CubinNY

What is silly is that anyone would consider Theriot an MVP. SS production in the past is entirely beside the point. The Cubs have played decent team baseball. They are a good team without any real outstanding performances from anyone. Each player has contributed a little.

In 2012, the next time the Cubs are good we'll all be in a game thread talking about the game thread in 2007 when we were talking about the game thread in 2003 or the collapse in 1984. :D Seriously, Different year, different team, different manager, different outcome. Go Cubs!

1984. Leon Durham. I forgive, but I will never forget. I was a sophomore in highschool. I still have the Chicago Tribune from the day the Cubs clinched the NL East.

Boy the D-Backs are a statistical oddity. They will be thrown up by all number hating fans for years and years.

Lilly and it isn't even close, to me.

Wasn't Cabrera a young (for MiLB) teenager for most of those AB's, though? It's a little more understandable there. Not that I have any doubts about Soto, I'm just saying. Yes, Cabrera was a young teenager for most of those at bats. And going back to my original comment, players develop at different stages. Soto just got it going later. No disrespect intended, but you have no more idea if this is true than I do if the juice is true. In modern day baseball, when a guy's numbers change as dramatically as this, esp at his age, it brings suspicion. Especially at his age? This whole conversation is a brutal oversimplification. Soto isn't 31, he's 24. Players at his age in the minors make adjustments in their swings to add power, they add muscle (see the comment about him getting into shape this offseason), or they finally start facing age appropriate competition and take off. All of these are possible if not probable factors in Soto's case. He was always young for his league, and showed the discipline throughout his minor league career to be a discriminating enough hitter. Add in the fact that catchers are often have a later offensive development due to the physical demands of fielding their position, and there's plenty of reason to think Soto is legit. Jumping straight to "Soto hit a bunch of HR that he never hit before, he could be on steroids" is simply a lazy intellectual response. It is a natural response in today's game. I hope he is 24. :) I don't think it's a natural response in today's game. To be frank, it's a ridiculous jump to a conclusion unsupported by any facts, whereas an analysis of minor league improvement trends would demonstrate that this isn't a unique or even an extraordinary circumstance. He's an American citizen -- born in Puerto Rico. as is Pujols, I believe. And nobody in MLB believes Pujols is the age he proclaims. Well at least you're batting 1.000. Are you on the juice? Pujols is from the DR and pretty much everybody who isn't a complete soapdropping idiot believes he is his age.

Sounds good to me, except for the part about Monroe. Though I saw someone said this in another thread: isn't that dude about due for a 5-5, 3HR game or something? There has to be some return to his statistical norm soon. Doesn't there? In other news, I will be missing most of this one on account of a "business dinner." Leave it to me to grouse about getting a free dinner. :) But I'd much rather be parked in front of the tube. I think we'll get something from Monroe before it's over, maybe tonight if he plays. Overall that lineup should be good. These guys have actually been hitting lefties pretty good recently, and Dontrelle does not qualify as a "good" lefty this season. He's certainly nowhere near Gorzelanny who we just plastered. We've faced so many lefties I don't think it's an advantage for the opposition anymore. The recent history supports that notion. I actually would perfer to face lefties. We seem to have fixed whatever problems we had with them. To be successful tonight the Cubs will have to lay off the breaking balls and look fastball. Dontrell has been a six inning pitcher all year. The Marlins are dead last in WHIP this year and next to last in k/BB.

I'm hitting what you are pitching BBB but Cabrera also came upt to the bigs when he was 20. I don't like this automatic assumption that every players who had a good/great year is no the juice. Unfortunately, that is part of the deal today. If Soto was a Cardinal, we would be buying into it. That is a completely moronic statement. Completely and utterly stupid. No it isn't part of the deal today and no we wouldn't. No one said anything about Ankeil until it was reported in the media. And the morons who bought into the story neglected to realize he received the PED in 2003 not 2007.

I'm hitting what you are pitching BBB but Cabrera also came up to the bigs when he was 20. I don't like this automatic assumption that every players who had a good/great year is on the juice.

The key is "lack of focus." When you're in a competitive situation, you're more focused. You guys are killing me. Every at-bat is a competitive situation.

well said. I like to really know how many of the posters here go 100% at work 24/7. I'd guess many posters are at work while they are browsing NSB. Im at work right now on here and Im giving about 3.5% today well done! :) How hard would you slackers be trying if your boss and 40,000 paying customers were watching? lol!!!111!1!!!1!!!

I think what he said isn't true at all. Saying and doing are not the same thing. I know it seems obvious but people seem to assume that what someone says is necessarily a true reflection of reality. I do not. I have a real hard time believing Soriano didn't "try" as hard at the end of last season. He might have been worn down from the long season, but I tend to believe that players "try" hard every at bat in a game. It doesn't matter what he said. He had terrible numbers in Sept last year, but he also had terrible numbers in June too. Does that mean he took June off too? He was also moved down in the order. Could that have played a factor? They also played the majority of their games in Sept at home in RFK where he hit aprreciably worse the entire year. Could that have been a reason? The point is, there are a lot of factors that could affect a player's performance, "trying" harder seems a pretty insignificant one to me.

I am so freaking worried that the Cubs will choke this away and get made fun of by every hack sports broadcaster in North America. Just win please.

