in the race, but since they aren’t – I estimate that they’ll win 12 of the 18 against PGH, CIN, MIL, AZ and win 2 of the 7 against STL and SF, giving them a record of 84-78.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 9, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Projections are redone after each year
Weighting most recent seasons first. So yes, one season worth of data does affect estimated true talent level, but not a ridiculous ammount.
Smoltz.
I understand that reality
is what I look at, not the projection. I do understand projections, how they are generated, how they are used, blah, blah, blah. I also understand that reality tells the truth, where projections are not real or truthful stats.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Reality lies
Sample performance lies.
Answer this question. Which do you think is a more reliable indicator of the Cubs true ability; there preseason projections are there current win totals?
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 8, 2009 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions
you can spin everything how you want to
the truth is what they produced, and projections are not truth.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I would think that
their actual output is their actual value.
a company could be projected to bring in “x” revenue, and if they do not meet it, and have to file for bankruptcy protection, they would not be denied based on projections.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I'm not talking about past value
Obviously, reality is past value.
I’m talking about value GOING FORWARD, or in other words, there True Talent Level. In that aspect projections are everything.
That’s what I have been talking about this entire time. Do you disagree with that?!?!???
Smoltz.
You didn't ask me, but I'd say it's their current total
They have consistently shown an inability to beat above average teams, win on the road, score runs, etc.
At some point, you are what your record says you are.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 8, 2009 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions
It isn't though
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/16/931675/btb-playoff-odds-july-16th
Projections are always going to be better, because they take more data into account. Teams can play worse than their true ability for a long time, even a full season, that’s why you see so much fluctuation in year to year win totals for teams that are basically the same as they were the previous year.
Smoltz.
An interesting article
I think there is some merit to what you and the author are saying. Still, the empirical evidence does say that the Cubs are a .500 team. And, the projected 84 wins agrees, really.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 8, 2009 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions
And 84 win team isn't .500 :)
Also, I really, really, really, really don’t agree with this:
Still, the empirical evidence does say that the Cubs are a .500 team
The evidence says the Cubs have PLAYED like a .500 win team so far, but as I demonstrated in that article, even a full season’s worth of performance is NOT an accurate predictor of future success for the team. That’s been proven over and over and over again. In that case, the Cubs aren’t a .500 team, but have simply performed that way so far.
Maybe I’m arguing semantics, but that’s how this whole thing started, and that’s what Cubbie Tim doesn’t understand.
Smoltz.
the projected was 94
the pace we are on is 84, meaning the projection was off by 10 games. Without a fancy system, I could be within 10 games of our record.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
You're still missing the point
I don’t give a sh-t about how the well the Cubs have matched there projection to date. What I care about is how they are going to do going forward. In that case, preseason projections are more accurate than current performance to date.
Smoltz.
I disagree with that
After 120 games, the human element comes into play. When they get the tying run on third with less than two out, I think even they wonder how the run won’t score.
And I know you know, 84-78 is essentially a .500 team.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 8, 2009 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions
This year the Cubs have hit excellent with a runner on third and less than two outs:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/split.cgi?t=b&team=CHC&year=2009#bases
Even if they hit poorly, there is no evidence that those few at bats in that situation represent their true ability in that situation.
The Human Element is a fallacy. Everything in baseball can be quantified, the question is whether or not how meaningful each thing is.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 8, 2009 10:31 PM CDT up reply actions
You're going to lose people on this one
The Human Element is a fallacy.
That’s B.S. I think a lot of people overlook the value of statistics, but to say that confidence, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the outcome of an athletic event is naive.
And as Al says, so what? The Cubs are a mediocre team. Regardless of where the projections say they “should” be, they aren’t a top-tier team in 2009.
That’s like saying a ditch-digger who had perfect SAT, LSAT, MCAT and GMAT scores but no ambition isn’t really a ditch-digger, because his projections say he should be a medical lawyer for a pharmaceutical firm.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 9, 2009 8:17 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
your ditch digger analogy
is perfect. Just like a company in bankruptcy isnt really in bankruptcy since it is projected to have a huge revenue, even if there have been no sales for 6 months due to a failing economy (the failing economy would be the human element, which is a fallacy per VEP)
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
How do you know they aren't a top teir team?
