jjgman21

Jacque Jones and Michael Barrett/Henry Blanco say hi. I assume Theriot doesn't count as having significant playing time, but 150 ABs ain't too shabby. All of them signifncantly exceeded expectations. maybe Jacque slightly "overperformed" for what was expected, but he had two fairly unlucky years before coming to the Cubs, two seasons when his BB/PA went up (even accounting for IBB). if you do what you do for players you like, ie taking injury and luck into account and emphasizing positive trends, and apply it to Jacque, nothing he did last year should have been unexpected. the only reason it wasn't a "slight pleasant surprise" as opposed to "overperformance" was overly pessimistic projections. other than that, I go back to my position by position analogy. sure, Blanco and Barrett did better than might have been expected individually, but I bet Barrett's projected numbers weren't all that far off. taking his missed time into account, the Cubs catchers weren't all that out of line from what should have been expected. again, maybe a "slight pleasant surprise." look at second, the numbers are still underwhelming, even with Theriot's hot month. were those numbers any where near what you expected out of a full season of Todd Walker playing second base for the 2006 Cubs? to think a combination of Theriot and DeRosa can't bury 2006 secondbase numbers is just blantantly overly pessimistic. and that's the sum fricken total. other than that, every single position either played at or below reasonable expectations last year. now I know players will have down years and injuries will happen, but unless one is predicting the unpredictable, another season of overwhelming injury and multiple positions just being a complete disaster from what should be 'reasonably expected,' the notion that the offense will not be significantly improved just lacks merit.

These data are from 2006, not 2005. Swapping out the #2 hitter for #6 will result in Marginal PA (713-663) 50 times Marginal OBP (.361-.319) .041 equals Additional Baserunners 2.05 Hardly the bump you were expecting. not sure how I came up with that number in my head, but having the 30 additional baserunners in front of 3-4-5 instead of in front of 7-8-9 would have translated into more runs if not a better OBP.

Dammit. I just put together an in depth response to this part, but got sidetracked and was bounced out of NSBB when I hit submit. Anyway, I basically said you aren't necessarily being unreasonable, just overly optimistic. Teams really need huge improvements at positions to make that kind of bounce from year to year, like LA did from 2005-2006, when they replaced a .279 mess in LF with a .387, because of a great new young player and fantastic OBP from his backup. They also replaced an Izturis led SS position with a Furcal led one, that provided a 52 point bounce. Well, this version isn't going to be nearly as interesting, but I predict something closer to a .325-.330 range in team OBP (barring a shocking move in CF or SS), and middle of the NL pack. This is a Hendry team, and Hendry is not an OBP friendly GM. He's begun to acknowledge it's existence, but he's yet to acquire any true OBP stars. Middle of the pack in OBP would be an accomplishment for Hendry. I don't know where I'm being overly optimitistic. optimisim has Lee up back around .400 or Aram at .370 or Soriano to repeat his obp of last year. I do none of these things. I don't portend that DeRosa will repeat his OBP from last year or even give an expected improvement even though he was 30 points above Cubs second basemen last year, I don't predict Murton to do anything he hasn't done before (although I do expect improvement whether it is Murton full time or with a better platoon). I say that Izturis will be around .295 even though his last uninjured season he was up at .330. I think Hendry loves OBP....as long as it is ave. driven. edit - in fact, I don't think there is anybody on this board that is overly optimistic. there are those that try to be reasonable and give an estimation of what is likely to happen, and those that are just completely, unreasonably pessimistic. I wish I could have seen the way you broke it down, but have to give you credit for at least trying, as opposed to those who say "they will be terrible, they haven't improved at all" then remain silent when faced with a solid case to the contrary.

I think at the end of the season, if the BCS wanted to figure out why things went so horribly wrong this year, they can look at the severe over ranking of Georgia, Tenn, Cal, and Oregon at the beginning of the season and the reluctance of the east coast voters to move SEC teams down to where they belong and the west coast voters to move Pac 10 teams down.

I'd take a flyer on him if he was willing to take a minor league deal.

I don't know about by far. It's the same staff that started 2006, minus Maddux and plus Marquis. I'd say the pitching, as usual, has a wide range of possibilities. And terrible is quite possible. There's no guarantee Lilly or Marquis will be any better than people they are replacing, and last year's staff was terrible. Z Maddux Rusch Marshall Williams. no, even if your worst expectations are fulfilled, and barring injury of course, I doubt the staff is any where near the staff the Cubs started 2006 with. under worst case scenerio Z=Z Lilly Hill>>>Rusch Marquis=Marshall Prior/Miller/Guz/Marmol/Mateo/Marshall/Ryu>>>>>Williams the assesment for what transpired over the year would be about the same.

