HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Greatest Chicago Championship Team Ever

View Poll Results: Greatest Chicago Championship Team
2010 Hawks 10 19.23%
05 White Sox 4 7.69%
98 Bulls 2 3.85%
97 Bulls 1 1.92%
96 Bulls 18 34.62%
93 Bulls 0 0%
92 Bulls 0 0%
91 Bulls 0 0%
85 Bears 13 25.00%
2017 Cubs 4 7.69%
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-22-2013, 12:36 PM
  #126
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 20,290
vCash: 50
How is winning the amount of 1 run games they did 'luck'?

It's called having a better bullpen than everyone else...thus were better than everyone else.

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 12:43 PM
  #127
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
How is winning the amount of 1 run games they did 'luck'?

It's called having a better bullpen than everyone else...thus were better than everyone else.
Bill James did a study on this that I can't find now where his conclusion was:

"Winning or losing close games is luck. Teams which win more one-run games than they should one year have little tendency to do so the next year."

Lots of people have studied one run games and while they aren't ALL luck (good teams tend to win more 1 run games than bad teams), studies suggest that a lot of it is just luck.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=18151

Illinihockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 12:48 PM
  #128
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 20,290
vCash: 50
We're not talking about the "next year" though. That doesn't mean anything here. Again...we're not discussing hypothetical, we're discussing what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 12:49 PM
  #129
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,098
vCash: 500
Here is the long form of Bill James analysis

http://207.56.97.150/articles/james_onerun.htm

A few excerpts

Are there any identifiable characteristics of teams that win their one-run games, as opposed to those that lose their one-run games?


As long as you don't make a big deal out of it, yes. Teams which do well in one-run games have more or less all of the characteristics you would expect them to have, but only to a small extent.

My method here was to take all teams since 1950, and identify the top 50 and the bottom 50 teams by how they performed in one-run games, relative to expectations. I broke it off at 1950, because I didn't want to get back into the bad-data era. I then figured the average team stats for each group of 50 teams, and compared the two groups.

The 50 teams which did well in one-run games had more stolen bases (96-92 on average), more sacrifice bunts (71-67), more complete games (35-31), more saves (34-30), issued fewer walks (513-531), drew more walks (526-520) and had a better ERA (3.77 to 3.91).

The 50 teams which did poorly in one-run games hit more home runs (127-117), scored more runs (674-658), had a higher slugging percentage (.386-.380), a lower on-base percentage (.325-.323), used more relief pitchers (278-257), threw more wild pitches (47-44) and had more balks (8-7). They were more likely to play in hitter's parks (park factors 100.3 vs. 98.5).

I think that, generally, one would expect all of these things to be true -- one-run teams play one-run ball and have strong pitching. However, the degree to which these things are true is extremely minor. If you tried to project it backwards -- that is, take a team's characteristics and predict whether or not they would do well in one-run games -- you'd get nowhere, because the tendencies just aren't strong enough to work in that way.



Winning One-Run Games a Valid Team Trait, or Just Something That Happens Sometimes?


What we really want to know here is whether winning one-run games is a persistent trait-meaning that the same teams and same managers do it every year-or a transient outcome, meaning that it's probably just luck.

Ruane concluded that "how a team does one year in close games is absolutely no use in predicting how it will do the next," and also cites a study in the 1997 Baseball Research Journal by Bob Boynton, in which Boynton had apparently reached the same conclusion, although I haven't seen that article.

My conclusion is slightly different. My conclusion is that winning a lot of one-run games has a persistence of zero (meaning that it appears to be luck) but that losing a lot of one-run games is not necessarily completely meaningless. It's mostly just bad luck, but it doesn't appear to me that it entirely disappears in the following season.

Here's what I did. First, I established the expected winning percentage in one-run games for every team in my data base, and then applied that to the number of one-run games that each team played. By so doing, I identified all of the teams which were five games better or five games worse than expected in one-run games.
There were 140 teams which exceeded their expected one-run winning percentages by five games or more. These 140 teams, in the aggregate, were +897.7 wins.

In the following seasons, however, these teams were -23.6. In other words, they had, as a group, no tendency whatsoever to be better than average in one-run games, in the following season. The trait has a persistency of zero.


But there were 153 teams in my study which did 5.0 or more games WORSE than expected. In the aggregate, these teams were negative 990.6 wins. In the following seasons, they were also negative 93.9 wins.

