cheapseats

they just showed a padres fan drinking beer through a straw.

Rusch should be dfa'd on the spot. he habitually fails to cover first.

Walker is nt clutch that's why Theriot was called up i do blieve.

Juan runs real fast and slides into second yeah here we come witha six run inning go COBS>!

Hairston shows some FIRE after striking out! That's what this club needs. Hairston has clubhouse leader written all over him. He will get ANGRY when bad things happen and the COBS will go on A WINNIGN STREAK!

Since the 4th inning of the Indians/Royals game, I think. Casey Blake hit a sac fly.

Walker speeds to third!

He's not fast enough.

Don't worry. We've got Theriot on the bench now if we need late-inning power.

Yes.

No throw from Pierre this time. Worth three pitchers for one year?

Pierre with a great throw to the plate...just a little late. :cry:

Barrett pops up to short. End of inning.

Walker hits a soft line drive to right field for a hit.

Ronny strikes out swinging.

For those who haven't seen him do it yet this year, Pierre just proved he can indeed hit the ball in the air.

Have any of you stopped to think that maybe Juan Pierre is getting sick of you?

:lol:

That's not entirely true. The numbers show that a successful sac bunt does increase the chance of scoring one run when there's a runner on second and no outs or when the pitcher is at bat with one out (which should never happen late in a tie game, anyway). Bunting with a runner on first and no outs actually decreases the odds of scoring one run, especially when the opposing manager walks the next batter to set up a double play situation. If you have a BP subscription, here's the relevant portion of a three-part study: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2851 From the article: "There appear to be a few select game situations in which [a sac bunt] remains a better option than swinging away. However, those situations are almost entirely limited to when there is a runner on second and no outs. Even in such a situation, it is only beneficial to sacrifice in certain parts of the lineup or when the quest of a single run is more important than maximizing run scoring." Click's research is applied to the 2004 Pirates in this article at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04146/321576.stm I think it's an interesting read.

As has been pointed out, Wrigley now has a higher capacity than US Cellular. Fairweather fans are one thing, that number will fluctuate depending on who is doing well but I don't think there's any doubt that the Cubs have a bigger "diehard" fan base in Chicago than the Sox can ever hope to have. I don't know that I agree. There's no doubt the Cubs have a larger national fan base than the Sox. That's due in large part to the decision of the Sox not to go with WGN in the late 1970's. WGN reached a national cable audience in the 1980's, and many people outside of Chicago became Cubs fans during that time. But the Cubs didn't start averaging 30,000+ at home games until 1998, the year Sammy hit 66 homers and the Cubs made the playoffs. Where were all the diehard Cubs fans before then? A lot of people jumped on the bandwagon during that season. The Sox average attendance in 1980-1984 was 22% higher than the Cubs attendance during that time period. Comparing the capacities of the stadiums doesn't make much difference since neither team averaged near capacity. The Sox also averaged more fans during the first half of the 1990's. It was much closer than the gap in the early 80's, but the Sox did draw more fans. The Sox dominated the Cubs in attendance during the 1950's and 1960's. It wasn't until the Cubs put contending teams on the field in 1968 and 1969 that their attendance overtook the White Sox. If you look at the yearly attendance figures, it's pretty clear that in the past, Chicago has gone out and supported winning teams. I'm not saying the Sox are going to overtake the Cubs in Chicago this year or the next, but many here believe that it could never happen despite the fact that history shows its possibility. If the Cubs want to maintain their grasp on the city of Chicago, they need to put a competitive team on the field. Right now they're not doing that. I can't believe Hendry got extended, but since he's not on the chopping block, we might as well start with Dusty.

In all fairness, there's a lot that Ozzie gets wrong. He still calls for way too many sac bunts, for example. He does handle his pitching staff pretty well. He lets his starters work themselves out of jams but he does monitor pitch counts. Don Cooper, of course, deserves much praise for his work with Sox pitchers.

yeah, sandberg's in the hall because of his bunting prowess. 31 total sacrifices in his career. If he were playing for Dusty, he'd hit that total in four or five months. Bunting is what second basemen do, dude.

So at least someone involved with the Cubs is moving up in the standings.

As has been pointed out, Wrigley now has a higher capacity than US Cellular. And how in the world do you define "more popular" if it has nothing to do with attendance. Let's not let the facts get in the way. :roll: The Cubs have been Chicago's team for the last twenty years or so, but it hasn't always been that way. Before 1984, the Sox often outdrew the Cubs. The Cubs haven't always been the dominant team in the city. Just because many of us on this board aren't old enough to remember what it was like in the past doesn't mean the past didn't happen. Anyway, if the Cubs want to turn things around, firing Baker would be a start, I guess, but why should we be confident that his successor would be any better? The same person who hired Baker in the first place would be the man to pick his replacement. Baker doesn't always put the best nine players on the field, so I'd like to see him go. Hendry doesn't do enough to put the best 25 players possible on the roster, so I'd like to see him go, too.

The White Sox outdrew the Cubs as recently as 1995. What makes you think that such a thing won't happen again? It might not happen next year, but if the Sox continue to put a winning product on the field and the Cubs continue to lose, the Sox could be the dominant team ten years from now if not five.