The Official 2007 Chicago Cubs Thread

[Case Closed]

no no no no no no, take this discussion about the cardinals elsewhere. This is a 2007 cubs thread, let's stay focused.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
no no no no no no, take this discussion about the cardinals elsewhere. This is a 2007 cubs thread, let's stay focused.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's a discussion on how they suck, which is in the interest of Cub fans.

[MikeyPatriot]

MT2R,

That Sox team was way better than last year's Cardinals team. Interesting how you talk about how good their core was in the playoffs, when the Sox rolled through their post season.

Also, bad teams don't lead their league in wins.

[MyTurn2Raise]

they can....bunch of one-run wins (ie...variance) elevated a decent squad

[MikeyPatriot]

MT2R,

They outperformed their pythag. by 8 games, but by the end of the season real W-L is a better indicator of the team's performance. Winning close games is part of the reason, but they won a lot of close games because they had good performance out of the 'pen.

Also, LOL @ using variance to argue the White Sox talent/record, while completely ignoring it for the Cards 2006 playoffs, especially when they went 7 games in the NLCS.

Everyone, sorry for hijacking your thread. On-topic, start losing.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
no no no no no no, take this discussion about the cardinals elsewhere. This is a 2007 cubs thread, let's stay focused.

[/ QUOTE ]

well...the Cards do seem to be gift-wrapping the division for the Cubs by handing the Brew Crew some demoralizing losses and getting beat soundly by the small bears....seems to me this ties into the thread well

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
MT2R,

They outperformed their pythag. by 8 games, but by the end of the season real W-L is a better indicator of the team's performance. Winning close games is part of the reason, but they won a lot of close games because they had good performance out of the 'pen.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mikey,

The Indians had the best bullpen in the majors and underperformed their Pythag by 8 games.

Real W-L is not a better indicator. You know this. The White Sox were ridiculously lucky. Please admit it.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
MT2R,

They outperformed their pythag. by 8 games, but by the end of the season real W-L is a better indicator of the team's performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

really? I didn't know that. Is there something I can read on this?


[ QUOTE ]
Also, LOL @ using variance to argue the White Sox talent/record, while completely ignoring it for the Cards 2006 playoffs, especially when they went 7 games in the NLCS.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't ignore it in the Cards case at all. Of course, I don't think they were the best team in the playoffs. I realize a few breaks went their way, such as Joel Zumaya loving Guitar Hero too much.
However, I don't like the discrete evaluation of a team based on what calendar year it is. One should look at a bigger picture IMO. A 30,000 foot view shows a Cards team that was there year-in and year-out from 2000 through 2006. They weren't peaking in 2006, but they weren't some awful dregs pulled out of nowhere as many whose view is limited like to think. A terrible closer (much like 2003) and injuries to the squad held down what was a 90+ win team year-in and year-out.

I think the White Sox, coming from nowhere, getting into the mid 90s in wins with an exceptional above-normal win total according to their stats (8 games above pythag as you pointed out), and then disappearing into racing the Royals for last place in the AL Central a season and a half later is a much, much stronger case for a weak world series champ.

[Ditch Digger]

Worst WS champs ever = 87 Twins. I'd love to see an argument that they were "better" than the 07 Cards.

[TheNoodleMan]

If it happens in this thread im going to start spite calling you.