It's done. If the Cubs miss the postseason I will literally chop off, cook and eat my own penis.
Lets talk about it here. The postseason, I mean, not my penis. If you want to talk about my penis, PM me.
Quote from: Tonker link=topic=9329.msg313331#msg313331 date=1506334673
If you want to talk about my penis
/quote]
That'll be a short conversation.
Good God did I fuck that up
I have but 2 questions at this point...
Who starts on the mound games 1 and 2?
Who leads off (corollary--what's the lineup going to look like?)
Quote from: Huey Potatohead on September 25, 2017, 07:52:47 AM
I have but 2 questions at this point...
Who starts on the mound games 1 and 2?
Who leads off (corollary--what's the lineup going to look like?)
Right now my playoff rotation would be Hendricks/Arrieta/Quintana. Arguably Quintana has been the best pitcher of the three in everything other than ERA and even then his ERA has started to fall in line with his peripherals since outside of a handful of rough games as both a Cub and White Sock. But I still think Kyle is the ace of this staff right now, and Arrieta looked as good as he was before the injury, assuming he finishes his next two starts strong he'd be my #2. Then you start Q in G3.
If Lester looks at all like himself in his last two starts I say you give him G4 but you have Montgomery ready to go at the first sign of trouble.
Quote from: SKO on September 25, 2017, 08:01:21 AM
Quote from: Huey Potatohead on September 25, 2017, 07:52:47 AM
I have but 2 questions at this point...
Who starts on the mound games 1 and 2?
Who leads off (corollary--what's the lineup going to look like?)
Right now my playoff rotation would be Hendricks/Arrieta/Quintana. Arguably Quintana has been the best pitcher of the three in everything other than ERA and even then his ERA has started to fall in line with his peripherals since outside of a handful of rough games as both a Cub and White Sock. But I still think Kyle is the ace of this staff right now, and Arrieta looked as good as he was before the injury, assuming he finishes his next two starts strong he'd be my #2. Then you start Q in G3.
If Lester looks at all like himself in his last two starts I say you give him G4 but you have Montgomery ready to go at the first sign of trouble.
Considering the LH strength Washington possesses on offense, any chance Q gets bumped up?
Also, I'm not actually worried about Lester, last half of the season be damned. Regardless of how he pitches in these next 2 starts, I have faith that he'll be ready and, if that's the case, he'd make a helluva #4.
Quote from: Huey Potatohead on September 25, 2017, 08:04:24 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 25, 2017, 08:01:21 AM
Quote from: Huey Potatohead on September 25, 2017, 07:52:47 AM
I have but 2 questions at this point...
Who starts on the mound games 1 and 2?
Who leads off (corollary--what's the lineup going to look like?)
Right now my playoff rotation would be Hendricks/Arrieta/Quintana. Arguably Quintana has been the best pitcher of the three in everything other than ERA and even then his ERA has started to fall in line with his peripherals since outside of a handful of rough games as both a Cub and White Sock. But I still think Kyle is the ace of this staff right now, and Arrieta looked as good as he was before the injury, assuming he finishes his next two starts strong he'd be my #2. Then you start Q in G3.
If Lester looks at all like himself in his last two starts I say you give him G4 but you have Montgomery ready to go at the first sign of trouble.
Considering the LH strength Washington possesses on offense, any chance Q gets bumped up?
Also, I'm not actually worried about Lester, last half of the season be damned. Regardless of how he pitches in these next 2 starts, I have faith that he'll be ready and, if that's the case, he'd make a helluva #4.
Also, does anyone have a significant home/road split? But I'd think Joe would want to get Lester and Q in there sooner rather than later.
But one thing that gives me confidence is the manager in the other dugout.
I honestly think we're in a place where it doesn't really matter. I like our four guys vs their four guys. Hell I might throw Lester in G1 against Scherzer. Best case scenario you get vintage Lester and he can beat Scherzer. Worst case you've thrown *maybe* your worst starter (right now anyway) against their ace, and can hopefully clean up with the rest of your best guys.
Quote from: SKO on September 25, 2017, 08:10:56 AM
I honestly think we're in a place where it doesn't really matter. I like our four guys vs their four guys. Hell I might throw Lester in G1 against Scherzer. Best case scenario you get vintage Lester and he can beat Scherzer. Worst case you've thrown *maybe* your worst starter (right now anyway) against their ace, and can hopefully clean up with the rest of your best guys.
This is a good thought. I'm also thinking--though I have nothing to back it up--that Hendricks might be more effective at home. Maybe I'm hung up on the gem he threw to clinch the pennant but even though an argument could be made that he should start G1 on the grounds that your best starter opens up the playoffs and Hendricks is arguably their best starter right now, I wouldn't be shocked, or even disappointed, if it's Lester/Arrieta (who really does seem to have brass balls on the road)/Hendricks/Qunitana
Quote from: Huey Potatohead on September 25, 2017, 08:15:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 25, 2017, 08:10:56 AM
I honestly think we're in a place where it doesn't really matter. I like our four guys vs their four guys. Hell I might throw Lester in G1 against Scherzer. Best case scenario you get vintage Lester and he can beat Scherzer. Worst case you've thrown *maybe* your worst starter (right now anyway) against their ace, and can hopefully clean up with the rest of your best guys.
This is a good thought. I'm also thinking--though I have nothing to back it up--that Hendricks might be more effective at home. Maybe I'm hung up on the gem he threw to clinch the pennant but even though an argument could be made that he should start G1 on the grounds that your best starter opens up the playoffs and Hendricks is arguably their best starter right now, I wouldn't be shocked, or even disappointed, if it's Lester/Arrieta (who really does seem to have brass balls on the road)/Hendricks/Qunitana
Last year Hendricks was a significantly (His Wrigley ERA was 1.32 and his WHIP was under 1) better pitcher at home.
This year his road splits are a little better, but that could also just be a by-product of his getting more road starts once he got back into form.
I'll say this-- knowing the Cubs have their ring in the bag and since they appear to have avoided the one scenario in which I'd have deemed this year a disappointment (either losing the division to STL or MIL or losing to STL in the playoffs--in fact they're doing the exact opposite and clinching/eliminating STL in one fell swoop this week, probably) I'm just going to let this October play out however it will.
This NL is a total pick 'em now that the Dodgers have regressed back to the mean. LA has had arguably the worst offense in the second half of any of the NL contenders and their pitching staff has lots of health/effectiveness questions. The Nationals have a top-heavy rotation but otherwise their offense has slowed down of late and seems mostly a product of consistently hammering a weak division. The Diamondbacks maybe have the best rotation of any contender outside of Cleveland and nobody has heard of half of them, not to mention they have some heavy hitters in Goldy, Martinez, Pollack, etc. The Rockies have a surprisingly good pitching staff and always have a potent homefield advantage. I wouldn't be surprised if any of the 5 likely NL playoff teams wins the pennant.
The AL seems to have a clear favorite right now in Cleveland but they aren't so far ahead of the pack. This is shaping up to be one hell of an October and hopefully the Cubs are going all of the way to the end of it but even if they don't for once I might just be able to watch the rest of the playoffs and see who wins it all rather than spend several months pretending baseball doesn't exist and didn't just break my heart.
Quote from: SKO on September 25, 2017, 09:23:06 AM
I'm just going to let this October play out however it will.
Oh, come on.
1. Are home/road splits for pitchers a real thing? I kind of feel like it's just a bunch of noise and decisions like who starts when should probably not be made on that basis.
2. The game 1 starter will probably also be the potential game 5 starter, which is how I feel that decision should be made, which may point to Hendricks, depending on how much 'clutch' stock you put into pitchers (or any player) based on LCS 6 and WS 7 last year.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on September 25, 2017, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 25, 2017, 09:23:06 AM
I'm just going to let this October play out however it will.
Oh, come on.
