30 Days Left

[Quality Start Machine]

Winning 5 out of the last 6 is not out of the question.

[Saul Goodman]

Tonight, a chance tell tell Hitler to fuck off.

1. 1906 --  116
2. 1907  --107
3. 1909 -- 104
3. 1910 -- 104
5. 2016 -- 100
5. 1935 -- 100
7. 1908 -- 99
8. 1945 -- 98
8. 1929 -- 98
10. 2015 -- 97
10. 2008 -- 97
12. 1984 -- 96
13. 1989 -- 93
13. 1904 --93
13. 1937 -- 93
16. 1911 -- 92
16. 1905 -- 92
16. 1969 -- 92
19. 1912 -91
19. 1928 -- 91
21. 1998 -- 90
21. 1930 -- 90
21. 1932 --90
21. 1886 -- 90
25. 1938 -- 89
25. 2004 -- 89
27. 2003 -- 88
27. 2001 -- 88
27. 1913 --88
30. 1936 -- 87
30. 1885 -- 87
30. 1967 -- 87
33. 1933 -- 86
33. 1934 -- 86
35. 2007 -- 85
35. 1898 -- 85
35. 1927 -- 85
35. 1972 -- 85
39. 1970 -- 84
39. 1968 -- 84
39. 1939 -- 84
39. 1931 -- 84
39. 1918 -- 84
39. 1993 -- 84
45. 2009 -- 83
45. 1971 -- 83
45. 1923 -- 83
45. 1890 -- 83
49. 1926 -- 82
49. 1891 -- 82
49. 1903 -- 82
49. 1946 -- 82
49. 1963 -- 82

Top Five since World War II! (Total meaningful wins in parenthesis)

1. 2016 -- 100 (100)
2. 2015 -- 97 (101)
2. 2008 -- 97 (97)
4. 1984 -- 96 (98)
5. 1989 -- 93 (94)
6. 1969 -- 92  (92)
7. 2004 -- 89  (89)
8. 2003 -- 88   (94)
8. 2001 -- 88    (88)
10. 1967 -- 87    (87)
11. 2007 -- 85    (85)
11. 1972 -- 85     (85)
13. 1970 -- 84    (84)
13. 1968 -- 84    (84)
13. 1993 -- 84     (84)
16. 2009 -- 83    (83)
17. 1946 -- 82    (82)
17. 1963 -- 82    (82)

The whole tell tell?

[Brownie]

This is the best Cubs team since William Howard Taft was in the White House and his brother was Charles Murphy's partner in owning the Cubs. This is the best club in our lifetimes. Even Stew's.

1. 1906 --  116 (118)
2. 1907  --107 (111)
3. 1909 -- 104 (104)
3. 1910 -- 104 (105)
5. 2016 -- 101 (101)
6. 1935 -- 100 (102)
7. 1908 -- 99 (103)
8. 1945 -- 98 (101)
8. 1929 -- 98 (99)
10. 2015 -- 97 (101)
10. 2008 -- 97 (97)
12. 1984 -- 96 (98)
13. 1989 -- 93 (94)
13. 1904 --93 (93)
13. 1937 -- 93 (93)
16. 1911 -- 92 (92)
16. 1905 -- 92 (92)
16. 1969 -- 92 (92)
19. 1912 -91 (91)
19. 1928 -- 91 (91)
21. 1998 -- 90 (90)
21. 1930 -- 90 (90)
21. 1932 --90 (90)
21. 1886 -- 90 (90)
25. 1938 -- 89 (89)
25. 2004 -- 89 (89)
27. 2003 -- 88 (94)
27. 2001 -- 88 (88)
27. 1913 --88 (88)
30. 1936 -- 87 (87)
30. 1885 -- 87 (87)
30. 1967 -- 87 (87)
33. 1933 -- 86 (86)
33. 1934 -- 86 (86)
35. 2007 -- 85 (85)
35. 1898 -- 85 (85)
35. 1927 -- 85 (85)
35. 1972 -- 85 (85)
39. 1970 -- 84 (84)
39. 1968 -- 84 (84)
39. 1939 -- 84 (84)
39. 1931 -- 84 (84)
39. 1918 -- 84 (86)
39. 1993 -- 84 (84)
45. 2009 -- 83 (83)
45. 1971 -- 83 (83)
45. 1923 -- 83 (83)
45. 1890 -- 83 (83)
49. 1926 -- 82 (82)
49. 1891 -- 82 (82)
49. 1903 -- 82 (82)
49. 1946 -- 82 (82)
49. 1963 -- 82 (82)