Because they have played poorly so far? What if they one 20 games in a row? Would you still say they sucked?
The point is, the Cubs have PLAYED poorly so far this year. But that DOESN’T mean that represents their true ability and it doesn’t mean they will continue to play poorly.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 9, 2009 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
I didn't say they sucked
I said they are mediocre – an assesment that I stand by.
You’re right – they could indeed win 20 in a row. And the Cardinals could lose 20. I’m willing to bet $100, with the proceds going to the winners’ favorite charity, that neither will happen. Interested?
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 9, 2009 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions
but the opposite can be said as well
they have polayed poorly, so how do we know that this isn’t the best they can play at this point in their career?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
BUt which projections are the true ability test?
Are you going by CHONE or PECOTA? Which one is the bible to you? They both can’t be since they have different methodologies.
And do you actually know the methodology of the one that you go by? Or are you just putting blind faith into someone else’s projection?
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
Projections are usuall pretty similar in their methodology
Basically, they take a weighted average of each players stats, add aging curves and other adjustments. And their is rarely a huge difference in team projections. I would say to average out each (good) projection with eachother.
Smoltz.
How can it be their true talent then?
if they use different methodologies and come up with different numbers.
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
another good point
if projections could not be disputed, there would only be one projection to use, not various ones with different results
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
you are talking crazy talk now
Everything in baseball can be quantified
no, everything in baseball CANNOT be. It is impossible to do that, and anyone with common sense knows this.
As I point out above, a huge flaw in the acceptable margin of error for a projection.
if a projection can be around (an acceptable) 9 games off, that is really not saying much. For example
I project the Cubs win 85 games this season
That means if they win between 76 and 94 games, I can say my projection is right.
Sorry, that alone shows the flaw in the system
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Sep 9, 2009 8:21 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You are still missing the point
I’m not saying projections are perfect, I am saying that they are a stronger indicator a teams true ability that the Cubs record so far. In fact, if you would update the projections to include this years stats, they would be MUCH more accurate than this years record so far.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 9, 2009 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions
you are saying that
they are the only factor to use, since everything in life for a basball player can be quantified and used to project it. I am saying you cannot base a season on projections, and that reality is the truth, projections are not.
how can projections be more accurate than real life stats?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I am saying they are the only factor that we should use to project a team
If you want to add 5 chemistry wins to the Cubs, go ahead, but you’ll probably be wrong.
Smoltz.
Also, via my reaserach
Even after 120 games, preseason projections are more predictive than performance to date.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 8, 2009 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions
But what does that mean?
It’s irrelevant, isn’t it? So what if your preseason projections say the Cubs, for example, shouldn’t be a.511 team. The point is, they are one.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
exactly
so based on VEP Facts of baseball, we are in 1st place, since the projections are more accurate and correct, not the reality of our record. Please let TLR know that he is not in 1st place.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
THAT'S NOT WHAT I AM SAYING
I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT IN THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION!!!!!!!!!!!!
All have been saying the entire time is that true ability is divorced from measure performance. I really don’t know how you are confusing the two.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 9, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions
No they aren't a .511 team
They have PERFORMED like a .511 team so far this year, but that doesn’t mean they will continue to.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 9, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions
which is why reality says
you are incorrect. they are playing .511, and could finish playing .050 or .950 therefore I will accept reality and decline to accept that your projections are correct and that reality is wrong.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
It does bite, though
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 9, 2009 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions
actually, yes you did
here is a direct quote from you
Reality lies
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I'm saying reality doesn't measure ability
It simply measures performanc, which, by itself, is divorced from ability.