Oh I don't blame anyone for not believing me, and I will be disappointed if they don't win because obviously that is the goal, just saying that the only way I'd have been angry or felt they under-achieved this season would have been if they failed to win the division. Repeats are hard because the playoffs are random and getting through that Rube Goldberg machine twice in a row is nigh impossible. The fact that the existential dread of "will they ever actually do it?" is now gone means that I don't have to spend the rest of October wishing I was dead if they get eliminated.
Quote from: SKO on September 25, 2017, 10:55:35 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on September 25, 2017, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 25, 2017, 09:23:06 AM
I'm just going to let this October play out however it will.
Oh, come on.
Oh I don't blame anyone for not believing me, and I will be disappointed if they don't win because obviously that is the goal, just saying that the only way I'd have been angry or felt they under-achieved this season would have been if they failed to win the division. Repeats are hard because the playoffs are random and getting through that Rube Goldberg machine twice in a row is nigh impossible. The fact that the existential dread of "will they ever actually do it?" is now gone means that I don't have to spend the rest of October wishing I was dead if they get eliminated.
Oh, come on.
Quote from: Huey Potatohead on September 25, 2017, 11:06:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 25, 2017, 10:55:35 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on September 25, 2017, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 25, 2017, 09:23:06 AM
I'm just going to let this October play out however it will.
Oh, come on.
Oh I don't blame anyone for not believing me, and I will be disappointed if they don't win because obviously that is the goal, just saying that the only way I'd have been angry or felt they under-achieved this season would have been if they failed to win the division. Repeats are hard because the playoffs are random and getting through that Rube Goldberg machine twice in a row is nigh impossible. The fact that the existential dread of "will they ever actually do it?" is now gone means that I don't have to spend the rest of October wishing I was dead if they get eliminated.
Oh, come on.
I don't understand why no one believes me here.
The Nats rotation is great, but the Dusty Playoff Coefficient brings it down to somewhere around beatable.
Quote from: D. Doluntap on September 28, 2017, 11:28:54 AM
The Nats rotation is great, but the Dusty Playoff Coefficient brings it down to somewhere around beatable.
I'm reminded of Bobby Knight's quote: "I was worried about losing until I looked down the floor and saw Dale Brown. Then I knew we had a chance."
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on September 28, 2017, 12:04:04 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on September 28, 2017, 11:28:54 AM
The Nats rotation is great, but the Dusty Playoff Coefficient brings it down to somewhere around beatable.
I'm reminded of Bobby Knight's quote: "I was worried about losing until I looked down the floor and saw Dale Brown. Then I knew we had a chance."
They say interesting things come in threes.
1. Dale Brown's initials are DB -- exactly the same as Dusty Baker. Both men also have a birthday.
2. Bobby Knight's initials are KB which are nearly the same as the initials of Chris Bryant (Bryant's are CB). Fun fact: Bryant's middle name is "Maas" as his father was a bandwagon Yankees fan.
3. Kylw Schawarber got his degree from Indiana University which is where Bobby Knight coached basketball. Scahwarber didn't play basketball but he did sit in many chairs. Knight was fired for throwing one such chair.</spooky>
3. Dusty Baker manages the Washington Nationals which is the same team Max Scherzer currently plays for.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 04, 2017, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on September 28, 2017, 12:04:04 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on September 28, 2017, 11:28:54 AM
The Nats rotation is great, but the Dusty Playoff Coefficient brings it down to somewhere around beatable.
I'm reminded of Bobby Knight's quote: "I was worried about losing until I looked down the floor and saw Dale Brown. Then I knew we had a chance."
They say interesting things come in threes.
1. Dale Brown's initials are DB -- exactly the same as Dusty Baker. Both men also have a birthday.
2. Bobby Knight's initials are KB which are nearly the same as the initials of Chris Bryant (Bryant's are CB). Fun fact: Bryant's middle name is "Maas" as his father was a bandwagon Yankees fan.
3. Kylw Schawarber got his degree from Indiana University which is where Bobby Knight coached basketball. Scahwarber didn't play basketball but he did sit in many chairs. Knight was fired for throwing one such chair.</spooky>
3. Dusty Baker manages the Washington Nationals which is the same team Max Scherzer currently plays for.
4. Dusty Baker and Dale Brown are both awful at managing/coaching.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 04, 2017, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on September 28, 2017, 12:04:04 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on September 28, 2017, 11:28:54 AM
The Nats rotation is great, but the Dusty Playoff Coefficient brings it down to somewhere around beatable.
I'm reminded of Bobby Knight's quote: "I was worried about losing until I looked down the floor and saw Dale Brown. Then I knew we had a chance."
They say interesting things come in threes.
1. Dale Brown's initials are DB -- exactly the same as Dusty Baker. Both men also have a birthday.
2. Bobby Knight's initials are KB which are nearly the same as the initials of Chris Bryant (Bryant's are CB). Fun fact: Bryant's middle name is "Maas" as his father was a bandwagon Yankees fan.
3. Kylw Schawarber got his degree from Indiana University which is where Bobby Knight coached basketball. Scahwarber didn't play basketball but he did sit in many chairs. Knight was fired for throwing one such chair.</spooky>
3. Dusty Baker manages the Washington Nationals which is the same team Max Scherzer currently plays for.
We've missed you and we're glad you're back in time for the playoffs.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on September 28, 2017, 12:04:04 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on September 28, 2017, 11:28:54 AM
The Nats rotation is great, but the Dusty Playoff Coefficient brings it down to somewhere around beatable.
I'm reminded of Bobby Knight's quote: "I was worried about losing until I looked down the floor and saw Dale Brown. Then I knew we had a chance."
I always thought Knight said that about Lou Henson. Even if he didn't, still works.
Quote from: SKO on September 25, 2017, 09:23:06 AM
...for once I might just be able to watch the rest of the playoffs and see who wins it all rather than spend several months pretending baseball doesn't exist and didn't just break my heart.
I may have mentioned this before. I never expected to see a World Championship. When it happened I thought that it was God's way of telling me, "OK. Time's up!"
Game 1: Hendricks
Game 2: Lester
Game 3: Quintana
Game 4: Arrieta
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2017, 12:22:50 PM
Game 1: Hendricks
Game 2: Lester
Game 3: Quintana
Game 4: Arrieta
Sweep and Jake gets more time to rest the hammy.
Before SKO has an aneurysm about the starting lineup, I should just point out that J-Hey absolutely fucking molests Strasburg. There might be somebody with better numbers against the kid, but you'll need to look far and wide to find him.
Sorry. The two separate postseason threads confused me and I put the comment below here instead (thanks alot Sterling, you fuckhead) (http://desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=9336.msg313625#msg313625here%5B/url)
Hector's the odd man out for the first round and Herb Washington Leonys Martin makes it. (https://twitter.com/Andy_Masur1/status/916304665419055104)
My guess is Hector'll be back on next round since teams are more likely to carry 12 arms in a best-of-a-seven series. They certainly don't need that many for a 5 game so I'm cool with this, even if I do feel a little bad for Hector since it seemed he had turned things around. Like I said, though, he'll probably be back on next round.
Quote from: Huey Potatohead on October 06, 2017, 01:35:29 PM
Sorry. The two separate postseason threads confused me and I put the comment below instead (thanks alot Sterling, you fuckhead) (http://desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=9336.msg313625#msg313625here%5B/url)
Hector's the odd man out for the first round and Herb Washington Leonys Martin makes it. (https://twitter.com/Andy_Masur1/status/916304665419055104)
My guess is Hector'll be back on next round since teams are more likely to carry 12 arms in a best-of-a-seven series. They certainly don't need that many for a 5 game so I'm cool with this, even if I do feel a little bad for Hector since it seemed he had turned things around. Like I said, though, he'll probably be back on next round.
Two can play at that game.
I think that's right. Also I'm glad Joe resisted the urge to include Rene Federowicz on the roster.
