6/11 Cubs (Dempster) @ Astros (Ortiz) 1:05 CSN

[Eric Clipperton]

So you are going with the "hey the 3 game sample size is worth more than the 162 they just played theory?"

 

No, I'm saying that 0-3 in back to back NLDS's is not flukey, but rather an indicator of a weak team. Also, these are not robots out there. It's perfectly reasonable to accept that the playoff chokiness has saturated their psyche.

 

2007 and 2008 have very little to do with each other. In 07 the Cubs were decent, but nowhere near as good as last year. It is not reasonable to accept that playoff chokiness just started saturating psyches this season. There is no support for this theory anywhere. However Lou probably thinks a lot like this, which certainly does not help matters. Yay kneejerk reactions.

 

My solution to improve the Cubs offense: Play the remaining ~100 games in the season.

[Arnold Layne]

It's a three game sample size, it happens. I'm of the theory the more times we keep getting there the more apt we are to break through.

 

 

Ok, I agree with most of this thought process. But the Cubs have shown they aren't good enough to pull this off. There's nothing about this team except for the SP that indicates they have any chance of reaching the world series. I would love to be proven wrong.

 

 

I also won't give up on this year because our starting pitching has the chance to win any short series. We just have to find a way to get in.

 

Right. But I don't think firing the GM is giving up. I think it's working towards a WS end result.

[Eric Clipperton]

It's a three game sample size, it happens. I'm of the theory the more times we keep getting there the more apt we are to break through.

 

 

Ok, I agree with most of this thought process. But the Cubs have shown they aren't good enough to pull this off. There's nothing about this team except for the SP that indicates they have any chance of reaching the world series. I would love to be proven wrong.

 

 

I also won't give up on this year because our starting pitching has the chance to win any short series. We just have to find a way to get in.

 

Right. But I don't think firing the GM is giving up. I think it's working towards a WS end result.

 

It's not like there is a surplus of smart GM's just waiting to be hired. I mean there are several complete idiots with GM jobs who would make us long for the glory days of Hendry. While hiring nsbb.com's 20 smartest people to GM by committee for $50K each would be a way, way better option than any "baseball guy" for $1MM to manage or GM, this is about as likely as every message board poster understanding that little can be learned from small sample sizes.

[Arnold Layne]

2007 and 2008 have very little to do with each other.

 

Sure they do. The end result of both seasons was a very, very poor playoff "performance" where the team simply failed to compete on any level in any capacity of the game.

 

 

It is not reasonable to accept that playoff chokiness just started saturating psyches this season. There is no support for this theory anywhere.

However Lou probably thinks a lot like this, which certainly does not help matters. Yay kneejerk reactions.

 

These are not robots out there. Psychology is a giant portion of human beings. You can't just ignore external factors and how they play upon a team. Many players have said there is "extra pressure" due to not winning a world series in 100 years. Is this true? Maybe. We wouldn't know unless we were those players in that playoff series.

 

A team that repeatedly chokes while maintaining the same group of core performance leaders is certainly succeptible to a saturation of their psyche.

 

If you were at your job, and every year you did well in sales, but at the big convention you lost ten major accounts(and you repeated this for several years), do you honestly think this would not affect you psychologically or in terms of your overall performance in that field?

 

 

 

My solution to improve the Cubs offense: Play the remaining ~100 games in the season.

 

That could happen as well. But improvement does not always equate to good performance.

[Eric Clipperton]

2007 and 2008 have very little to do with each other.

 

Sure they do. The end result of both seasons was a very, very poor playoff "performance" where the team simply failed to compete on any level in any capacity of the game.

 

 

It is not reasonable to accept that playoff chokiness just started saturating psyches this season. There is no support for this theory anywhere.

However Lou probably thinks a lot like this, which certainly does not help matters. Yay kneejerk reactions.

 

These are not robots out there. Psychology is a giant portion of human beings. You can't just ignore external factors and how they play upon a team. Many players have said there is "extra pressure" due to not winning a world series in 100 years. Is this true? Maybe. We wouldn't know unless we were those players in that playoff series.

 

A team that repeatedly chokes while maintaining the same group of core performance leaders is certainly succeptible to a saturation of their psyche.

 

If you were at your job, and every year you did well in sales, but at the big convention you lost ten major accounts(and you repeated this for several years), do you honestly think this would not affect you psychologically or in terms of your overall performance in that field?

 

 

 

 

My solution to improve the Cubs offense: Play the remaining ~100 games in the season.

 

Sales analogy: who cares about my psychology...the results show that I suck at sales, so I'd expect continued failures whether or not psychology has a thing to do with it.

 

The fans are the ones susceptible to said saturation. Because you know NOTHING about the "failure to compete". They weren't trying to suck. They just did. And do, however a large part of this is also attributable to luck. Also, I'd say that Lou's failure to take Dempster out after 7 walks certainly did not help matters, in last year's playoff opener.

