CubinNY

if that were the case, I would think it would show up in P/PA and IsoD. P/PA v. lefties - 3.73 v. righties - 3.73 IsoD v. lefties 61 v. righties 62 they are not appreciably more patient against righties than they are against lefties. And that's the problem.

then i don't think you understand the question The question posed by the OP is pretty clear: It's a ridiculous question - why do we give a rat's ass about this type of "fan"? Who cares? It's not the case for 99.9% of the posters on NSBB. i don't think people "like" that the team hasn't won in 99 years. however, i think that once the team does win, you won't see a ton of support for the team if/when they tank again. the comparison to the Red Sox doesn't hold water, as Boston was a perennial playoff team before 2004 and since. the Cubs have showed no ability to put together two straight postseason years much less a decade of them. do people really think that Wrigley will be filled to the rafters every day if the Cubs put up a 95 loss team after winning it all? I don't That's the worst argument I think I've ever read on here. The Cubs wouldn't be selling out if they post a 95 loss season no matter what. Look what happend at the end of last year. This entire thread is a text book example of specious reasoning. I don't get it. It's moronic to conclude that winning would hurt the Cubs in popularity, even if they suck the next year.

no patience, it is that simple.

And what I'm saying is this is ridiculous. "True fans" is a stupid phrase. The theory that many fans find the team trendy because they lose is stupid. The theory that marketing would decline if they won is asinine. It's a stupid topic that should be deleted. Immediatly, it would skyrocked, however, in the long runs, people outside Chicago would not care as much, and wed become another hated big money team like the Yanks and Red Sox. Holy moley, the Yankees and Red Sox probably have the two largest fan bases in baseball. The Cubs, Dodgers, and Giants are probably in the second teir. I think you are not approaching this logically. When I was really young I liked the Minnesota Vikings of Fran Tarknington, Alan Page, Chuck Forman, Sammy White, George Marsahall etc.. I still like the Vikings today even know they suck and play in roller dome. Whatever fans the Cubs get by winning will be a plus.

Here is a little more... Danger Will Robinson, Danger! That said, two years is a reasonable amount of time for his contract.

No. He probably cost them at least 3 or 4 games this year.

How about the IBB to Berkman to get to Lee. That's Charlies Weis genius right there.

Go Cubs, go!

He could probably be as good as Pierre defensively with a little more experience. I could see a team regarding him as a valuable as leadoff man. If Patterson is in the outfield, his greatest value to the Cubs is as a tradeable comodity.

Mismanaged. The NBA has a salary cap and the the Clippers stink year after year. The NFL has a cap and look at the Lions.

Haven't Patterson's problems at second been throwing? If so, I think those could be rectified.

Listen, it doesn't matter who you are or where you work. You should take it as a sign of respect that people respond your posts in a critical manner and not take things personally. This is a stupid message board, every opinion will be dicected and disagreements will arise.

When I was 8 or 9 my cousin told me the cup was a gas mask so I put it over my nose.

Defference and respect are intersections on a two way street.

I admit that I might have read it wrong...and that he may have meant longer ago than he implied...fair enough. But Soto got more attention that just from NSBB. He was mentioned regularly in the farm club updates that WGN and Comcast did during the Cubs games this year. I'm just still miffed that Koyie Hill and Bowen both got so much of a chance but Soto hasn't (until now) and now, while hitting in the .400's, is still a question mark for regular playing time down the stretch. People here have been talking about Soto since well before this season. I think Hendry is just spewing crap. What I mean is, I don't believe he believes what he is saying. Yet, it is inexplicable why they choose to bring up Hill after Barrett was traded when clearly Soto was the better prospect.

Marshall and Murton for Tejada? I'd do that deal.

Harang is still the ugliest player in baseball. Pitch well Z, you'll have to.