That fuckin' rocked. Well, everything except Ron Darling.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 04, 2017, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on September 28, 2017, 12:04:04 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on September 28, 2017, 11:28:54 AM
The Nats rotation is great, but the Dusty Playoff Coefficient brings it down to somewhere around beatable.
I'm reminded of Bobby Knight's quote: "I was worried about losing until I looked down the floor and saw Dale Brown. Then I knew we had a chance."
They say interesting things come in threes.
1. Dale Brown's initials are DB -- exactly the same as Dusty Baker. Both men also have a birthday.
2. Bobby Knight's initials are KB which are nearly the same as the initials of Chris Bryant (Bryant's are CB). Fun fact: Bryant's middle name is "Maas" as his father was a bandwagon Yankees fan.
3. Kylw Schawarber got his degree from Indiana University which is where Bobby Knight coached basketball. Scahwarber didn't play basketball but he did sit in many chairs. Knight was fired for throwing one such chair.</spooky>
3. Dusty Baker manages the Washington Nationals which is the same team Max Scherzer currently plays for.
Is this one of those logic matrix puzzles?
#LOLNats
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 09, 2017, 06:21:59 PM
#LOLNats
Fun to read about their fanbase turning on Dusty. Cubs fans and Reds fans solemnly look on, knowing all-too-well.
The Cubs played an absolutely atrocious game of baseball - 3 hits, 4 errors, Heyward's TOOTBLAN...and they still won.
Imagine what can happen today if they actually play well.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 10, 2017, 08:56:00 AM
The Cubs played an absolutely atrocious game of baseball - 3 hits, 4 errors, Heyward's TOOTBLAN...and they still won.
Imagine what can happen today if they actually play well.
I just hope they get to play today, otherwise a rainout would allow the Nats to go back to Stras on normal rest tomorrow. I'd prefer to just laugh as they pummel Tanner Roark and then we all have a couple days to relax.
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 09:05:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 10, 2017, 08:56:00 AM
The Cubs played an absolutely atrocious game of baseball - 3 hits, 4 errors, Heyward's TOOTBLAN...and they still won.
Imagine what can happen today if they actually play well.
I just hope they get to play today, otherwise a rainout would allow the Nats to go back to Stras give Maddon the option of starting Hendrickson normal rest if Arrieta's hamstring is trouble tomorrow. I'd prefer to just laugh as they pummel Tanner Roark and then we all have a couple days to relax.
Quote from: Brownie on October 10, 2017, 10:50:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 09:05:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 10, 2017, 08:56:00 AM
The Cubs played an absolutely atrocious game of baseball - 3 hits, 4 errors, Heyward's TOOTBLAN...and they still won.
Imagine what can happen today if they actually play well.
I just hope they get to play today, otherwise a rainout would allow the Nats to go back to Stras give Maddon the option of starting Hendrickson normal rest if Arrieta's hamstring is trouble tomorrow. I'd prefer to just laugh as they pummel Tanner Roark and then we all have a couple days to relax.
Oh I lack no confidence in whichever of the Cubs starters goes out there whenever they play, I just would rather face Roark than Strasburg irregardless.
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 11:03:20 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 10, 2017, 10:50:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 09:05:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 10, 2017, 08:56:00 AM
The Cubs played an absolutely atrocious game of baseball - 3 hits, 4 errors, Heyward's TOOTBLAN...and they still won.
Imagine what can happen today if they actually play well.
I just hope they get to play today, otherwise a rainout would allow the Nats to go back to Stras give Maddon the option of starting Hendrickson normal rest if Arrieta's hamstring is trouble tomorrow. I'd prefer to just laugh as they pummel Tanner Roark and then we all have a couple days to relax.
Oh I lack no confidence in whichever of the Cubs starters goes out there whenever they play, I just would rather face Roark than Strasburg irregardless.
Galaxy brain: the Cubs have the advantage if they do play today with at least one long rain delay. Maddon has two long relief options in Lackey & Montgomery whereas I don't think Dusty has any, unless you count Fat Albers (long man...more like wide man!) or Gio is available on 3 days rest.
Quote from: R-V on October 10, 2017, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 11:03:20 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 10, 2017, 10:50:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 09:05:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 10, 2017, 08:56:00 AM
The Cubs played an absolutely atrocious game of baseball - 3 hits, 4 errors, Heyward's TOOTBLAN...and they still won.
Imagine what can happen today if they actually play well.
I just hope they get to play today, otherwise a rainout would allow the Nats to go back to Stras give Maddon the option of starting Hendrickson normal rest if Arrieta's hamstring is trouble tomorrow. I'd prefer to just laugh as they pummel Tanner Roark and then we all have a couple days to relax.
Oh I lack no confidence in whichever of the Cubs starters goes out there whenever they play, I just would rather face Roark than Strasburg irregardless.
Galaxy brain: the Cubs have the advantage if they do play today with at least one long rain delay. Maddon has two long relief options in Lackey & Montgomery whereas I don't think Dusty has any, unless you count Fat Albers (long man...more like wide man!) or Gio is available on 3 days rest.
That's a really good point: So get 3-5 solid innings out of Jake, rough up Roark early that Dusty goes to Gio (on 2 days rest) or Stras (on 3 days) or Scherzer (it is Dusty after all), and then let it rain so that in with Lackey or Montgomery and company until you bring Wade in the ninth to close it out unless the Cubs run away with a laugher.
Today's lineup:
CF Jay
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
C Contreras
RF Zobrist
LF Schwarber
SS Russell
2B Baez
P Arrieta
Guessing Heyward is benched on account of yesterday's baserunning gaffe.
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 10, 2017, 11:57:33 AM
Today's lineup:
CF Jay
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
C Contreras
RF Zobrist
LF Schwarber
SS Russell
2B Baez
P Arrieta
Guessing Heyward is benched on account of yesterday's baserunning gaffe.
Nah, Joe is rarely that punitive. I think I read that he's like 0-18 against Roark though.
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 12:03:51 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 10, 2017, 11:57:33 AM
Today's lineup:
CF Jay
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
C Contreras
RF Zobrist
LF Schwarber
SS Russell
2B Baez
P Arrieta
Guessing Heyward is benched on account of yesterday's baserunning gaffe.
Nah, Joe is rarely that punitive. I think I read that he's like 0-18 against Roark though.
Right...though I do think Joe hates Dylan Floro. And yeah Heyward sucks a bit more against Tanner than everyone else.
Hank Aaron came to Dusty in a dream last night and gave him an edgy, progressive, Ivy-educated lineup for Game 4. Behold:
SS Turner
LF Werth
RF Harper
1B Zimmerman
2B Murphy
3B Rendon
C Wieters
CF Taylor
P Roark
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 10, 2017, 01:11:04 PM
Hank Aaron came to Dusty in a dream last night and gave him an edgy, progressive, Ivy-educated lineup for Game 4. Behold:
SS Turner
LF Werth
RF Harper
1B Zimmerman
2B Murphy
3B Rendon
C Wieters
CF Taylor
P Roark
Wait, Murphy is not hitting behind Harper?
Quote from: Brownie on October 10, 2017, 02:31:00 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 10, 2017, 01:11:04 PM
Hank Aaron came to Dusty in a dream last night and gave him an edgy, progressive, Ivy-educated lineup for Game 4. Behold:
SS Turner
LF Werth
RF Harper
1B Zimmerman
2B Murphy
3B Rendon
C Wieters
CF Taylor
P Roark
Wait, Murphy is not hitting behind Harper?
I'm still shocked he's not batting 2nd, given he's a 2B. Like Mark Grudzielanek.
Throw Joe's lineup out, since there's no way the game's getting played today.
Unless Dusty is actually crazy enough to keep Roark as his starter instead of Strasburg with full rest.
They really should have moved the game time up further. A noon start would be looking pretty good right about now.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 10, 2017, 03:31:33 PM
They really should have moved the game time up further. A noon start would be looking pretty good right about now.
