ConstableRabbit

I like how our pen doesn't blow leads and the offense hasn't rolled over and died when we were behind. Looking good!

In Dusty we...... trustysofarinthisearlyseasoninthehopesthathewillcontinuetonotmaketerriblemovesasheclearlyhasinthepast?

Count me on. He's looked very impressive!

Haha, right after the homer, I immediate thought... THE BandWGN!!!

I take partial credit for starting the "Let's Go Juan!" chant in Right.

I sat there today. The seats are a little recessed, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that they are "obstructed". I actually liked the seats a lot. I'm pretty sure we made Encarnacion play like crap today with our constant heckling. :lol:

If that were true, everyone who played for the '86 Mets would have died by now. :lol: :lol: :lol:

please no

If Neifi starts I think we're all in trouble

My Roommate suggested: Walker- Greater than Neifi My Soxfan friend recommended: "Dusty- The Kids can play!"

Or add your own!

Where are you Paul Bako!?!?!?!

OK, I think I have it figured out now. Sometimes rain is caused by rainbows. The problem is that you can't see the rainbow through the clouds and rain while it's raining, but afterwards you see that the rainbow is there and then you know that that rain was caused by a rainbow. I'm a little confused as to why I was quoted for that statement...

http://www.davidrosengarten.com/lp_images/Popiel%20w-red%20bkgrnd.jpg Set it and forget it

I found that interesting too. What does everyone think about the BP articles on there? I don't know if I really agree with everything.

You don't have to have the same talent. The inspiration for starting this thread was the publication of PECOTA projections for the 2006 season. The idea was to use the objective, quantifiable statistical projections as a control, and then see if layering observations about team chemistry would improve the precision of the predictions. So for the NL Central the PECOTA projections looked like this: NL Central W L Cardinals 86 76 Cubs 85 77 Brewers 84 78 Astros 81 81 Pirates 79 83 Reds 78 84 My hope was that somebody would be able to say that, independent of talent, my ranking of the teams chemistry would be (made up ranking) Brewers Cardinals Cubs Reds Pirates Astros Then at the end of the year we could look at the actual results and see if the chemistry observation, layered onto the PECOTA projection, improved the precision of the predicted results. Obviously if the pre-season chemistry rankings match the PECOTA rankings there's no additional information and no test. The only response I've been given, from ABuck, I think is somewhat sarcastic in that he projected the teams with the best chemistry are the ones projected to be the worst in each division. However if, at the end of the season, none of those teams actually came in last place I'd be tempted to say ABuck is on to something. Like I think I've said before, I understand the arguments on both sides. I'm just trying to shine a little empirical light on the subject Yes, but how do you know what teams have good chemistry and which don't? It's a really subjective thing. Additionally, we can't observe each team day to day. Even if we asked the players, who's to say theyd give an accurate depiction of the team's chemistry?

It could, but several teams with players that hated each other enjoyed great success. That is definately true. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, all talent equal, teams with better chemistry should tend to to better than teams with bad chemistry. Chemistry isn't necessary for success (2002 Giants, for example), but it doesn't hurt.

Whether or not it does, has no ramifications for the baseball discussion. Baseball is nothing like war. You have to trust the man next to you with your life in war, not in baseball. Obviously they aren't the same thing, but you have to work together to win in baseball too. You have to travel together, shower together, and are around each other for long periods of time. Do you not think that if everyone hates each other it can have negative effects on their on-field performance? It's almost like office chemistry. Huge companies spend millions on consulting to resolve this issue. I wouldn't argue that its a huge factor- obviously not bigger than talent, ha. I would also argue that winning solves, or should solve, most clubhouse problems. But I tend to think that the collective team spirit and hope can help a team bounce back from a slump, whereas one who has a bad attitude is less likely to succeed. Assuming each team has the axact same talent. The problem is, its almost a philosophical debate because you can't really have the same talent on each team as a control- there are too many lurking variables to make an accurate statistical experiment. It's a lot easier to do in an office.

Does chemistry/hope among a military squadron have no effect on whether or not they will win the battle?

I'm sticking with "Bastille LeSteal"

I was able to see a game there in 2000- it was really cool inside (literally!). Great fans- total Cub lovers. Sosa hit a bomb off of Randy Johnson, but sadly, Daniel Garibay was the Cubs' starter....

me

I didn't even know it was called McAffee.

If I were them, I would. (I'd also have a mullet) I don't think they'll offer enough though and it won't go through.

NL: East: Mets (I'm sick of Atlanta) Central: Cubs West: Dodgers WC: Braves AL: East: Yankees Central: Indians West: A's WC: Red Sox Division Series: Braves over Dodgers in 5 Cubs over Mets in 6 Yankees over Indians in7 A's over Red Sox in 6 Championship Series: Cubs over Braves in 7 A's over Yankees in 6 World Series: Cubs over A's in 7 (please?) NL MVP: Aram AL MVP: Ortiz NL CY: Z AL CY: Halladay NL ROY: Cain AL ROY: Johjima