9/1 Astros (Oswalt) vs Cubs (Obscene nickname) 3:05 WGN

[David]

Oh, and Reed Johnson isn't really overachieving all that much getting the vast majority of his PAs vs. LHP.

[17 Seconds]

Lulz to the statement about the "overachieving offense" towards a team actually below its pythag.

 

What does an overachieving fofense have to do with their pyth record? Not sure what you're talking about

 

Ryan Theriot

Derosa

Edmonds

Johnson

Fontenot

 

All key contributers who are playing wayyyy above expectations. If those guys return to where we expected them to be, how much better is this offense than last year? Better,m but not significantly better.

 

How about if Lee and Fukudome perform where we expected them to be? And you're overlooking a huge upgrade to the offense at catcher. It went from being a complete black hole last year to being one of the top 2 or 3 in baseball, and it wasn't totally unexpected.

 

Lee and FUkudome? You really think it's realistic that they "snap out of it"? I don't. I think it's pretty clear by now that Fukudome is not good and Lee is declining in a big way. That's a poor example. I think it's much more likely that guys like Theriot, Derosa, and Edmonds to fall back to where they should be. Will it happen? I don't know, but it should be a concern.

 

And I know Soto is an upograde, that's why I said the offense would still be better than 2007, just not signifcantly better.

 

I mean, think about it. The 2007 offense was very mediocre. So what has changed since then? Soto is the one definite upgrade. Fukudome is a downgrade in RF (offesnively), Derrek Lee is performing way under his 2007 numbers, and then center field is the last position that is different. My point is that 3 of the 4 biggest upgrades (2008 Theriot over 2007 Theriot, 2008 DeRosa over 2007 DeRosa, and the CF platoon over the 2007 CF situation) could revert back to 2007 ways in an instant. ALl I'm saying is that it concerns me that on paper, this offense is very close to the 2007 offense in terms of players.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Lulz to the statement about the "overachieving offense" towards a team actually below its pythag.

 

What does an overachieving fofense have to do with their pyth record? Not sure what you're talking about

 

Ryan Theriot

Derosa

Edmonds

Johnson

Fontenot

 

All key contributers who are playing wayyyy above expectations. If those guys return to where we expected them to be, how much better is this offense than last year? Better,m but not significantly better.

 

How about if Lee and Fukudome perform where we expected them to be? And you're overlooking a huge upgrade to the offense at catcher. It went from being a complete black hole last year to being one of the top 2 or 3 in baseball, and it wasn't totally unexpected.

 

Lee and FUkudome? You really think it's realistic that they "snap out of it"? I don't. I think it's pretty clear by now that Fukudome is not good and Lee is declining in a big way. That's a poor example. I think it's much more likely that guys like Theriot, Derosa, and Edmonds to fall back to where they should be. Will it happen? I don't know, but it should be a concern.

 

And I know Soto is an upograde, that's why I said the offense would still be better than 2007, just not signifcantly better.

 

I mean, think about it. The 2007 offense was very mediocre. So what has changed since then? Soto is the one definite upgrade. Fukudome is a downgrade in RF (offesnively), Derrek Lee is performing way under his 2007 numbers, and then center field is the last position that is different. My point is that 3 of the 4 biggest upgrades (2008 Theriot over 2007 Theriot, 2008 DeRosa over 2007 DeRosa, and the CF platoon over the 2007 CF situation) could revert back to 2007 ways in an instant. ALl I'm saying is that it concerns me that on paper, this offense is very close to the 2007 offense in terms of players.

 

Lee yes, Fukudome, probably not. I think he was better off with a manager who punched him in the face for sucking rather than calling him in for a meeting. I dont know why Lou just cant accept the fact that hes a number hitter, not 2, not a 6, not a 7.

[David]

Lee and FUkudome? You really think it's realistic that they "snap out of it"? I don't. I think it's pretty clear by now that Fukudome is not good and Lee is declining in a big way. That's a poor example. I think it's much more likely that guys like Theriot, Derosa, and Edmonds to fall back to where they should be. Will it happen? I don't know, but it should be a concern.

 

And I know Soto is an upograde, that's why I said the offense would still be better than 2007, just not signifcantly better.

