jjgman21

I think it says guys don't like playing behind Rich. He is slow, throws lots of pitches and really doesn't get the defense involved (Lots of K's and flyballs). fielders tend to get involved when there's a fly ball will you please tell that to Jacque. I keed, I keed. aside from last night, Jacque has been pretty solid defensively.

16.7% of all the homeruns Rich Hill has ever given up at the major league were hit by the current Phillies. how 'bout getting that snapper back and not rolling the curve up there in this one Rich.

Except that the Pythagorean Win-Loss statistic says the Cubs should be +3 over the current record (meaning they should be 58-45 right now). The team has actually been unlucky by a factor of three games based on Runs Scored and Runs Allowed analysis. So the team is actually better than the record suggests, not worse as you suggest. I assume this was posted before the loss to Philly yesterday. somehow, by virtue of yesterday's 3 run loss, and tonights four run victory, or a run differential of 1 over the course of two games, the 104th and 105th of the season, the Cubs managed to gain two games in Pythag. their "should be" record is now 60-45. freaking Cardinals are 12 over what they should be. has to be the 'luckiest' season in a long time.

seems the entire Boise squad takes a buttload of walks. is this a NW league phenomena or something we have all been waiting to see? also, sure it's just A-ss, but Kyler Burke is looking like a nice pickup. added a double after the dinger.

note to Brewers, don't trade for a guy who's not going to be with the team for a week. where's Gabe Gross?

he was on the Cubs tonight too (except he didn't hold onto the ball) I think Bob was correct in that the ball was knuckling. didn't have to dive, but didn't know that when he left his feet.

Z vs. someone. the dookie.

he was actually quite unlucky. the first run was the result of some soft singles that found holes, the second was a result of a high fly by Iguchi that Jones lost sight of, and the third came on a dinger by Burrell when the pitch before very well could have been called strike three. he got away with a couple pitches, but also struck out Howard and got Rowand to gidp to get out of a couple of jams. it wasn't a great performance, but it wasn't like that game in Milwaukee really either.

who's taking Sosa's spot in the rotation?

Could this be interpreted as attacking the poster (well, all of the posters) and not the post? Oh, and if I had a choice between answering the Santo Williams Banks etc question or just bailing I think I'd vote with my feet as well. probably, but this was used against the same poster which demonstrates the absurdity at how the no attacking rule is interpreted and enforced.

That's right. I forgot. You're only allowed to work on one trade at a time. So if they are talking to the Rangers about Gagne, they can't talk about a trade with anybody else. There's no need to waste chips on Gagne. It's not about wasting valuable trade talking time, it's about wasting resources on acquiring him. I think what is lost on many people is the possibility that an acquisition like Gagne or Silva opens up chips that small market teams want but the Cubs aren't currently willing to trade. you pick up Gagne and Silva, and all of a sudden you can make Hill and Marmol available in a package with Murton for that big bat we are all hoping for. ANd then we're screwed next year.... what's this 'next year' that you speak of?

That's right. I forgot. You're only allowed to work on one trade at a time. So if they are talking to the Rangers about Gagne, they can't talk about a trade with anybody else. There's no need to waste chips on Gagne. It's not about wasting valuable trade talking time, it's about wasting resources on acquiring him. I think what is lost on many people is the possibility that an acquisition like Gagne or Silva opens up chips that small market teams want but the Cubs aren't currently willing to trade. you pick up Gagne and Silva, and all of a sudden you can make Hill and Marmol available in a package with Murton for that big bat we are all hoping for.

lost in the shot of the two greaseball Met fan kids was John Cusack on his cell phone.

Badger representin'

and then we wouldn't have to worry about doing anything but dumping contracts right now since the Cubs wouldn't be close to where they are if they had made that move. I don't care how hot he is right now, his April and May showing would have doomed this club, and his acquisition would have meant either no Aram, no Soriano, or no Lilly, all of who have been far more valuable than Abreu would have been. I'm not sure I can count how many assumptions you made in just one post. in the name of countering the one big assumption you made, ie. that Bobby Abreu would have been good at baseball this year if he was in a Cubs uniform. 103 OPS+ @ 15M. woot. we should have been all over that. hell, if you're going to use hindsite, at least make it relevant and complain that we didn't sign Vlad five years ago. I made no such assertion. I just said what I "would have done". btw - Yes, we should have ditched Alou and gotten Vlad back in the day. I'm under the perception, based on the context and the emoticon, that the comment is an assertion that we wouldn't be in need of an acquisition right now if we had signed Abreu last year. if I am mistake about the intent of your statement, I apologize. if I am not, then you did assume that Abreu would have been good if he were a Cub. it is implied by your statement in that context. otherwise there is no reason to pine for his services to this point in 2007, especially considering the press it would have put on the payroll.