[illiniguy]

2007 and 2008 have very little to do with each other.

 

Sure they do. The end result of both seasons was a very, very poor playoff "performance" where the team simply failed to compete on any level in any capacity of the game.

 

 

It is not reasonable to accept that playoff chokiness just started saturating psyches this season. There is no support for this theory anywhere.

However Lou probably thinks a lot like this, which certainly does not help matters. Yay kneejerk reactions.

 

These are not robots out there. Psychology is a giant portion of human beings. You can't just ignore external factors and how they play upon a team. Many players have said there is "extra pressure" due to not winning a world series in 100 years. Is this true? Maybe. We wouldn't know unless we were those players in that playoff series.

 

A team that repeatedly chokes while maintaining the same group of core performance leaders is certainly succeptible to a saturation of their psyche.

 

If you were at your job, and every year you did well in sales, but at the big convention you lost ten major accounts(and you repeated this for several years), do you honestly think this would not affect you psychologically or in terms of your overall performance in that field?

 

 

 

 

My solution to improve the Cubs offense: Play the remaining ~100 games in the season.

 

Sales analogy: who cares about my psychology...the results show that I suck at sales, so I'd expect continued failures whether or not psychology has a thing to do with it.

 

The fans are the ones susceptible to said saturation. Because you know NOTHING about the "failure to compete". They weren't trying to suck. They just did. And do, however a large part of this is also attributable to luck. Also, I'd say that Lou's failure to take Dempster out after 7 walks certainly did not help matters, in last year's playoff opener.

Starting Dempster in and of itself was very stupid. Zambrano is the guy you gave all the money to. He's our ace. He should have pitched the most important game of the series.

[Eric Clipperton]

Well, I would have started Harden personally, but yes I would have preferred Zambrano as well in game 1. Not the time to reward Dempster for his fine season (since we then amply rewarded him in the offseason).

[Arnold Layne]

Agreed.

[illiniguy]

Well, I would have started Harden personally, but yes I would have preferred Zambrano as well in game 1. Not the time to reward Dempster for his fine season (since we then amply rewarded him in the offseason).

I don't think there was any need to reward Dempster. We paid him when he was hurt and let him rehab on our dime. He just paid us back with that year.

[Sammy Sofa]

So you are going with the "hey the 3 game sample size is worth more than the 162 they just played theory?"

 

No, I'm saying that 0-3 in back to back NLDS's is not flukey, but rather an indicator of a weak team. Also, these are not robots out there. It's perfectly reasonable to accept that the playoff chokiness has saturated their psyche.

 

So the answer is, what? Until the Cubs win another WS, any team that loses in the playoffs regardless of their regular season succees needs to be blown up or at least significantly reconstructed because they have "saturated psyches?" Come on, that's not realistic at all.

[Arnold Layne]

So you are going with the "hey the 3 game sample size is worth more than the 162 they just played theory?"

 

No, I'm saying that 0-3 in back to back NLDS's is not flukey, but rather an indicator of a weak team. Also, these are not robots out there. It's perfectly reasonable to accept that the playoff chokiness has saturated their psyche.

 

So the answer is, what? Until the Cubs win another WS, any team that loses in the playoffs regardless of their regular season succees needs to be blown up or at least significantly reconstructed because they have "saturated psyches?" Come on, that's not realistic at all.

 

 

I don't have the answers. All I know is that this team isn't worth the price paid. There's very little talent on the offensive side of the ball. The team was much more talented last year with DeRosa and Edmonds in the lineup.

[Sammy Sofa]

So you are going with the "hey the 3 game sample size is worth more than the 162 they just played theory?"

 

No, I'm saying that 0-3 in back to back NLDS's is not flukey, but rather an indicator of a weak team. Also, these are not robots out there. It's perfectly reasonable to accept that the playoff chokiness has saturated their psyche.

 

So the answer is, what? Until the Cubs win another WS, any team that loses in the playoffs regardless of their regular season succees needs to be blown up or at least significantly reconstructed because they have "saturated psyches?" Come on, that's not realistic at all.

 

 

I don't have the answers. All I know is that this team isn't worth the price paid. There's very little talent on the offensive side of the ball. The team was much more talented last year with DeRosa and Edmonds in the lineup.

 

I find it interesting that you're so determined to get rid of Hendry yet bring up DeRosa and Edmonds, two signings that he was raked over the coals for at the time when they first happened.

[Arnold Layne]

So you are going with the "hey the 3 game sample size is worth more than the 162 they just played theory?"

 

No, I'm saying that 0-3 in back to back NLDS's is not flukey, but rather an indicator of a weak team. Also, these are not robots out there. It's perfectly reasonable to accept that the playoff chokiness has saturated their psyche.

