CubinNY

Cox does have one heck of an eye for talent. Chipper Jones was HIS DECISION. He also help signed Latino's like Furcal, Lopez, etc, etc. The problem with Cox is that he can't coach up the talent he finds.... Come on. Chipper was the number 1 overall pick and spent less than two years in the minors. Only a really dumb person would have passed on Chipper.

I'm officially very concerned about Z.

How in the hell did you notice that? Do you just randomly add up numbers you see? rob is actually rain man With substance abuse issues.

The thing I like is that the Cubs have all the pieces that you need to weigh things on your side and give you better odds of succeeding -Great top end starting pitching -Very good bullpen -Balanced patient offense But even still, we see teams with all those crap out in the first round. The Angels have been doing it for years. In fact, look at the 2007 Angels and tell me that team doesn't remind you a little bit of this year's Cubs team. the angels were 9th in the AL in walks last year and middle of the pack in OPS... that's the big difference between last year's angels and this year's cubs; the angels' offense wasn't patient and good pitchers were able to exploit that. nate silver created something called "secret sauce" - basically, what he found was that playoff success was most likely for teams that were proficient in three areas: * A power pitching staff, as measured by normalized strikeout rate. * A good closer, as measured by WXRL. * A good defense, as measured by FRAA. a lot of people don't like BP's fielding metrics, and i'm not a big fan either. still, boston was the runaway winner of the secret sauce totals last season, but colorado ranked last among the playoff teams - their K-rate was the lowest in the majors and their relief pitching wasn't good either. the wholly mediocre cardinals were last in special sauce in 2006, and they won the WS. still, the analysis has some merit i think - power pitchers would seem to be more likely to beat good hitters than guys who get by on guile. here's how this year's playoff contenders rank in special sauce: cubs: 20 red sox: 20 angels: 24 white sox: 30 devil rays: 31 d-backs: 32 mets: 33 phillies: 35 brewers: 36 marlins: 39 twins: 50 even if you don't like FRAA, you have to think that the cubs are a very good defensive team. they're 3rd in baseball in defensive efficiency; the only teams better are oakland and tampa. so yeah, the cubs are favored over most of the teams that will make the playoffs, but their chances of winning the world series are probably no better than 25%. Is it better to have lower or higher secrete sauce numbers?

Cram it down your cram hole Jeff.

With a lot of players and agents, its just as much the city as the team and money. Especially Boras likes his big ticket guys in big ticket towns like New York and LA. Granted, if The Brewers were to offer up a massive deal, a player would take it, but if that player were offered similar deals with Milwaukee and New York or LA, a lot of players would chose to play in that big market. Look at Beltran. He made it clear that he felt more comfortable playing for a small market team, but Boras wasnt having that, and he ended up in New York. What small market team was offering the money the Mets did? It's not as if every client has gone to NY, LA, and Chicago. The reason guys have wound up there when they have is because those 6 teams are 6 of the richest. Boras plays the bad guy so his clients can get rich and be loved at the same time. He and Maddux have good cop/bad coped it to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I remember when every single Cub fan was pissed at Boars for keeping Maddux from signing early in the offseason of 2004, like Boars was Buffalo Bob and Maddux was Howdy Doody. Maddux kept Maddux out trying to get a better offer. if Sheets wants to stay for less in Mill. he will. If he wants the money he won't.

The thing I like is that the Cubs have all the pieces that you need to weigh things on your side and give you better odds of succeeding -Great top end starting pitching -Very good bullpen -Balanced patient offense But even still, we see teams with all those crap out in the first round. The Angels have been doing it for years. In fact, look at the 2007 Angels and tell me that team doesn't remind you a little bit of this year's Cubs team. Just stop this and enjoy the ride. The Cubs have a dominant team with likable players. They are really soapdropping good. Wait and see what happens before starting to obsess about the down side of the playoffs. It's like Royko wrote, "An optimist looks at the glass and says it's half full. A pessimist looks at the glass and says it's half empty. A Cubs fan looks at the glass and says when is going to spill."

Show me where it's a negative having that experience, that's what I'm looking for. I don't think it can be a negative. Experience is the best teacher, often. I would question whether Edmond's experience in the playoff would benefit anyone else though. Edmonds experience playing in SoCal may benefit the Cubs greatly if they face the LAofA in the WS. That could be very important. Really? The fact that Edmonds was awful in San Diego for a month would help Edmonds out? Or playing Anaheim 9 years ago would? I have no clue how either of those things would help him in playing 4 games in Anaheim. I admit I was reaching when I explained how it could be a negative with him giving advice from his perspective when the advice would be utterly useless to others. But I don't see how that's any more of a reach than thinking Edmonds can say here's what I do against him, you should do this too being a help. I'm talking about how the ballpark plays, It's the same field Edmonds played. I don't think his experience will help anyone in the batter's box facing K-Rod or any pitcher when Vlad is up.

I've stated many times that Dunn should be utilized as a run scorer and not a run producer. He is not a good hitter in any split. One of my biggest problems with him is the amount of RBI's he has not via the HR. I do think he has a lot of value if used correctly, and that he is a detriment if used incorrectly. My biggest fear would be him hitting #3 or 4. RBI is a function of guys on base.