Chip Caray started a rumor that MLB asked to move it up to 1 PM and TBS said no. That quickly turned out to be wrong, because he is Chip Caray.
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 03:53:49 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 10, 2017, 03:31:33 PM
They really should have moved the game time up further. A noon start would be looking pretty good right about now.
Chip Caray started a rumor that MLB asked to move it up to 1 PM and TBS said no. That quickly turned out to be wrong, because he is Chip Caray.
Let's just get a bunch of buses and take both teams and 42,000 people up to Miller Park this evening.
Quote from: Brownie on October 10, 2017, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 03:53:49 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 10, 2017, 03:31:33 PM
They really should have moved the game time up further. A noon start would be looking pretty good right about now.
Chip Caray started a rumor that MLB asked to move it up to 1 PM and TBS said no. That quickly turned out to be wrong, because he is Chip Caray.
Let's just get a bunch of buses and take both teams and 42,000 people up to Miller Park this evening.
Only if Zambrano pitches.
Quote from: Oleg on October 10, 2017, 04:44:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 10, 2017, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 03:53:49 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 10, 2017, 03:31:33 PM
They really should have moved the game time up further. A noon start would be looking pretty good right about now.
Chip Caray started a rumor that MLB asked to move it up to 1 PM and TBS said no. That quickly turned out to be wrong, because he is Chip Caray.
Let's just get a bunch of buses and take both teams and 42,000 people up to Miller Park this evening.
Fast fact: Batters at Miller Park OPS .495 whenever Jake Arrieta is throwing 60 feet, 6 inches away.
Only if Zambrano pitches.
Postponed until 3:08 tomorrow. Lame.
So MLB and/or TBS fucked this up pretty good and have pretty much handed Dusty an opportunity to start Strasburg on normal rest for free. There was enough time to play two games today if they'd moved the start time up to a reasonable time instead of a single hour. Let's hope the Cubs make it not matter.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 10, 2017, 05:21:53 PM
So MLB and/or TBS fucked this up pretty good and have pretty much handed Dusty an opportunity to start Strasburg on normal rest for free. There was enough time to play two games today if they'd moved the start time up to a reasonable time instead of a single hour. Let's hope the Cubs make it not matter.
Dusty made it not matter.
QuoteDan Kolko @masnKolko
Dusty says Strasburg is a little under the weather, like much of his roster. Dusty says he has "full confidence in Tanner."
In Dusty we Trusty.
Good. Eliminate them tomorrow.
Quote from: Brownie on October 10, 2017, 05:45:55 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 10, 2017, 05:21:53 PM
So MLB and/or TBS fucked this up pretty good and have pretty much handed Dusty an opportunity to start Strasburg on normal rest for free. There was enough time to play two games today if they'd moved the start time up to a reasonable time instead of a single hour. Let's hope the Cubs make it not matter.
Dusty made it not matter.
Is there any conceivable reason, any
good reason why Dusty would make this decision? Nationals fans have to be losing their shit over this.
Quote from: Tonker on September 25, 2017, 05:17:53 AM
It's done. If the Cubs miss the postseason I will literally chop off, cook and eat my own penis.
Lets talk about it here. The postseason, I mean, not my penis. If you want to talk about my penis, PM me.
No, you started it. Is there any more to be known other than that your foreskin is not yet one of G-d's footstools?
I honestly don't think this is Dusty's call. I think Stras doesn't want to do it for whatever reason and the Nats are cooking up excuses to protect him from a Matt Harvey-esque shitstorm from fans and media. Hence the conflicting explanations for why he's unavailable
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 08:38:18 PM
I honestly don't think this is Dusty's call. I think Stras doesn't want to do it for whatever reason and the Nats are cooking up excuses to protect him from a Matt Harvey-esque shitstorm from fans and media. Hence the conflicting explanations for why he's unavailable
If that's the case I hope someone smashes Stephen's boombox.
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 10, 2017, 09:08:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 10, 2017, 08:38:18 PM
I honestly don't think this is Dusty's call. I think Stras doesn't want to do it for whatever reason and the Nats are cooking up excuses to protect him from a Matt Harvey-esque shitstorm from fans and media. Hence the conflicting explanations for why he's unavailable
If that's the case I hope someone smashes Stephen's boombox.
But how does he get fired up for the game without dropping some Chainsmokers, bro?!
The Nats go in the ground tonight.
Strasburg is going to start. I just can't imagine the rest of the team's OK with that, and Strasburg isn't having second thoughts. I'm sure some Cub-hating Cardinals fans have a ready supply of Sudafed they can truck up to Chicago to make him feel better. Even if it's Dusty Baker we're talking about, does anyone believe that if Strasburg walked into the manager's office at 11 a.m. and said, "I feel good, give me the ball," Baker would pass him up for Tanner Roark?
Here's another thought: Is Lester available out of the pen today?
Sounds like Strasburg is still pitching today. Was this some wannabe Patriots gamesmanship nonsense?
Quote from: SKO on October 11, 2017, 10:51:06 AM
Sounds like Strasburg is still pitching today. Was this some wannabe Patriots gamesmanship nonsense?
All I know is I want the Cubs to crush them today.
Quote from: Brownie on October 11, 2017, 10:30:36 AM
Here's another thought: Is Lester available out of the pen today?
I'm sure he is, but Joe's got a mulligan in his pocket. If they need a multiple inning guy, he's got Lackey if the wind is blowing in and Montgomery if it's blowing out.
Quote from: SKO on October 11, 2017, 10:51:06 AM
Sounds like Strasburg is still pitching today. Was this some wannabe Patriots gamesmanship nonsense?
I think you're giving Washington too much credit and that they're a crumbling shit-show of a club that doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground in this situation and the Cubs just need to snap their neck the first chance they get. Go, Jake, Go.
Strasburg is a fighter, has powered through his illness, and is now officially starting. With that, Joe updated the lineup, swapping Heyward in for Schwarber, moving Zobrist to LF. Not sure I like that because I was looking forward to Kyle sending one to the moon today to make up for his outfield hijinks in Game 4.
CF Jay
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
C Contreras
LF Zobrist
RF Heyward
SS Russell
2B Baez
P Arrieta
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 11, 2017, 12:08:25 PM
I was looking forward to Kyle sending one to the moon today
Jake's got him covered on that.
Ryan Zimmerman gets one free swing per AB, check the rules losers
Game 2 lineup against Gio (who I'm assuming will start tonight) had Happ in LF, Almora in CF, and Zobrist in RF. I'm wondering if Jay will get the start in LF in place of Happ and hit leadoff.
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2017, 11:10:19 AM
Game 2 lineup against Gio (who I'm assuming will start tonight) had Happ in LF, Almora in CF, and Zobrist in RF. I'm wondering if Jay will get the start in LF in place of Happ and hit leadoff.
It is indeed Gio, but there's still plenty of time. I assume they change it at least three more times before first pitch.
Still plenty of time left.
TBS re: Scherzer
(https://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Boards/156/25156/229531.jpg)
GUHHH. There may not be anyone besides Leonys Martin left to pitch Game 1 of the NLCS if they make it there, but it’s a problem I’d love for them to have.
I am too old for this.
This is an insane game. Even if they manage to hold on, how can they possibly have anything left for LA?
Holy shit. Start producing the 30 For 30 on that game right now.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 12, 2017, 11:46:56 PM
Holy shit. Start producing the 30 For 30 on that game right now.
"What if I told you 35 people in Cook County committed suicide in one night?"
That was nuts
FDF = Fuck Dusty Forever
Same roster in the NLCS? Or do we need more Rob Zastryzny?
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 13, 2017, 12:02:27 AM
FDF = Fuck Dusty Forever
For posterity. (http://bakerbasher.blogspot.com/)
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 13, 2017, 12:08:32 AM
Same roster in the NLCS? Or do we need more Rob Zastryzny?
