biittner77

St. Louis beats Detroit 10-3. Didn't see the box score but I'm guessing it was a pick six.

Unfortunately we don't have Jordan/Pippen/Rodman manning the outfield. No but getting above average production from catcher and short stop makes a situation easier to handle.

What would Detroit do if beating the Hawks meant the Hawks would be their 1st round opponent but if they lost to the Hawks they'd get someone else, say Dallas or the Kopitar-less Kings, instead? Also, if they've already rapped up the 2nd seed and can't win home ice, will their hearts really be in it? Might be hard to get motivated for that last game the United Center if it won't make a difference to them.

This reminds me a little of when Bobby Hill was hitting during ST and Grudz. hit like .150. They started Hill off in Iowa and Grudz. went on to have a pretty good season. ST numbers don't really mean very much.

I don't get how Koyie Hill is good defensively. He's not particularly good at blocking pitches in the dirt or throwing out base runners. A coach in the dugout calls the game. When they say 140 starts for Soto do they mean at catcher or are they going to try to have him play some 1st base against LH starters? 120 starts at C and 20 at 1st seems like a more realistic plan. In which case Koyie Hill is a terrible choice at backup catcher.

What exactly was their criteria for the top 100? For example, what 4 players on the Orioles are top 100? For that matter, what good did it do them? The Cubs probably make #4 on this list due to their division and the key injuries that the teams ahead of them have already suffered. In fact, without looking at the list, I'd guess there is one team from each division except for the AL East. In which case they probably picked (in no particular order) the Indians, Dodgers, Marlins and A's. Is that close?

Did anyone else ever refer to him as "wee zee" like George Jefferson's wife?

Most people are way down on Wells, it seems. Shouldn't be, but they are. My guess as to WHY the Cubs seem to be down on Wells is this: They probably look at him as a solid enough 4-5 guy. But, after his stats for his 1st two major league seasons, he may be classified as MORE than that, especially if he has a solid 3rd season as well. My guess is the Cubs concern is he's likely to be making 3-4 mill as a first year arb guy with salaries going upwards from there and if they DO view him as a 4-5 guy, it's just too much to pay for that, if they feel Coleman or someone else can basically do the same thing for a lot less. In other words, this may be one of the cases to the Cubs that stats don't tell the whole story as to why the Cubs must think the way they do on him. Not to mention the fact, that evidently he doesn't appear to have much trade value around the league, which seems odd considering that he's had 2 very solid seasons under his belt.(read that a couple of times over the offseason). Maybe the Cubs and most teams throughout the league look at him as a fluke, rightly or wrongly? Don't get me wrong, I feel very confident that he's going to be our 4th starter and I feel like he'll have an OK season for us too. So the Cubs are worried that he'll be too good? If he has a season worthy of a substantial arby raise that would probably up his trade value enough to where they could find a taker. I think the reason they aren't promising him a rotation spot is that they still want to find a way to get a LH starter. It's a dumb reason but that's the way Hendry thinks. Somebody like Russell couldn't hope to be chosen for a roster spot over Cashner (who's much better) and Silva (who's highly paid) but he might hold out hope to be able to beat out Wells.

I've never read Moneyball, wasn't it mostly about the business model of using what was being undervalued (OBP) by the market and then using that to maximum advantage? Why would anyone try to debunk such an idea? Why are they using the Red Sox as an example of Sabre not working? Haven't the Red Sox won 2 WS since they started looking at new fangled stats and stuff? Enough with the bird already. I really would like someone to write a good, thought provoking book comparing the predictive value of new stats with the effect human psychology has on certain variables- such as where a player bats in the lineup. I likely won't read this book but, as long as they're exposing how dumb stats are, I hope they have at least 2 chapters on how dumb wins are for pitchers and how batting average can be very misleading.

To a large extent, the Hawks control their own destiny. If they go 6-6-2 that would give them 95 points which ought to be enough to get in somewhere. If they can't do that then they don't deserve to make the playoffs. The Hawks seem to play better against good teams so I'm not worried about the schedule.

