C.C.

:roll: I'm sure there are plenty of boards who have made arguments out of less. Gimme a break. got a link? didn't think so Just because I don't have a link means it's not true? What a n00b LOLOL Found it! http://www.Imsurethereareplentyofboardswhohavemadeargumentsoutofless.com

Seriousl. And of course I freaked because my fantasy opponent in the championship has Prince Fielder. You'd totally lose the 6 run HR category. So I was skimming, sue me. If it was possible Fielder could do it.

Ah HA! I thought baseball had no momentum! :lol:

I don't understand the comparison at all. Estes had a 74 ERA+ with the Cubs (lower before his final game) and hadn't had a quality start since August 8th before his great start to end his year. Meanwhile Marquis has a 105 ERA+ and has had 3 quality starts out of 5 in September. There is simply no basis for comparison between the two. You're reading too much into it. All he's saying is that he hopes Marquis can pitch a gem like Estes did in 2003. Both of them weren't highly thought of all year long, only to pitch a gem when we really needed it toward the end of the season. Estes wasn't highly thought of for a reason. Marquis hasn't been highly thought of because everyone for the most part ripped his signing and are unwilling to admit he hasn't been that bad. I think that is the point he's trying to make. So we'll just hopefully call it the "Marquis Game" and be done with it.

Crap! Fielder just hit a 6 run jack! 10-0 Brewers...

Whether he starts Tracshel or one of the other pitchers (Hart, Gallagher, Marshall, or Piggy), he should keep a short leash on the pitcher. Tracshel might be okay the first time through the lineup (3 innings) and then bring in Marshall or Gallagher for 3 innings and Hart or Piggy for a couple and then go to the regular end-of-the-game bullpen guys. I guess I am the only one that thinks it would be ridiculous to put the season in the hands of Piggy or Gallagher, both of whom have not seen any action in weeks. Start Hill on his normal rest, problem solved. They are going to have to bite the bullet and go with a 5th starter one of these days, be it Thursday, Friday, or Saturday. So starting Hill only delays the problem, not solves it. I'd rather delay it for the punchless Reds. No?

I don't understand the comparison at all. Estes had a 74 ERA+ with the Cubs (lower before his final game) and hadn't had a quality start since August 8th before his great start to end his year. Meanwhile Marquis has a 105 ERA+ and has had 3 quality starts out of 5 in September. There is simply no basis for comparison between the two. You're reading too much into it. All he's saying is that he hopes Marquis can pitch a gem like Estes did in 2003. Both of them weren't highly thought of all year long, only to pitch a gem when we really needed it toward the end of the season.

I was just thinking that this Morning! That would be sweet.

Wasn't it 7 games left? The Astros also won their last 7 games that season. Yeah, you're right. I forgot about that. Pretty sure that's not true...I went to Atlanta to one of the games and I think the Braves beat them at least once...(checked schedule...they lost 2 of 3 to Atlanta) It's true... http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/schedule?team=hou&season=2004&seasonType=2&half=2

Quantity doesn't equal quality. right, but quantity IS a quality..... Depends what the quantity equates to.* * I think that makes sense. :?

Wasn't it 7 games left? The Astros also won their last 7 games that season. Yeah, you're right. I forgot about that.

It is lunacy isn't it. Hopefully we can laugh about it after the season.

Odds-wise there is no reason, but perhaps the Brewers will simply play better then us. I hope not, but it could happen.

Wasn't it 7 games left?

Again you can say that for all sports. You don't want a QB overthrowing his Rec. Basketball player being too strong on jump shot. Etc... Although, I don't equate adrenaline to momentum exclusively. It's not that simple.

Because momentum isn't real. It's just a word people use to define the moment. I'll buy that. What I don't buy is it's real with other sports, but not with baseball. I've been checking out case studies on the web and to some extent it's real, but the studies always come up inconclusive or not enough evidence. Do you not at all buy the argument that, if you choose define momentum as something that inspires or "pumps up" players (that's the only way I can see momentum being looked at as something remotely tangible), allowing them to play at a higher level, it is something that can be helpful in a game like, say, football or basketball, but not so much in baseball? I see some validity to it. If a player's adrenaline is pumping in football (it damn well better be) or basketball, the players can run faster, hit harder, jump higher, etc. In baseball, being pumped up doesn't seem like it would help a player much. It can cause a pitcher to overthrow and leave balls up. It can cause hitters to try to swing harder than they normally would (usually not a good thing) and swing at pitches that they normally wouldn't. To me, it's pretty obvious that those other sports are more conducive to the idea of something like momentum than baseball. There are too many variables, and there's too much finesse to the game in comparison to the others. Wouldn't that be adrenaline? This is how I would define Momentum in sports: Couldn't this definition of Momentum in sports be applied to all sports? Being "pumped up" applies to all of these things (the bolded). It could also be negative, one bad play snowballing into another, etc. I'd tend to say there's more validity to the idea that negative momentum exists in baseball than positive. A player can easily cause negative outcomes to happen in baseball without the assistance of other variables. i.e. it's a lot easier to see a player going up to the plate pissed off, going through the motions, and striking out than it would be to imagine that he'd go up there and get a hit somehow as a result of his positive "momentum." So...maybe I buy the idea of negative momentum, to some extent. But I can't really see positive momentum existing to a significant extent in baseball. Sure it could mean pumped up. Like when a power pitcher turns it on and pitches out of a jam by adding some miles onto his fastball. Or it could mean when a batter gets pumped up and drives a ball over waveland. Or it could mean that when a player gets into a zone and goes 5-5 with 4 homeruns.