 

I mean, think about it. The 2007 offense was very mediocre. So what has changed since then? Soto is the one definite upgrade. Fukudome is a downgrade in RF (offesnively), Derrek Lee is performing way under his 2007 numbers, and then center field is the last position that is different. My point is that 3 of the 4 biggest upgrades (2008 Theriot over 2007 Theriot, 2008 DeRosa over 2007 DeRosa, and the CF platoon over the 2007 CF situation) could revert back to 2007 ways in an instant. ALl I'm saying is that it concerns me that on paper, this offense is very close to the 2007 offense in terms of players.

 

Going from getting zero production from a position to getting top 2 or 3 in baseball is a significant improvement. So is an up and down the lineup improvement in plate discipline, which is why this offense is so good. Can you honestly not see the huge difference in approach from last year's team to this one and why it makes this team so much better than last year's?

 

There is nobody on this team doing it all and that's why I'm not concerned about our lineup being unproductive for any prolonged stretches of games. They're all decently productive hitters, 1-8. No one player is carrying a ridiculous/disproportionate load of the weight. 8 pretty good hitters is better than 2-3 great ones and a bunch of crap. And, no, 5 or 6 games is not a prolonged stretch. Especially, when two of them were against Cole Hamels and Roy Oswalt.

[Sammy Sofa]

How odd. dextermorgan was obsessed with CubsGM when he was here...now that CubsGM is banned, dextermorgan has BECOME CubsGM.

 

Again you focus on insults instead of telling me what was wrong with my statement. All I did was question whether or not we'd be able to get the same production out of overachieving players and I get jumped all over.

 

You're not allowed to be pessimistic on NSBB. Stop it.

 

I never said that. I simply find it interesting that he constantly went after CubsGM in thread after thread for being too negative at the drop of a hat, and now you're doing the same thing. I actually share some of your concerns, but if anything goes wrong at any point in a game and you're online, here comes a barrage of doom and gloom...the same stuff you got all over another poster for.

 

That said, your overachieving offense statement is absurd. I brought up the pythag because it agues that they offense has actually underachieved, not overachieved. Unless you think the Cubs' record this year hinges far more on the pitching than the offense which is leading or close to the top in all major caegories, I can't see any reasoning behind your statement except for kneejerk complaining and griping a la CubsGM, just dressed up less trollish.

[David]

I don't see how the pythag says anything about the offense over/underachieving.

 

It tells you if the team is underachieving given the ability it shows over a given season to score and prevent runs in terms of wins, but it does nothing to tell you if players x, y, and z are performing over/under expectations.

 

That said, outside of SS, I don't think this lineup is overachieving that much. We've got a good platoon going in CF. Hopefully, Edmonds picks it back up, but, yea, that's a sort of questionable area in our lineup too.

 

Like UM said, though, once the playoffs roll around, it doesn't really matter. Either the team is going to be hot and tear through the playoffs like the 05 white sox, or it's not.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't see how the pythag says anything about the offense over/underachieving.

 

It tells you if the team is underachieving given the ability it shows over a given season to score and prevent runs in terms of wins, but it does nothing to tell you if players x, y, and z are performing over/under expectations.

 

Obviously, it does nothing to breakdown individual players, but my comment was in response to the general statement of "once again, the underachieving offense..." That statement wasn't any kind of breakdown of the players.

[David]

I don't see how the pythag says anything about the offense over/underachieving.

 

It tells you if the team is underachieving given the ability it shows over a given season to score and prevent runs in terms of wins, but it does nothing to tell you if players x, y, and z are performing over/under expectations.

 

Obviously, it does nothing to breakdown individual players, but my comment was in response to the general statement of "once again, the underachieving offense..." That statement wasn't any kind of breakdown of the players.

 

I'm not even talking about individual players.

 

The pythag does nothing to tell you about whether the offense is over or underachieving. It tells you if the team is over/underachieving based on its ability to score runs combined with its ability to prevent them. It doesn't in any way tell you if the offense is scoring more runs than it "should" be.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't see how the pythag says anything about the offense over/underachieving.

 

It tells you if the team is underachieving given the ability it shows over a given season to score and prevent runs in terms of wins, but it does nothing to tell you if players x, y, and z are performing over/under expectations.

 

Obviously, it does nothing to breakdown individual players, but my comment was in response to the general statement of "once again, the overachieving offense..." That statement wasn't any kind of breakdown of the players.

 

I'm not even talking about individual players.

 

The pythag does nothing to tell you about whether the offense is over or underachieving. It tells you if the team is over/underachieving based on its ability to score runs combined with its ability to prevent them. It doesn't in any way tell you if the offense is scoring more runs than it "should" be.

 

Fair enough. I also mixed up the quote in my last post. He said "overachieving," not under.