I think Rondon gets added. Beside that, who the hell knows.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 13, 2017, 02:08:51 AM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 13, 2017, 12:08:32 AM
Same roster in the NLCS? Or do we need more Rob Zastryzny?
I think Rondon gets added. Beside that, who the hell knows.
If they need room on the roster I nominate Carl's Junior
Quote from: CBStew on October 13, 2017, 03:58:33 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 13, 2017, 02:08:51 AM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 13, 2017, 12:08:32 AM
Same roster in the NLCS? Or do we need more Rob Zastryzny?
I think Rondon gets added. Beside that, who the hell knows.
If they need room on the roster I nominate Carl's Junior
Is it time for Dillon Maples, Postseason Hero yet?
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 13, 2017, 04:04:02 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 13, 2017, 03:58:33 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 13, 2017, 02:08:51 AM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 13, 2017, 12:08:32 AM
Same roster in the NLCS? Or do we need more Rob Zastryzny?
I think Rondon gets added. Beside that, who the hell knows.
If they need room on the roster I nominate Carl's Junior
Is it time for Dillon Maples, Postseason Hero yet?
He wasn't on the 40 before 9/1, was he?
Corey Seager left off the Dodgers roster due to injury. Wow.
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 14, 2017, 12:52:05 PM
Corey Seager left off the Dodgers roster due to injury. Wow.
And Rondon replaces Justin Wilson on the Cubs' roster.
Joe mixing things up again. I don't hate this:
RF Jay
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
C Contreras
CF Almora
SS Russell
LF Schwarber
2B Baez
P Quintana
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 14, 2017, 03:37:12 PM
Joe mixing things up again. I don't hate this:
RF Jay
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
C Contreras
CF Almora
SS Russell
LF Schwarber
2B Baez
P Quintana
I'm not sure how good the Federalists arm is, but defensively it's not bad.
Quote from: Brownie on October 14, 2017, 03:48:44 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 14, 2017, 03:37:12 PM
Joe mixing things up again. I don't hate this:
RF Jay
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
C Contreras
CF Almora
SS Russell
LF Schwarber
2B Baez
P Quintana
I'm not sure how good the Federalists arm is, but defensively it's not bad.
Madison? No. Hamilton? No. Oh, Jay. Is that really what they call him? Kind of obscure for non-U.S. history majors, isn't it?
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 14, 2017, 03:37:12 PM
Joe mixing things up again. I don't hate this:
RF Jay
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
C Contreras
CF Almora
SS Russell
LF Schwarber
2B Baez
P Quintana
I like that Heyward isn't there to pop up with the bases loaded.
Quote from: CBStew on October 14, 2017, 03:56:07 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 14, 2017, 03:48:44 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on October 14, 2017, 03:37:12 PM
Joe mixing things up again. I don't hate this:
RF Jay
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
C Contreras
CF Almora
SS Russell
LF Schwarber
2B Baez
P Quintana
I'm not sure how good the Federalists arm is, but defensively it's not bad.
Madison? No. Hamilton? No. Oh, Jay. Is that really what they call him? Kind of obscure for non-U.S. history majors, isn't it?
Yes, but we don't care what the rest of you non-history majors think.
So they're down 0-1. So what. Who cares.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on October 14, 2017, 10:52:58 PM
So they're down 0-1. So what. Who cares.
That ain't shit. Reminds me of that scene in The Blues Brothers:
Nun: The archbishop wants to sell this building to the Board of Education.
Elwood: What will happen to you?
Nun: I'll be sent to the missions--Africa, Latin America...Korea.
Jake: Five grand? No problem. We'll have it for you in the morning. Let's go.
All things considered a division championship and an NLCS appearance is a perfectly acceptable title defense
Quote from: SKO on October 17, 2017, 11:00:13 PM
All things considered a division championship and an NLCS appearance is a perfectly acceptable title defense
Word.
Quote from: SKO on October 17, 2017, 11:00:13 PM
All things considered a division championship and an NLCS appearance is a perfectly acceptable title defense
It is, but that doesn't preclude me from wishing that they'd, just once in this entire offseason, played up to their abilities, collectively. Speaking as a fan, this last two weeks has been a real fucking slog, man.
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2017, 04:36:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 17, 2017, 11:00:13 PM
All things considered a division championship and an NLCS appearance is a perfectly acceptable title defense
It is, but that doesn't preclude me from wishing that they'd, just once in this entire offseason, played up to their abilities, collectively. Speaking as a fan, this last two weeks has been a real fucking slog, man.
It's been brutal, I'm actually relieved they do not appear interested in winning a few of these awful root canals of games and prolonging the misery. Even the series they won sucked. Ranking it TJ Brown-style the 2017 NLDS was the 6th most enjoyable Cubs postseason series win after the 2016 World Series, 2015 NLDS, 2016 NLCS, 2003 NLDS, and 2016 NLDS. This NLCS loss, barring a miraculous comeback, is easily the least painful postseason series loss of my life (2008 NLDS, 2003 NLCS, 2015 NLCS, 2007 NLDS, 1998 NLDS, 2017 NLCS), however.
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2017, 06:58:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2017, 04:36:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 17, 2017, 11:00:13 PM
All things considered a division championship and an NLCS appearance is a perfectly acceptable title defense
It is, but that doesn't preclude me from wishing that they'd, just once in this entire offseason, played up to their abilities, collectively. Speaking as a fan, this last two weeks has been a real fucking slog, man.
It's been brutal, I'm actually relieved they do not appear interested in winning a few of these awful root canals of games and prolonging the misery. Even the series they won sucked. Ranking it TJ Brown-style the 2017 NLDS was the 6th most enjoyable Cubs postseason series win after the 2016 World Series, 2015 NLDS, 2016 NLCS, 2003 NLDS, and 2016 NLDS. This NLCS loss, barring a miraculous comeback, is easily the least painful postseason series loss of my life (2008 NLDS, 2003 NLCS, 2015 NLCS, 2007 NLDS, 1998 NLDS, 2017 NLCS), however.
Did you happen to be passing a stone during October 2008? I don't understand how the 2008 NLDS could possibly be ranked above the 2003 NLCS. Or the 2015 NLCS for that matter.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 18, 2017, 07:21:00 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2017, 06:58:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2017, 04:36:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 17, 2017, 11:00:13 PM
All things considered a division championship and an NLCS appearance is a perfectly acceptable title defense
It is, but that doesn't preclude me from wishing that they'd, just once in this entire offseason, played up to their abilities, collectively. Speaking as a fan, this last two weeks has been a real fucking slog, man.
It's been brutal, I'm actually relieved they do not appear interested in winning a few of these awful root canals of games and prolonging the misery. Even the series they won sucked. Ranking it TJ Brown-style the 2017 NLDS was the 6th most enjoyable Cubs postseason series win after the 2016 World Series, 2015 NLDS, 2016 NLCS, 2003 NLDS, and 2016 NLDS. This NLCS loss, barring a miraculous comeback, is easily the least painful postseason series loss of my life (2008 NLDS, 2003 NLCS, 2015 NLCS, 2007 NLDS, 1998 NLDS, 2017 NLCS), however.
Did you happen to be passing a stone during October 2008? I don't understand how the 2008 NLDS could possibly be ranked above the 2003 NLCS. Or the 2015 NLCS for that matter.
2003 was painful, extremely painful, but I was also fairly young, it was the first real title run they'd mounted in my lifetime, I foolishly thought they'd be back soon. 2008 was the best Cubs team I had ever seen in my life, and I was extremely aware the clock was running out on that group, and when they got swept I legitimately thought that I would never see the Cubs win a world series in my lifetime. Something broke in me after that series. I barely cared in 2009 or 2010 and I got to the point that I think I might honestly have given up the Cubs forever if they hadn't hired Theo when they did.
The 2015 NLCS sucked to watch but it was just a bunch of young, extremely talented hitters meeting a challenge they just weren't ready for yet. I knew they'd be back. I was over that one the day Game 4 ended.
