bukie

Doesn't look like the Illini are going to have quite enough tonight, but it was nice to see Pruitt, Frazier and Randle participate when Brown and Augustine struggle. 3.9 left, Vaden shooting 2...

Dee is missing shots. Augustine is in foul trouble. Randle just fouled out. Illinois can't hit free throws. Yet, somehow, they trail by just 4 in Indiana.

Since the league went to 32 teams, the schedule works out very nicely. Here are the games the Bears will play every year: Home-and-home against division foes (6 games) Games against an NFC division (4 games, 2 home, 2 away) - 2006 is NFC West Games against an AFC division (4 games, 2 home, 2 away) - 2006 is AFC East Games against NFC teams that finished in the same place in their division as you (2 games, 1 home, 1 away) - 2006 is Tampa Bay, NY Giants This past year was NFC South, AFC North, San Francisco and Washington.

Augie was there defensively, but not offensively. Dee was there offensively, but nobody else was. Man, Augie needs to work on his footwork.

Here's a Big Ten prediction that I fully support: http://bigtenwonk.blogspot.com/ No clear favorite, as any of 3 teams have a legitimate argument to being the best team in the conference this year. And, as an Illini fan, anything lower than first or second might be disappointing after several years in a row of being at the top, but it's not altogether unprecedented. The first game they lose this year will be highly disappointing, especially if it's not at Michigan State or at Indiana.

So not only does he pick against the Bears for like the 15th time this season, but he has no idea that Minnesota was eliminated from the Playoffs last week???? Is there anywhere you can see how he picked for the whole year? I know he hasn't picked the Bears much, I just wonder exactly how his picks went this year.

Nice to see Illinois actually play well on both halves of the ball in a game...absolutely throttling Oregon in Portland right now.

I think it's difficult to discern in Orton's statistics how much of it is Orton, how much of it is the receivers, and how much of it is the play calling. I'm not defending Orton by any means, but there are some things that have been completely taken out of the playbook since the Cincy game that have never gotten put back in since. It seems now that the only deep passes Orton throws are 40-yard hail marys and 20-yard out fades. He overthrows each about 75% of the time, which makes me curious why the coaching staff keeps calling them. Aside from that, all Orton throws are 3-7 yard slants, quick outs and screens. It seems that the entire center of the field, and the 10-20 yard "medium" pass is completely missing from the offensive scheme, content to gain that medium yardage from one of the other methods (3-7 yard fade followed by a hopeful run after the catch, or 20 yard fade out), or hope the RB runs 11 yards. Now, if the coaching staff simply got scared of those routes since the Cincy game, they have to give Orton a chance to screw up again. The staff is just hurting the offense if they don't, which is becoming more and more obvious each week. Granted, with opponents stacking 8 men in the box, it becomes hard to throw that pass over the middle, but if they can get more completions in the 10-20 yard range, it forces the safeties and linebackers to play off a bit and respect that route. The longer the Bears go without doing something in that medium range, the less the opposing defense will respect that area of the field. As it is right now opposing defenses only need to respect about 1/3 of the field. Now, if that's Orton's decision making that prevents those passes from being thrown, it's up to the coaching staff to practice that more so that Orton becomes more comfortable with it again, or threaten to make a change to a QB who can make those throws. Because, eventually, the Bears will have to play from a TD or more behind, and when that happens, they won't be able to count solely on FGs to get them back into the game.

Yep, that's pretty much exactly what I was looking for. Not really any oddities, as that list pretty well describes the premier hitters of the past 40-odd years. Certainly all guys I would never mind having up in run-scoring situations (in their primes...not sure Bagwell right now is the best guy on their team at this point in his career). And here's an article from retrosheet that details my thoughts pretty much exactly: http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/RuaneT/rbipro_art.htm

I really can't stand Guillen's attitude towards the Cubs, or any other team for that matter (see: choking motion in Cleveland). I also wonder whether his "smartball" costs the Sox more than it benefits them, considering how many HRs they truly did hit this year. Running themselves into outs doesn't score extra runs. They do seem to be the master of the "productive out", though I have no factual information to support that position.

Again, when did it become mandatory for Cub fans to hate the Sox? Who wrote that..., besides you? See: first page, original poster, 4th post (i.e. J.R.'s sig), 13th post (that you replied to, actually, in agreement). Seems to me that most of the White Sox-obsessed posters are the haters that start threads like these. Which I think is juvenile and petty. One might ask then, why reply to it in support of the Sox? Well, just to make a point that there is another stance available, and it's not as silly as it sounds.

Yeah, I'm mostly trying to see if there is any such thing as a true "RBI man". Sheer # of RBIs has very little to do with ability, as where you are in the lineup and how many opportunities you get have more to do with that number. I know for the most part that BA with RISP varies year-to-year and most often is reflected in a player's overall effectiveness. I would assume RBIs per opportunity would vary in a similar way.

Was Burnitz really that good defensively though? And note Lee's limited defensive numbers using that system. I'll have to read up on the numbers to see where they come from. On the whole they seem solid, but there are some weird outliers (although, it could be just because of my perception of their abilities than anything else).