 

How would an overachieving offense relate to their pythag? I really don't know...I can't figure out how one could argue an offense playing above its head is below where it should be record-wise. Crappy defense? Underperforming pitching?

[Omar]

At least the magic number went down.

[Little Slide Rooter]

By no means am I saying its going to happen, and this isnt a chickn little moment, but from an absolutely hypothetical standpoint, if the Cubs did end up stroking it in the end, would the collapse be bigger than 1969?

[Guest]

By no means am I saying its going to happen, and this isnt a chickn little moment, but from an absolutely hypothetical standpoint, if the Cubs did end up stroking it in the end, would the collapse be bigger than 1969?

 

Yes, because there's a wild card now. The 1969 Cubs would have won the wild card if it existed.

[Little Slide Rooter]

By no means am I saying its going to happen, and this isnt a chickn little moment, but from an absolutely hypothetical standpoint, if the Cubs did end up stroking it in the end, would the collapse be bigger than 1969?

 

Yes, because there's a wild card now. The 1969 Cubs would have won the wild card if it existed.

 

So basically, as long as we win 7-8 and the Phillies and Mets both lose 7-8 this month, were in.

[ChiCubsfan0502]

[

 

So basically, as long as we win 7-8 and the Phillies and Mets both lose 7-8 this month, were in.

 

If we go 10-14, which is really stretching it, the Phillies would need to go 20-4 for us not to get in.

 

EDIT: 20-4 to tie us, 21-3 to get in.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Phils have a relatively easy schedule ahead of them. They have 4 vs. the Brewers and 3 vs. the Mets. besides that they have 6 vs. the Marlins. 5 vs. the Nats, and 6 vs. the Braves.

 

As long as we can take care of our own buisness these next 2 weeks, we might end up rooting for the Brewers during their series with the Phils.

[UMFan83]

Phils have a relatively easy schedule ahead of them. They have 4 vs. the Brewers and 3 vs. the Mets. besides that they have 6 vs. the Marlins. 5 vs. the Nats, and 6 vs. the Braves.

 

As long as we can take care of our own buisness these next 2 weeks, we might end up rooting for the Brewers during their series with the Phils.

 

Your post doesn't make sense to me

 

You say their schedule is easy but they play 13 of their 24 games against teams over .500, and 6 against an under .500 team that isn't necessarily a pushover.

 

Then you say that if we take care of business (presumably you mean win at least half of our games), we will be rooting for a team that has a better shot of catching us over a team that is virtually unable to catch us under any circumstances.

 

:confused:

[Little Slide Rooter]

Phils have a relatively easy schedule ahead of them. They have 4 vs. the Brewers and 3 vs. the Mets. besides that they have 6 vs. the Marlins. 5 vs. the Nats, and 6 vs. the Braves.

 

As long as we can take care of our own buisness these next 2 weeks, we might end up rooting for the Brewers during their series with the Phils.

 

Your post doesn't make sense to me

 

You say their schedule is easy but they play 13 of their 24 games against teams over .500, and 6 against an under .500 team that isn't necessarily a pushover.

 

Then you say that if we take care of business (presumably you mean win at least half of our games), we will be rooting for a team that has a better shot of catching us over a team that is virtually unable to catch us under any circumstances.

 

:confused:

 

I know, its confusing. I just want the easiest rout in possible. We've had a few divison titles. If we get the WC, w get the WC, and if that means facing the Mets instead of the D Bags I'll take it. I just want to win the whole damn thing. As soon as the magic number for a PO spot is down to 0, then we can focus on the division.

[SouthSideRyan]

You honestly think the Phillies can go like 19-5 down the stretch??

 

The only teams we need to root against are the Brewers, and whichever teams you'd prefer not face in the playoffs. Rooting against teams to make sure we win the wild card is craziness. We've already won the wild card.

[Soul]

You honestly think the Phillies can go like 19-5 down the stretch??

 

The only teams we need to root against are the Brewers, and whichever teams you'd prefer not face in the playoffs. Rooting against teams to make sure we win the wild card is craziness. We've already won the wild card.

 

I don't see how we can lose the wild card either. It's one thing to be overtaken by the very hot and good Brewers with a 4.5 game lead in the division. It's quite another to be overtaken by lesser teams with like a 10 game lead.

 

And for the record, I'm ambivalent about facing the Mets/Phils as the WC team or facing the DBacks/Dodgers as the division winner. Either way I think we have a significant advantage.