Cubs 2nd to last in the NL in OPS aftrer 7th inning

[17 Seconds]

Didn't the 2004 BoSox have the same amount of pressure on them? Was that team magically full of clutchy gamers who could overcome the massive pressure?

 

yeah, because a team has to be "magical" and "clutchy gamers" to not choke. awesome. why don't you use some more useless over exaggerated cliches to prove your point.

 

i don't really get what your point is. i never said the cubs couldn't win. i said they haven't in the last 2 seasons, and that pressure played a part of it.

 

and yeah, that team was pretty special. they reminded me of the 2003 cubs.

Edited August 11, 2009 by 17 Seconds

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Okay, Lee did perform great in 2008.

 

Who didn't perform in the 2008 NLCS?

 

Ryan Dempster. The pressure didn't get to him in his one inning of work in 2007, but as a starter it apparently did.

 

Carlos Zambrano? Already proven he can handle pressure as a Cub in the postseason.

 

Rich Harden? Maybe he's a choker.

 

Aramis Ramirez? Already proven he can handle Cubs postseason pressure, back in 2003.

 

Jim Edmonds? The man had played in 61 postseason games to that point, including four LCSs and two WS, and he's proven he can handle it.

 

Soriano, Fukudome, and Marmol I guess I'll give you.

 

So there you have it, half the Cubs who performed badly in 2008 are dirty chokers who couldn't handle the pressure, and half of them were guys who have proven before that they can handle it and just happened to play badly.

[DivineBovine]

Believe me, I am as scientific as the next guy. But I am definitely a believer in the effects pressure has on a ballclub. To me, that is what "clutch" means. Performance under pressure. I definitely feel that the Cubs are under a ton of pressure, and I definitely believe in "clutch".

 

So your theory is:

 

Play in high school and know scouts are in the stands? No problem.

Play in minor leagues knowing your future as a ballplayer is on the line each and every season? No problem.

Break into the big leagues, knowing that rookies need to perform immediately or get labeled "AAAA," No problem.

Play for a team whose fans really want to win? Oh no, too much pressure!

 

 

Here's Greg Norman: Play as a young golf pro with no money? No problem. Win tournaments all over the world and become number 1? No problem. Have a 6 stroke lead in the final round at the Masters against Faldo? CHOKE.

 

What about Dan Jansen. US olympic trials? No problem. World Championships? No problem. 1988 Olympics? Fall twice.

 

Both of these guys just wanted it too much and couldn't handle the pressure. Everyone has a breaking point.

 

Chance? I don't think so. The ability to handle pressure is critical in sports. Some athletes are like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan. Others are like Greg Norman.

[17 Seconds]

Okay, Lee did perform great in 2008.

 

Who didn't perform in the 2008 NLCS?

 

Ryan Dempster. The pressure didn't get to him in his one inning of work in 2007, but as a starter it apparently did.

 

Carlos Zambrano? Already proven he can handle pressure as a Cub in the postseason.

 

Rich Harden? Maybe he's a choker.

 

Aramis Ramirez? Already proven he can handle Cubs postseason pressure, back in 2003.

 

Jim Edmonds? The man had played in 61 postseason games to that point, including four LCSs and two WS, and he's proven he can handle it.

 

Soriano, Fukudome, and Marmol I guess I'll give you.

 

So there you have it, half the Cubs who performed badly in 2008 are dirty chokers who couldn't handle the pressure, and half of them were guys who have proven before that they can handle it and just happened to play badly.

 

I like how Dempster "proved" in one inning of 2007 that he was a good postseason pitcher, but his start in 2008 means nothing. Same with the other guys.

 

I never even labeled them "chokers" or said they were permenently chokers or any garbage like that you're trying to put in my mouth. I said they choked the last 2 seasons. That doesn't mean they can't come out and turn it around this season.

 

I also like how you constantly jump to different arguments when I counter them.

[abuck1220]

kyle, just because you don't choke once doesn't mean you're somehow immune to choking for all eternity. come on.

[DivineBovine]

I don't understand why people find it so hard to believe that "clutch" exists. Athletes in every sport ever played have choked.

 

right, and choking exists. clutch does not.

 

 

 

Both involve the effect of pressure and emotion on the ability to perform. I don't see a big difference.

[imb]

I don't mean to sound like I'm making excuses, but didn't the Cubs lead early in the Arizona series and in game 1 of the Dodgers series?

 

I mean, you're taking two three-game series spread out over a 365-day period and acting like it's proof of "anti-clutch" or whatever, when no one in this thread is denying it exists. Well, except maybe Kyle, but you know how that goes.

