CubinNY

Maddux for Duke is a lot better than Maddux for PTBNL. This sounds fishy, very fishy though.

If I were a betting man I'd bet that Bonds used steriods. However, here is a little food for thought. I'm sure that the Babe didn't use steriods and I think it is safe to assume Aaron didn't use either. I did a little study using descriptive statistics. It is pretty simple and I think even the least numberd minded person could understand it. I took the at bat (AB) and home run (HR) totals for Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, and Babe Ruth a came up with a ratio based on AB/HR. Then I looked at 4-5 year periods in their careers. Here is what I found Aaron Age AB/HR 25-30 24 31-36 16 36-41 17 Bonds Age AB/HR 25-30 14 31-36 12 36-41 9 Ruth Age AB/HR 25-30 11 31-35 10 36-39 13 (Babe was pretty much a broken down player after 38) What do those numbers mean to you? I won't tell you how to think, but to me they show that each palyer got better at hitting HRs as they got older. And stayed pretty much the same for their entire career. The spread from highest to lowest for Bonds and the Babe are pretty similar. Edit: Typo. Edit 2: I want to add that I think Bonds is and was a great HR hitter steriods or not. I also want to add that it is too bad that Boston had Ruth pitching for the first 6 seasons he played baseball. If he were in LF instead of on the mound the HR record would probably be untouchable.

Matt Murton waves hello.

thank you. that is just one of many things in this thread that have baffled me. cubinny's bizarre tirade is still #1, though. Pointless yes, bizarre no. Actually I'd say mildly bizarre. Give me a 1-10 rating on bizarreness. How about we get back on topic rather than make you the focus of attention? ok

thank you. that is just one of many things in this thread that have baffled me. cubinny's bizarre tirade is still #1, though. Pointless yes, bizarre no. Actually I'd say mildly bizarre. Give me a 1-10 rating on bizarreness.

you should probably stop clicking on threads with the words "Adam" or "Dunn" in the title. just a suggestion. Personally, I like use of the word "irregardless".

No he's not. I'd definitely prefer to have my pinky toe cut off than my entire leg. Wait, so you would prefer that the Cubs get rid of Pagan before getting rid of Jones? No. I don't want either my leg or my toes to be amputated. I prefer that neither happen just as I prefer that niether Jones nor Pagan were on the team.

thank you. that is just one of many things in this thread that have baffled me. cubinny's bizarre tirade is still #1, though. Pointless yes, bizarre no.

And I think the fact she's mentioned at least twice that Bruce can back her up adds credibility as well. It's not her fault if nobody actually takes her up on it and asks Bruce. What does credibilty mean? That she actually works for the trib or that she has inside information that she can only hint at while sounding important? I can believe the former and I question the latter. I suppose. I kind of stopped caring about credibility on this board once I realized it's just a MB and not in and of itself a source of truth. If I can't check the real sources, then I'll just do what comes naturally, take it with a grain of salt. No one on here knows who anyone is anyway, outside of Bruce who is probably more brave than any of us to let it be known his actual identity. If I'm not going to reveal who I am, then I don't feel like I should demand anyone else do so. And I'm not going to reveal who I really am. That's just my 2 cents. I agree. The entire point of this (it really is pointless however) is that normally people don't make acusations about having inside information and then say "trust me" and get to get away with it. No one is asking the person to reveal who they are. However at the same time I don't think it's proper to float inuendo either. I guess it's the principle of the matter and it's gotten way out of control. Anyway, whatever.

And I think the fact she's mentioned at least twice that Bruce can back her up adds credibility as well. It's not her fault if nobody actually takes her up on it and asks Bruce. What does credibilty mean? That she actually works for the trib or that she has inside information that she can only hint at while sounding important? I can believe the former and I question the latter.

Man, the Giants look like a real bad team today. That is the second near collision. They are just playing bad baseball. That's a suprize to me because I like Bochey and think he's a good manager. Their play really reflects poorly on him. They are mailing it in.

Social anxiety disorder doesn't affect him when he relieves? I find that really, really hard to believe.

It's already done reverend. I hope to some day be as good a person as you. Wow. Who peed in your Cheerios this morning? Great response, BTW. Is this your new manner of arguing with people who disagree with you? Calling them names?

