CubinNY

So are we going to have a bet between Rocket Sauce and Richhillisabeast or what?

It depends on the type of dancing your wife dose. She could have made a lot more money than you :wink:

I perviously used "Tipsy Tony" in this thread. Falling asleep at the wheel and drinking are very bad things. Hasn't he had problems with drinking in the past?

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that. You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game. I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation. The Friken' Marlins entier team was filled with AAAA and AAA and AA guys last year and still finshed better than the Cubs. The Cubs were terrible. This year they've put together a team that doesn't quite fit. And a pitching staff that includes Hill, Lilly, and Marquis. All suspetible to an inordinate number of HRs. Last year the Cubs were among the worst statistical teams in baseball and had one of the worst records in baseball. I think it is unrealistic to expect them to be drastically better. But even if they are drastically bettter that still only puts them around .500. Are you saying that this teams ceiling is around .500? There is no such a thing as a ceiling unless you are talking about a house. Ceiling is nonsensical scoutspeak that someone uses when they want to appear to be smart. I'm saying that the chances that the Cubs are a 90+ win team are small. It's not impossible, but it's not very likely either. I consider a 90 win team to be good.

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that. You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game. I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation. The Friken' Marlins entier team was filled with AAAA and AAA and AA guys last year and still finshed better than the Cubs. The Cubs were terrible. This year they've put together a team that doesn't quite fit. And a pitching staff that includes Hill, Lilly, and Marquis. All suspetible to an inordinate number of HRs. Last year the Cubs were among the worst statistical teams in baseball and had one of the worst records in baseball. I think it is unrealistic to expect them to be drastically better. But even if they are drastically bettter that still only puts them around .500. With all due respect, the Marlins team was filled with very talented AAA and AA guys last year. Ours not so much. So stipulated. Even so, they were still better than the Cubs.

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that. You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game. I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation. The Friken' Marlins entier team was filled with AAAA and AAA and AA guys last year and still finshed better than the Cubs. The Cubs were terrible. This year they've put together a team that doesn't quite fit. And a pitching staff that includes Hill, Lilly, and Marquis. All suspetible to an inordinate number of HRs. Last year the Cubs were among the worst statistical teams in baseball and had one of the worst records in baseball. I think it is unrealistic to expect them to be drastically better. But even if they are drastically bettter that still only puts them around .500.

Shouldn't this go in Rivals or Social (no pun intendend). I couldn't care less about Tipsy Tony.

Based on the way the market worked this summer, you could make a case for IP to be the most important stat. With anybody who pitches over 170 innings considered good and under 150 to be bad. So would you take the under at 160 IP? That is a tough one. I don't think it is an appropriate metric, which I'm almost sure you don't either. But for argument sake, let say it is. I think I still take the under. With the bullpen I think Lou will have a quick hook. Much quicker than TLR.

We will have to go with an over/under here. Someone needs to determine what metric and what number will equal mediocore. I nominate Tim. Take the over and you are betting that Marquis will be good Take the under and you are betting that Marqui will not be good Whatever the metric and whatever the number, I'm taking the under.

Joke? Not a joke.......at SS, defense is more important than offense. Then it is a joke.

Joke? Edit: hypothetical. The Cubs don't manage to resign Big Z in ST and deal him straight up for A-Rod near the deadline. Hypothetical II: The Cubs trade Prior, Pie, Veal for A-Rod at the deadline.

Holy snikes, Marquis gave up 3 dingers! Guess his luck wore out today.

Marquis has been very lucky this spring too.

Where did Thad Matta coach before he went to Ohio State? I can't quite remember... He was a long time assistant coach for Chuck Daily in the NBA. I don't know if he had a college coaching gig though.

It seems like every year the Cubs have some sort of medical problems during ST. The flu, stomach viruses, whatever, it is real weird.

I thought it was a good outing for him (I missed his first inning). His fastball was consistently in the low-nineties (92-93) and had good movement. He threw mainly fastball-changeup and worked quickly. I didn't see him snap off his curve (did anyone else?). He set down the first 6 hitters in order. He gave up a run in the 3rd off a single and double. He came out for the 4th, but BB'd Fielder on 4 pitches, then coughed up a HR to Bill Hall before getting pulled. It was the second time through the lineup and he may have been getting gassed at that point. They had Rapada warming up when he started the inning. He faced mainly Brewers regulars and the announcers said it was the 3rd time he'd pitched against Milwaukee in ST (the other time was vs the Angels, I think). The announcers also said he was 'nursing a sore shoulder' (implying more than normal soreness) but I don't know if that's accurate. It's nice to see Marshall pitching again. Thanks. How many walks? If he can learn to control the strike zone he could be pitching with the big club by the end of the year.

I think the correlation to actual performance is around .6 or .7 for any given year. That is pretty solid, but not outstanding. What is up with Sean G?

Go Memphis Tigers!

I can't log on to premium but I can on the regular site. FWIW

The Cubs do not look crisp either yesterday or today. The outcomes of ST games are meanigless, but I'd like to see them look a better. Lou has a lot of work to do.

Can we merge this thread with the other one on the 5th starter? I'm having a hard time knowing in which thread to post. :D

I just checked-Miller faced the entire Diamondbacks starting lineup (all 8 of them) last time out, and the time before that he faced about half the Padres hitters with the rest of them being their major league backups, not their minor leaguers (for example, Walker in for M. Giles). Yeah, you're right, I listened to those games. IIRC, he was helped a lot by his defense; Didn't he give up more hits than innings pitched (or was that Marquis)? I still think Guzman had a tougher lineup yesterday (and an inferior defensive team behind him). I hope Guzman has the benefit of pitching with all of the regulars in his next start. Guzman's problems yesterday were exactly what Lou said they were. He didn't finsih guys off. He had 0 ks. I think a lot of it had to do with luck but he also was getting the ball up in the zone too often. Friken Juan Uribe had a day yesterday. Guzman should have struck him out twice. The defense didn't help (I'm looking at you Floyd), but Guzman "let" too many balls get put into play. That's the reason why why FIPS/DIPS is such an important stat.

Cliff Flyod struggling with the glove might actually be the best thing for the Cubs offense. His bat looked slow to me, but then again he is behind a little. I thought Theroit wasn't a 3rd baseman? Anyway, he looked good to me at the plate yesterday even though he struck out twice. Both of those 3 and 2 pitches were pitcher's strikes. Edit: as far a 5th starter goes, I think Lou is leaning toward Miller. If/when Prior get healthy Miller or Guzman will be traded, IMO.

White Sox brought their hitting shoes and the Cubs have looked poor on defense. Guzman pitched ok but didn't strike anyone out. Right now. Cherry walked Thome. Cherry has looked pretty good today. 2 on and 2 out. Thanks, CubinNY. Current score? 6-3 Sox

Ronny Woo Woo in the background is almost more annoying than the Hawk.