4/7 GT Cubs(Dempster) vs. Braves(Jurjens) 6:10 CST CSN+

[A-Cal]

Meh. The zone was fine. Wagner is nails. He is a ballplayer. The whole Braves roster is full of ballplayers.

 

As opposed to, what? Hockey players? Golfers?

 

I was joking around with Hartisms.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Im really thinking that Soto will not be back to 2008 form, and no, Im not basing this on 2 games, Im basing it on 1 year and 2 games.

[David]

Cubs had to capitalize more in that inning where they had the sacks loaded. Grabow will be fine. I was glad when they got him and I am glad they kept him.

 

 

You seriously have to just be trolling/trying to be contrarian on purpose.

[erik316wttn]

Geo, that big stick you have? It's called a bat. You're supposed to use it to try to hit the ball.

 

Game thread will be up tomorrow morning.

did your crystal ball tell you that

 

He asked me if I was ever right, and I answered. Don't be hatin.

 

Never said I was always right, but I'm right more often than I'm wrong, and people hate it because it's what they don't want to hear a lot of the time.

 

People hate you because you're annoying. Just gonna throw that one at your pedestal.

 

So then people can use the handy ignore button.

[Wilson A2000]

Cubs had to capitalize more in that inning where they had the sacks loaded. Grabow will be fine. I was glad when they got him and I am glad they kept him.

 

Are you glad he got that ridiculous extension?

 

Yes. If you thought there was somebody better than he was, he could have taken one of the other spots.

[UMFan83]

You all realize we started 0-2 in 2008, too, right?

 

 

You realize we started 0-2 in 1997 too, right?

 

I don't think anyone is panicing after 2 games. Most people are letting their mediocre start to the season affirm their prediction that the Cubs are a .500 team at best though.

[TruffleShuffle]

You all realize we started 0-2 in 2008, too, right?

 

You all realize most projects have this team around .500, and you can subtract one win from any early season projects thanks to the 0-2 start.

 

i don't think that's how it works

[Roast]

LOL. Ron sounds like he wants to cry right now.

[CUBZ99]

Cubs had to capitalize more in that inning where they had the sacks loaded. Grabow will be fine. I was glad when they got him and I am glad they kept him.

 

Maybe at a 1 year $1 million contract. Hes a loogy, not a set up man.

 

His splits don't even agree that he is a good loogy. He is a decent middle innings guy. The fact that Lou is using him as the main set up guy is depressing. If the bullpen doesn't shape up, of if Lou doesn't figure out how to use the guys in the pen quick, it is going to be a long season.

[Magnetic Curses]

yikes.

[bcl412]

It sucks to lose but there are worse things then losing two games to a good team in their park. Hopefully we win tomorrow but even that isn't the end of the world.

[erik316wttn]

LOL. Ron sounds like he wants to cry right now.

 

I don't blame him.

[Wilson A2000]

Cubs had to capitalize more in that inning where they had the sacks loaded. Grabow will be fine. I was glad when they got him and I am glad they kept him.

 

 

You seriously have to just be trolling/trying to be contrarian on purpose.

 

What? Who is better than Grabow the Cubs could have? It was one game, give the guy a break. Yes he blew the game, but the offense didn't do their part.

[erik316wttn]

Cubs had to capitalize more in that inning where they had the sacks loaded. Grabow will be fine. I was glad when they got him and I am glad they kept him.

 

 

You seriously have to just be trolling/trying to be contrarian on purpose.

 

What? Who is better than Grabow the Cubs could have? It was one game, give the guy a break. Yes he blew the game, but the offense didn't do their part.

 

Wuertz

[David]

Cubs had to capitalize more in that inning where they had the sacks loaded. Grabow will be fine. I was glad when they got him and I am glad they kept him.

 

 

You seriously have to just be trolling/trying to be contrarian on purpose.

 

What? Who is better than Grabow the Cubs could have? It was one game, give the guy a break. Yes he blew the game, but the offense didn't do their part.

 

 

One game?

 

Look at his numbers. He's terribly mediocre.

[Wilson A2000]

The fact that Lou is using him as the main set up guy is depressing. If the bullpen doesn't shape up, of if Lou doesn't figure out how to use the guys in the pen quick, it is going to be a long season.

 

The pen was below average to begin with, then Guzman went down. Lou is picking his poison right now.

[David]

Cubs had to capitalize more in that inning where they had the sacks loaded. Grabow will be fine. I was glad when they got him and I am glad they kept him.

