jjgman21

even after watching the 2006 Chicago Cubs, I had no idea such offensive ineptitude was possible.

just a thought on a possible reason Hendry stuck with Dusty. much like Dusty seems to be setting it up to blame Hendry, Hendry might be doing the same with Dusty, ie. "I know we had alot of injuries, but we felt that Dusty didn't do as well with the guys he still had as was expected. we also feel he didn't meet our expectations in terms of keeping a stable clubhouse and attracting big name free agents to Chicago. we gave him every opportunity to bring the team together and to get the team back on track, but that didn't happen." oh for a little bit of truth like that.

Paging Marty McFly and Dr. Brown. :D Hit the Quantum Leap music! Also, as well as the Braves have been doing, I'm convinced that Ned Yost is only a hair better than Dust-for-brains. His lineups, pitcher handling, and calling of the game (hit & runs, SBs, etc) leave much to be desired. However, he should get kudos for hiring Mike Maddux as his pitching coach. I don't quite understand what you don't like about Yost's lineups. Here's an average one for instance. Brady Clark- .280 BA, .374 OBP, .348 SLG Jeff Cirillo- .323 BA, .379 OBP, .418 SLG Prince Fielder- .282 BA, .350 OBP, .502 SLG Gabe Gross- .271 BA, .374 OBP, .488 SLG (He's also hit leadoff some) Bill Hall- .273 BA, .333 OBP, .566 SLG Tony Graffanino- .317 BA, .352 OBP, .413 SLG (He's hit in the 2 spot some) Corey Hart- .270 BA, .333 OBP, .338 SLG (Plus he's a youngster starting over a struggling vet, Geoff Jenkins) Mike Rivera- .304 BA, .333 OBP, .500 SLG Kevin Mench, .295 BA .335 OBP .452 SLG, has hit fifth some and David Bell, .272 BA .337 OBP .390 SLG, has hit seventh some. Not much to dislike that I can tell from that lineup. There are some issues but it's mostly not having the correct personnel (why is David Bell on the team for instance) but that's the GM's fault, not Yost's. actually that's not typical at all considering that Gross and Clark have been platooned in center and are rarely in the linup at the same time, and that Clark is listed as leadoff, where he has been less than half the time when he should be there every single game he starts. more often he is put in the 8 hole where his great obp is wasted. much like Dusty, he doesn't stick with any consistent lineup and puts guys in inexplicable places in the lineup.

I actually have no problem with that and wonder why it has to be unprecedented. a loss like ND suffered to SC last year does not make them any lesser of a team. I have no idea why a close loss (and basically unlucky loss) to a fantastic team makes the loser any worse than they were going in and thus deserving of a lower ranking. it's all just another part of the 'that's the way it always has worked' mentality instead of using analysis and actually thinking to come to determinations of who is better than who.

There is almost no reason at all for a team that loses a Heisman finalist to be ranked in the top 5. Maybe they will be fine, but it's ludicrous to put them that high. Hell, USC lost TWO Heisman winners and are ranked 3rd. Just because a team loses a Heisman trophy winner or finalist doesn't mean they shouldn't be ranked high in the polls the next year. USC lost Carson Palmer going into the 2003 season and ended up winning a share of the National Title. Last year USC returned both Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart but their downfall was their defense. The thing that should matter when it comes to Texas losing Vince Young is the fact that the team's offense will be radically different this year without him as quarterback. Young had so much leeway in the offense and was able to do things that few other quarterbacks can do. Texas will have to get rid of a good number of offensive plays (re: virtually every play that involved Vince Young running the ball or given the option of running) because the new quarterback can't do what Vince did. It's much more likely that USC will be able to have another quarterback step in to replace Leinart without missing a beat (much like Leinart replacing Palmer) than Texas replacing Young without missing a beat. Another thing that favored Texas, and favors them even more now, is the Big 12 not being a great conference. With Bomar out, I expect Texas to run the gauntlet and finish at least 11-1 going into the Big 12 title game. The winner of the Texas-Ohio State game will be an easy pick to make the National Title game. yes, the loss of basically their entire offense had more to do with my statement than the loss of a winner of a trophy. but I don't know that the pollsters take conferences and computers and things like that into account. I think for the most part they say 'who is the best team in CFB' and vote accordingly. although I do agree with the above that there is no clear cut favorite, so it makes the pre-season voting a little more difficult this year than most.

conspiracy theory? a conspiracy by it's very nature takes at least two people. I think you are taking a jab at me, and that's not like you. I for one think Maddux is exactly the type who would dog it for a couple years if he didn't particularly give a damn. he's as aloof as any player in baseball. maybe you did see him hit 88 here and there. consistently for an entire game at any time during the past three years? not that I saw. I'm sure he'll have another start on national tv soon. maybe tonight was just a fluke, but if his velocity is still up like tonight, I'm sure it will be more than just Cheesehead and I expressing these sentiments.