In common language, my study suggests that you can't win more than your share of one-run games consistently, but you can lose more than your share, perhaps. It's not a HIGH rate of persistence -- 9% -- and it COULD be just a hiccup in the data. It's a pretty healthy hiccup -- 94 Wins is a pretty fair discrepancy in the data to be written off as luck.

Why did I reach a different conclusion from Ruane and Boynton? Well, first, my method is significantly different.

Ruane identifies the "best" one-run team of all time as the 1974 San Diego Padres, who went 60-102 overall, but an astonishing 31-16 in one-run games (29-86 otherwise), and the second-best one-run team of all time as the 1955 Kansas City A's (63-91 overall, 30-15 in one-run games.)

My study lists the same two teams one and two on the over-achievers list -- but then departs. His list of the five worst one-run teams and my list of the same are completely different, involving none of the same teams, and the rest of his top-five list and mine, after the top two, is also completely different. Using a different method -- I believe a better method -- I just reached a different result.

Second, I focused on extreme teams, the teams at the ends of the list, and ignored the middle of the chart. I'm not interested in how many teams may have gone +2 one year and -3 the next.

Studying the whole list, you could get such a large pile of chaff that you think you don't have any wheat at all. I think it is better to focus on the teams with strong tendencies in one season.

Illinihockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 12:49 PM
  #130
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
We're not talking about the "next year" though. That doesn't mean anything here. Again...we're not discussing hypothetical, we're discussing what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Right, they got hot in the playoffs. That doesn't make them a dominant team like a Bulls team that went 72-10 and steam rolled through the playoffs.

Illinihockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 12:53 PM
  #131
Ace Rothstein
Aces High
 
Ace Rothstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 3,641
vCash: 500
Look at the 2005 Sox bullpen, it was just sick. When you have multiple guys putting up years like that, you are going to win a lot of close games.

Ace Rothstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 12:56 PM
  #132
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 20,290
vCash: 50
We're to the point of the discussion where the jealous Cubs fans try to belittle what the Sox have done because their team can't do it in their wildest dreams, so I am done here.

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 12:57 PM
  #133
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 20,290
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
Right, they got hot in the playoffs. That doesn't make them a dominant team like a Bulls team that went 72-10 and steam rolled through the playoffs.
We were comparing the Sox and Hawks for the 3rd spot...

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:01 PM
  #134
Sarava
Moderator
 
Sarava's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Naperville, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 9,949
vCash: 500
The only team in the AL that was significantly higher than the Sox in run differential in 2005 were the Angels - who the Sox humiliated and set records against in the ALCS. If you think some of the best pitching of the last 25 years was luck, then whatever.

Now if you have a case where a team makes the playoffs or wins 90 games with a negative differential - then sure that probably means something. But when they're still among the best in the stat that you chose to cherry pick for your argument- you're just splitting hairs to discredit the amazing 2005 team.

Sarava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:13 PM
  #135
Ace Rothstein
Aces High
 
Ace Rothstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 3,641
vCash: 500
The Hawks and Sox are easily my two favorite teams in Chicago and I don't really care much about the Bulls. Saying that, here's how I see it if we are talking about dominance.

1. 1985 Bears and 1996 Bulls
3. 2005 Sox
4. 2010 Hawks

Ace Rothstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:23 PM
  #136
Recoil
Registered User
 
Recoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
We're to the point of the discussion where the jealous Cubs fans try to belittle what the Sox have done because their team can't do it in their wildest dreams, so I am done here.
From my experience, that is a common misconception that a lot of White Sox fans have. For me specifically, and I know several others who share my view, the reality is more like this.

Cubs fans aren't jealous of the Sox for 2005. We simply don't care.

Sox fans tend to go out of their way to bash anything bad the Cubs do or Cubs fans. By and large, Cubs fans don't give a damn what the Sox do or what Sox fans say. We are aware there is a team on the south side, but have no idea (aside from a few stars) who is on that team, what their record is, or how they are doing. As I said in my post above, I couldn't rank the 2005 Sox because I didn't see a single game that 2005 season. Not one. And why should I? I don't care about the Sox _AT ALL_.

For the most part, the jealousy that Sox fans seem to think Cubs fans have does not in fact exist. What may be closer to the truth is that even though the Sox won the WS in 2005, they are still the "other" Chicago team, and that doesn't sit very well with them and they tend to lash out because of it.

I realize this doesn't apply to everyone out there, and it is a generality, but from my experiences this tends to be closer to the mark.

Recoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:27 PM
  #137
Ace Rothstein
Aces High
 
Ace Rothstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 3,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recoil View Post
From my experience, that is a common misconception that a lot of White Sox fans have. For me specifically, and I know several others who share my view, the reality is more like this.

Cubs fans aren't jealous of the Sox for 2005. We simply don't care.

Sox fans tend to go out of their way to bash anything bad the Cubs do or Cubs fans. By and large, Cubs fans don't give a damn what the Sox do or what Sox fans say. We are aware there is a team on the south side, but have no idea (aside from a few stars) who is on that team, what their record is, or how they are doing. As I said in my post above, I couldn't rank the 2005 Sox because I didn't see a single game that 2005 season. Not one. And why should I? I don't care about the Sox _AT ALL_.

For the most part, the jealousy that Sox fans seem to think Cubs fans have does not in fact exist. What may be closer to the truth is that even though the Sox won the WS in 2005, they are still the "other" Chicago team, and that doesn't sit very well with them and they tend to lash out because of it.

I realize this doesn't apply to everyone out there, and it is a generality, but from my experiences this tends to be closer to the mark.
From my experience, plenty of Cubs fans care about the Sox. Going to numerous bars throughout the city during the 2005 playoffs showed me that.

Ace Rothstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:32 PM
  #138
ChiGuySez
Showtime
 
ChiGuySez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 6,533
vCash: 500
Cubs fan. No animosity to Sox fans but yup... didnt watch, dont care. Great they brought an MLB championship to Chicago since its not happening with the Cubs and yes, the Sox are the 'other' team.

ChiGuySez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:33 PM
  #139
ChiGuySez
Showtime
 
ChiGuySez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 6,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein View Post
From my experience, plenty of Cubs fans care about the Sox. Going to numerous bars throughout the city during the 2005 playoffs showed me that.
They would sell their sisters if they had a chance.

ChiGuySez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:36 PM
  #140
Gootie
Thug of the Year
 
Gootie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chiraq
Country: United States
Posts: 26,768
vCash: 500
Thread successfully derailed

Gootie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:39 PM
  #141
Kurtosis
COYS
 
Kurtosis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Norwood Park
Country: United States
Posts: 17,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gootie View Post
Thread successfully derailed
Yup. Baseball is a source of much contention on this board.

Kurtosis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:39 PM
  #142
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
I'll watch a Sox game if I have fantasy guys in there or nothing else is on and I watched most of those playoffs like I usually do. I like watching baseball. It was a good team and worthy champion. I wasn't pissed about them winning, like others have said, just didn't care. I'm happy for you guys though. The only thing that kind of sucked but what do you expect being a Cubs fan, was the fact that the Red Sox and St. Louis also won right with that Sox win. Of course we are the last ones left but it will happen and we all know it will be bigger than anything that has ever or will ever happen in sports. I can wait for that.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:43 PM
  #143
ChiGuySez
Showtime
 
ChiGuySez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 6,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
I'll watch a Sox game if I have fantasy guys in there or nothing else is on and I watched most of those playoffs like I usually do. I like watching baseball. It was a good team and worthy champion. I wasn't pissed about them winning, like others have said, just didn't care. I'm happy for you guys though. The only thing that kind of sucked but what do you expect being a Cubs fan, was the fact that the Red Sox and St. Louis also won right with that Sox win. Of course we are the last ones left but it will happen and we all know it will be bigger than anything that has ever or will ever happen in sports. I can wait for that.
That might be a while... next century?

ChiGuySez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:47 PM
  #144
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGuySez View Post
That might be a while... next century?
Hope not, I won't make it that long.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:48 PM
  #145
ChiGuySez
Showtime
 
ChiGuySez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 6,533
vCash: 500
None of us will. I do like Theo. Theres some hope.

ChiGuySez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 03:08 PM
  #146
Sleight Of Hand
No More Coldplay
 
Sleight Of Hand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Rearviewmirror
Country: United States
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
Who are these White Sox you speak of?

Singed,

Cubs fan

Sleight Of Hand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:31 PM
  #147
ChiTownHawks
HFBoards Sponsor
 
ChiTownHawks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Orland Park, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,288
vCash: 500
It is exhausting conversations like these that make me happy I don't follow baseball anymore. That and the fact that the games and the season are painfully long.

ChiTownHawks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:37 PM
  #148
xX Hot Fuss
Registered User
 
xX Hot Fuss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,561
vCash: 500
Back on topic!

xX Hot Fuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 08:24 PM
  #149
Recoil
Registered User
 
Recoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
Ditka

Recoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.