 

 

You seriously have to just be trolling/trying to be contrarian on purpose.

 

What? Who is better than Grabow the Cubs could have? It was one game, give the guy a break. Yes he blew the game, but the offense didn't do their part.

 

Wuertz

 

 

There's one I agree with you on.

[cubbyvirus00]

I've watched 2.5 innings of the Cubs season so far, I'm glad I didn't waste anymore time on this horrific team.

[Schwarber Fan]

Cubs had to capitalize more in that inning where they had the sacks loaded. Grabow will be fine. I was glad when they got him and I am glad they kept him.

 

 

You seriously have to just be trolling/trying to be contrarian on purpose.

 

What? Who is better than Grabow the Cubs could have? It was one game, give the guy a break. Yes he blew the game, but the offense didn't do their part.

 

 

Grabow should not have been in. Marshall/Caridad/Russell would have all been better choices.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You all realize we started 0-2 in 2008, too, right?

 

You all realize most projects have this team around .500, and you can subtract one win from any early season projects thanks to the 0-2 start.

 

i don't think that's how it works

 

That's *exactly* how it works.

 

Let's say you project a team to be .500. If they start out 0-2, you don't change your opinion of the team's abilities, but you can only apply it to the future. That .500 team should go 80-80 the rest of the year, finishing 80-82.

 

If you think the team is going to be 81-81 going into the season and you don't change your mind at 0-2, then you are expecting them to go 81-79 the rest of the year. That's gambler's fallacy.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Cubs had to capitalize more in that inning where they had the sacks loaded. Grabow will be fine. I was glad when they got him and I am glad they kept him.

 

 

You seriously have to just be trolling/trying to be contrarian on purpose.

 

What? Who is better than Grabow the Cubs could have? It was one game, give the guy a break. Yes he blew the game, but the offense didn't do their part.

 

Joe Beimel is essentially the same guy, and he signed a minor league deal.

[Schwarber Fan]

You all realize we started 0-2 in 2008, too, right?

 

You all realize most projects have this team around .500, and you can subtract one win from any early season projects thanks to the 0-2 start.

 

i don't think that's how it works

 

That's *exactly* how it works.

 

Let's say you project a team to be .500. If they start out 0-2, you don't change your opinion of the team's abilities, but you can only apply it to the future. That .500 team should go 80-80 the rest of the year, finishing 80-82.

 

If you think the team is going to be 81-81 going into the season and you don't change your mind at 0-2, then you are expecting them to go 81-79 the rest of the year. That's gambler's fallacy.

 

If they were gonna go .500 I would expect them to be 1-1 right now. My expectations are now lowered.

[weis21]

You all realize we started 0-2 in 2008, too, right?

 

You all realize most projects have this team around .500, and you can subtract one win from any early season projects thanks to the 0-2 start.

 

i don't think that's how it works

 

That's *exactly* how it works.

 

Let's say you project a team to be .500. If they start out 0-2, you don't change your opinion of the team's abilities, but you can only apply it to the future. That .500 team should go 80-80 the rest of the year, finishing 80-82.

 

If you think the team is going to be 81-81 going into the season and you don't change your mind at 0-2, then you are expecting them to go 81-79 the rest of the year. That's gambler's fallacy.

How about the law of averages then? Nobody expects a .500 team to win-one lose-one for the whole year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

How about the law of averages then? Nobody expects a .500 team to win-one lose-one for the whole year.

 

The law of averages is usually misapplied and turns into gambler's fallacy.

 

You expect a .500-team to play .500 for the future. You don't expect them to play better to make up for playing worse before.

[erik316wttn]

You all realize we started 0-2 in 2008, too, right?

 

You all realize most projects have this team around .500, and you can subtract one win from any early season projects thanks to the 0-2 start.

 

i don't think that's how it works

 

That's *exactly* how it works.

 

Let's say you project a team to be .500. If they start out 0-2, you don't change your opinion of the team's abilities, but you can only apply it to the future. That .500 team should go 80-80 the rest of the year, finishing 80-82.

 

If you think the team is going to be 81-81 going into the season and you don't change your mind at 0-2, then you are expecting them to go 81-79 the rest of the year. That's gambler's fallacy.

How about the law of averages then? Nobody expects a .500 team to win-one lose-one for the whole year.

 

Law of averages? That doesn't apply here.

 

102 years. There's your "law of averages"