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2017, 07:36:14 AM
2003 was painful, extremely painful, but I was also fairly young, it was the first real title run they'd mounted in my lifetime, I foolishly thought they'd be back soon.
Yep. That's may feelings about 1984 and 2003. I remember in 1984 it was, "They'll be back and good for years." In 2003 it was, "Fuck, it's going to be another 19 more years."
Only off by 6.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 08:42:45 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2017, 07:36:14 AM
2003 was painful, extremely painful, but I was also fairly young, it was the first real title run they'd mounted in my lifetime, I foolishly thought they'd be back soon.
Yep. That's may feelings about 1984 and 2003. I remember in 1984 it was, "They'll be back and good for years." In 2003 it was, "Fuck, it's going to be another 19 more years."
Only off by 6.
Being 33% wrong is the rightest Internet Chuck has ever been. Also, that was kind of a stupid thing to think in 2003 considering Prior hadn't really had any non-weird injuries yet and they got DLee in that off-season. Oh yeah, you don't actually like The Cubs.
We'll always have 2016.
Quote from: CBStew on October 18, 2017, 09:42:35 AM
We'll always have 2016.
Since we're comparing notes, Stew how did you feel after the 1910 World Series? Did you feel dejected that they'd lost, aware that their championship window was closing, or were you optimistic for the future?
Quote from: Oleg on October 18, 2017, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 08:42:45 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2017, 07:36:14 AM
2003 was painful, extremely painful, but I was also fairly young, it was the first real title run they'd mounted in my lifetime, I foolishly thought they'd be back soon.
Yep. That's may feelings about 1984 and 2003. I remember in 1984 it was, "They'll be back and good for years." In 2003 it was, "Fuck, it's going to be another 19 more years."
Only off by 6.
Being 33% wrong is the rightest Internet Chuck has ever been. Also, that was kind of a stupid thing to think in 2003 considering Prior hadn't really had any non-weird injuries yet and they got DLee in that off-season. Oh yeah, you don't actually like The Cubs.
It was stupid in 1984 to think that they wouldn't stay good with a 24 year old Sandberg, 26 year old Durham, 27 year old Davis, 26 year old Trout and Smith and 28 year old Sutcliffe.
It was stupid in 1989 to think that they wouldn't stay good with a 25 year old Grace, 23 year old Walton, 26 year old Dunston, 23 year old Maddux and 29 year old Sandberg.
By 2003, there was scar tissue. The future is promised to no one. Things fall apart.
2016 is to be cherished forever.
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2017, 09:45:04 AM
Quote from: CBStew on October 18, 2017, 09:42:35 AM
We'll always have 2016.
Since we're comparing notes, Stew how did you feel after the 1910 World Series? Did you feel dejected that they'd lost, aware that their championship window was closing, or were you optimistic for the future?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFl9o48xsLU
If you look closely you will see me sitting with my grandson in the right field bleachers.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 10:34:16 AM
2016 is to be cherished forever.
2016 isn't enough. I don't want this aggregate of Cubs to live off that magical year like the 1985 Bears or 2005 White Sox. Fuck that.
I want them to have an era, like the Bulls or Blackhawks. Where a core group of players are remembered for being dominant and being the absolute best in franchise history. Where we each have a collection of World Champion hats, books and videos.
I want 2016 to signal the beginning, like the 2010 Blackhawks. I want to someday have memories of great Cubs moments and have to stop for a second to make sure I have which time they won it all right.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 18, 2017, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 10:34:16 AM
2016 is to be cherished forever.
2016 isn't enough. I don't want this aggregate of Cubs to live off that magical year like the 1985 Bears or 2005 White Sox. Fuck that.
I want them to have an era, like the Bulls or Blackhawks. Where a core group of players are remembered for being dominant and being the absolute best in franchise history. Where we each have a collection of World Champion hats, books and videos.
I want 2016 to signal the beginning, like the 2010 Blackhawks. I want to someday have memories of great Cubs moments and have to stop for a second to make sure I have which time they won it all right.
Agreed. I wasn't saying we should be satisfied. Just that it's cherished. I'm good with a Giants level every-other-year thing for the next 10 years.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 18, 2017, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 10:34:16 AM
2016 is to be cherished forever.
2016 isn't enough. I don't want this aggregate of Cubs to live off that magical year like the 1985 Bears or 2005 White Sox. Fuck that.
I want them to have an era, like the Bulls or Blackhawks. Where a core group of players are remembered for being dominant and being the absolute best in franchise history. Where we each have a collection of World Champion hats, books and videos.
I want 2016 to signal the beginning, like the 2010 Blackhawks. I want to someday have memories of great Cubs moments and have to stop for a second to make sure I have which time they won it all right.
I'm with you, but they're going to need to find a way to add 1 - 2 elite starters (two if Hendricks turns out to be just the really, really good one) and 1 - 2 elite relievers (depending on whether Carl's Jr. can get to that level) to have this sort of "era." Good pitching is going to beat good hitting too frequently for the offensive talent the Cubs have to matter in the postseason without a significantly better rotation and bullpen.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 08:42:45 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2017, 07:36:14 AM
2003 was painful, extremely painful, but I was also fairly young, it was the first real title run they'd mounted in my lifetime, I foolishly thought they'd be back soon.
Yep. That's may feelings about 1984 and 2003. I remember in 1984 it was, "They'll be back and good for years." In 2003 it was, "Fuck, it's going to be another 19 more years."
Only off by 6.
Maybe because it was the first one, but 84 hurt more than the other ones for me. 2003, 2007 and 2008 just pissed me off but 84 hurt.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 18, 2017, 06:12:27 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 18, 2017, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 10:34:16 AM
2016 is to be cherished forever.
2016 isn't enough. I don't want this aggregate of Cubs to live off that magical year like the 1985 Bears or 2005 White Sox. Fuck that.
I want them to have an era, like the Bulls or Blackhawks. Where a core group of players are remembered for being dominant and being the absolute best in franchise history. Where we each have a collection of World Champion hats, books and videos.
I want 2016 to signal the beginning, like the 2010 Blackhawks. I want to someday have memories of great Cubs moments and have to stop for a second to make sure I have which time they won it all right.
I'm with you, but they're going to need to find a way to add 1 - 2 elite starters (two if Hendricks turns out to be just the really, really good one) and 1 - 2 elite relievers (depending on whether Carl's Jr. can get to that level) to have this sort of "era." Good pitching is going to beat good hitting too frequently for the offensive talent the Cubs have to matter in the postseason without a significantly better rotation and bullpen.
Hopefully one of the 100 or so pitchers Thed has drafted the past four years can amount to something.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 18, 2017, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 10:34:16 AM
2016 is to be cherished forever.
2016 isn't enough. I don't want this aggregate of Cubs to live off that magical year like the 1985 Bears or 2005 White Sox. Fuck that.
I want them to have an era, like the Bulls or Blackhawks. Where a core group of players are remembered for being dominant and being the absolute best in franchise history. Where we each have a collection of World Champion hats, books and videos.
I want 2016 to signal the beginning, like the 2010 Blackhawks. I want to someday have memories of great Cubs moments and have to stop for a second to make sure I have which time they won it all right.
My only issue with this is how much more random and difficult it is to win a title in baseball than in those sports. The Braves won their division 14 years in a row and went to the playoffs 17 times in 22 years. They made five world series. They won one of them. This sport is random and cruel and I can tell you that if the Cubs have that exact run there's no way in hell I'm walking away calling that a disappointment or comparing them to a legitimate fluke like the 2005 White Sox or a self-defeating would-be dynasty like the Bears.
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 06:39:15 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 18, 2017, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 10:34:16 AM
2016 is to be cherished forever.
2016 isn't enough. I don't want this aggregate of Cubs to live off that magical year like the 1985 Bears or 2005 White Sox. Fuck that.