 

One swing of the bat each series is pretty insignificant when looking at the overall performance of each series.

 

I just don't see how any rational person can say that their performance the last 2 postseasons had nothing to do with not being able to handle pressure. I'm not saying that it was the only reason, I'm just saying that it was obviously a factor.

 

I honestly thought this was pretty much common sense.

 

those 6 games equal like 2 percent of the 330 or so that the cubs played in those two years. i don't see why 6 proves the roster is full of chokers when it performed so well as a whole the other 98 percent of the time.

 

there's more pressure on them in the playoffs, but there's plenty of pressure in the regular season, too. i don't know how much more comes into play in a playoff series, but i can't imagine it's enough to break the camel's back and turn them into stumbling idiots all of a sudden.

 

come on. the playoffs are a completely different beast. everything is amplified..

 

if you lose 3 games in a row in the regular season, big deal. it's going to happen. you shrug it off and come back. you don't start thinking "holy crap, we're almost eliminated"... because you're not. you have all the time in the world to turn it around.

 

in the playoffs, you lose 3 straight games and it's over.

 

you really can't compare a 6 month long, 162 game regular season to a postseason series where you're forced to win IMMEDIATELY

 

it's pretty much the same reason why kyle's "there was so much pressure on them in the minors and blah blah" argument is weak. you have plenty of time to get it going. if you're good enough, you'll eventually show it and you'll get noticed.

 

I know it's amplified, I said that and I'm sure it played a part in the losses, but I think you're overestimating its effect on them.

 

It's the same reason people blame the umps when the cubs lose or talk about how lucky the cardinals are and why people talk about the curse. They can't accept the fact that the Cubs lost on their own merits. It has to be something bigger. Kevin Gregg throws 12 straight scoreless innings, suffers two bad games and instead of saying, "well, every reliever that's ever pitched has had a 2-game rough stretch," people freak out about kicking him off the team. It's the same principle.

[17 Seconds]

I don't mean to sound like I'm making excuses, but didn't the Cubs lead early in the Arizona series and in game 1 of the Dodgers series?

 

I mean, you're taking two three-game series spread out over a 365-day period and acting like it's proof of "anti-clutch" or whatever, when no one in this thread is denying it exists. Well, except maybe Kyle, but you know how that goes.

 

One swing of the bat each series is pretty insignificant when looking at the overall performance of each series.

 

I just don't see how any rational person can say that their performance the last 2 postseasons had nothing to do with not being able to handle pressure. I'm not saying that it was the only reason, I'm just saying that it was obviously a factor.

 

I honestly thought this was pretty much common sense.

 

those 6 games equal like 2 percent of the 330 or so that the cubs played in those two years. i don't see why 6 proves the roster is full of chokers when it performed so well as a whole the other 98 percent of the time.

 

there's more pressure on them in the playoffs, but there's plenty of pressure in the regular season, too. i don't know how much more comes into play in a playoff series, but i can't imagine it's enough to break the camel's back and turn them into stumbling idiots all of a sudden.

 

come on. the playoffs are a completely different beast. everything is amplified..

 

if you lose 3 games in a row in the regular season, big deal. it's going to happen. you shrug it off and come back. you don't start thinking "holy crap, we're almost eliminated"... because you're not. you have all the time in the world to turn it around.

 

in the playoffs, you lose 3 straight games and it's over.

 

you really can't compare a 6 month long, 162 game regular season to a postseason series where you're forced to win IMMEDIATELY

 

it's pretty much the same reason why kyle's "there was so much pressure on them in the minors and blah blah" argument is weak. you have plenty of time to get it going. if you're good enough, you'll eventually show it and you'll get noticed.

 

I know it's amplified, I said that and I'm sure it played a part in the losses, but I think you're overestimating its effect on them.

 

It's the same reason people blame the umps when the cubs lose or talk about how lucky the cardinals are and why people talk about the curse. They can't accept the fact that the Cubs lost on their own merits. It has to be something bigger. Kevin Gregg throws 12 straight scoreless innings, suffers two bad games and instead of saying, "well, every reliever that's ever pitched has had a 2-game rough stretch," people freak out about kicking him off the team. It's the same principle.

 

but i'm not even saying pressure was the only reason they lost. all i'm saying is it played a role.

[imb]

Believe me, I am as scientific as the next guy. But I am definitely a believer in the effects pressure has on a ballclub. To me, that is what "clutch" means. Performance under pressure. I definitely feel that the Cubs are under a ton of pressure, and I definitely believe in "clutch".

