Blueheart05

NOT! my aunt uncle and cousins are Sox fans, they grew up on the southside before it got too bad. They all moved out to the 'burbs except one who works for the city and lives where all the city workers live.They all complain about the new Sox park and miss old Comiskey, they actually go to games. My mom is just a bandwagon fan. I am having a hard time feeling happy for them but I guess I am just a bit. My brother, the black sheep, is a Sox fan--has always been. I do not feel happy for him because he's obnoxious and I lost $20. lol

I beg to differ, what's more important than the WS clincher?

Lidge was the single biggest disappointment in the Series with Ensberg a close second!

NOT!

I heard it too. :roll: I'm DISGUSTED! My brother is a Sox fan and I will never hear the end of this... The Cubs are the last on the drought meter. Maybe this will light a fire under Hendry to make some impact moves.

FYI, Bernie Mac has always been a Sox fan. The only reason he appeared at Wrigley to sing in 2003 was because of the Fox network/Chicago connection... Just marketing for the show. They can keep him. :roll:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I hear ya!

It's funny you say that. I'm sure Baker has suggested to Hendry that he sign Tommy John to be that lefty starter for 2006. Why get a cheap immatation? I'd be willing to take a risk on Willaimson and I think Hendry would as well. Frankly, it doesn't make much sense to pickup a guy who the team figured wouldn't be effective in 2005 unless they had future aspirations...

I think Willamson will stay. The Cubs can keep him cheaply and Hendry has a knack for taking risks on Tommy John guys. I also suspect Williamson will be far more effective after having the offseason to rehab and get stronger.

Considering his shrunken body and minuscule stats I think the thing Sammy doesn't have this year is steroids...

LOL! On another night the game would have been tied. Whew, we dodged a bullet. :wink:

Let's make it 7-0!

Uh oh, Dempster's making this interesting (again).

JHJ flies out. It's not to be...

The best thing about that is we didn't need it because McClain doubles for his first career extra base hit. :D

WOW, Baker called for a suicide squeeze and it was executed perfectly!

Using steroids? I thought he was trying to say Maddux threw a spit ball because he goes to his mouth a lot.

Todd was a seemingly happy Cub before Hutchinson got here. I don't think that makes a big difference, and they would have to get significant value to trade a guy who is that productive and that affordable next season. They have to get more than the scrub pitching prospects they've gotten so far. And since you can't get anybody's good 40 man roster people at this point, there's really no benefit in dealing Walker. I know Walker was happy before I'm just trying to put a humorous spin on Hutchinson's departure. :lol: :lol: I was actually laughing when I typed that message...

Call me crazy (I'm ready) but now that Todd Walker's brother-in-law, Chad Hutchinson, has been dismissed by the bears he may want to leave town too especially if it means being sent to a playoff bound team. I recall Todd saying in an interview before the start of this season that he was happy to sign with the Cubs because of his in-laws. :-k If it happens, I hope we get someone good in return.

I doubt that. I heard Hendry say on Comcast Sports Net's SportsNite that Wood would be available so he figured Kerry would be used if the situation presented itself.

That's an excellent quesiton. I hope there's not enough of them to do so. They could help explain Rocket's three examples, though. That is, why Sosa, Big Mac and Raffy had their career years in their 30's. I'm sure steroids have had some effect on the numbers but its also fair to say that some guys have a longer prime naturally. For instance, a guy like Isringhausen, who's soon to be 33 years old, has thrived. Obviously, Oakland deemed him too expense and too old (at 29) when in fact they could have used him before the emergence of Street. Izzy may actually have a better all around year in 2005 than he ever had during his time with the A's ('99-'01)

I don't have my Historical Baseball Abstract handy, but I know Bill James' research in that book supports the 26-27 peak. The Baseball Prospectus crew is also on board that age range. In fact, that age range seems widely accepted to me in baseball research circles at the moment and not the hotly debated topic you suggest it is. I do agree that there are outliers -- both late and early bloomers. And it's possible that Lee is one of the former. I also think it's reasonable to expect Lee's numbers to drop next season based on his age and career numbers to date. LOL, ok as I eat crow here I hope I don't choke... I realized what I wrote while having lunch. Bill James does not support 28-32 as prime in fact, he was a driving influence of Beane, the A's, Alderson, et al, in crafting rosters of so called peak performers. However, prior to James' Abstract in 1982 it was widely accepted that the prime age of baseball players was 28-32. He along with Money Ball helped to change that idea. James wrote the following: In all fairness, there are writers and executives alike that believe the peak extends into the 30's and as such it is hotly contested. Furthermore, there are many Baseball people who publically and not so publically denounce the ideas behind Money Ball. Afterall, the backbone of the "diminished returns" theory is more economically based than purely based on athleticism and ability.

All the research I've read suggests that baseball hitters most often peak between 26 and 27, maintain close to that level until about 30, and then start to slowly decline. I've never seen any research that suggests that baseball hitters peak at 30, which is why I was curious about your source. Well, I think it's a hotly debated topic in Baseball (and athletics as a whole) which is why I said some would argue for 30 as a prime age. There have been studies that suggest that 28-32 is a prime age range for baseball players. Bill James wrote about this in "Looking for Prime." Conversely, there are others such as Billy Beane who believe that 25-29 is the prime age group. Of course, it could be argued that the 25-29 age group doesn't account for late bloomers. In either case, there will always be individuals to peak outside of the normal or expected timeline.

All the research I've read suggests that baseball hitters most often peak between 26 and 27, maintain close to that level until about 30, and then start to slowly decline. I've never seen any research that suggests that baseball hitters peak at 30, which is why I was curious about your source. I've never done any real scientific observations, but I've noticed looking at a lot of superstars career stats, their best seasons came between ages 30-33. (Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, among a few others I've just randomly looked at). LOL, I guess this was meant to be funny?

Who would that be? Who? I've heard that many times from sportswriters and athletes. It's not new. Ah, just curious if you'd seen any research that supported it. Thanks. Well, I'm a runner and I know that runners are in their prime through their mid 30's. Lots of research has been done on the subject which is why races are age graded to make them more evenly competitive. http://www.runner.org/agegrade.htm http://www.philsport.com/narf/aagegrdn.htm