come the end of the year, after losing their bowl game, I think you will find the pollsters had ND well ahead of all the computer rankings. they were by no means treated unfairly in 2002. quite the contrary. they jumped over teams when the should not have, and didn't drop as far as they should have when they lost. I don't think the Irish were treated unfairly in 2002-I think they were treated exactly as they should have been. The AP poll had ND at 17th at the end of the season after their bowl game with a 10-3 ND record There were only 2 teams behind them in the top 25 who had the same number of losses or less-Marshall and TCU, who had 2 losses each against a vastly inferior schedule. There were 6 3 loss teams in the poll-ND is dead last among those 6 teams. In fact, there are 2 teams with 4 losses who were ranked higher in the final poll than the Irish. As for the computer rankings, Sagarin had them at 9th after the bowl in his rating he uses for the BCS. Colley had them at 9th as well. Massey's BCS rating had ND at 10th after the bowl loss. Anderson and Hester had them at 10th. The other computer rankings of that year do not have the final results archived anymore that I can find. So the computers still thought ND was a top 10 team-ND was ranked behind every 3 loss team in the poll and even two 4 loss teams-how exactly is this favortism? that's what happens when you lose your last two games. you have to keep in mind that the votes are for right now, not how a team has been over the course of the year. other teams would be thankful to only move down 10 or so slots after two thrashings like the Irish took in their game against SC and then in their bowl game. if that hypothetical other team wasn't ranked before the year, went 10-1 in their first 11, then lost their last two by wide margins, they would probably be thankful to be ranked at all because they never would have made the top ten. apparently I was wrong about the computer polls, but I did spot one that had them around 20 (which was the basis of my statement). I don't think I should have phrased it in terms of the Irish aren't treated fairly. I think what their 2002 AP ranking shows is they are in fact treated favorably by the pollsters when comparred to how teams that aren't traditional powerhouses tend to move up and down the polls. in other words, whatever anti-ND sentiment there may be among the voters is overwhelmed by the favoritism they receive. again, nothing to be ashamed or defensive of, but its a fact. certain teams get favorable treatment by the pollsters. there's a fabulous example of it right now. Texas, no. 2 without Vince Young? come on.

I admit I wasn't watching non-stop; I was following the game in the background. It looked to me like his pitches ranged around 83-89 and he sat around 84-86, which is maybe one tick higher than usual. It wasn't like he was throwing only in the high-70s before July 31. I think any slight increase may be due to things like gun discrepencies, warm August nights, a guy who for whatever reason pitches better in the second half, and, yeah, perhaps being in a playoff race gets the pulse going a bit more. What's your reasoning? That caring can add 4-5mph to a fastball over the course of a ballgame? Or that, now that he cares, he can dial it up to 90 consistently from here on out? I'm confused. not sure what your question is. my point is simply this - - where was that 88 to make his changeup more effective during the past two and a half years? I think we were all under the impression he wasn't capable of it anymore, but suddenly a change of uniform brings it out of him. combine that with his comments about wishing he was with the Dodgers all along, and I think his effort with the Cubs is open to scrutiny.

it's one thing to get better late in the season. it's another to turn on the light switch when at your audition and then pour it on instantly once changing uniforms. edit - and that doesn't explain the 4-5 mph on the fastball that has been missing for two and a half years. I watched the Royals-Indians for an inning today and their gun said Luke Hudson and Todd Wellemeyer both hit 100 in that first inning. I doubt that Maddux has had a significant change in velocity. 2 of his last 3 starts as a Cub were quite good. if there were significant gun disparity, I would think Schmidt would have been hitting 97-99 instead of the 93-96 range the gun showed. Maddux routinely was hitting 88 on the gun and I think reached 89 a couple times. the gun might have been a mph or two off, but Maddux definitely had more juice on his pitches than at any point I have seen the past two and a half years.