I thought I read earlier in the season where the NHL was experimenting with possibly going 5 min 3 on 3 or even pulling the goalies. At least they're trying.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere the Cubs liked his speed as an OFer more than his arm. Kind of wonder if that's why he didn't sign? Maybe he preferred pitching? That would be a switch, the Cubs not wanting someone to pitch instead of bat.

What is with the Hawks losing to really bad teams this season?

The defense in front of Turco was at best inconsistent and injured. Can you really blame Turco because Campbell got hurt and Cullimore and Boynton were awful? They even tried John Scott on defense they were so desperate.

Well, at least it gave us this. speaking of unfunny... Anyways, they put clips up of the entire show, having watched 70-80% of the clips, I believe I can say that I've seen the show. It's interchangable. It really isn't. The clips on line, taken in small doses and filtering out the ones that look stupid, is better than watching the painfully unfunny TV show.

1st period tonight one of the announcers said "The more they play in their own zone the worse off they are."

It's funny how nobody even remembers how much they hated Don Baylor. That's quite an accomplishment because at the time everybody really hated Don Baylor (with good reason). The Reds should give back about 20 of those wins this year. Reds finish no better than 4th this year.

No, I'm furious that someone feels the need to insult my family. I don't care how much anyone here hates me, there is no need to bring my family into it. And if the mods don't want to do anything about the insults toward me, that's fine. I can defend myself. But if my family (especially my son) is insulted again it damn well better not go ignored. nobody insulted your family, they insulted you. Really? I said my son was going to win the Cy Young award, and the response was "McDonald's gives out Cy Young's?" Are you really so dense as to think that was directed at me? If so it makes absolutely no sense. It was a shot at my son and was completely uncalled for. But I'm not going to sit here and argue this all night and have yet another thread derailed, although I'm sure the insults against me will go on for at least another page or so before the thread either gets buried or locked, so have at it! I'm so dense that I don't understand why a 2 year old getting a cy young from McDonalds is such an insult. Seemed pretty harmless to me. I have a hard time believing that the OP meant it the way you are taking it. This was mostly a dumb, unnecessary thread anyway so no need to worry about it getting derailed.

This game wasn't as close as the score would indicate.

No, I'm furious that someone feels the need to insult my family. I don't care how much anyone here hates me, there is no need to bring my family into it. And if the mods don't want to do anything about the insults toward me, that's fine. I can defend myself. But if my family (especially my son) is insulted again it damn well better not go ignored. nobody insulted your family, they insulted you.

Anyone going to watch the all star game? Would kind of like to see Toews, Kane and big buff on the same line again but I guess they're still pretending that Buff is a defenseman.

Great, now the Orioles will come looking to acquire one of our OF busts. Too bad we don't have Ryan Harvey anymore.

You were probably too young to realize that there was any way they wouldn't win. The Rams IIRC still had Eric Dickerson. The Giants were on their way up. People may have had more confidence about the super bowl but not during the playoffs. This game feels more like the Saints game. All the experts were drooling over the Saints and Brees and what a great story it would be for the Saints to win and the usual hate for all things Chicago that the 4 letter is so famous for.

Wait, what did Dallas Braden do? 25 years, try 25 weeks. He's the guy that punched Jeter because he kicked dirt from the pitchers mound. Or something like that.

When I was in college and the Steelers had hit rock bottom- the Bubby Brister era- I started following the Steelers. Now that the Steelers are consistently good they are to me like a stock that I've owned for years, made some money on but am willing to sell. There are a lot of Steelers fans around here and most of them are front runners. I really dislike being associated with a lot of them. I hope the Bears get the chance to beat them in the superbowl. On the other hand, if the Steelers did win the superbowl all those dopes that bought those jerseys with the six superbowl logos on it would have to buy new ones. That might end the recession.