Of course every team in the NL Central is at the bottom of that... And I can't tell...is that overall schedule or just what's left? And no American League team has an easier schedule than anyone in the National League... That's exactly what I was wondering. I really wish I knew how that was calculated, but I imagine he considers his formula 'proprietary' and doesn't want to just give it away. I would guess it is recalculated based on the records of the teams played and yet to play. My thoughts: 1) Strong teams are at a disadvantage because they win more games, thus making their schedule 'weaker' by simply playing better. Conversely, weaker teams make their schedule 'stronger' by simply playing worse than their opponents. 2) Strength of schedule in baseball only has limited, if any, value when attempting to determine how strong a team is compared to their record. Pythagorean record is a much better indicator of how well a team has played, IMO. If any of the resident experts could chime in that would be excellent. I'm thinking its up until this point of the season, based on their power rankings.

Is it dumb if he is basically the only reason they are drawing any kind of crowds at all? Maybe the owner doesn't want him traded, might not be fair to put it all on Krivsky. I think it's dumb, but that's just because of my firm belief that people show up to see winning baseball, not star players (with certain exceptions, but even the Cubs play in front of empty seats in August and September if they aren't playing well). thus, the Reds should look to what will make them win more baseball games in the future if they want to maximize the number of butts in seats.

it's quite apparent you use a different type of glasses. for instance, the Cubs offense disappearing, ie scoring 4 or fewer runs in a game, has happened about as often in the month of July as the RedSox, and less often than the Tigers 0-1 runs/2-3 runs/4 runs Boston 4/5/2 Detroit 2/8/4 Cubs 3/5/4 every team's offense is susceptible to disappearing, but if it happens to the Cubs occassionally, the world is coming to an end and the entire organization needs condemnation.

well so much for pushing us over the top, I guess Hendry would rather settle for being right around .500 and hopeing to make the playoffs instead of making a move to push us over the top. I see your point, but who's to say this roster can't keep pushing to more games over .500? Bruce, would be very appreciative of your feelings on what the plans are for Murton over the final two months of the season. I don't think anybody knows that at this point. crapsticks. thanks for the input...I guess.

well so much for pushing us over the top, I guess Hendry would rather settle for being right around .500 and hopeing to make the playoffs instead of making a move to push us over the top. I see your point, but who's to say this roster can't keep pushing to more games over .500? Bruce, would be very appreciative of your feelings on what the plans are for Murton over the final two months of the season.

and then we wouldn't have to worry about doing anything but dumping contracts right now since the Cubs wouldn't be close to where they are if they had made that move. I don't care how hot he is right now, his April and May showing would have doomed this club, and his acquisition would have meant either no Aram, no Soriano, or no Lilly, all of who have been far more valuable than Abreu would have been. I'm not sure I can count how many assumptions you made in just one post. in the name of countering the one big assumption you made, ie. that Bobby Abreu would have been good at baseball this year if he was in a Cubs uniform. 103 OPS+ @ 15M. woot. we should have been all over that. hell, if you're going to use hindsite, at least make it relevant and complain that we didn't sign Vlad five years ago.

and then we wouldn't have to worry about doing anything but dumping contracts right now since the Cubs wouldn't be close to where they are if they had made that move. I don't care how hot he is right now, his April and May showing would have doomed this club, and his acquisition would have meant either no Aram, no Soriano, or no Lilly, all of who have been far more valuable than Abreu would have been.

I'm hearing the offer of Loney, Ethier and Meloan never was really on the table. Although jjg could have mean LAAoA's offer. no, I was referring to the Dodgers. didn't read all the pages in this thread or otherwise know it wasn't a real offer.

I think I might have taken LA's offer instead.

this year seems to be a little different, but even in past years there was an additional outlier in that each team in the Central would play an extra series against two teams from the east and/or west. this year, instead of 6 against most east and west teams and 9 against two random east/west teams, the Cubs schedule includes 8 against SD, 8 against Atl, 7 against LA, 7 against NY, 7 against Philly, 7 against San Fran, 7 against the Nats, 7 against Col, and only six games against the Dbacks and Marlins. there are additional variables besides interleague that do in fact attribute to uneven strength of schedules within the division.