allow me to elaborate further I think the 2002 season proves my point. it's about incumbancy and who does what, not what was done. the pollsters don't care about computer rankings. it just doesn't work that way, what makes you expect such treatment? in fact, they Irish did leap frog alot of teams without the usual justification (a loss by the team leap frogged) and that just doesn't happen with most teams. in 2002 the Irish were coming off a bad year, and 2 of the past 3 years were bad by any definition. so let's look how the season went. we'll use just the AP poll for simplicity. they went into the season unranked with just 3 points in preseason votes. after the second poll where only a few teams played games, they still had those three points poll 3 - they beat 21st ranked Maryland and leap frog about 20 teams to no. 23. poll 4 - they beat unranked Purdue and leap frog Texas A&M up to 20th poll 5 - they beat no. 7 Michigan and leap frog three teams that were either idle or won into no. 12 (as further reinforcement of what I am getting at, Penn State, a traditional powerhouse, went from unranked to no. 15 that same week) poll 6 - they beat unranked MSU and move past two teams that lost into 10th. poll 7 - they are idle and move up to 9 past FSU who lost. poll 8 - they beat Stanford and move up to 8 past Florida who lost poll 9 - they beat Pitt and move up to 7 past Texas who lost. poll 10 - they beat AF and move to 6th past Oregon who lost (Oregon, not a traditional powerhouse, lost 45-42 to ASU and dropped from 6 to 14. let's see what happens when the Irish lose their first game). poll 11 - they hand FSU their third loss of the season and are rewarded by inexplicably leap frogging two undefeated teams, Georgia and Ohio State, into 4th and receive one vote for no. 1 poll 12 - they lose to unranked BC 14-7 and fall a mere 5 slots to no. 9. poll 13 - they barely beat Navy and remain no. 9. USC, a traditional powerhouse leapfrogs them. VT loses and drops behind them. poll 14 - they are idle but move up to no. 8 as no. 4 Texas loses to Texas Tech and plummets to no. 11 poll 15 - they thrash Rutgers and move up to no. 7 as Wazzou loses by three to unranked Washington and drops six slots poll 16 - they get absolutely thrashed by USC and drop a mere 4 slots to no. 11 come the end of the year, after losing their bowl game, I think you will find the pollsters had ND well ahead of all the computer rankings. they were by no means treated unfairly in 2002. quite the contrary. they jumped over teams when the should not have, and didn't drop as far as they should have when they lost. just because they didn't jump over teams you thought or the computers thought they should have leap frogged does not mean that the human beings who cast their votes treated them unfairly. they got typical traditional powerhouse treatment.

it's one thing to get better late in the season. it's another to turn on the light switch when at your audition and then pour it on instantly once changing uniforms. edit - and that doesn't explain the 4-5 mph on the fastball that has been missing for two and a half years.

it's difficult to have sympathy for them. they made their bed, they have to lay in it. they could've become part of a conference long ago, but remaining independant just brings in too much money with no need to share the revenue with other teams. they have a choice, not be so greedy or continue having difficulty getting the at large bid. I don't really think he was complaining about ND's process, just explaining that it's not the cake walk into the BCS that so many antis like to portray it as. Yup-I'm not complaining whatsoever other than to refute the assumption that ND gets special treatment just because they are ND, as many of the people around the country have said in the past (Oregon last year for example). ND has an advantage in getting selected when they are eligible, and it balances nicely with the disadvantage they have of not ever being able to get in due to winning a conference in a down year. Those balance out to the point that I think it is fair for everyone. with words like "unlike BCS teams" and "forced" and "never being able to sneak" it kind of sounds like complaining. die hards will never admit this but its true...there are certain teams that don't fall as far as others in the polls after a loss and certain teams that will get the nod over other teams in the rankings even if they have more losses plus less than impressive schedules and certain teams that generally are ranked higher at the beginning of the year than they probably should be. some teams just get pushed up when it isn't justified. two of these teams used to be Florida and Nebraska, but both programs hit bumps. another of these teams is Michigan, but they have pretty much been exposed. and another team, and I am a fan (they are my second favorite CFB team after my alma mater), is Notre Dame. just look at my favorite team, Wisconsin. they pounded Auburn in their bowl game, finished with identical records as Auburn, but some how finished right behind Auburn in both polls. why? why does a voter sit down, make out a list, and put team A ahead of team B the day after team B trounced team A? because one is a traditional powerhouse. the other is an annually competetive team, but not a traditional powerhouse. sorry guys. it's nothing to be embarassed or ashamed about or defensive of. it's just something that goes along with being a historical power house in a sport. the same goes in college hoops, see Duke, NC, and any other traditional powerhouse.

personally, I am sitting here spitting nickels. amazing how he finds an extra 4-5 mph on his fastball after changing uniforms. amazing how he's hitting all his spots. amazing how he's not shaking off his catcher to get to that crappy looping curveball. suddenly, Greg Maddux cares again.

it's difficult to have sympathy for them. they made their bed, they have to lay in it. they could've become part of a conference long ago, but remaining independant just brings in too much money with no need to share the revenue with other teams. they have a choice, not be so greedy or continue having difficulty getting the at large bid.

I disagree. Jeter's catch was a nice, above average play followed by as Edmonds-esque of a display as you will find outside of Edmonds. his dive into the stands was unnecessary, and why he did it I still can't figure out. he literally speeded up after making the catch and approaching the wall. re: your edit, I think Jeter was idolized because of that play because he is Jeter and wears an NY. Rowand pretty much makes the point. next year, we might see it again once or twice. we will see Jeter's until the day we die as if it were the equivalent of Willie Mays. the point was more the GG is a farce as best exemplified by Jeter's receipt of said award based on that play and little else and that sport journalism bases its coverage based on who did what, not what was done.

here's a question I think a show like this should address does Mike Lowell's catch the other night entitle him to at least two Gold Glove awards? been waiting for an opportunity to bring this up and this thread seems as good as any. Lowell's tumble into the stands was at least as impressive as Jeter's, so therefore he gets a GG annually, right?