Smoltz.
and I continue to say
reality is where games are played, with real people, with real emotions, with real human factors that projected stats to not incorporate. I am also saying I have never seen a World Series won by projections alone. A team that plays like shit all season is a shitty team, no matter their projections.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
And I continue to say that you're right
But I also say that reality, or in other words performance is quite different from ability, or in other words how a team will play if they played 1 million games in a season. I’ve proven that to you multiple times.
Smoltz.
actually, you have not proven anything
to me, other than your belief that a projection is right and reality lies, which i will not buy into
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I've linked to two different articles
That show that even after almost a full seasons worth of play, PREseason projections are still more accurate than that years win totals. I don’t know How I can prove it any more.
Smoltz.
you are linking
where projections prove projections, and leaving facts out. the Cubs are not what they were projected to be, there is nothing more to say, you are talking in circles, and avoiding the simple fact that the projected outcome is not what they have proven to be.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Ha
you are linking where projections prove projections, and leaving facts out.
No, I 100% am not, you have never been more wrong in your life.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/16/931675/btb-playoff-odds-july-16th
Read that article, try to follow the big words, and tell me what you read.
Smoltz.
I thought the projections were accurate if
they played 200 games?
But either way, you are saying that this current Cubs team, if the season was 200? or 1 million, would play to a winning percentage of .580?
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
The projections will be more accurate the more games you play
Because random variance, luck, and other non-sklly things even out.
The article that I linked to showed that a if a regular seasons record is worth 162 games, than the preseason projections will be worth 200 games in determining how well they will do in their next (theoretical) set of games.
Smoltz.
So yes?
If these Cubs actually played 200 games this year instead of 162, then they would play to the preseason projection of .580 win percentage?
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
No, because 200 games is a relatively small sample size still
And the projections aren’t perfect, and they need to be updated to include this years stats. I have to put a number on it, I would say the Cubs would win about 54-55% of their “next” 200 games.
Unlike Cublie Tim, though, you seem to understand the difference between ability and performance. Do you not agree that the two are seperate?
Smoltz.
Yes, I get what you are saying.
But I’m not buying into the science of projections be the true indicator of a team’s ability.
But back to the point above, if the preseason projections are the best indicator of a teams ability, then if the Cubs played another 200 games, why wouldn’t they play around a .580 clip.
And on a overall note, if the projections are just an indicator of a teams true ability(as you say) and not to be taken literally as to their real won-loss record. What good are they?
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
Preseason projections aren't the best indicators
Because they don’t include this years stats. If you had an update projection, incorporating this years stats, it would be the best indicator.
So I wouldn’t project the Cubs to play .580 ball, I would project them to play about .540 ball, after incorperating this years stats.
Smoltz.
As to your second question
Projections attempt to measure a teams true ability, which is important in many ways. Say you went into the trade deadline 2 games up in your division, but everyone on your team was underperforming and your preseason projection was to win 20 games less. History shows us that teams will play closer to their preseaon projections (and even closer to their updated projections) as the season goes along, in comparison to their record to date.
Smoltz.
And no, projections aren't a "true" indicator a teams ability
But they are a lot closer than that teams actual record.
Smoltz.
I don't think...
…even Bill James expected things to get this crazy!
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
That's not the point
The projection means the Cubs have the ABILITY of a whatever team. Which means that is how they will be expected to play going forward.
Smoltz.
VEP said Everything in baseball can be quantified
how can you quantify (for some examples):
- A player being out basically for 3 months (for injury, or bombing a drug test)
- Booing from fans at home breaking down a player
- Unusual weather conditions
- Players this season (in MLB) have missed time from what can best be described as stressed out
- Players having an off year (or players a season prior was a fluke/one year wonder)
- Team chemistry (do not say this is not a true part of the game, Zambrano/Barret disagree)
- Coaches managing the bullpen or making the correct switch (i.e. PH, PR, Double Siwitch)
- A Manager knowing when to go talk to a pitcher to break the momentum (the anti-Baker managerial ability)
- Stealing signs
- Drug usage
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
VEP WHERE ARE YOU?
you made many replies above since I posted this, or are you accepting that there are human elements which you cannot quantify into a formula?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
HA!
you resort to name calling for the third time in this debate, but avoid answering what i asked still
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
VEP
you have become boring. you avoid ovbious important things in baseball, such as human element, you cannot answer how the human elements above are quantified, after saying that all baseball things are quantified, you have said that reality lies, then denied saying it (even after I quoted you saying it). You are unable to explain why projections by two different projectors are different, but they are the truth and reality is not.
i am done with you, you have become a waste of time in this debate for me
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
You have said this 60-70 times
but they are the truth and reality is not.