I understand the limited usefulness of the RBI stat in itself. What I am wondering is if there was ever a stat created that measured a sort of RBI percentage. Something that measured RBI compared to total RBI chances, even weighted pending the base each runner was at. Anyone heard of such a stat existing somewhere in the SABR universe?

Again, when did it become mandatory for Cub fans to hate the Sox? That's a very ignorant and childish approach, really.

Boo hoo! Those big bad bullies will make fun of me! It's a good thing you have met and been harassed by so many Sox fans out in State College, PA. I deal with Sox fans constantly, on a daily basis. For those who decide to trash talk, I refuse to sink to their level. For the many good fans that deserve a championship team just like many Cub fans, I hope they get it. If the only reason people are rooting against the Sox is that a few immature fans might make fun of you for being a Cub fan, think for a second about how silly that sounds. If you really dislike the team because of some fabricated "rivalry" based on the fact that the Cubs only interact with them 6 times a year, you're hating for the exact same reason many of us think it's ridiculous that the Sox fans hate the Cubs. Pot-kettle situation. As for me, I dislike Guillen's attitude, but I think he's handled the pitching staff spectacularly this year, and that's why the Sox are where they are today. Not because of "smallball", not even because of "smartball", but because their pitching staff carried them here. Even though I can't stand Buehrle's attitude when he loses ("they were stealing signs from center field!"). I don't see why it's viewed as a crime to root for both teams to succeed. Even in New York, it's stupid. The only time I root against the Sox is when the Cubs play them. Which is almost never, then.

Actually, I'd just as soon take the high road, and not act like the fan base I despise. Would be nice to see the city win a championship, even if it is the Sox. I never consider the Sox a rival but for 6 practically meaningless interleague games. To be honest, I'm embarrassed by the attitudes of some of the posters here towards the Sox. It's really become a pot-kettle situation.

I'm back doing playoff game threads, this time having nothing to do with the Cards (was 4-0 for Cards playoff game threads last year...). Classic pitching matchup here tonight. Worth tuning in just for that.

Houston/Florida goes 9-9, the Cubs will have to go 16-2. You say toast I say yep Well, if the Cubs did go 16-2, there's a solid chance Houston goes at best 9-9... ...of course, Florida or Philly will win the wildcard in that case.

1 game from mediocrity. Maddux needs to win to keep his 15-win streak alive. Baker continues to boggle the mind with his choice of substitutions and unnecessary double switches. I do suppose a .340 hitter is the first guy you want to get out of that game though. Can't have the other team getting a book on him.

2 games from average again. I can understand Dusty's dilemma of balancing being competitive now with getting the future ready for next year. Of course, what Dusty doesn't understand is the players from both scenarios are the same.

The road to mediocrity continues. Hopefully with the use of players who can help the Cubs in the future.

I am less worried about Houston hitting 91 wins than I am one of 4 NL East teams getting to 90+ wins playing mostly against each other. Hoping each team plays .500 ball and all teams beat each other up equally (aside from the Braves) isn't out of the realm of possibility, but the likelihood that one team simply plays better than the others is high. The statistical average wins of the NL Wild Card team is 89.4 wins according to Baseball Prospectus (in their 1-million season simulation), so I felt that 91 is a bare minimum to feel safe about being enough wins to get to the playoffs. As to where I got the "Cubs need to gain about 11.5 games on the league", they need to gain 3 on the Mets, 4 on the Marlins, 5 on the Nats, 5.5 on the Phillies. Totalling 23 games. However, each game contains a winner and loser, so it's essentially split in half (rather simplistic model). Saying the Cubs gain a half game on the league on average when they win (which is accurate), 32-9 is a reasonable record to expect playoff competition. Which is daunting, but not impossible. Maybe if the Cubs run off 20 in a row, the outlook will change. :)

But better than losing a game or 3 in standings as well, too. at this point in the season, gaining one game every other week or so may as well be losing three. but i agree...they're playing better of late. I think they have to sweep Colorado next though. They can't just win series anymore.............they have to go on a roll. The weekend series for Wildcard teams: CHC @ COL (3 games) WSH @ PHI (Doubleheader Thursday) WSH @ NYM (3 games) PIT @ NYM (1 game) PIT @ PHI (3 games) MIL @ HOU (4 games) LAD @ FLA (3 games) Looks like the Cubs and Phillies have the easiest go at it. You would root hard for Milwaukee if the Cubs weren't neck and neck with them. Here's the way I look at it: There are so many teams ahead of the Cubs, it's hard to root for or against any one team. Essentially, when the Cubs win, they net a half game on the league (gain 1 game on half the league, keep up with half the league), and when the Cubs lose, they lose a net half game on the league (lose 1 game to half the league, stay even with half the league). Basically, in order to have a realistic shot at the playoffs, they need to make up a total of about 11.5 games on the league, meaning they'd have to play 23 games over .500 for the rest of the season. With 41 games remaining, that entails going 32-9 here on out, which would result in a 91-71 record. That's basically a bare minimum. So I'm not expecting a whole lot, just hoping the team can play well here on out.

What controversy? There was a strike in 1994 that ended the season in August. He retired during the strike from that and personal problems.