The best team since World War II! (Total meaningful wins in parenthesis)

1. 2016 -- 101 (101)
2. 2015 -- 97 (101)
2. 2008 -- 97 (97)
4. 1984 -- 96 (98)
5. 1989 -- 93 (94)
6. 1969 -- 92  (92)
7. 2004 -- 89  (89)
8. 2003 -- 88   (94)
8. 2001 -- 88    (88)
10. 1967 -- 87    (87)
11. 2007 -- 85    (85)
11. 1972 -- 85     (85)
13. 1970 -- 84    (84)
13. 1968 -- 84    (84)
13. 1993 -- 84     (84)
16. 2009 -- 83    (83)
17. 1946 -- 82    (82)
17. 1963 -- 82    (82)

[WTB...A RING FFS!!]

So I was curious on this and had to check on Wikipedia, this 101 win team's tied for 63rd all time for wins in a season. One more win puts them up to 47th, 2 more at 34th. If they win 3 of 5 to finish it out and tie the '09-10 teams they'd be 25th best in baseball history. 63rd is impressive considering 140+ yrs or baseball with all the teams that've played over the yrs, but 25th would be quite an accomplishment. 104 seems to be a pretty good # as 16/33 teams winning that many won it all with 12 more winning the pennant. 28/33 winning the pennant or better seems like pretty decent odds in my book.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

So I was curious on this and had to check on Wikipedia, this 101 win team's tied for 63rd all time for wins in a season. One more win puts them up to 47th, 2 more at 34th. If they win 3 of 5 to finish it out and tie the '09-10 teams they'd be 25th best in baseball history. 63rd is impressive considering 140+ yrs or baseball with all the teams that've played over the yrs, but 25th would be quite an accomplishment. 104 seems to be a pretty good # as 16/33 teams winning that many won it all with 12 more winning the pennant. 28/33 winning the pennant or better seems like pretty decent odds in my book.

You do realize that for the first 66 years of the World Series, there was no postseason antecedent, right?  In other words, if you won 100 games, your odds of going to the World Series were pretty damn good since that usually means you already won your league.  Indeed, between 1903 and 1968, there were only 6 teams to have won 100 games that did not earn a trip to the World Series in the process, compared with 41 teams that did.

Since the LCS was introduced, there have been 47 100-win teams, only 22 of whom--or less than half--went on to win a pennant.  Those odds don't look so great now, do they?

People need to stop looking at regular season win totals as some sort of predictor of postseason success.  Repeat after me, "the playoffs are a crapshoot".

[Canadouche]

It's a total crapshoot, and the Cubs have shown us that like literally every other team in baseball, they can get shut down for several games running, regardless of who they are facing. Nothing is a lock, which is why I think so many people are mentally preparing themselves for disappointment, even as they fully expect the Cubs to win.

[SKO]

So I was curious on this and had to check on Wikipedia, this 101 win team's tied for 63rd all time for wins in a season. One more win puts them up to 47th, 2 more at 34th. If they win 3 of 5 to finish it out and tie the '09-10 teams they'd be 25th best in baseball history. 63rd is impressive considering 140+ yrs or baseball with all the teams that've played over the yrs, but 25th would be quite an accomplishment. 104 seems to be a pretty good # as 16/33 teams winning that many won it all with 12 more winning the pennant. 28/33 winning the pennant or better seems like pretty decent odds in my book.

You do realize that for the first 66 years of the World Series, there was no postseason antecedent, right?  In other words, if you won 100 games, your odds of going to the World Series were pretty damn good since that usually means you already won your league.  Indeed, between 1903 and 1968, there were only 6 teams to have won 100 games that did not earn a trip to the World Series in the process, compared with 41 teams that did.

Since the LCS was introduced, there have been 47 100-win teams, only 22 of whom--or less than half--went on to win a pennant.  Those odds don't look so great now, do they?

People need to stop looking at regular season win totals as some sort of predictor of postseason success.  Repeat after me, "the playoffs are a crapshoot".

They are a crapshoot, they are not necessarily a total crapshoot. There is a correlation between "true talent level" and success in the postseason. Per 538 a team with true, 100 win talent (so not the 2015 Cardinals, they won 100 games but underlying stats indicated they were more like a 91 win team, the Cubs this year however are a legit 100 win talent team) has a better shot.

A team with 80-win talent has only about a 5 percent chance of winning the World Series, conditional on making the divisional playoffs; a team with 90-win talent has a 12 percent chance. A team with 100-win talent has a 24 percent chance.

Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-your-team-blow-it-at-the-trade-deadline/ (from last year, but it could really be re-packaged for this year and titled "Why Theo Was Right To Trade for Chapman")

But again even with all that said that's still a 76% chance they don't win, so yeah, it's mostly a crapshoot. Just saying "regular season success is not a predictor" is not necessarily true.

[Oleg]

Fuck you all for soiling the fine thread that TJ was nice enough to bestow upon us.  Fuck. You. All.

[Quality Start Machine]

Fuck you all for soiling the fine thread that TJ was nice enough to bestow upon us.  Fuck. You. All.

Why are you being so short with us?

[Canadouche]

Fuck you all for soiling the fine thread that TJ was nice enough to bestow upon us.  Fuck. You. All.

Why are you being so short with us?

He's just a little annoyed.

[SKO]

FWIW, I went through and looked at all of the 100 win teams since 2002 and the main reason they didn't win the world series appears to be that most of them were lucky and were also not the most talented team in the league that year. Of all 100 win teams since 2002, only the 2004 Cardinals and 2011 Phillies were 100 win teams according to their Pythagorean records.

I found 9 total 100 Pythagorean Win teams going back to 2002. Of those 9, 5 won the pennant (2002 Angels, 2004 Cardinals, 2007 Red Sox, 2013 Red Sox, 2013 Cardinals) and 3 won the World Series (2002 Angels, 2007 Red Sox, 2013 Red Sox).

So small sample size but it would appear that if you enter the playoffs as a 100 win team according to Pythagorean W-L you have a far better shot at winning it all or at least getting to the world series than as a 100 win team according to the standings. This year's Cubs team is the most talented team by pythag W-L that I could find since the 2001 Mariners. Their next closest would be the 1998 trio of the Yankees (108 pythag wins), Braves (106 wins), and Astros (106).

Jesus fucking Christ this team is good. Also, Theo Epstein has now built three true talent 100 win teams. Holy fuck.

[Canadouche]

FWIW, I went through and looked at all of the 100 win teams since 2002 and the main reason they didn't win the world series appears to be that most of them were lucky and were also not the most talented team in the league that year. Of all 100 win teams since 2002, only the 2004 Cardinals and 2011 Phillies were 100 win teams according to their Pythagorean records.

I found 9 total 100 Pythagorean Win teams going back to 2002. Of those 9, 5 won the pennant (2002 Angels, 2004 Cardinals, 2007 Red Sox, 2013 Red Sox, 2013 Cardinals) and 3 won the World Series (2002 Angels, 2007 Red Sox, 2013 Red Sox).

So small sample size but it would appear that if you enter the playoffs as a 100 win team according to Pythagorean W-L you have a far better shot at winning it all or at least getting to the world series than as a 100 win team according to the standings. This year's Cubs team is the most talented team by pythag W-L that I could find since the 2001 Mariners. Their next closest would be the 1998 trio of the Yankees (108 pythag wins), Braves (106 wins), and Astros (106).

Jesus fucking Christ this team is good. Also, Theo Epstein has now built three true talent 100 win teams. Holy fuck.

Did we discuss the article about "super teams" -- teams that are approximately 10 wins ahead of the second best team in baseball -- and their significantly higher rate of post season success? I think the only "super team" in recent memory to fail in October were the Mariners, who achieved their 114 wins despite having average-at-best pitching. They got it handed to them by the superior pitching of the Yankees that year.

Are there any teams with better pitching than the Cubs? With better defense? How many teams beat them offensively -- the Red Sox? Anyone else?

[SKO]

FWIW, I went through and looked at all of the 100 win teams since 2002 and the main reason they didn't win the world series appears to be that most of them were lucky and were also not the most talented team in the league that year. Of all 100 win teams since 2002, only the 2004 Cardinals and 2011 Phillies were 100 win teams according to their Pythagorean records.

I found 9 total 100 Pythagorean Win teams going back to 2002. Of those 9, 5 won the pennant (2002 Angels, 2004 Cardinals, 2007 Red Sox, 2013 Red Sox, 2013 Cardinals) and 3 won the World Series (2002 Angels, 2007 Red Sox, 2013 Red Sox).

So small sample size but it would appear that if you enter the playoffs as a 100 win team according to Pythagorean W-L you have a far better shot at winning it all or at least getting to the world series than as a 100 win team according to the standings. This year's Cubs team is the most talented team by pythag W-L that I could find since the 2001 Mariners. Their next closest would be the 1998 trio of the Yankees (108 pythag wins), Braves (106 wins), and Astros (106).