I disagree with some others that think the non-quantifiable things are very small. I actually think they are somewhat large (although not nearly as much as football or basketball). However, I question if Theriot has those "intangibles" that everyone describes of him. "He provides a spark, and he's a winner"-the Cubs are 60-58 with him starting, and 19-14 when he doesn't. Additionally, the Cubs score 5.24 runs per game when Theriot is not in the lineup, while they only score 4.37 runs per game when Theriot starts. (those might be a little off, I was trying to do a manual count-there's at least a .6 or .7 difference though, maybe Fred can run it through his program and check). There's absolutely no evidence that Theriot makes the Cubs better. They don't win more when he's in the lineup, and they don't score as much when he's in the lineup (countering the intangible that even though Theriot might not be getting on, his spark has made others better around him). There are other intangibles, but I think most people would agree those are the two biggest, and Theriot hasn't made a difference on either one. This is a really great post. The only problem is you cannot convince people who don't believe in numbers that these numbers matter. What I mean is this. I teach teachers how to manage behavior, others behavior and their own. I teach them that what matters most in behavior management is what we can see and hear. That we cannot get into kids heads and see what they are thinking. That a pill won't teach a kid to learn to read or do math problems. I have data and science behind me. I have journal articles for them to read full of numbers that demonstrate what successful applications look like. None of this convinces them, they like the intangibles becuase it makes things easier to take. They think numbers and facts take the mystery out of life. They couldn't be further from the truth.

It's not a statistical or 3rd party reason (BABIP/defense) why he's doing better this year, it's a mechanical issue for him as well as pitch selection. If he stays closed in his delivery as well as not overthrowing his sinker (leaving it up in the zone) he'll do better. You're basing something solely on effect rather than cause. He had a better defense behind his last year and the reason why he BABIP is lower is not b/c of defense nor random flucuation but b/c of improvements in his stuff and command. That and not overthrowing. He used to overthrow a lot when he got into trouble and it only got him into more trouble. :) Yea, I'm giving a test right now, trying to keep one eye on my students.

It's not a statistical or 3rd party reason (BABIP/defense) why he's doing better this year, it's a mechanical issue for him as well as pitch selection. If he stays closed in his delivery as well as not overthrowing his sinker (leaving it up in the zone) he'll do better. You're basing something solely on effect rather than cause. He had a better defense behind his last year and the reason why he BABIP is lower is not b/c of defense nor random flucuation but b/c of improvements in his stuff and command. That and not overthrowing. He used to overthrow a lot when he got into trouble and it only got him into more trouble.

Yep, it's time to step up. If they can't put away these pathetic teams they don't deserve to be in the playoff.

obviously. and if jason kendall starts, i wouldn't expect all-star numbers or anything even close. I agree. I suppose the above was directed more toward the few people who have said that we will turn on Soto should he not perform up to some mythical level.

I've stated this previously, but I think it bears mentioning again. Soto may never be this good again in his entire career. Even if he does start next year, I wouldn't expect all-star numbers or anything even close.

Just what a team should do. Not play a prosppect during the previous season and "give him a look" in meaningless games in ST. It's the Cubs MO and a reason they cannot sustain a winning record year in and year out.

Nicely put. My gosh, I don't know where you guys get this from !!! Kennesaw Mountain Landis, the original commissioner of baseball, was a judge who was hired by the owners of MLB as a PR move to attempt to minimize the damage of the Black Sox Scandal of 1919. Just incidently, he's the same judge who, just 5 years earlier, kept inexplicably delaying the court action that the Federal League brought against Major League Baseball until the Federal League folded and the "problem" went away. Unbiased ?? No ties ?? Give me a break !!! Landis was a nasty character, there is no doubt. He also got Jack Johsnon banned from boxing. However, Unless I don't know my history he was also not a former baseball owner. And as far as I know he also was fiercely independent, ruling for the players as often as ruling for the league in labor disputes. Landis was responsible for keeping Blacks out of baseball among many other dispicable things, but he is generally regarded as an independent voice among baseball historians. I think all the commishiners were non-owners up to Selig.