I doubt a trade would be needed. I think he'll pass through waivers and be available for the minimum with the Astros paying his contract. I think his contract goes through next year. I wouldn't mind him as a platoon partner for Jones in right or center. if only management was creative enough to use a veteran outfield platoon or creative enough to move both to center. That would not be right for us to get him for nothing. We should still give them Neifi. :lol: I hear ya. I just wish the Cubs would do the same as the Astros. just DFA the scrub and eat his contract if necessary. one of the things that p'd me off the most about the deadline deals was eatting most of Walker and Maddux's contracts. if they don't agree to do that, they save that money and can DFA Neifi and Rusch without much impact on the bottom line.

I doubt a trade would be needed. I think he'll pass through waivers and be available for the minimum with the Astros paying his contract. I think his contract goes through next year. I wouldn't mind him as a platoon partner for Jones in right or center. if only management was creative enough to use a veteran outfield platoon or creative enough to move both to center.

I had that exact exchange in the context of a law office in my former job. what a relief it is my former job. I just hope Murton finds relief by a change in management instead of the Cubs being his former employer.

anyone hear any word on the extent of Vash's back injury? just a mild strain?

I disagree wholeheartedly. it works in reverse. you look at the list of the greatest quarterbacks, the quarterbacks that won championships, and for the most part they got by on making the right decisions with the ball and managing the game, not exceptional skills. Starr, Unitas, Montana, Brady, Staubach. all known for their intelligence and leadership more than their raw talent. of course you need some skills, but all the arm strength in the world makes little difference if you don't read the defense properly or go forcing plays when they aren't there. Krenzel, he had NO skills and we're also talking a different area of intelligence. as for Grossman, I think you are underestimating his skills and he's already proven the ability to make the right decisions with the ball in only 9 NFL starts, so his development at Florida is a moot point. even in last nights debacle he made all the right decisions with the ball.

I've been trying to think of a parallel, and I think I have one. for those that don't want Edmonds because they hate him and also happen to be Bulls fans... did you not want the Bulls to get Rodman? do you have any regrets that they did?

I took it as you trying to say that because I was a Raiders fan that I had no right to comment on the Bears and Brian Griese. no, I'm an unpopular, argumentative poster, but I don't play that game. I can't stand it when posters tell each other they should not comment on something...with a couple exceptions (ie. demonstrations of hypocrisy or old worn out comments about 'can't walk across home plate.') sorry you took it that way. not how I meant it.

No sh*t? I was told that there was some sort of combine thing held in the midwest, but I didn't believe it :roll: Just because someone was drafted high doesn't mean that they were worth of that pick. Kyle Boller was selected higher than Grossman in the same year, so he's better than Grossman isn't he? you can both stick your eyerolls. you too apparently are just trying to get into a pissing match with me. so for some reason all these Florida QBs are capable of fooling NFL scouts. whatever. the obvious point was Grossman had skills that other Florida QBs didn't. IMO your arguments use way too many assumptions. All serious football fans I know have their calendars marked for the NFL Combine, campus workouts, and pre-draft visits. It is well known that teams go over players with a fine-tooth comb before the draft. Teams do draft by what they see at the combine and at workouts, but that doesn't always mean that they're right. How often does a WR's 40-yard dash time affect his draft position? Kyle Boller can throw a football through the uprights from the 50-yard line off of his knees. He's got a strong arm and good measurable, but it doesn't make him a good NFL QB. I can't really recall Grossman ever showing much of an arm. I don't think he'll ever be capable of making strong, accurate passes downfield. Does that mean I think he's incapable of being an NFL QB? No. But it will limit him to being a WCO QB and not much more though. I never said they were always right, but the Grossman pick is still an Inc. if you ask me for his grade. and the only assumption I made is that a QB can't be assessed on who his college coach was. how smart is it assuming a QB can't succeed in the NFL because of who his college coache was and his height? if there was any nonsensical assumption in this discussion it was you and soccer making this claim. of all the things you mentioned, you failed to discuss the intelligence and psychological tests QBs in particular go through. Jeff George could throw the ball 80 yards with the flick of his wrist, but he was an obnoxious moron. same could be said for Ryan Leaf. Grossman scored highly on these tests. if Grossman only succeeds in a west coast offense, so be it. I'm not looking for him to succeed in a non-west coast offense, nor are the Bears.

from this thread is what made me start this thread. if that's the thread you are commenting on, then put your post in that thread.