 

So your theory is:

 

Play in high school and know scouts are in the stands? No problem.

Play in minor leagues knowing your future as a ballplayer is on the line each and every season? No problem.

Break into the big leagues, knowing that rookies need to perform immediately or get labeled "AAAA," No problem.

Play for a team whose fans really want to win? Oh no, too much pressure!

 

 

Here's Greg Norman: Play as a young golf pro with no money? No problem. Win tournaments all over the world and become number 1? No problem. Have a 6 stroke lead in the final round at the Masters against Faldo? CHOKE.

 

What about Dan Jansen. US olympic trials? No problem. World Championships? No problem. 1988 Olympics? Fall twice.

 

Both of these guys just wanted it too much and couldn't handle the pressure. Everyone has a breaking point.

 

Chance? I don't think so. The ability to handle pressure is critical in sports. Some athletes are like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan. Others are like Greg Norman.

 

You clearly haven't read anything in this thread. No one is denying that pressure can affect people negatively.

[Derwood]

 

but i'm not even saying pressure was the only reason they lost. all i'm saying is it played a role.

 

and all I was asking is why pressure played a role in the the Cubs failing the last two post-seasons, but it didn't cause the BoSox to lose when they had equal if not greater pressure on them?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So wait, now "inability to perform under pressure" isn't a constant attribute, it's something that randomly floats on and off of guys each year?

 

If you want to define a choke as anytime someone plays badly when there is pressure, then yes, many guys have choked. But that doesn't prove for a second that the pressure caused them to do it.

 

Norman is a fantastic example. Over his career, he had many "chokes" that had nothing to do with him playing badly and had many wonderful performances under pressure, but they all get lumped into the reputation. If Mize doesn't hole-out a 45-foot chip, nobody ever talks about Norman being a choker.

[17 Seconds]

Believe me, I am as scientific as the next guy. But I am definitely a believer in the effects pressure has on a ballclub. To me, that is what "clutch" means. Performance under pressure. I definitely feel that the Cubs are under a ton of pressure, and I definitely believe in "clutch".

 

So your theory is:

 

Play in high school and know scouts are in the stands? No problem.

Play in minor leagues knowing your future as a ballplayer is on the line each and every season? No problem.

Break into the big leagues, knowing that rookies need to perform immediately or get labeled "AAAA," No problem.

Play for a team whose fans really want to win? Oh no, too much pressure!

 

 

Here's Greg Norman: Play as a young golf pro with no money? No problem. Win tournaments all over the world and become number 1? No problem. Have a 6 stroke lead in the final round at the Masters against Faldo? CHOKE.

 

What about Dan Jansen. US olympic trials? No problem. World Championships? No problem. 1988 Olympics? Fall twice.

 

Both of these guys just wanted it too much and couldn't handle the pressure. Everyone has a breaking point.

 

Chance? I don't think so. The ability to handle pressure is critical in sports. Some athletes are like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan. Others are like Greg Norman.

 

You clearly haven't read anything in this thread. No one is denying that pressure can affect people negatively.

 

kyle is pretty much saying that players who have gotten through the minors and such to reach the majors and pretty much immune to pressure, since they've faced so much of it already just to get there.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I am completely saying that. It's certainly possible that there are occasions where pressure gets to people. But for every one time it happens, there's a dozen where people try to attribute the randomness of sports to pressure.

[imb]

Believe me, I am as scientific as the next guy. But I am definitely a believer in the effects pressure has on a ballclub. To me, that is what "clutch" means. Performance under pressure. I definitely feel that the Cubs are under a ton of pressure, and I definitely believe in "clutch".

 

So your theory is:

 

Play in high school and know scouts are in the stands? No problem.

Play in minor leagues knowing your future as a ballplayer is on the line each and every season? No problem.

Break into the big leagues, knowing that rookies need to perform immediately or get labeled "AAAA," No problem.

Play for a team whose fans really want to win? Oh no, too much pressure!

 

 

Here's Greg Norman: Play as a young golf pro with no money? No problem. Win tournaments all over the world and become number 1? No problem. Have a 6 stroke lead in the final round at the Masters against Faldo? CHOKE.

 

What about Dan Jansen. US olympic trials? No problem. World Championships? No problem. 1988 Olympics? Fall twice.

 

Both of these guys just wanted it too much and couldn't handle the pressure. Everyone has a breaking point.

 

Chance? I don't think so. The ability to handle pressure is critical in sports. Some athletes are like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan. Others are like Greg Norman.

 

You clearly haven't read anything in this thread. No one is denying that pressure can affect people negatively.