It's statements like these that make the fates say "Oh yeah? Watch this!" 1984 I can't see us not winning 1 more? 2003 I can't see us not winning 1 more? 2007 I can't see us not winning 3 more? Don't temp fate. EVER!

Quantity doesn't equal quality.

I never said I was celebrating the injury, just his absence from the lineup. He could be missing the series because his wife is about to give birth (between Oswalt and Wilson, it's all the rage in the NL Central right now) and I'd simultaneously wish the Dunn family the best and be happy that he's not in the lineup. I'll celebrate his injury!!!! Bad or not, it's good for the Cubs.

Everybody needs to stop freaking out. If I gave you the choice four days ago that the Cubs would take 3 out of 4 from the upcoming four lefties, I guarantee you everybody here would take that. Not freaking out, but things do change rather drastically if the Crew gets to only 1 game back. That's when I start to freak out!

Because momentum isn't real. It's just a word people use to define the moment. I'll buy that. What I don't buy is it's real with other sports, but not with baseball. I've been checking out case studies on the web and to some extent it's real, but the studies always come up inconclusive or not enough evidence. Do you not at all buy the argument that, if you choose define momentum as something that inspires or "pumps up" players (that's the only way I can see momentum being looked at as something remotely tangible), allowing them to play at a higher level, it is something that can be helpful in a game like, say, football or basketball, but not so much in baseball? I see some validity to it. If a player's adrenaline is pumping in football (it damn well better be) or basketball, the players can run faster, hit harder, jump higher, etc. In baseball, being pumped up doesn't seem like it would help a player much. It can cause a pitcher to overthrow and leave balls up. It can cause hitters to try to swing harder than they normally would (usually not a good thing) and swing at pitches that they normally wouldn't. To me, it's pretty obvious that those other sports are more conducive to the idea of something like momentum than baseball. There are too many variables, and there's too much finesse to the game in comparison to the others. Wouldn't that be adrenaline? This is how I would define Momentum in sports: Couldn't this definition of Momentum in sports be applied to all sports?

Now if Harang could get hurt we're in business!

Because momentum isn't real. It's just a word people use to define the moment. I'll buy that. What I don't buy is it's real with other sports, but not with baseball. I've been checking out case studies on the web and to some extent it's real, but the studies always come up inconclusive or not enough evidence.

Momentum is just a word people like to throw out there to describe the changing of the guard. You really can't define it in baseball, because it really doesn't exist. If momentum was something that is truly real, please explain why the Mets scored 6 runs in the 9th inning, only to lose the game by 1 run. Did they somehow lose momentum? Wouldn't momentum highten as you get closer to your goal? If momentum was something that was truly real, why did Lee get stranded at 1b last night in the 9th inning? Wouldn't the Cubs currently have much more momentum pull right now than the Marlins? Why didn't someone follow up Monroe's HR with another one? Skill, luck, timing, focus and exploiting the weaknesses of the opponent are probably 5 of the biggest factors in success and failure in a baseball game or series of baseball games. Momentum is just a feel good word that play by play guys and journalists like to use for filler between pitches or games. Isn't it just as easy to lose momentum then to gain it? How is Momentum measured by win and loses? That's like saying in baseketball when a team goes on a run and scores 10 straight points, how come they stopped at 10?

Yeah, how dare they show a famous victory highlight in their own stadium. When they know its rubbing it in the face of the visiting and majority of fans? Pretty dumb and petty thing to do. Still their victory, still their stadium. Honestly, in the big picture, any Cubs fans' complaining is just sour grapes. I think that's nonsense. This isn't just a Florida thing, lots of teams do this confrontational BS, and it's disgusting. They do it in Philly and NY, and even the Rockies pulled this crap. It basically eggs on bad behavior by the fans. Their house their rules is absurd. There's no justification for that ignorant behavior and obvious attempt to stir up emotions that will lead to problems. Agreed. It's classless.