jjgman21

The old moronic idiot factor. 8-) There's little question in my mind that B&B let a few of the "good" idiots through just to have fun with them. It's sort of part of their schtick. And I think it does, as you suggest, get ratings if done right. I like intelligent callers, but what I don't care for are the prepared-script callers like what Rome does all show long. I can handle it for a segment or two, but not if all your callers have some prepped script that they think is incredibly brilliant, but 99% of the time is just more drivel. I agree the main problem I have with Band B is when they try to be funny I don't laugh. The best smart funny sports talk show was the old Kornheiser show on ESPN. I need to get XM so I can hear him again. speaking of scripts, nothing is more excruciating than Bernstein's prepared rants that he launches into while pretending he just came up with it extemporaneously.

I'd rather listen to smart people intelligently criticize (and praise, when it's due) the Cubs than listen to some babbling idiot on the radio. Murphy is a tard. Who on the score gives you that? Generally speaking, I find Bernstein to be a pretty smart dude. being smart doesn't make him tolerable. I feel about him the way most people here feel about me.

I won't relay any rumors if you promise to stop telling people not to post on a message board. deal? I highly doubt my measly little post will bring an end to numerous posts in the Transaction forum, take it easy bud. :roll: then why waste the damn keystrokes.

I hope we don't fall that far, but yes I must agree that even though I don't like hearing that comment, there can't be much argument we have jumped up on the backs of some pretty poor baseball teams. which would be disconcerting if not for the fact that they jumped on the backs of some pretty good baseball teams as well. as shown above, the Cubs have gained 7 games against teams above .500. they have gained 9 games against teams below .500. if anything, they haven't done the job against some of the poor teams that they should have. losing series against Pitt and Texas was pathetic.

and accordingly, since Lou's ejection, the Cubs have played 50 games, 23 against teams within 3.5 of a playoff spot. Atl - 5 (3-2) Mil - 6 (4-2) Col - 3 (3-0) AZ - 3 (1-2) Sea - 3 (2-1) SD - 3 (1-2)

you say that as if the Cubs have had hitters go elsewhere and blossom into great hitters since...oh, let's say anytime in the past 20-25 years. Joe Carter wasn't to shabby now was he, I believe he has a couple rings on his finger! I wasn't talking about just hitters I was talking about any player, pitcher, batter and ballgirl for that matter. Joe Carter was pretty terrible. No he wasn't: http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cartejo01.shtml I hadn't realized that having a baseball reference page made a baseball player not terrible. And I hadn't realized that you are blind and cannot see the link. Makes me wonder how you read the rest of the posts here. Temporary vision? he was a pretty productive player for a number of years, but considering he was a corner OF/1B/DH in an era where position still had some meaning, his numbers weren't spectacular. certainly not a star caliber player that you should have woe for for two decades because he got away. after he hung on for way to long, his career 104+ as a corner OF/1B/DH makes him terrible.

Carter and Palmiero don't even apply to this discussion. neither were guys that needed time to work through their struggles. both were very good players that were traded away for other than performance related reasons, Carter to get the Cy Young award winning pitcher that got us to the playoffs, and Palmiero to get him away from the star's wife. and even so, how many Hee Sops and Bobby Hills and David Keltons and Brian Dopiraks do we have to have before you let go of what happened 20-25 years ago, or at the very least to stop implying it is some sort of pattern that is always repeating itself.

you say that as if the Cubs have had hitters go elsewhere and blossom into great hitters since...oh, let's say anytime in the past 20-25 years.

who knows, maybe Hendry is willing to stand pat, but the last thing we need is reports that Hendry is desperate. take this report with a grain of salt. GMs are alot like agents. creating smokescreens is a tool of negotiation. standing pat is not exactly Hendry's MO in seasons where the Cubs are competitive.

I know, you are attributing it to luck. hitting got worse. starting pitching got worse. pen got better. must be luck. (shhh, don't tell anyone that while the hitting and pitching got worse, the pythag record got better too). it's the worst thing about the stats movement. five years ago they determined 'these are the only explanations worth anything' and everything since has been about defending those methodologies and ridiculing any other explanations or any criticque. zero attempt to look for better ways to explain things that were previously unexplained, just call it luck. Bill James himself says maybe the clutch argument is wrong, he's scoffed at. I think it was DM posts an article saying that maybe pitchers do have something to do with the outcome of a batted ball, they are ridiculed. don't dare try to explain previously unexplained phenomena, because it might put a chink in the new dogmatic armor. I am not saying stats are not valuable. I am saying give me better stats to explain the things that haven't been explained, and don't ignore the stats just because they are counter to your argument. quit throwing your hands up in the air and declaring it luck.

"it just so happens" early in the year, most of the problem was indeed blowing close games. but the problem was the pen held a one or two run lead maybe 3 times the first two months of the season. they also blew several bigger leads. they also turned several one or two run deficits into big leads that couldn't be overcome. you try to attribute it to two batters whose stats haven't changed since the Cubs got hot, but when the numbers show the pen has vastly improved while everything else stayed pretty much the same or actually got worse, well, that's just luck.

that's a garbola argument. nobody doubts that having a great pen isn't going to matter in the majority of games, but there's a good percentage of games where it will be incredibly important. 32% of the Cubs games have been decided by one run. so don't go throwing out back to back games of 6+ run differentials as if it were the norm.