I want them to have an era, like the Bulls or Blackhawks. Where a core group of players are remembered for being dominant and being the absolute best in franchise history. Where we each have a collection of World Champion hats, books and videos.
I want 2016 to signal the beginning, like the 2010 Blackhawks. I want to someday have memories of great Cubs moments and have to stop for a second to make sure I have which time they won it all right.
My only issue with this is how much more random and difficult it is to win a title in baseball than in those sports. The Braves won their division 14 years in a row and went to the playoffs 17 times in 22 years. They made five world series. They won one of them. This sport is random and cruel and I can tell you that if the Cubs have that exact run there's no way in hell I'm walking away calling that a disappointment or comparing them to a legitimate fluke like the 2005 White Sox or a self-defeating would-be dynasty like the Bears.
There ain't no salary cap in baseball, son.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 19, 2017, 08:13:38 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 06:39:15 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 18, 2017, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 10:34:16 AM
2016 is to be cherished forever.
2016 isn't enough. I don't want this aggregate of Cubs to live off that magical year like the 1985 Bears or 2005 White Sox. Fuck that.
I want them to have an era, like the Bulls or Blackhawks. Where a core group of players are remembered for being dominant and being the absolute best in franchise history. Where we each have a collection of World Champion hats, books and videos.
I want 2016 to signal the beginning, like the 2010 Blackhawks. I want to someday have memories of great Cubs moments and have to stop for a second to make sure I have which time they won it all right.
My only issue with this is how much more random and difficult it is to win a title in baseball than in those sports. The Braves won their division 14 years in a row and went to the playoffs 17 times in 22 years. They made five world series. They won one of them. This sport is random and cruel and I can tell you that if the Cubs have that exact run there's no way in hell I'm walking away calling that a disappointment or comparing them to a legitimate fluke like the 2005 White Sox or a self-defeating would-be dynasty like the Bears.
There ain't no salary cap in baseball, son.
I didn't say it's harder to put together a title-worthy team, the actual physical act of winning a title is harder because playoff games are random as hell. There is a reason literally everyone and their mother has penciled in Cavs-Warriors as the NBA Finals matchup each of the last three years and it has happened every single time.
The Braves only won five pennants in seventeen tries, and they managed to win the world series only once in those five cracks at it. This was in spite of having three hall of fame starting pitchers in the rotation most of the time. As long as the Cubs actually compete for a title basically every year of this window, I won't write them off as a disappointment like the 80s Bears if they never actually manage to make it through three straight series of chaos and win another one. It would be a shame if they didn't, but I wouldn't put it on the players, just the cruel nature of the sport itself.
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 08:24:52 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 19, 2017, 08:13:38 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 06:39:15 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 18, 2017, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 10:34:16 AM
2016 is to be cherished forever.
2016 isn't enough. I don't want this aggregate of Cubs to live off that magical year like the 1985 Bears or 2005 White Sox. Fuck that.
I want them to have an era, like the Bulls or Blackhawks. Where a core group of players are remembered for being dominant and being the absolute best in franchise history. Where we each have a collection of World Champion hats, books and videos.
I want 2016 to signal the beginning, like the 2010 Blackhawks. I want to someday have memories of great Cubs moments and have to stop for a second to make sure I have which time they won it all right.
My only issue with this is how much more random and difficult it is to win a title in baseball than in those sports. The Braves won their division 14 years in a row and went to the playoffs 17 times in 22 years. They made five world series. They won one of them. This sport is random and cruel and I can tell you that if the Cubs have that exact run there's no way in hell I'm walking away calling that a disappointment or comparing them to a legitimate fluke like the 2005 White Sox or a self-defeating would-be dynasty like the Bears.
There ain't no salary cap in baseball, son.
I didn't say it's harder to put together a title-worthy team, the actual physical act of winning a title is harder because playoff games are random as hell. There is a reason literally everyone and their mother has penciled in Cavs-Warriors as the NBA Finals matchup each of the last three years and it has happened every single time.
The Braves only won five pennants in seventeen tries, and they managed to win the world series only once in those five cracks at it. This was in spite of having three hall of fame starting pitchers in the rotation most of the time. As long as the Cubs actually compete for a title basically every year of this window, I won't write them off as a disappointment like the 80s Bears if they never actually manage to make it through three straight series of chaos and win another one. It would be a shame if they didn't, but I wouldn't put it on the players, just the cruel nature of the sport itself.
Using the Braves as the example, they were able to keep three hall of fame starting pitchers for essentially the entirety of their run. In hockey it's a given that the championship (or even contention) window is a very short one because you lose key components due to the salary cap. And playoff baseball is nowhere near as random as playoff hockey.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 19, 2017, 08:33:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 08:24:52 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 19, 2017, 08:13:38 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 06:39:15 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 18, 2017, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2017, 10:34:16 AM
2016 is to be cherished forever.
2016 isn't enough. I don't want this aggregate of Cubs to live off that magical year like the 1985 Bears or 2005 White Sox. Fuck that.
I want them to have an era, like the Bulls or Blackhawks. Where a core group of players are remembered for being dominant and being the absolute best in franchise history. Where we each have a collection of World Champion hats, books and videos.
I want 2016 to signal the beginning, like the 2010 Blackhawks. I want to someday have memories of great Cubs moments and have to stop for a second to make sure I have which time they won it all right.
My only issue with this is how much more random and difficult it is to win a title in baseball than in those sports. The Braves won their division 14 years in a row and went to the playoffs 17 times in 22 years. They made five world series. They won one of them. This sport is random and cruel and I can tell you that if the Cubs have that exact run there's no way in hell I'm walking away calling that a disappointment or comparing them to a legitimate fluke like the 2005 White Sox or a self-defeating would-be dynasty like the Bears.
There ain't no salary cap in baseball, son.
I didn't say it's harder to put together a title-worthy team, the actual physical act of winning a title is harder because playoff games are random as hell. There is a reason literally everyone and their mother has penciled in Cavs-Warriors as the NBA Finals matchup each of the last three years and it has happened every single time.
The Braves only won five pennants in seventeen tries, and they managed to win the world series only once in those five cracks at it. This was in spite of having three hall of fame starting pitchers in the rotation most of the time. As long as the Cubs actually compete for a title basically every year of this window, I won't write them off as a disappointment like the 80s Bears if they never actually manage to make it through three straight series of chaos and win another one. It would be a shame if they didn't, but I wouldn't put it on the players, just the cruel nature of the sport itself.
Using the Braves as the example, they were able to keep three hall of fame starting pitchers for essentially the entirety of their run. In hockey it's a given that the championship (or even contention) window is a very short one because you lose key components due to the salary cap. And playoff baseball is nowhere near as random as playoff hockey.
You're not listening. Yes, in baseball it's easier to keep a title window open longer thanks to the lack of salary cap. The actual postseason itself is far more random. A 162 game schedule shortened to best of 5s and best of 7s inserts a lot more randomness. Baseball hasn't had a repeat champion since 2000. The National League hasn't had a team win back-to-back world series since 1975-1976.
And no, the baseball playoffs are by the far most random: http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2013/09/undeserving-champions-examining-variance-in-the-postseason/
The best the Cubs can do is a put a team in position to win the division every single year while they have this core, and then hope the October lottery shakes out to their advantage at least one more time, but it is a lottery, and I'm not going to be mad at this group if they come away with only one winning ticket.
Since 1969, when MLB first instituted playoffs, hockey has had 17 different Stanley Cup Champions. . Baseball has had 21 different champs, but only
Hockey has had two 4-peats, 8 repeat champs. Baseball has had zero 4-peats, just two 3-peats, and only 5 repeat champs (just 2 since 1980, Hockey has had 6 repeat champs in that timeframe).