re: the bold. that is a common conception around here, and it just doesn't hold water. I don't expect the Cubs to be a great OBP team, but this is just blatantly pessimistic. the Cubs team OBP last year was .319. let's look at position by position and see how we got there. C - .341 RF - .337 CF - .333 LF - .346 SS - .275 3B - .340 2B - .326 1B - .337 assuming Jacque and you don't let pessimism get the best of you, there isn't a single position that could reasonably be predicted to drop by more than 10-15 points due to anything but injury. on the upside, the Cubs can reasonably be expected to see the following improvements LF - .020 SS - .020 (as much as you may detest Izturis, a .295 is reasonable) 3B - .015 1B - .040 there's also the nine hole. while unpredictable, the Cubs last year were .221, 11th in the NL. the Cubs will run out the two best hitting pitchers in the game, and another very good one when Prior is healthy. Ward and Theriot should certainly be an improvement over Neifi and Freddie too. so you can reasonably expect a 10-20 point bump out of the nine hole as well. another area where OBP will improve, at least one must hope, is the idiocity of Dusty Baker is gone. look at OBP by lineup order in 2005. 1 - .329 2 - .319 3 - .377 4 - .349 5 - .301 6 - .365 7 - .303 8 - .288 just flip flopping the 2 and 6 obp translates into what, about 50 additional baserunners per year? you put these things together, all of them reasonable expectations of what will happen, a .330-.335 expected OBP is more appropriate. DeRosa and Soriano show their improvement last year was not flukish, and this team is top 5 in NL OBP. add the obvious addition of power, and the offense is much more improved than many are giving credit for. not as good as I would like to see with the payroll, but it very reasonably could end up being a top 5 NL offense. (not directly at you UM) I think this is the fourth time I've presented such arguments about what I think is reasonable to expect out of this team. I've never seen any replies. if you don't agree that I am being reasonable, please let me know where I am going astray or at least give a breakdown of what you predict and how it translates into what you expect out of the 2007 Cubs.

he did have a tough time getting PT at a regular spot on some of those Brewer teams who had a decent infield of Vina, Valentin and Cirillo, but if he could have ever stayed healthy he more than likely would have supplanted either Vina or Valentin, although they did have "scrappy" lovin Lopes and Garner leading them during those years. he was always a good player. I thought the Cubs should have gone for him after his Houston stint, but the Cubs had one Bobby Hill coming to save them from their second base woes.

http://www2.jsonline.com/sports/brew/sep01/brew92901.asp http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/padres/20050524-9999-1s24padres.html http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=24094&format=print and I could go on. but you are right. between Milwaukee and San Diego, he wasn't given a chance to be a starter....during that two month stretch he spent in Houston. geez is the man holding him down or what. edit-more seriously and to the point, he was always considered a regular when on the Brewers, but could never spend a full season on the field due to injury after injury after injury.

ah crap.

barn burner tonight. the two teams combined for only three more shots than power plays in the first. looks like they Hawks pummelled the goalie in the second, couldn't extend the lead. holding on to this one would be gigante.

sounds like Tank will be back for the finale and the playoffs http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2702730

he can go suck an egg. what's the big deal anyway? I never heard of such an unwritten rule. does it hurt Phil Jackson in anyway if the rookie runs in and slams it through the win?

I don't really care about Marquis' number, but the bolded part above is just not true for many of us. in fact, just the opposite. Sosa was an after thought in the Sandberg/Grace years, especially since he was trying to replace the Hawk. then he was the embodiment of overpaid, unfulfilled potential, spazmodic K monster that could have been good if he ever learned to recognize a low and away slider. then there was 1997 when I for one was completely done with him and wanted him gone. only then did he become a hero to all of Wrigleydom, and he was more of a pain in the ass then a beloved character in his last two years with the Cubs. so to many he was loved for his whole Cub career. to most of us that weren't adolescents or younger in the early and mid 90's, he was nothing special. I have to disagree with your disagreement. Sosa's 30-30 seasons made him a big star in Chicago. I'll give you '92, nobody cared about Sosa, and were pissed that we traded George Bell for the bum. But Sosa had the 30-30 year in '93 and then the face of the franchise retired midway through '94. That coupled with Sosa having a very good year in '94 followed up by another 30-30 in '95 made him the new man in Chicago. Then he follows it up with the key power #s, 40 HRs, 100 RBI(without playing in September), even with Sandberg's return, Sosa was the guy in Chicago. I'll give you the '97 season, Sosa was far from loved, and many people thought his contract extension was insane. But I think to say he wasn't adored for most of his career is a gross misrepresentation. you probably had a better perspective on it at the time living in the city while I was at college, but I stand by my overall assessment. for the numbers he put up, his flaws always balanced that out in many of our eyes. picture Jacque on speed. replacing a legend while making mistakes in the field (loved the flailing dive when he stood no chance to catch the ball after taking a bad angle), with his arm (preferred the airmail to the lawn dart), on the basepaths (preferred the pickoff and caught stealing to baserunning mistakes), first pitch hacking and never adjusting to pitches that routinely got him out (same exact pitch that neither could hit). sure he had his fans in the 93-96 seasons. it's inevitable when you put up decent traditional stats on a bad team, and like I alluded to before, most of his fans were kids who dug the longball. but he always had his detractors both in the media and the fanbase, and he always played second fiddle to Grace at least on the Cubs, and Thomas, Ventura and McDowell in Chicago generally. Chicago itself was also a basketball town for much of that era, so in reality no baseball players were that big of stars in Chicago at that time.