I AGREE WITH YOU 100%. You also can’t seem to seperate performance and ability, when they are two seperate things and demonstately so.
Smoltz.
do not misquote me on purpose
here is what I said
You are unable to explain why projections by two different projectors are different, but they are the truth and reality is not.</blockquote>
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Projections have different methods
However, they are theoretically the same. Using past seasons of data, weighting most recent seasons heavily, and make an attempt at figuring out which stage a player is at his career (IE, aging curves).
They differ because the exact measurements are different. Which is why I said to average them out.
Smoltz.
do not misquote me on purpose
here is what I said
You are unable to explain why projections by two different projectors are different, but they are the truth and reality is not.</blockquote>
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Also, an 84 -78 team isn't a .500 team, it's a .520 team
That’s like saying a 94 win team is a 100 win team.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 8, 2009 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh, come on
Would you feel better if I’d said “.500-ish”?
Most people would agree that the neighborhood of 78-84 wins is mediocre. Not great, not awful.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 9, 2009 8:14 AM CDT up reply actions
And if you're going to pick that nit
It would be like saying a 97-win team is a 100-win team, not a 94-win team.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 9, 2009 8:21 AM CDT up reply actions
Wouldn't next years projections
more accurately describe the 2009 Cubs team, then? You’ll be adding in the players previous stats along with a year of Soto bombing, pitchers not staying healthy, Soriano being Soriano, and Ramirez not being healthy he whole time?
Which is what, in reality, happened?
Shut up, Fritz™.
Yes, next years projections are MUCH better than this year's
But this year’s projections are MUCH better than this year’s stats only.
Smoltz.
NUMBERS HATE THE CUBS
people who swing at the first pitch should get punched in the face
by jesus christos on Sep 7, 2009 10:54 PM CDT up reply actions
.580 is a hypothesis, not a prior
The likelihood of a “.580 team” going 60-60 is about 4.7% (plus or minus one game, which is happily about the same as the area under the 60+ loss tail); P(.580|60-60) ~ P(60-60|.580)P(.580) = 0.047P(.580). Without P(.580), the prior probability, Bayes’s theorem doesn’t tell you much.
I’m not sure where the .550 is coming from, aside from its being ~95% of .580, but if it’s agreed that the realm of possible hypotheses has been refined by virtue of collected data, we can run a simple (since I’m doing it by hand) Bayesian calculation:
Take as equally weighted hypotheses that, for a D=69-67 record, one has H1 = a .490 team, H2=.500, H3=.510, H4=.520, or H5=.530. The probabilities P(D | H_i) are, where C(n,k) is the binomial coefficient “n choose k,”
P(D|H1) = C(136,69) * 0.490^69 * 0.510^67 = 0.063
P(D|H2) = 0.067
P(D|H3) = 0.068
P(D|H4) = 0.065
P(D|H5) = 0.059
The normalization is the sum over P(D | H_j), since the prior probabilities are equal. Thus, P(H_i | D) = P(D | H_i)/0.322, and the likelihood of the hypotheses given the data are
P(.490|69-67) = 19.6%
P(.500|69-67) = 20.8%
P(.510|69-67) = 21.1%
P(.520|69-67) = 20.2%
P(.530|69-67) = 18.3%
The notable thing is that the distribution isn’t sharply peaked, but there’s no strong suggestion that one “really has” a .550 team.
Case studies quote patients reporting a sensation of "giving way," a "bursting noise" or "sudden explosion."
you most have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night
Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living."