That's a bunch of BS. I complemented Greenstein and she said he can't go on the road because it's a "LOOONG" story. But you would know that if you read the thread wouldn't you. It was what Tim commented on. Oh sorry, you already know that because you read the thread It's already done reverend. I hope to some day be as good a person as you.

Lofton over Brock? Give me a break. http://www.loubrock.com/Stats.htm You have a break. http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=1001458&playerid2=246&playerid3=&position=OF&page=1&type=full WARP3 Lofton 102> Brock 87 Apples and oranges. Brock played several years before the mound was chopped down, with less teams (pre-expansion) and before all the minature stadiums started popping up. Comparing stats from different eras can be misleading. WARP3 corrects for era, supposedly. It's probably more like Granny Smith vs. Red Delicious. Anyway, Lou Brock was severly overrated but still a very good player. And Andy, I think the Cardinals knew who they were getting.

Cain kind of fell apart after that 3-2 count in which he didn't get the strike. It's nice to see an other team's pitcher have a mini-meltdown.

Lofton over Brock? Give me a break. http://www.loubrock.com/Stats.htm You have a break. http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=1001458&playerid2=246&playerid3=&position=OF&page=1&type=full WARP3 Lofton 102> Brock 87

Koiye Hill coming through. The Cubs are leading the good life here.

Yes.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you were worried about your job would you insinuate that you have inside information that could get you fired if you reveal how you obtained the information? Especially if you "like getting paid"? Just so you could look important on a message board. I don't know about you but I'd keep my hands away from the keyboard in those instances.

It was one game. If he'd hit two HRs and thrown out 5 baserunners and the Cubs still lost it wouldn't mean anyhting either. They had 7 walks last night.

One could say the same about many here, yourself included. No we can't. Just put me on ignore if you feel the need for superiority. I don't. My point was only that we all speculate on issues 99% of the time. A select few may believe their opinions and personal speculation are fact and incontrovertable, but I think that most understand that its not. Before you came to this thread to preach did you bother to read anything prior to my post? This person has portrayed herself as someone who has connections to either the Cubs or the Tribune or perhaps both. Then she slanders Teddy Greenstein by saying the reason he isn't a beat reporter is because he isn't allowed to travel. Insinuaiting what, I have no idea. Previously she portrayed herself as someone in the know about how MLB operates and how the MLB owners don't like Jeff Loria. When I asked her to subtantiate her opinon, her answer was "trust me I know but I can't tell you because I like my job" or some other such nonsense. I don't know any other people who say they have "sources" or insinuate that they have inside information but want to remain anonymous who post here. She could be legitimate. I couldn't care less. If you can't or won't substantiate your claims, it is best to not make them. And I'm not talking about statistics or who is a better second baseman or what-have-you. But hey, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. Preach away.

One could say the same about many here, yourself included. No we can't. Just put me on ignore if you feel the need for superiority.

-Murton is clearly better than Floyd against lefties. DeRosa should be at 2B, with Murton RF against lefties. It's beyond stupid to delay this. -Pie is not likely to perform any worse offensively than Pagan or Jones and is far better defensively than either. He's always adjusted well after moving up a level, and I don't see why he wouldn't do so again, given time. -Cedeno is a good bet to be better than Izturis and certainly isn't likely to be worse. The bottom line is none of these moves will make the Cubs worse, and all have a decent chance to actually make them better. Saying you can't give these guys a shot and keep winning is beyond absurd. It's just plain wrong. Again, you're making these lineup decisions based on what you think or hope will happen. When Pie was up, he was outperformed by Pagan....same can be said for Murton. Sadly, when Cedeno was up, he was outperformed by Izturis and that's hard to do. The fact is those 3 players had their opportunity earlier in the year and all 3 failed or did not meet expectations. Are you kidding? You are kidding? I guess if a guy doesn't "produce" immediately they should be gotten rid of. They should have shelved Soriano a long time ago by that logic. It is really beyond my ability to understand where you get your opinon from. Pie was given a "chance"? Murton was given a "chance"? Cendeno performed badly last year, but there is some adjustment time. What is the cut off so we can have a frame of reference. The player needs to produce in his first 20 ABs? After that he should be given a positon no matter what. Pagan is just terrible. I can't think of another MLB team that he would play for.

Except we don't pretend to be someone we're not.