Jesus fucking Christ this team is good. Also, Theo Epstein has now built three true talent 100 win teams. Holy fuck.

Did we discuss the article about "super teams" -- teams that are approximately 10 wins ahead of the second best team in baseball -- and their significantly higher rate of post season success? I think the only "super team" in recent memory to fail in October were the Mariners, who achieved their 114 wins despite having average-at-best pitching. They got it handed to them by the superior pitching of the Yankees that year.

Are there any teams with better pitching than the Cubs? With better defense? How many teams beat them offensively -- the Red Sox? Anyone else?

Hell if I know. I did enough research. My point is that the I'm gonna kick the next person that tells me winning 100 games is a bad thing because the 2008 Angels were frauds.

[Canadouche]

FWIW, I went through and looked at all of the 100 win teams since 2002 and the main reason they didn't win the world series appears to be that most of them were lucky and were also not the most talented team in the league that year. Of all 100 win teams since 2002, only the 2004 Cardinals and 2011 Phillies were 100 win teams according to their Pythagorean records.

I found 9 total 100 Pythagorean Win teams going back to 2002. Of those 9, 5 won the pennant (2002 Angels, 2004 Cardinals, 2007 Red Sox, 2013 Red Sox, 2013 Cardinals) and 3 won the World Series (2002 Angels, 2007 Red Sox, 2013 Red Sox).

So small sample size but it would appear that if you enter the playoffs as a 100 win team according to Pythagorean W-L you have a far better shot at winning it all or at least getting to the world series than as a 100 win team according to the standings. This year's Cubs team is the most talented team by pythag W-L that I could find since the 2001 Mariners. Their next closest would be the 1998 trio of the Yankees (108 pythag wins), Braves (106 wins), and Astros (106).

Jesus fucking Christ this team is good. Also, Theo Epstein has now built three true talent 100 win teams. Holy fuck.

Did we discuss the article about "super teams" -- teams that are approximately 10 wins ahead of the second best team in baseball -- and their significantly higher rate of post season success? I think the only "super team" in recent memory to fail in October were the Mariners, who achieved their 114 wins despite having average-at-best pitching. They got it handed to them by the superior pitching of the Yankees that year.

Are there any teams with better pitching than the Cubs? With better defense? How many teams beat them offensively -- the Red Sox? Anyone else?

Hell if I know. I did enough research. My point is that the I'm gonna kick the next person that tells me winning 100 games is a bad thing because the 2008 Angels were frauds.

Here's the SI article about the Cubs being a potential "super team."

[SKO]

FWIW, I went through and looked at all of the 100 win teams since 2002 and the main reason they didn't win the world series appears to be that most of them were lucky and were also not the most talented team in the league that year. Of all 100 win teams since 2002, only the 2004 Cardinals and 2011 Phillies were 100 win teams according to their Pythagorean records.

I found 9 total 100 Pythagorean Win teams going back to 2002. Of those 9, 5 won the pennant (2002 Angels, 2004 Cardinals, 2007 Red Sox, 2013 Red Sox, 2013 Cardinals) and 3 won the World Series (2002 Angels, 2007 Red Sox, 2013 Red Sox).

So small sample size but it would appear that if you enter the playoffs as a 100 win team according to Pythagorean W-L you have a far better shot at winning it all or at least getting to the world series than as a 100 win team according to the standings. This year's Cubs team is the most talented team by pythag W-L that I could find since the 2001 Mariners. Their next closest would be the 1998 trio of the Yankees (108 pythag wins), Braves (106 wins), and Astros (106).

Jesus fucking Christ this team is good. Also, Theo Epstein has now built three true talent 100 win teams. Holy fuck.

Did we discuss the article about "super teams" -- teams that are approximately 10 wins ahead of the second best team in baseball -- and their significantly higher rate of post season success? I think the only "super team" in recent memory to fail in October were the Mariners, who achieved their 114 wins despite having average-at-best pitching. They got it handed to them by the superior pitching of the Yankees that year.

Are there any teams with better pitching than the Cubs? With better defense? How many teams beat them offensively -- the Red Sox? Anyone else?

Hell if I know. I did enough research. My point is that the I'm gonna kick the next person that tells me winning 100 games is a bad thing because the 2008 Angels were frauds.

Here's the SI article about the Cubs being a potential "super team."

Well alright then.