I've found that preseason projections generally carry a weight of about 200 games
So that’s what I used. Also FYI, the standard error of preseason projections is about 9 games, so the prior would have a wider distribution than the binomial distribution suggests.
Smoltz.
What?
That was a discrete calculation—the prior probabilities don’t have distributions (or if you insist, it was a “top-hat prior,” which is as wide as it gets; the binomial coefficient entered only into calculating the probabilities of the observed events). I still have no idea how you got from .580 to .550 earlier, nor what “a weight of about 200 games” is supposed to mean. Perhaps if you showed the arithmetic it would clarify things.
Even better, redo the calculation above with your “truer,” predicted, continuous prior distribution and let’s see what pops out. It’s a straightforward enterprise.
Case studies quote patients reporting a sensation of "giving way," a "bursting noise" or "sudden explosion."
the standard error of preseason projections is about 9 games
that gives an 18 game margin to work within, a huge flaw.
I could predict the Cubs win 84 games annually for the next 50 years, and if they win between 75 and 93 I projected correct. Sorry, I do not buy it.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
We KNOW that projections are going to be wrong
We also know that they are a much better indicator a teams true strength than their record. This is literally indisputable, it’s been proven over and over again.
Smoltz.
How do you know that?
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
The money quote from the article
However, as we showed earlier, the standard error for the pre-season prediction is .035, while the standard error due to random chance after 162 games is .039. What this means is that even after the season is over, the PECOTA prediction is still a more accurate predictor of a team’s true talent than the actual record of the team over the course of 162 games!! Based on the standard errors, PECOTA’s predictions actually have the accuracy of about 204 major league games!
Smoltz.
I'm not sure why it did that
However, as we showed earlier, the standard error for the pre-season prediction is .035, while the standard error due to random chance after 162 games is .039. What this means is that even after the season is over, the PECOTA prediction is still a more accurate predictor of a team’s true talent than the actual record of the team over the course of 162 games!! Based on the standard errors, PECOTA’s predictions actually have the accuracy of about 204 major league games!
Smoltz.
and none of their projections wins a single game
and when they bomb, there are multiple excuses, none of which explains that they are wrong and cannot incorporate human element (see Rich Hill 2008, projected to be a stud for a perfect example)
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
And what about Soto next year?
Will he be about 2008, 2009 or somewhere in between? How can you possibly measure his true talent if it could go either way based on numbers.
Maybe he goes on another twinkie binge this offseason, maybe he bares down, loses weight and does what he did in his ROY.
How can a projection based on numbers alone possibly predict what he will do next year?
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
I guess they first project the number of twinkies he will eat
since everything can be quantified
/sarcasm
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Okay, so tell me you're projection for the rest of the year
And for next year.
You can use this year’s record, and I’ll use projections, let’s see who comes closer.
Smoltz.
get your panties out of a bunch
how can I project how a team will do when they are not constructed yet? nice try
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Okay, then answer this question
If next year, this team was constructed EXACTLY the same as is this year, would you use this year’s W% to project that team?
Smoltz.
well, first I would watrch some ST games
to see how the players look, instead of basing life off numbers on paper alone. too many xfactors to accept paperwork alone
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
iwe could all sit here and make projections
predictions, estimates, and guesses, but none of those will override the honest to God truth, known as reality. To say that your projections are more accurate than reality, but use reality to get the projections makes no sense
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I have never said projections are more accurate than reality
Obvioulsy the Cubs have played .500 ball yet. My point, which I have proven many times, is that a teams winning percentage in one year doesn’t represent their true ability. It represents a sampling of that ability, which doesn’t tell the whole story.
When Derrek Lee was slumping, horribly, early in the year, do you think that represented his true ability? Of course not, and he later proved it by hitter up to what everyone is previously accostomed to. That is exactly the same situation with the Cubs this year. They are playing poorly. There record is .500 ish. That doesn’t represent their true abiliyt.
Smoltz.
you have
said projections are more accurate than reality a few times.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I have said projections are a more accurate measure of a teams abiity than reality (wins)
Are you disagreeing with that?
Smoltz.
