MPrior

I know no one but me cares, but my Tar Heels play Kentucky tonight, and while UK's clearly not the team they have been in the past, it's still a game people get pumped about. And with Hansbrough out, the chance for Kentucky to pull the upset is definitely there.

I, like many others, have long had a major man crush on Kerry Wood. In addition to being an absolutely filthy pitcher, he's obviously a class act and a first rate person. I'll miss him, and it'll hurt to see him pitch for another club. But I'll root for him to do well no matter where he winds up.

I think that might even be a little optimistic on Dempster. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see his ERA wind up a good bit higher than that.

I particularly like Rich Harden carrying Manny's disembodied head during his windup. Nice touch.

This is awesome and needs more attention brought to it. Well played, sir.

Lenny Harris?

What?

I want to clinch against Milwaukee, but that has nothing to do with disliking the Brewers (actually, I kind of like them, and would probably prefer that they win the wild card). The reason I want to clinch against them is simple: I'm rooting to win every game, and the only way we don't clinch against Milwaukee is if we lose at least one of the next two, and I don't want to. So there.

Everyone's just arguing semantics. I suppose, strictly speaking, that wins are not truly "meaningless" if you think that the ability to loosely extrapolate some educated guesses about a pitcher's performance from them gives them meaning. However, if you define meaning as having some intrinsic value on its own, then pitcher wins are meaningless. It's a team-based statistic that is determined by a set of nearly entirely arbitrary circumstances. The only "meaning" wins and losses have is given to them by the (very loose) correlation they have with other more direct reflections of a pitcher's value. So it really depends on how you think about "meaning." But all of that is pointless. Wins and losses are a terrible means for determining a pitcher's effectiveness. Whether or not they're "meaningless" is largely irrelevant.

That's not always the case. I'm pretty overweight. I have a large gut, but no ass. My dad is the same way. I think the "no ass" gene is genetic. Then she needs to stop being photographed from the waist down. I don't have anything against Erin Andrews, but her lack of ass is far less troubling than her face. I don't understand why people seem to think she's some goddess. I get it, she's hotter than other female sports journalists, but that's not exactly saying a lot. For the record, I think she's good looking. Just not enough to merit the worship she receives.

Sarcastic or not, that was terrible. Completely nonsensical.

at least AP photographers won't be able to take pictures of you distraught... (that was you wasn't it?) It was :( Did I miss something?

I'm sorry, but we are not discussing Mark Buehrle. Who?

Frankly, I'd rather pitch Lilly than Z or Demp on 3 days' rest, especially if just pitching him once can allow Z and Demp normal rest the rest of the way. Lilly's been pretty solid since May or so, so it's not like we'd be throwing Shawn Estes out there.

That hurt my soul.

Which makes it a wash. For those fans who care about bragging rights, the Sox got there first. Beating the Sox for a championship would give those fans the ultimate trump card. Me, I couldn't care less about any of it, outside of maybe when I'm at a Cubs/Sox games and surrounded by some of their fans. Yeah, I'm not sure it would make too much difference to me, except in those instances when Sox fans would gloat. I imagine for fans in Chicago, being in the midst of the World Series celebration of the team who just beat yours would be difficult.

While this article is typical of Phil Rogers' mindless articles, there is, I believe, one miniscule, largely insignificant nugget of truth in there. If the Cubs get to the World Series and lose it, it will suck. If they lose it to the White Sox, it will suck a little more for many Cubs fans. Yes, I know that several posters here wouldn't care who they lose it to, but many Cubs fans would. The flip side, though, is that beating the White Sox in the World Series would probably add a little sweetness for the same fans.

No need for question marks. I'm pretty sure this isn't the best Cubs team ever. 1906, even though they didn't win the World Series, was maybe the best team in baseball history. At least by winning percentage. Which is not to say that this team isn't totally badass.

I love this team. How fun is it to follow a team that's really, really good? I've certainly never really experienced it. I suppose parts of 2003 and 2004 approach it, but nothing really close.

I know it was already quoted in the thread, but this sentence in particular pisses me off. "Any objective observer could clearly see..."? WHAT? Not only is that complete BS, not only is it an enormous and unwarranted insult to Aramis, but it's also an insult to anyone who thinks otherwise (which, I'll add, is anyone who believes that people can't read minds). This one also pissed me off, although it's just more of the same: He later goes on to suggest that Ramirez didn't care about winning very much until this year, which I have a hard time believing. What a tool.

Looking at those numbers just emphasizes how ridiculous it is that Santo's not in the HOF. Ramirez is AWESOME. I love having him on the team, he's a beast. And yet, Santo's fifth-best season is as good or better than anything Ramirez has ever done. How can someone have been that much better than Ramirez, who's incredible, and not be in the HOF? Dead horse, I know, but jeez. It just makes me mad.

yay! Okay, this is unacceptable. The Cubs have been outscored by five runs in the sixth inning of the last 14 games. They really need to do something about that. Also, I hate working when there's a game on WGN, since those are the only games I get. Calm down, the 6th inning is when Lou lets the players take a coffee break. All players due up that inning are required to end their ABs as quickly as possible in order to join the rest of the players. The 7 runs were scored by players who wished to end their quick ABs with HRs instead of just striking out. Oh, okay, thanks. That clears it all up.

yay! Okay, this is unacceptable. The Cubs have been outscored by five runs in the sixth inning of the last 14 games. They really need to do something about that. Also, I hate working when there's a game on WGN, since those are the only games I get.

Stealing 3rd with 2 outs is collosally dumb. Stealing it with less than that makes sense if you can make it. Well sure, if you can make it. Stealing a base ALWAYS makes sense if you can make it. The problem is, there's no way for you to know if you can make it. The risk:reward ratio for steals in general is already so high that you have to have a roughly 75% success rate just to break even in terms of productivity (the number varies depending on the source, but it's usually around 75, isn't it?). Well, that ratio is even higher as far as stealing third. The potential benefit of stealing third is you move a runner in scoring position into... more scoring position. The only real boon is the possibility of sac flies and advancing groundouts, which is minimal. You don't help stay out of a double play, and you don't dramatically increase the likelihood of that player scoring. The benefit of stealing third is therefore much smaller than it is for stealing second. The cost of creating an out is also higher. Not only do you create an out, but you take a runner in scoring position off the basepaths. So it stands to reason that, since the risk:reward ratio is even higher than normal for stolen bases, that it would require an even higher success rate to make it worthwhile, probably at least 85-90% (I've not seen a study done on this, so I'm approximating). But, to make matters even worse, stealing third is harder than stealing second. There are very few baserunners who could reasonably be expected to maintain even a 75% success rate stealing third, let alone 85-90%. It's simply never really worth it to try. I suppose I could be convinced that the scenario David mentioned would be a possibility, but there'd have to be some pretty extreme circumstances (excellent runner and basestealer, awful catcher at throwing out base stealers, terrible hitters coming up to the plate, etc.). Even then I'm not sure I'd buy it.

My number one baseball pet peeve, and it's not particularly close, is making outs on the basepaths. I HATE it. No one on he Cubs should ever, under any circumstances, attempt to steal third base.