USSoccer

So...I guess no moves, huh?

Anyone remember the play that knocked ARam out for the year in 2005? It was hustling down the line, trying to break up a DP. And he was promptly called "soft" and "injury prone".

For some. Not everybody. Exceptions don't always make the rule. Please. No one, at any job, ever, goes 100% all of the time. I'm sure a fair share go 100% for a large percentage of the time. And they would certainly do so for the whole 10-20 times per ballgame that a player is required to do so. So in other words, you concede that no one goes 100% all of the time?

For some. Not everybody. Exceptions don't always make the rule. Please. No one, at any job, ever, goes 100% all of the time.

What adds to this is that a lot of the fans bust their butt in the workplace to make a pittance of what professional ballplayers make and have no patience for a player who doesn't give 100% effort to play a game. I'm not making a judgment on Ramirez one way or another here, but am just trying to give some perspective as to the reasons some fans have the viewpoints that they do. And yet a lot of the complainers don't really bust their own butts 100% of the time, but they get all sanctimonious when complaining about ballplayers because it makes themselves feel better. What is your point? I was merely giving an example of why some fans might feel that way. How does your post change what I said? He's pointing out the hypocrisy of the hustling issue.

I'm sure I have opinions that are stupid. People would be right to call me out on them. That said, I can defend most of my opinions. I don't get people that care more about effort than winning when it comes to a sporting event. I don't see a valid defense for that line of thinking; that there's somehow honor in being bad if you tried really hard.

Seriously? This is what people care about? Why do you take such personal offense to this topic? Because it's a stupid strawman that takes attention away from the real problems this organization has. ARam jogging out a grounder to SS isn't why they lose games. If the media focused on that instead of nonsense like this, maybe there's be an impetus for change.

Don't get me started on Mike Murphy. If he doesn't have the critical thinking skills to read a newspaper article, he shouldn't be on the radio adding to the media's white noise.

Seriously? This is what people care about? I don't believe in it nearly as much as most people do, but yes, seriously that's what a large, large number of people care about-I've heard many, many fans say that they would rather want a mediocre team that is giving their full effort than a good team that doesn't hustle at times. Then those are some stupid, stupid fans with their priorities out of whack. This isn't little league, or AYSO soccer, where everyone just gets credit for trying hard. Winning is the only mandate. If ARam hits 40 HR's and 120RBI's I don't care if he crawls down the 1st base line on a groundout.

Paul Sullivan is a hack. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-070220cubs,1,777390.story Seriously? This is what people care about?

There's talk of the US putting in a bid for the 2018 World Cup.

??? Yes, that is what I am talking about. Those numbers are much more telling. There is less "interference", so to speak. And yet they are still terrible rankings, no matter how you break it up.

Thank god for blackout restrictions. No way. In 200 years people at the national archives will crack up listening to those 3 idiots. Over/Under on first time Dusty goes off on a nonsensical, metaphor riddled tangent about fishing or some other such nonsense? Over/Under on DPS? (Dudes per show) The hour long show? 9

Thank god for blackout restrictions. No way. In 200 years people at the national archives will crack up listening to those 3 idiots. Over/Under on first time Dusty goes off on a nonsensical, metaphor riddled tangent about fishing or some other such nonsense?

Just perfect. Steve Phillips, John Kruk and Dusty on the same set.

Wish Beasley was still with PSV. Is Lee Nguyen on the first team?

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims? No, I'm not saying that whatsoever. He says I have no proof and then mentioned possible proof for his case. All I did was ask for the data. If he cannot provide the specific proof, then neither side will have won. I can't prove my case, because I can't prove how much higher of a chance the run will score with a different mindset at the plate-without that variable, I cannot do the math and show that run expectancies would be higher that way. He implied that he can prove his side-I'm waiting to see if that is the case or not. Instead of waiting or requiring Sully to post the link, google TangoTiger. I'm not the biggest fan of his, but his research on this speaks fr itself.

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims?

Penny wise, pound foolish.

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that. The poster who started this disagrees.

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat. A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie. how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now. every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher. putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out. I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well . Going to the plate intending to make an out is stupid. If you have two strikes on you, whatever, but the goal of any PA should be to get a hit, not hit a flyout to CF.

Other than the people implying that Aramis was lazy, out of shape and unfocused, earning the disrespect of his teamates, and maintaining the ire of the fans by signing a fat contract and showing up "late" (whihc turned out to be on time", you're right. No one said anything critical. Other than that.

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat. A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie. What kind of sense does that make? Yes, with 2 strikes and a guy on third, make contact, whatever, but there's no way you're going to tell me with a straight face that with a guy on 3rd and less than 2 outs the goal isn't to get a hit, but to hit a deep fly ball? A deep fly is at least 5th in the order of preferred outcomes.

I hope he hustled to the dugout to get his stuff. He'd better start checking into ST the right way from here on out. That's not how Santo playe...er, checked in.

I'm going to stick by the reasoning that because so many boomers grew up in the 60's that everything that comes out of that era is overromanticized. The 2004 team was better than the 1969 team. The 2004 team's collapse was far more ridiculous. The reason why it's "romanticized" is because it was first time the Cubs were in the hunt for first place in many many years. And yet there is one collapse and 2 playoff chokes that should be much more memorable that a team that faded with 2 months to go in the season.