So how can you possibly measure
the teams standard error rate of random chance being at .035?
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
.039 I mean
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
obviously it can be disputed
since projections are wrong, as you just said. I will accept the reality no matter how painful over the projections no matter how sweet they look on paper. Reality is the honest to God truth of what a player or team produces, projections are what you think might happen if all the stars line up correct, which NEVER happens.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Projections work as odds
Think of it like that. If the Cubs are projected to win 95 games, they also have a good chance at winning 94, 93, 92, 88, or 96, 97, 98, 100. Hell, they could even deviate more as the Cubs have demonstrated this year.
However, that 95 wins projection represents the most likely outcome. It is the best estimate of a how a team will play. And as I showed multiple times:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/04/updating_presea.php
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/16/931675/btb-playoff-odds-july-16th
Projections are better indicators of future performance that current win totals.
Smoltz.
you continue to say that they are a true indicator
and that the actual wins are not, which is incorrect. maybe you should try working in accounting, and balancing a budget adn a general ledger and tell me which are true, the actual numbers or the projected results
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
What I am saying is 100% correct
Projections are a better indicator a team teams future performance than their win totals to date.
Smoltz.
Ok...
…enough already!
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Can Cubbie-Tim admit that he's been wrong this entire time
and he was misunderstanding what I was saying?
Smoltz.
OMG you are a fool
I will not, have not, and as I have said many times, you have bored me with your man crush for projections, and I will never agree with you.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
i will never agree on this subject
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
because projections
are not true, are not facts, and are not reality. I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it. Is that so hard to accept?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
It's been proven that projections are more predictive of future performance that a teams win totals
If you don’t except that, than you are denying reality.
Smoltz.
well, you said reality lies
so what difference does it make.
can you not accept that I do not buy into projections, and prefer to see the games played and see what they can do, not base my baseball life off stats that are accepted as wrong.
I have asked you multiple times to let it die, and you continue to dig deeper for no reason. Lets end this while we still respect each other
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Fair enough
But, I’m holding you to this. If you just want to enjoy the game and not over analyze it, then stop complaining when people use projections as a proxy for the istrinsic strength of a team.
That is exactly how this whole thing started:
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2009/9/3/1014580/tough-to-do-but-needs-done#20713052
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 9, 2009 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions
and I will not enjoy baseball
on your terms, you are not the baseball GOd, get over yourself
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Have I ever asked you not to enjoy baseball on your own terms?
I simply said that you can’t continue to disparage other posters when they reference projections to estimate a teams true talent level.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 10, 2009 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm still waiting
For you to specify the description of the “true talent level” in terms of width and weight. Surely, the appropriateness of disparagement can be quantified like everything else, no?
Case studies quote patients reporting a sensation of "giving way," a "bursting noise" or "sudden explosion."
The true talent level
In this sense, is based off of statistical projections. I’ll give you some info, and you hopefully derive what you need from that.
The standard error in projections are usually about 9 wins a year. The standard error in performance (IE, based off of a binomial distribution) is about 6 wins a year.
I’m not sure what you mean by width and weight.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 11, 2009 12:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Those "standard errors" are pretty large, given the sample size, aren't they?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The standard error of projections are actually pretty good
when you consider that the standard error for team performance, if you could project that team as perfect, would be 6 games due to random variation.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 11, 2009 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions
This is not complicated
You postulate that there is a “true” process that is known only to Mother Nature. A team thus “plays like” something that does not hew to the mechanics of this process because one has only a single realization of the data. This is why Monte Carlo simulations are used to evaluate confidence limits in such situations—the name of the game is to find the distribution of possible fit results around Mother Nature’s secret.
I’m not going to run Monte Carlo simulations for you. Instead, I wish to test your hypothesis that some distribution of your own devising is more likely than the observed result. I assume that your use of the term “standard error” (an experimental, not theoretical, quantity) refers to the half-width of a normal distribution. The mean of this distribution is .580, .550, or whatever, but you need to pick your poison.