I'll heap the blame on him. It's only taken 15 years for the baseball world to figure this guy out. He should have to give a portion of his paycheck to Barry Bonds for almost singlehandedly making the Giants good for all those years.

Show me where it's a negative having that experience, that's what I'm looking for. I don't think it can be a negative. Experience is the best teacher, often. I would question whether Edmond's experience in the playoff would benefit anyone else though. Edmonds experience playing in SoCal may benefit the Cubs greatly if they face the LAofA in the WS. That could be very important.

It's the short series. Luck plays a really huge role in a short series. AJP and the third strike was nothing but luck. Many times though, the best team does win. The only way to give yourself a shot is to be as strong as you can. Luck favors the prepared and the more talented. I'd love to see a best of 13 WS.

I hate Bob Howry.

That's the scouting report on him going into the season. He's done fine defensively this season though - I'll be surprised if he has to move from the position. I still think his upside is Aramis Ramirez II. I'd love that.

He's going to be the new Crash Davis. Speaking of.... How is Matt Craig doing?

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse. What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant. Tying run on third, less than 2 outs; a strikeout is not worse?? This is ridiculous. If the runner doesn't score, not worse. If the runner scores better. What anyone thinks about the out doesn't matter. If it makes people feel better that a player hit the ball sharply or the fielder made a great play, fine, feel better about the out. The result is the same as a strikeout. As I've said before context is everything. If the out results in a run that's a "better" out. It doesn't matter how the out was made. Page 9.

i'm not sure how you can agree to disagree on something when you're wrong about it. the expected value of putting the ball in play is greater than the expected value of striking out. i'm not taking into account whether dunn would be a better or worse hitter if he played more to contact, but if you have two guys that are exactly equal except one makes 100 "expected outs" (including errors) by putting the ball in play, and the other makes 100 outs by striking out, i'd obviously take the guy who makes the outs by putting the ball in play. Your assumption is wrong. An out is an out. In real world there is "no expected" there is only what happens and what doesn't happen. The way the out happens matters not. yeah, and in the real world the guy who makes 100 outs by putting the ball in play hits sac flies, grounds home a runner from third, gets on base via errors and moves runners up. that outweighs the negative of the 2 times he rolls into a double play, and is more valuable than the 100 strikeouts from the other guy. Nice numbers there (especially the double play). I can do this too. The guy who ks 100 times hits 20 more HRs than the guy who grounds a runner home, hits the SF fly and is helped by the occasional error because he waits for a pitch to drive. Whose better, the Juan Pierre that rarely ks or the mythical Juan Pierre that ks almost every time he makes an out? The answer, is neither. But I'd rather have the mythical one because his OBP would likely be higher and he'd hit into less double plays. There an opportunity cost for every event. BTW> I've never heard of out expectancy before.

i'm not sure how you can agree to disagree on something when you're wrong about it. the expected value of putting the ball in play is greater than the expected value of striking out. i'm not taking into account whether dunn would be a better or worse hitter if he played more to contact, but if you have two guys that are exactly equal except one makes 100 "expected outs" (including errors) by putting the ball in play, and the other makes 100 outs by striking out, i'd obviously take the guy who makes the outs by putting the ball in play. Your assumption is wrong. An out is an out. In real world there is "no expected" there is only what happens and what doesn't happen. The way the out happens matters not.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse. What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant. Tim is exacly right on this one, if Dunn put the ball in play at a similar ratio as Ramirez, he'd be a much better hitter. People give Dunn all this credit for working the count and it has hurt him more than helped him. He is a poor two strike hitter and more than almost anyone in the game is hitting with two strikes. Unless he's amazing at fouling pitches off, he's been too selective, IMO. I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Tim is exactly right on what? making an out on a ball in play is better than striking out? Or Dunn would be better if he put the ball in play more? I don't know how you can say "working the count" has hurt Dunn. Among power hitters, he's got one of the best OBP in all of baseball. I have to believe that putting the ball in play would negatively affect his OBP and his power numbers. It might help his BA though, but at what cost? As far as one out being better than another, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't want 2 of our lower half hitters hitting 1-2. I'm fine with how the lineup is now. It's hard to screw up a lineup as consistent as we have. What does 'lower half hitters' mean? As in not one of the best 4 hitters on our team. Riot should hit either 1 or 2. He is a single machine. Not to mention he's our primary SB option. I don't want Theriot trying to steal under most circumstance. He's not good at it.

The only concern I have is the health of Rich Harden and Z. The Cubs are at or near the top in all the important offensive numbers in the NL. If the rotation stays intact I like their chances of making it to the WS.

I think many Rx drugs in America are OTC in the Caribbean.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse. What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant. Tying run on third, less than 2 outs; a strikeout is not worse?? This is ridiculous. If the runner doesn't score, not worse. If the runner scores better. What anyone thinks about the out doesn't matter. If it makes people feel better that a player hit the ball sharply or the fielder made a great play, fine, feel better about the out. The result is the same as a strikeout. As I've said before context is everything. If the out results in a run that's a "better" out. It doesn't matter how the out was made.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse. What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant.

You know baseball history pretty well OMC....who was the first player (One that made it a habit) to do this? I've seen so much old footage of ballplayers and the earliest that I've ever seen someone do that is with Eddie Murray: http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/4/2/6/f_eddiemurraym_545e742.gif The Sultan of Swat used to admire his homeruns all the time.