 

kyle is pretty much saying that players who have gotten through the minors and such to reach the majors and pretty much immune to pressure, since they've faced so much of it already just to get there.

 

when has anyone paid attention to anything he says? he's just trolling you.

[17 Seconds]

 

but i'm not even saying pressure was the only reason they lost. all i'm saying is it played a role.

 

and all I was asking is why pressure played a role in the the Cubs failing the last two post-seasons, but it didn't cause the BoSox to lose when they had equal if not greater pressure on them?

 

what the hell? it seems like you're just trying to be annoying. last i checked, the 2004 red sox had different players than the 2007 and 2008 cubs.

 

where have i ever said that the amount of pressure determines how a team would react to it?

 

i never said that. every team reatcs differently. seriously, either read the thread or don't make obnoxious posts that could be answered by simply reading what i'm saying.

Edited August 11, 2009 by 17 Seconds

[abuck1220]

I don't understand why people find it so hard to believe that "clutch" exists. Athletes in every sport ever played have choked.

 

right, and choking exists. clutch does not.

 

Both involve the effect of pressure and emotion on the ability to perform. I don't see a big difference.

 

there's a big difference. choking involves playing below your max ability. being clutch involves playing above your max ability, which isn't possible.

 

if derek jeter is able to turn on the clutch for the playoffs, late inning situations, etc and hit .400, he should be able to do that all the time. and he can't.

[DivineBovine]

Believe me, I am as scientific as the next guy. But I am definitely a believer in the effects pressure has on a ballclub. To me, that is what "clutch" means. Performance under pressure. I definitely feel that the Cubs are under a ton of pressure, and I definitely believe in "clutch".

 

So your theory is:

 

Play in high school and know scouts are in the stands? No problem.

Play in minor leagues knowing your future as a ballplayer is on the line each and every season? No problem.

Break into the big leagues, knowing that rookies need to perform immediately or get labeled "AAAA," No problem.

Play for a team whose fans really want to win? Oh no, too much pressure!

 

There's a difference between pressure coming from yourself and pressure coming from millions of rabid fans who are ready to label you satan if you don't perform in the biggest situations.

 

I mean, are you really going to pretend like the Cubs getting swept the last 2 seasons had absolutely nothing to do with pressure and choking?

 

Seeing as how Arizona and LA had just as much "pressure," the answer is pressure had the least to do with it.

 

Umm, either that or they handled the pressure better, which is the whole point of this thread.

 

Also, those teams did not have as much pressure on them as the Cubs. Not even close.

 

Are you telling me you don't think the Cubs choked at all in the past 2 postseasons?

 

 

 

 

Precisely. I am only trying to figure out a rational explanation for why the Cubs have failed to perform when it counts the past 5 seasons. Going back to 2003, when they had almost no expectations and actually won a series in the post-season against a team they weren't supposed to beat. And all of the sudden when people started believing in them, they haven't performed at all. They won the last 2 division titles because they had by far the most talent in the division, not because they played well under pressure.

 

Many people who completely discount "clutch" simply ignores the fact that pressure affects athletes. Some people thrive under pressure, but most people frankly don't. For every Tiger Woods, there are a hundred Greg Normans. Hitting a baseball is not like throwing dice. If you are nervous and your hands are shaking, it is not affecting the dice. Baseball is different. I would think that this is a given.

 

And then there are those who believe that pressure affects ballplayers, but can't find a reason the Cubs seem to feel it more than others. What about the thousands of blue shirts they see at every road game? What about the endless references to Bartman? What about the way Wrigley and the city goes crazy when they win? Of course they care. Even if you don't think the players care at all about the fans or what they think, what about the last 2 postseason chokes? You don't think they care that they got swept and embarassed in two straight postseason series? You don't think Milton Bradley cares that he is making $10 million and playing the worst ball he's played in years? Of course they care. There is no team out there that feels the pressure more than the Cubs. Not the Yankees. Not the Red Sox. Nobody else.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Talking about how every "team" performs differently muddies the issue. Teams don't perform. Players do.

 

Which players on 2008 in the Cubs succumbed to the pressure? And why did some of them succumb to it when they've faced similar pressures many times in their career and did just fine?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What about the thousands of blue shirts they see at every road game?

 

Wait, having road fans makes it worse for them?

 

"What about the endless references to Bartman?"

 

Endless? Players aren't fans. How often do you think Bartman actually comes up in a player's life? A few times when a media guy asks about it and that's it.

 

" What about the way Wrigley and the city goes crazy when they win?"

