Electron Blue

Regardless of who posted it first, I love these clips!

operative phrase in bold :)

:lol: Their version of that with the Muppets is well worth a listen. And probably better than the original, truth be told. Quoted for Truth. I'm losin' this vote pretty bad, but to show there's no hard feelings, here ya go: "Furry Happy Monsters." :D

I guessed it might from the Stipe avatar. Were you going to be The Chorus and the Ring but realised that, as Cubs fans, our collective knowledge of rings is somewhat sketchy? hehe, of course there's always Everybody Hurts,

I'll have to wait and see the pairing, but this post may have already earned you my vote in round two. :)

:) Yay!. And yes, Marco4, the name comes from the REM song, yet I too actually hate the song.

There may be ways to sort that on MLB.com. From what I've seen, as long as a player has enough at-bats in close and late, etc. , their stats will be very similar to their career stats. I was looking for the league as a whole not an individual player - is there anywhere to find this? :google: http://www.chicagosportsreview.com/localopinion/localopinionview.asp?c=145516 from the article- "...we do know that in the long run, players hit very close to their normal levels in clutch situations. I looked at all players from 1987-2001 who had at least 6000 plate appearances. The player with the biggest difference between his CL average and his overall average was Tino Martinez at 22 points. With about 100 CL at-bats in a season, this is just two hits." Unless you have sample size problems, players will pretty much hit in clutch times of a game about the same as they do any other time. Now, I think there are guys that are more comfortable in big situations in big games, because players are human- but stats would show that your MLB line for clutch and non-clutch hitting numbers would be crazy close. Posts like this make me think, for just a fleeting moment, that one day the clutch argument will die. Unfortunately, it never will. Thanks for the stats though, I enjoy them ;)

With that thread title/post and without a reference to the poll you're even speaking of, this just looks like a childish taunt to no one in particular.

Same here. Kerry (to the best of my memory) has never given the public a reason to doubt that he's a solid human being. Can't see anyone not pullin' for the guy. Good luck Mr. 30-years-old-in-10-days Wood, you'll need it, but I know you have it in you.

i'm starting to get excited about trading Z.

I think something like that would piss Z off. I know it shouldn't, especially if he had a chance at making a World Series run and then resigning with us, but I could see that bruising his ego. If you talk to him beforehand, he could understand. Show him how the same thing happened to Ponson. Well, you could do that, and maybe that would help him understand. But I belive you'd also be getting close to illegal collusion there.

it wasn't ground rule. DOntrelle obstructed the basepath

holy crap, if d-lee ran into willis and missed any time I would be so mad. :evil: *nightmares of marcus giles*

yep. gotta give len, bob, and the producers credit for not sugarcoating this ridiculous problem. Not that it'd be easy to ignore, but I could see a broadcast team doing just that. Keep up the good work, Len!

you sure you didn't accidently click the 700k feed instead of the 400k feed? that would be the problem, if it's what you did.

wow, can't even call that a risky attempt on DeRosa's part. It was stupid.

sure is. maybe that's not such a bad thing . . . :) Marquis really pitched himself out of a jam there!

Bases loaded in San Diego, 1 out - GIDP 1st and Third in LA, 0 out, fails to make solid contact, runner is held at third Cubs don't score. Aramis swung at a ball out of the strike zone to end the game today. Is today's loss on him?

saw that. hilarious :)

dammit, i'm not done with moneyball yet. you spoiled the ending for me!!

WHAT IS THE PRIMARY MAIN OBJECTIVE?!?!? is it anything like one's "special purpose"?

Does it look to you like Lilly, Marquis, and Hill have an incompetent pitching coach? Because they have the same pitching coach Zambrano has. Yes come on, man, you know you gotta expand on that. It's an apparent hole in your logic - explain yourself. Also, Larry has been PC for Z's entire time as a starter for the Cubs. Was Larry competent for four+ years (in regards to Z, at least), yet became incompetent in the last month? Inquiring minds want to know.

He just missed a homer. So, that still registers as an out. A base hit or walk would have been preferable there. What an interesting way to watch baseball... Meaning? That kind of simplification can be had from watching ESPN's Gameday play-by-play. Baseball is a sport, not just of results, but of efforts, degrees, and subjective levels of failure and success. It's the same reason a pitcher's win column fails to tell the whole story - you need to see more than the numbers (or at least the right numbers) to know what happened. I dodn't mean anything personally, just that seeming to only care that Pagan's hit has an out made it sound like that's all that mattered.

He just missed a homer. So, that still registers as an out. A base hit or walk would have been preferable there. What an interesting way to watch baseball...

Didn't someone go through Jason's game log for last year and determine he would have had a lot better numbers except for a handful of real stinkers? Granted, I certainly didn't want him on the Cubs and I'm not quite ready to step on the bandwagon just yet, but he has shown to be an effective pitcher at times in the past, even if it was 1/3 of an inning at a time. :D I certainly like what he's done so far. And I won't complain if he keeps it up. Well, he had the two starts where LaRussa basically left him out to dry because the bullpen was completely taxed from the game before. On June 20, Mulder only went 2 1/3 and the Cards lost 20-6 to the White Sox. The next day Marquis pitched and gave up 13 runs in 5 innings. On July 17, Weaver only went 4 innings and the Cards lost 15-3 to the Braves. The next day Marquis went 5+ and gave up 12 runs. If you take those two starts out of the equation, he ends up with an ERA of 5.13. If he only gives up 5 runs in each of those starts in the same number of innings pitched, he has an ERA of 5.33. While these ERA's certainly aren't great by any means, they're a hell of a lot better than the 6.02 he put up. BTW, as an extra little stat I didn't notice before, Marquis game scores for these two games were -11 and -7 for the two games. And if you take out those 2 starts, you should also take out his 2 best starts. While it makes some sense to take out both extremes, it's just not the same. People want to consider his stats without these two bad starts since there is reasonable belief that outside factors (Larussa hanging him out to dry) were to blame. But, yeah, outside factors are always out there, so let's just assume that everything more or less evens out most of the time.