I like Soriano. He's overpaid and not worth the money, but he seems like he genuinely likes playing baseball. I like JJ too. I wish he wasn't on the team but I like him. I watched him sign autographs and chat with Cub fans for about 1/2 an hour before a game in San Deigo this year. He was as nice as could be. Lee of course. He just seems like a quality guy. Theriot and Fontenot are good stories but I couldn't care less about them. Wood is all business, I couldn't care less about him either. I am glad to see he can still throw the ball though. I like Z. He's the same all the time, fired up. That's about it. I don't really care about the players that much. What I mean is I don't have a strong desire to know them on a personal level.

I love being right. Oh and LOL at Wisconsin struggling to beat Iowa at home. still big on the Big 10 bashing, but seems that Big East chatter has died down the past couple weeks. I love it when you're wrong. The Big 10 is horrible. Deal with it. Yes, Louisville sucked against Syracuse. They still have WVU and Rutgers and South Florida is looking like a very good team as well. I'm not going to excuse Louisville losing as the loss at home to Syracuse is probably the second worst loss of the year (UM to App State is No. 1). But the Big East was and still is a better conference than the Big 10. The Big East is terrible. You deal with it. Since you're sooooo proud of yourself for getting one right, can't you be big enough to admit you are wrong about one? what's next, South Florida gets dumped by UConn and then UConn becomes the new "legit" team that you prop up with this joke of a conference with? WVU does look good. now if only they would have to beat someone besides Rutgers so some of us outside your dream world could find out. you're so quick to point out the Big Ten schedule, exactly which of these victories am I supposed to be impressed by? Duke Maine Temple Western Michigan Marshall (x 2) Maryland East Carolina Southeast Missouri Oregon State Miami (OH) Buffalo Navy Norfolk State Elon Auburn UNC Murray State Midd Tenn Eastern Michigan Grambling Western Michigan. That was an easy one Go Broncos! Reprsent'n

You may want to try that picture again. Photobucket resized it smaller for some reason but I put the bigger image back out there. :D Thanks for all the compliments! I'm still riding high after yesterday's game. That one is much better. You have a lot talent for taking pictures or a really good camera, or perhaps both. Thanks

I just uploaded the last pic for my desktop.

As long as we're thinking outside of the box here. Johan Santana (rumor is he wants out of Minnesota) Pie + Marshall + Gallagher (or any three players they want not named Lee, Z, or Aramis) Sign one of the many competent FA CFers who will be flooding the market, Andruw Jones maybe? Don't waste valuable resources on Tejada. If A-Rod becomes available make a big play for him (not likely). Soriano Murton Lee Aramis A. Jones DeRossa Soto Theriot Z, Hill, Lilly, Santana, ? That would be a tough team to beat in a seven game series.

That was before today, at least I am assuming it will go down after today. Cubs = 97.4 Brewers = 2.6 Wow, it's really that much in our favor now? I could see the crew ripping off, say 5-2 in their last 7 at home. Cubs would need to win 2 games, on the road. That's losing 2/3 in each series. Ok, it's definitely in our favor big time but I would have thought more like 80%. If you played the season out 100 times from this point, wouldn't you think a team thats 3.5 games up with 6 to play would win it more than 80 times? Remember the computer doesn't know that a few days ago it was tied. The Cubs could have been 20 games up in mid-August and now 3.5 up. Either way, the odds that a team has managed to be good enough amass a 3.5 game lead through 156 games will be able to win enough to make the playoffs an extremely high perentage of the time In other words, the computer doesn't realize it's the Cubs. Correct. To paraphrase that tired old Berra cliche "It ain't over til it's over, especially when you're talking about the Cubs." Despite what history says below, I'm not prematuring anything, my champagne can remain on ice. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3033679 If any team can do it, we all know it will be the Cubs.

interesting He made you type that

Point is it may be true for the Brewers but they can't cry. There's no crying in baseball!

To refute this, I'm saying that a player's performance does not shift whether or not there is a base runner on or not. The fact that his numbers are different with runners on is all just a matter of coincidence. A player doesn't suddenly gain better offensive ability (or worse), based on the situation at hand, i just cannot believe that theory. Wait, you actually can't believe that it's possible that there exists a player who performs either better or worse under different levels of pressure? Not just "I don't think the evidence supports it" but "I don't see how there could be a mechanism in place for this to be so" That's tremendously weird. I don't see how it could be possible that every player in baseball could be completely unaffected by differing levels of pressure, personally. That's not what he's saying at all and you know it.

Why do you say that? This topic has pretty much been beaten to death. But, a> Your argument is predicated on the fact that the Trib hasn't spent money on the Cubs until recently, and that is clearly wrong. b> Winning and money are correlated, but corelation and causation are horses of a different color. c> Most of those winning teams also don't behave like the Cubs front office. Getting more of the same only this time with passion won't get the Cubs anywhere.

The Cubs just want it!

I would think that any owner would want that. The question is how to go about doing it. I don't want a new package of feces with the same old faces of retread GMs, scouts, AGMs, and mangers who all Played The Game and use the same old conventional wisdom that has got the Cubs 99 years of crap. I don't know that these guys will do that sort of thing, but I have my suspicions. Especially if Steve Stone is in any way linked to them. It's pretty simple in today's MLB for a big market team like the Cubs. Money. As long as Isiah Thomas doesn't decide to run an MLB team, teams that have spend money generally win. The others get hope to strike lightning with the right group of prospects and role players getting hot the right year. The formula is simple. Maximize revenue and invest a fair portion of your revenue back into the team. Something that the Tribune company has not ever done until maybe this past offseason to boost the value of the team for sale. I have no solid proof of this, but we will see what these smart businesspeople decide to bid on the team after they see the books. I doubt they would bid all those hundreds of millions on a team that can't make money like the Trib has claimed for so many years. You couldn't be more wrong. And on every level.