the problem is far too many only look at the big picture. the game is indeed won by the team that scores more runs. the problem is, you don't take the total number of runs at the end of the year and divide by 162 to determine won-loss records. True, but run differentials do have a strong correlation with win-loss records, and no amount of grit will change that. Bullpen pitchers remain much less valuable than starters and everyday players because they have fewer chances to make an impact. That's all I'm saying. believe me, I'm well aware of the correlation. but boy do I wish we were playing pythagorean baseball in 2004 and 2005. speaking of grit, not saying that was anything other than a distractor in this conversation, but that's alot like clutch, right? Aram OPS 6/2 - 6/21 - 7/28 .903 - .892 - .908 since the beginning of June, the Cubs rank among NL teams in runs scored has undergone a steady slide, yet they have completely turned it around. so it's not the offense that has done it. so it's Z you say? well that is completely counterbalanced with Marquis. Hill and Lilly? nope, they're both worse now than they were on 6/2. Marshall? definitely an upgrade over what was out there earlier in the year, but not 16 game swing good. the Cubs turn around has been due to their bullpen turning it around. I'd love to spin some of it to improve the offense, but you're gonna have to blow me away if it's Marmol being spun. how about seeing how desperate the Tigers are. Marmol for Granderson?

the problem is far too many only look at the big picture. the game is indeed won by the team that scores more runs. the problem is, you don't take the total number of runs at the end of the year and divide by 162 to determine won-loss records. who wouldn't trade Marmol for the right bat? it's real easy to dismiss Jermaine Dye, but exactly what sort of player would adequately replace Marmol's contributions?

on March 31, 2006 Jermaine Dye was the right handed Jacque Jones.

if he accepted a deal to go to Iowa, I wouldn't mind in the least having him in the organization as insurance for Aram.

I don't care how bad they suck this year, sweeps over the White Sox, Astros, and Cardinals within a five week stretch would be sweet. 8 down, 1 to go. get it done tonight Marquis. that one poster's "I got the sweep on myspace" was in reference to the pic of Lou driver the street sweeper. I laugh my ass off everytime I see it. the gapping mouth pic is perfect. kudos to whoever photoshopped that.

Actually, that's exactly what they were talking about when you entered the discussion. The comparison was between Eyre and Linebrink and how smart it was to acquire them based on their ability going forward. I entered the discussion at this point. AND made clear that he was overstating his case rather than being completely wrong.

I think walks and hits per inning pitched can be a good stat. Like how often the guy prevents baserunners! Conveniently, we do have a statistic like that. WHIP: 2003: 1.509 (Eyre) versus 1.397 (Linebrink) 2004: 1.329 (Eyre) versus 1.036 (Linebrink) 2005: 1.083 (Eyre) versus 1.059 (Linebrink) 2006: 1.484 (Eyre) versus 1.216 (Linebrink) yet another case of misuse of stats. we are not talking about predicting future performance. we are evaluating past performance. in evaluating past performance, these stats in large part lose their meaning because what is important is how often runners score as a result of a pitchers performance. when viewed in this light, it is clear that Scott Eyre was a very good relief pitcher for a couple of years. I see you have made your choice, so I'm done with this discussion.

Racist. you're kidding, right?

my new nickname for good Jacque... Jacque-o-late (zhack-o-lat) I can deal with this sort of cocoa-ey goodness the rest of the year.

that's only this year.... last year he was fine on the road, and 2 years ago he was lights out. He's been one of the better middle relievers in baseball. It's a good pickup for the Brewers, but they had to pay a pretty steep price in Inman. So was Scott Eyre. yeah that's pretty much a terrible comparison. Linebrink was very good for three straight years... Eyre was mediocre every year of his career except one. Linebrink had an ERA+ of 118 last year. so by your definition, 118 ERA+ or better is very good. Eyre 2005 - 157 2006 - 137 oh, we're evaluating relief pitchers by ERA+ now? great idea. you're right, I should have looked at IR/IS too. Linebrink 2004 54/15 2005 37/11 2006 8/2 Eyre 2004 78/12 2005 42/9 2006 9/4 other than looking at how often runners score as a result of runners a relief pitcher is responsible for and how often runners score resulting from runners the pitcher is not responsible for, are there really any other stats we need to look at? look, you can be trite about this, or you can be a man and admit you overstated your case. Eyre went from a very good relief pitcher over the past couple of years to absolutely terrible. Linebrink went from an awesome relief pitcher over the past couple of years to mediocre. it's not such a terrible comparison because of something you have argued over and over. relief pitchers are unpredictable and often fall off the cliff suddenly. now if we had a stat that might predict that Linebrink will continue his trend toward medicrity, we should call it out, and in fact, we do. his ability to strike people out has gone from very impressive to nonexistent.

that's only this year.... last year he was fine on the road, and 2 years ago he was lights out. He's been one of the better middle relievers in baseball. It's a good pickup for the Brewers, but they had to pay a pretty steep price in Inman. So was Scott Eyre. yeah that's pretty much a terrible comparison. Linebrink was very good for three straight years... Eyre was mediocre every year of his career except one. Linebrink had an ERA+ of 118 last year. so by your definition, 118 ERA+ or better is very good. Eyre 2005 - 157 2006 - 137

I think it's critical because I see the first game of the Dbacks series as a throw away. You can see it as whatever you like. It is one game, and the DBacks really aren't any good. Check out their stats. Luckiest team in baseball. check out the Cubs stats against Brandon Webb and the recent performances of Jason Marquis.

Lou has a little Dusty syndrome and it has to stop. you can't trust only a couple of the guys in your pen, especially if you're carrying 12 catchers, and Lou better lighten Marmol's workload before he blows out his arm. I don't mind more than one inning outtings, but not so often with a guy you run out there every other day. Petrick should have come in as the first reliever out of the pen and pitched one inning, then been pinch hit for. if you won't trust a guy to get Barry Zito, Dave Roberts, and Omar Vizquel out, then just go with 11 pitchers.