 

So the answer is, what? Until the Cubs win another WS, any team that loses in the playoffs regardless of their regular season succees needs to be blown up or at least significantly reconstructed because they have "saturated psyches?" Come on, that's not realistic at all.

 

 

I don't have the answers. All I know is that this team isn't worth the price paid. There's very little talent on the offensive side of the ball. The team was much more talented last year with DeRosa and Edmonds in the lineup.

 

I find it interesting that you're so determined to get rid of Hendry yet bring up DeRosa and Edmonds, two signings that he was raked over the coals for at the time when they first happened.

 

I applauded Hendry for both signings. Other than 2003, 2008 was Hendry's best year. The rest have been miserable.

[Sammy Sofa]

I applauded Hendry for both signings. Other than 2003, 2008 was Hendry's best year. The rest have been miserable.

 

DeRosa was signed in 2007.

[Arnold Layne]

Right, but Edmonds and DeRosa were not in the same lineup until 2008.

[UMFan83]

I just read a fun stat....Soriano's average has gone down for 20 consecutive days, meaning that after every game his average was lower than when the day started. He has dropped 44 points to his average overall in those 20 games, and hasn't had a multi hit game.

 

And another fun stat that shouldn't surprise anyone. The Cubs starters had a 0.98 ERA during the 8 game road trip, and the staff as a whole had a 1.58 ERA, yet the Cubs only managed to go 4-4. Wow.

[CyHawk_Cub]

I just read a fun stat....Soriano's average has gone down for 20 consecutive days, meaning that after every game his average was lower than when the day started. He has dropped 44 points to his average overall in those 20 games, and hasn't had a multi hit game.

 

And another fun stat that shouldn't surprise anyone. The Cubs starters had a 0.98 ERA during the 8 game road trip, and the staff as a whole had a 1.58 ERA, yet the Cubs only managed to go 4-4. Wow.

 

Those are depressing numbers... This team is so uninspiring.

[UMFan83]

I just read a fun stat....Soriano's average has gone down for 20 consecutive days, meaning that after every game his average was lower than when the day started. He has dropped 44 points to his average overall in those 20 games, and hasn't had a multi hit game.

 

And another fun stat that shouldn't surprise anyone. The Cubs starters had a 0.98 ERA during the 8 game road trip, and the staff as a whole had a 1.58 ERA, yet the Cubs only managed to go 4-4. Wow.

 

Those are depressing numbers... This team is so uninspiring.

 

Not to bring up the DeRosa word, but I was just looking at his numbers. It's obviously stupid to compare his stats and assume that they would be the same on the Cubs, but for the sake of my drunken stat posting, humor me.

 

If DeRosa was on the Cubs this year he would have...

 

The 3rd highest BA on the team (min. 100 ABs) at .274

The most runs on the team with 40

The most RBIs on the team BY FAR with 42 (Soriano is the Cubs leader at 27!!)

The 2nd most HRs on the team with 10 (leader is Soriano with 14...next most is Lee at 7)

The 3rd highest OPS on the team (min. 100 ABs) at .797

The 3rd most doubles on the team with 11

The 3rd highest SLG% on the team (min. 100 ABs) with .452

The 3rd highest OBP on the team (min. 100 ABs) with .345

 

Blah blah blah. I know get over it DeRosa is gone. But its fun to see after a slow start he's putting up pretty good numbers while the majority of our team makes us want to cut ourselves.

[Guest]

Right, but Edmonds and DeRosa were not in the same lineup until 2008.

 

So what's your point?

 

DeRosa was in the lineup nearly as often in 2007 as he was in 2008:

 

2007: 574 PA

2008: 593 PA

 

It's not like the Cubs didn't play him much in 2007 and then all of a sudden decided to play him in 2008.

[Bote McBoteface]

It's a three game sample size, it happens. I'm of the theory the more times we keep getting there the more apt we are to break through.

 

 

Ok, I agree with most of this thought process. But the Cubs have shown they aren't good enough to pull this off. There's nothing about this team except for the SP that indicates they have any chance of reaching the world series. I would love to be proven wrong.

 

 

I also won't give up on this year because our starting pitching has the chance to win any short series. We just have to find a way to get in.

 

Right. But I don't think firing the GM is giving up. I think it's working towards a WS end result.

 

It's not like there is a surplus of smart GM's just waiting to be hired. I mean there are several complete idiots with GM jobs who would make us long for the glory days of Hendry. While hiring nsbb.com's 20 smartest people to GM by committee for $50K each would be a way, way better option than any "baseball guy" for $1MM to manage or GM, this is about as likely as every message board poster understanding that little can be learned from small sample sizes.

 

If we hired nsbb's 20 smartest posters to gm by committee, we would lose 110 games.