I don't really care about Marquis' number, but the bolded part above is just not true for many of us. in fact, just the opposite. Sosa was an after thought in the Sandberg/Grace years, especially since he was trying to replace the Hawk. then he was the embodiment of overpaid, unfulfilled potential, spazmodic K monster that could have been good if he ever learned to recognize a low and away slider. then there was 1997 when I for one was completely done with him and wanted him gone. only then did he become a hero to all of Wrigleydom, and he was more of a pain in the ass then a beloved character in his last two years with the Cubs. so to many he was loved for his whole Cub career. to most of us that weren't adolescents or younger in the early and mid 90's, he was nothing special.

I'd like both games to be much like the last game of pre-season. both units play the entire first half and maybe a series or two after the half, and then whole sale changes. the last thing I want to see is the starters sitting the entire last game. it can take nearly a quarter to get back up to game speed with that much time off, and last year that made all the difference.

can't look past Georgia. If the Badgers beat the Bulldogs, then OSU, they might go to and hang onto number one in the country for a good month and a half thanks to a pretty pathetic BigTen. and I wouldn't be surprised to see them do that, then end the year on an 0-3 skid.

why? because i'm tired of hearing the "drew's going to fail in boston because he's not their kinda guy" stuff. it's weird how people somehow think they know players. not sure how you're not doing the same thing in this case. but I think the gist of the argument is people knowing a fanbase, not a player. while generalizations tend to be dangerous, there's a history here and general sentiments do develop. I personally would love to see Drew on the Cubs. but he's not, nor is he on a rival of the Cubs. thus, I don't give a rats ass how he does. not sure why that would be a badge of honor for you. how am i doing the same thing? and i didn't say it would be a badge of honor for me. well apparently you purport to know he will handle the pressures in Boston just fine, so apparently you know the player. of course you didn't say it would be a "badge of honor." but what would you call having some irrational hope that some player on a team you presumably don't care about does well simply to show you were right on a message board? sure Drew is a fine player, but do you really have this affinity for him or do you want this odd couple of Drew and Boston to work out just for the 'badge of honor' of saying I told you so?

Maybe it's because it's late, but who is the "early teammate" you're talking about? I know Caminiti is one. he's the admitted. the suspected is Gonzalez, although the suspicions arose on him for years well removed from Houston.

I seriously wonder why this guy has not been subjected to some of the rumors other guys in his generation were subjected to, especially considering one admitted offender came up in the same organization at the same time, and another early teammate is highly suspected. also consider that he never hit for much power until 1994 and we heard about that shoulder for years, but he was able to play through it until the crackdown. me thinks he's as suspect as any, and it's either all in, or all out, yet I have a feeling when all is said and done, everyone will be in but Sammy...and I'm not a Sammy defender at all.

where was Bondra before the Hawks dusted him off? why wasn't he already with somebody?

why? because i'm tired of hearing the "drew's going to fail in boston because he's not their kinda guy" stuff. it's weird how people somehow think they know players. not sure how you're not doing the same thing in this case. but I think the gist of the argument is people knowing a fanbase, not a player. while generalizations tend to be dangerous, there's a history here and general sentiments do develop. I personally would love to see Drew on the Cubs. but he's not, nor is he on a rival of the Cubs. thus, I don't give a rats ass how he does. not sure why that would be a badge of honor for you.

why?

with both that game and the game against Wisconsin, I though the problem was May was allowed to push everyone out of the way down low, whether it be to get open, to make a move to the basket, or to clear out for a rebound, while at the same time there were alot of touch/ticky tack fouls called when NC was on offense. while certainly I am biased for the UW game, but I don't think that's an unfair assessment and the commentators stated so during that game. but with U of I, I had NC picked to win it all in the pool, so I think I was a fairly objective observer. despite your insistence, NC did get the benefit of the calls, especially in the first half of the champ. game. So because you claim to be an objective observer I'm wrong? Are you kidding me? I could say the same thing to you. Despite your insistence, NC did not get the benefit of the call at any point in the game. In the UNC-UW game, UW only committed 2 more fouls than UNC and shot 5 less free throws. Sean May only shot 4 free throws. Again, the guy was a monster in the tournament, especially in the Final Four, and had clearly stepped up his game. the point about me being objective for the U of I game goes to your accusation that the other poster is biased and therefore can't have an opinion on the matter. where you got what you did out of that statement is beyond me. keep gleaning all you can about the officiating from the box score. did you miss my point about May not getting called for fouls? exactly where does that show up in the box score? as far as I know, there isn't a second catagory called "actual fouls." the questionable officiating was well documented and I didn't need the sports media to point it out to me.

why does he have to? I seriously don't get it. If you're going to hate a player for taking an available number (which happens to be the number they have always worn) then you are being petty sports fans are petty. you can question why it is that way, but that's the way it is, so you might as well deal with it the best you can.