 

That *never* happens in other cities. They golf clap when their teams win the World Series.

[DivineBovine]

Believe me, I am as scientific as the next guy. But I am definitely a believer in the effects pressure has on a ballclub. To me, that is what "clutch" means. Performance under pressure. I definitely feel that the Cubs are under a ton of pressure, and I definitely believe in "clutch".

 

So your theory is:

 

Play in high school and know scouts are in the stands? No problem.

Play in minor leagues knowing your future as a ballplayer is on the line each and every season? No problem.

Break into the big leagues, knowing that rookies need to perform immediately or get labeled "AAAA," No problem.

Play for a team whose fans really want to win? Oh no, too much pressure!

 

 

Here's Greg Norman: Play as a young golf pro with no money? No problem. Win tournaments all over the world and become number 1? No problem. Have a 6 stroke lead in the final round at the Masters against Faldo? CHOKE.

 

What about Dan Jansen. US olympic trials? No problem. World Championships? No problem. 1988 Olympics? Fall twice.

 

Both of these guys just wanted it too much and couldn't handle the pressure. Everyone has a breaking point.

 

Chance? I don't think so. The ability to handle pressure is critical in sports. Some athletes are like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan. Others are like Greg Norman.

 

You clearly haven't read anything in this thread. No one is denying that pressure can affect people negatively.

 

I'm simply responding directly to his post. I actually don't see the point of your post.

[nolanwood]

I think we can all agree that the Cubs choked in the '03, '07, and '08 postseason.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Also, nobody but statheads "believed" in the 2007 Cubs. They weren't "supposed" to beat the Diamondbacks by popular reckoning.

[17 Seconds]

And why did some of them succumb to it when they've faced similar pressures many times in their career and did just fine?

 

Sorry, but Ryan Dempster pitching 1 good inning in 2007 (in a 4 run deficit in the 8th inning) doesn't suddenly mean he's immune to choking. Your arguments are becoming weaker and weaker. Next you're going to tell me how well Ryan Theriot performed in a 7th grade twinkie eating contest.

[DivineBovine]

What about the thousands of blue shirts they see at every road game?

 

Wait, having road fans makes it worse for them?

 

"What about the endless references to Bartman?"

 

Endless? Players aren't fans. How often do you think Bartman actually comes up in a player's life? A few times when a media guy asks about it and that's it.

 

" What about the way Wrigley and the city goes crazy when they win?"

 

That *never* happens in other cities. They golf clap when their teams win the World Series.

 

 

OK, cut 1 sentence from that post and jump on it. Sorry I even mentioned Bartman.

 

Read the rest of the post. I'm saying the Cubs feel a lot of pressure. Pressure affects athletes. Maybe that's why the Cubs can't perform under pressure.

[imb]

Precisely. I am only trying to figure out a rational explanation for why the Cubs have failed to perform when it counts the past 5 seasons. Going back to 2003, when they had almost no expectations and actually won a series in the post-season against a team they weren't supposed to beat. And all of the sudden when people started believing in them, they haven't performed at all. They won the last 2 division titles because they had by far the most talent in the division, not because they played well under pressure.

 

Many people who completely discount "clutch" simply ignores the fact that pressure affects athletes. Some people thrive under pressure, but most people frankly don't. For every Tiger Woods, there are a hundred Greg Normans. Hitting a baseball is not like throwing dice. If you are nervous and your hands are shaking, it is not affecting the dice. Baseball is different. I would think that this is a given.

 

And then there are those who believe that pressure affects ballplayers, but can't find a reason the Cubs seem to feel it more than others. What about the thousands of blue shirts they see at every road game? What about the endless references to Bartman? What about the way Wrigley and the city goes crazy when they win? Of course they care. Even if you don't think the players care at all about the fans or what they think, what about the last 2 postseason chokes? You don't think they care that they got swept and embarassed in two straight postseason series? You don't think Milton Bradley cares that he is making $10 million and playing the worst ball he's played in years? Of course they care. There is no team out there that feels the pressure more than the Cubs. Not the Yankees. Not the Red Sox. Nobody else.

 

you're projecting a lot of your own [expletive] on the cubs, here. is there more pressure in the playoffs? yes. is there more pressure on the cubs than the DBacks or Dodgers? Debateable, but let's say yes. Did the Cubs fail? Yes. But did all of that cause them to fail? It's hard to say if it even played a part, and sitting on your couch getting pissed off everytime Steve Phillips says STEVE BARTMAN doesn't make it so.

 

It's correlation, not causation. At least it's not proven causation.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Bunts Lick Butts