Salary caps have helped the NHL to increase parity somewhat but even in the salary cap era it has been routinely easier to win multiple titles as a hockey franchise than a baseball franchise. MLB playoffs are why
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 09:24:07 AM
Since 1969, when MLB first instituted playoffs, hockey has had 17 different Stanley Cup Champions. . Baseball has had 21 different champs, but only
Hockey has had two 4-peats, 8 repeat champs. Baseball has had zero 4-peats, just two 3-peats, and only 5 repeat champs (just 2 since 1980, Hockey has had 6 repeat champs in that timeframe).
Salary caps have helped the NHL to increase parity somewhat but even in the salary cap era it has been routinely easier to win multiple titles as a hockey franchise than a baseball franchise. MLB playoffs are why
The dividing line for hockey is 2004, when the Cap was instituted. The Blackhawks and Penguins have each won 3 Cups since then, because each team has managed to have a combination of elite players and guys performing before hitting their big payday.
So in a place like Toronto, everyone is enjoying a team that is primed to make a run at the Cup while simultaneously knowing it's only a matter of time before the team breaks up.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 19, 2017, 09:47:55 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 09:24:07 AM
Since 1969, when MLB first instituted playoffs, hockey has had 17 different Stanley Cup Champions. . Baseball has had 21 different champs, but only
Hockey has had two 4-peats, 8 repeat champs. Baseball has had zero 4-peats, just two 3-peats, and only 5 repeat champs (just 2 since 1980, Hockey has had 6 repeat champs in that timeframe).
Salary caps have helped the NHL to increase parity somewhat but even in the salary cap era it has been routinely easier to win multiple titles as a hockey franchise than a baseball franchise. MLB playoffs are why
The dividing line for hockey is 2004, when the Cap was instituted. The Blackhawks and Penguins have each won 3 Cups since then, because each team has managed to have a combination of elite players and guys performing before hitting their big payday.
So in a place like Toronto, everyone is enjoying a team that is primed to make a run at the Cup while simultaneously knowing it's only a matter of time before the team breaks up.
Since 2004 there've been 8 unique champions, three teams with at least two Cups, two teams with 3 cups. There have been 17 different teams who have even made a Stanley Cup appearance.
MLB has had 8 unique champions since 2004, three teams with at least 2 WS wins, two teams with 3. 15 different teams who have made a world series appearance. So if you go by number of unique champions it appears that, at best, hockey's cap has managed to make them about as random as MLB, if you go by correlation of regular season success to champhionships, per the Harvard methodology, it's still harder to win an MLB title even as a good regular season MLB team than to win a Stanley Cup final.
You can argue the NHL has narrowed the gap, but there's not one shred of evidence that hockey playoffs are "more random" than MLB playoffs. None.
DPD, but also the lack of salary cap in MLB is somewhat mitigated by baseball players generally peaking/declining earlier and harder than NHL players, thus make FA a bad place to buy wins, and also the fact that there's nothing in hockey quite as unpredictable as pitching variance and injury.
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 10:03:11 AM
DPD, but also the lack of salary cap in MLB is somewhat mitigated by baseball players generally peaking/declining earlier and harder than NHL players, thus make FA a bad place to buy wins, and also the fact that there's nothing in hockey quite as unpredictable as pitching variance and injury.
You're right, nobody ever gets hurt playing hockey.
And there's no such thing as streaky goalies.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 19, 2017, 10:12:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 10:03:11 AM
DPD, but also the lack of salary cap in MLB is somewhat mitigated by baseball players generally peaking/declining earlier and harder than NHL players, thus make FA a bad place to buy wins, and also the fact that there's nothing in hockey quite as unpredictable as pitching variance and injury.
You're right, nobody ever gets hurt playing hockey.
And there's no such thing as streaky goalies.
Didn't say that hockey players don't get hurt, but pitching is such a key part of building any MLB team long term, and no position on earth gets hurt with more regularity than MLB pitchers.
Again, I'm not saying hockey playoffs aren't somewhat random. They are certainly more random than the NBA, I'd even disagree with that Harvard study and say they're less predictable than the NFL. In the NFL you can usually pick superbowl winners come playoff time with a certain degree of success just by asking who has the best combo of QB and pass rush.
But they are not, by any kind of evidence, "more random" than baseball playoffs. At this point the onus is on you to show me how they are. I've given far more evidence that they aren't.
Also, shit, when you factor in a hockey playoff field of 16 vs an MLB field of 8-10, the fact that it has produced the same number of unique champions in that time frame is also evidence it's playoffs aren't more random. If MLB had 16 teams every year there'd really be chaos.
Shit for all of the talk of the President's Cup curse the team that won that has won the Cup more often (25%) than the team that has best overall record in MLB has won the World Series (23%) since the year that started.
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 10:33:15 AM
Also, shit, when you factor in a hockey playoff field of 16 vs an MLB field of 8-10, the fact that it has produced the same number of unique champions in that time frame is also evidence it's playoffs aren't more random. If MLB had 16 teams every year there'd really be chaos.
Shit for all of the talk of the President's Cup curse the team that won that has won the Cup more often (25%) than the team that has best overall record in MLB has won the World Series (23%) since the year that started.
Every playoff game that goes to OT is sudden death. It's like having both teams batting in the bottom of the 9th.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 19, 2017, 10:37:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 10:33:15 AM
Also, shit, when you factor in a hockey playoff field of 16 vs an MLB field of 8-10, the fact that it has produced the same number of unique champions in that time frame is also evidence it's playoffs aren't more random. If MLB had 16 teams every year there'd really be chaos.
Shit for all of the talk of the President's Cup curse the team that won that has won the Cup more often (25%) than the team that has best overall record in MLB has won the World Series (23%) since the year that started.
Every playoff game that goes to OT is sudden death. It's like having both teams batting in the bottom of the 9th.
This argument is dumb and I hate it.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 19, 2017, 10:37:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 10:33:15 AM
Also, shit, when you factor in a hockey playoff field of 16 vs an MLB field of 8-10, the fact that it has produced the same number of unique champions in that time frame is also evidence it's playoffs aren't more random. If MLB had 16 teams every year there'd really be chaos.
Shit for all of the talk of the President's Cup curse the team that won that has won the Cup more often (25%) than the team that has best overall record in MLB has won the World Series (23%) since the year that started.
Every playoff game that goes to OT is sudden death. It's like having both teams batting in the bottom of the 9th.
I mean, that's neat. Playoff hockey is exciting. The better team still tends to win those games more often than the better team wins MLB playoff games. If a playoff field of 16 teams every produces the same number of unique champions, repeat champions etc. as a playoff field of 8 teams every year there's no way to claim the 16 team field is somehow "more random." It's decidedly less.
Quote from: CT III on October 19, 2017, 10:54:36 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 19, 2017, 10:37:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 10:33:15 AM
Also, shit, when you factor in a hockey playoff field of 16 vs an MLB field of 8-10, the fact that it has produced the same number of unique champions in that time frame is also evidence it's playoffs aren't more random. If MLB had 16 teams every year there'd really be chaos.
Shit for all of the talk of the President's Cup curse the team that won that has won the Cup more often (25%) than the team that has best overall record in MLB has won the World Series (23%) since the year that started.
Every playoff game that goes to OT is sudden death. It's like having both teams batting in the bottom of the 9th.
This argument is dumb and I hate it.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 19, 2017, 10:37:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2017, 10:33:15 AM
Also, shit, when you factor in a hockey playoff field of 16 vs an MLB field of 8-10, the fact that it has produced the same number of unique champions in that time frame is also evidence it's playoffs aren't more random. If MLB had 16 teams every year there'd really be chaos.
Shit for all of the talk of the President's Cup curse the team that won that has won the Cup more often (25%) than the team that has best overall record in MLB has won the World Series (23%) since the year that started.
Every playoff game that goes to OT is sudden death. It's like having both teams batting in the bottom of the 9th.
Who is on first?
test
What happened?
Quote from: Andy on October 22, 2017, 05:30:29 PM
test
If you're just joining us, they did not, in fact, win two.