[Schwarber Fan]

Blum Bloop Helps Astros Edge Cubs In 13 Innings

 

That was one hell of a bloop

[Eric Clipperton]

It's a three game sample size, it happens. I'm of the theory the more times we keep getting there the more apt we are to break through.

 

 

Ok, I agree with most of this thought process. But the Cubs have shown they aren't good enough to pull this off. There's nothing about this team except for the SP that indicates they have any chance of reaching the world series. I would love to be proven wrong.

 

 

I also won't give up on this year because our starting pitching has the chance to win any short series. We just have to find a way to get in.

 

Right. But I don't think firing the GM is giving up. I think it's working towards a WS end result.

 

It's not like there is a surplus of smart GM's just waiting to be hired. I mean there are several complete idiots with GM jobs who would make us long for the glory days of Hendry. While hiring nsbb.com's 20 smartest people to GM by committee for $50K each would be a way, way better option than any "baseball guy" for $1MM to manage or GM, this is about as likely as every message board poster understanding that little can be learned from small sample sizes.

 

If we hired nsbb's 20 smartest posters to gm by committee, we would lose 110 games.

 

This is incredibly wrong even by internet standards. Hilarious.

[Arnold Layne]

Right, but Edmonds and DeRosa were not in the same lineup until 2008.

 

So what's your point?

 

DeRosa was in the lineup nearly as often in 2007 as he was in 2008:

 

2007: 574 PA

2008: 593 PA

 

It's not like the Cubs didn't play him much in 2007 and then all of a sudden decided to play him in 2008.

 

 

Go back and read the thread. The point was having DeRosa and Edmonds in the lineup at the same time added more offensive talent in 2008 than the team currently on the field. Both of those guys could smack the ball around.

[Sammy Sofa]

Right, but Edmonds and DeRosa were not in the same lineup until 2008.

 

So what's your point?

 

DeRosa was in the lineup nearly as often in 2007 as he was in 2008:

 

2007: 574 PA

2008: 593 PA

 

It's not like the Cubs didn't play him much in 2007 and then all of a sudden decided to play him in 2008.

 

 

Go back and read the thread. The point was having DeRosa and Edmonds in the lineup at the same time added more offensive talent in 2008 than the team currently on the field. Both of those guys could smack the ball around.

 

That wasn't the point at all. DeRosa and Edmonds were brought up out of a discussion of the pros and cons of Hendry as GM in regards to his FA signings and you stated that Hendry only had 2 good years as a GM based on his FA signings. You singled out 2008 as one of those years due specifically to Edmonds and DeRosa despite DeRosa having been signed the year before. Unless you're saying the signing of DeRosa didn't become a good one until Edmonds was signed during the 2008 season (which would be a rather silly and backwards argument), that information throws a spanner into your reasoning as to why 2008 was one of Hendry's only good FA years. The discussion was in no way about how Edmonds and DeRosa helped make the lineup better last year compared to this year. It was about Hendry himself and his FA signings.

[Bote McBoteface]

It's a three game sample size, it happens. I'm of the theory the more times we keep getting there the more apt we are to break through.

 

 

Ok, I agree with most of this thought process. But the Cubs have shown they aren't good enough to pull this off. There's nothing about this team except for the SP that indicates they have any chance of reaching the world series. I would love to be proven wrong.

 

 

I also won't give up on this year because our starting pitching has the chance to win any short series. We just have to find a way to get in.

 

Right. But I don't think firing the GM is giving up. I think it's working towards a WS end result.

 

It's not like there is a surplus of smart GM's just waiting to be hired. I mean there are several complete idiots with GM jobs who would make us long for the glory days of Hendry. While hiring nsbb.com's 20 smartest people to GM by committee for $50K each would be a way, way better option than any "baseball guy" for $1MM to manage or GM, this is about as likely as every message board poster understanding that little can be learned from small sample sizes.

 

If we hired nsbb's 20 smartest posters to gm by committee, we would lose 110 games.

 

This is incredibly wrong even by internet standards. Hilarious.

 

It really isn't, no. 110 games might be a bit of an overstatement, but we'd certainly be in the cellar. Look at all of the moves that have worked out very well for Hendry. The Karros/Grudzielanek trade, the Aramis Ramirez/Kenny Lofton trade, the Sammy Sosa trade (got Font out of it), Ted Lilly signing, Mark Derosa signing, etc. All of these moves were opposed by many of NSBB's "smartest" posters.

 

Christ, we'd probably be stuck with Ivan Rodriguez at catcher, Sean Gallagher in the rotation, Bobby Hill somewhere in AAA rooming with Hee Seop Choi, Jim Thome at first, we'd be paying Kerry Wood 10 mil a year...because we think he's a cool guy. We wouldn't be good. NSBB's smartest posters aren't nearly as smart as they like to think.