Finally, in order to weight the two prior hypotheses, I would need to know how much more likely your prediction is considered to be than the observed result. It’s this last bit that seems to be difficult to get out of you.
You’ve stated that PECOTA at “86 games into the season is about 1.4 times more predictive” than… what? PCT3? If you can quantify that, surely you can quantify how much more likely any given prediction is than the actual data.
I have no idea how it might shake out. Neither, given the simplicity of the calculation, do I understand why you won’t specify a simple two-parameter distribution at some point in time and what you think to be its likelihood over the observed result.
(I was hoping to run the numbers based on a model from dosimetry to which the prior “you’re going to win 60 and lose 60, and it’s the rest that count” is easily applied, but I’d as soon get this off the table first.)
Case studies quote patients reporting a sensation of "giving way," a "bursting noise" or "sudden explosion."
OK, I'll bite again
You’re asserting that the prediction that the Cubs’ record is truly a normal distribution centered on .580 with, what, sigma = 9 (?) is 1.4 times (?) as likely as that it’s actually described by a normal distribution given by the experimental values?
This all seems to hinge on an odd comparison of “standard errors” between a theoretical distribution and the experimental distribution (seemingly calculated without regard to the actual mean). The “error bounds” on a model describe the model, not its accuracy, which seems to be getting obscured here.
Now, if you’ll just specify the theoretical sigma and the prediction’s putative theoretical weight versus observation, some hypothesis testing would be possible.
Case studies quote patients reporting a sensation of "giving way," a "bursting noise" or "sudden explosion."
This team will be lucky to finish with a .500 record
Other than the pitchers and DLee, no one else is doing anything more than showing up for the games.
"He can't hit, he can't field, he can't run—all he can do is beat you."
Who pays the bills?
Players get paid mostly for past performance.
I guess Hendry is a radical. I don’t care what got projected for Aaron F. Miles, the real numbers show no talent for baseball at all. And unfortunately, he is being paid on the strength his projections. I remember reading that in one of Muskat’s articles, which means I probably read it here.
To say that the human element is irrelevant reeks of V’ger wanting to get rid of the “carbon unit” infestation in the first Star Trek movie. Playing the games on the field, ultimately, and the results therefrom, dictate the bottom line, at the end of the season.
In this case, the projections are just wrong! The Cubs are currently way behind the Cardinals. And that is how I project the season to end. It is the human element, remember, that buys tickets to MLB games It is definitely a real part of MLB. Just because we measure performance in a more sophisticated manner than before does not mean we ignore the stench of poor play.
"I lof to hit de home ron!"
by Tekboy on Sep 9, 2009 12:07 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
well said
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
in point of fact, most of the SABR guys
At VEB were perennial critics of aaron miles and said that his 2008 season – while real – was more an exercise of good luck than good talent.
The “intangibles” guys were the ones who most backed him because they thought he brought leadership and veteran presence and grit to the clubhouse.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Sep 9, 2009 11:35 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Last year
Miles batted 2nd most of the time, directly in front of Pujols. That meant he could expect pitchers to come at him, rather than see him walk. I’d guess he saw mostly fast balls. His BAbip was .342, which was exceptionally high. This year’s BAbip is .202 and he’s mostly hit 8th and has been injured. It’s been a best of worlds versus worst of worlds transition.
He’ll probably play much better next year, but I still want him gone. And it does prove that great leadership can’t buy a single hit or take one away.
If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.
No one is saying that leadership skills create performance in and of themselves.
However, your statement about how Miles did in St. Louis last year and why, essentially proves the point. He was a useful player because of where he played in the lineup and how LaRussa used him.
Chicago was not the right situation for him for any number of reasons. Jim Hendry should have known that, and especially not bid against himself to offer Miles a two-year deal when NO ONE else wanted him.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
ahhh yes
the human element of the game.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
What makes me really sad...
Is remembering back to the optimism in this fanpost, back in March, entitled “In what scenario do the Cubs not win the NL Central by ten games?”
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2009/3/27/812497/in-what-scenario-do-the-cu
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
