goonys evil twin

Way to totally contradict yourself in the span of there sentences. I didn't contradict myself. Pitching in general is completely unpredictable. There are, however, some guys who are steadily effective. The Cubs have one guy on their roster who fits that bill, Zambrano. Everybody else has either had an extremely up and down career, or is just starting out in the majors and cannot be counted on to any significant degree.

Don't care about halfback, but Benson should start at running back.

I think it also shows how much people underrate pitchers when trying to pin a number on them. Yeah, in a perfect world, the Cubs would have the Tigers rotation of last year and have four significantly above-average starters. But they don't. I don't care what world you live in, the Cubs do not have one #1, three #4s and a #5, at least not unless everything goes wrong. Well I have been saying that this whole time, and now this new article proves it. Even at WORST we don't have three #4's. And at BEST we've got a #2 and #3. This article doesn't prove anything. We could have any number of combinations next seasons. What we do know is we don't have a lockdown guaranteed #2. The rest we'll find out during the season. It's pitching, therefore it's unpredictable.

Toronto maybe lacked some big bats, but they were an average scoring team. Win totals are meaningless, but he didn't rack them up against NYY/BOS, he was 1-3 against BOS and 0-2 against the Yanks. He racked up 3 against BAL, and no more than 1 against any other team.

I think it also shows how much people underrate pitchers when trying to pin a number on them. Yeah, in a perfect world, the Cubs would have the Tigers rotation of last year and have four significantly above-average starters. But they don't. I don't care what world you live in, the Cubs do not have one #1, three #4s and a #5, at least not unless everything goes wrong. They wouldn't need everything to go wrong, and they wouldn't need anybody to be any worse than they have been in recent years. I think the Cubs have locked up not being the worst rotation in baseball. The problem is, they aren't close to the best rotation in the NL, and without a top lineup either, they have nothing to hang their hat on. Without a great lineup or rotation, it's hard to be a great team. I get pissed when a top payroll Cubs team strives for averageness.

Now that hurts. Why do I feel like the guy in the GEICO commercial? Well, I'll be 50 in April, and the guy who asked about OPS is in his late 60s. The guy that said I was "carrying on" about on-base percentage claimed to be a Cubs fan for 60 years. Were these questions sent to you via telegraph? Actually, one guy asked me in person and another sent his via the U.S. Mail. I don't even remember how to send a letter anymore. That's fantastic. Well, good for them. I generally stear clear of those topics when talking to my dad, and others, about the game. It's much more enjoyable to just discuss the game. But I've brought up the whole OBP/walks thing with him and he's completely receptive to the topics. Shouldn't be surprising though, since he was my first coach and constantly talked about looking for a specific pitch in a zone to drive early in the count and all that. My high school coach, who was younger, was completely opposite, preaching aggressiveness at all times and the need to pound the ball into the ground.

That's pitching. So few guys are good year-in and year-out. Saberhagen had 4 of 5 years over 200 IP before age 26, then never did it again. He had a few effective years after that, but in somewhat shortened seasons.

That's probably because you didn't see any of their dominating performances. I saw them dismantle the Seahawks, Bills, and Niners first hand so I know what their ceiling is. If they're on, no team in the NFC is within a touchdown of them. They have not, however, been "dominant" in a good 2 months. We're clearly not seeing the same team we saw clearing teams aside in the first 5 weeks. I don't think it's hopeless, but I'm pretty sure any playoff wins are going to be some victories they need to fight REALLY hard for. Well, they beat SF by 31 in week 7, they beat the Giants and Jets by 18 and 10 on the road, respectively. They beat Minnesota by 10 despite a horrific Rex game, then beat STL by 15 on the road. It's not the same as winning 26-0, but winning by double digits, on the road, is quite an accomplishment in the NFL, especially when a couple of the opponents are playoff teams, and the 3rd was playoff eligible going into the last week. Generally speaking, there are more blowouts in the playoffs than people expect. I would not be the least bit surprised if they blew some team out, especially the first opponent. I wouldn't be shocked if they blew NO or PH out in the conference championship either. But they could also lose to any of these teams. That's the thing with the Bears, especially with Grossman. They have a wide range of possible outcomes. They could win in a blowout, win by a narrow margin in a shoot-out, win a boring 14-6 game, or lose big.* This is opposed to recent Bears teams, that would have to win the close low scoring games, or stand no chance.

I would say there is such a thing as a bad year that guys can bounce back from. I wouldn't expect a 40 year old to bounce back from a down year, but it happens all the time. Whether it's related to an injury, moving teams, or something else, pretty good players can have down seasons. Generally, I don't think you're really good guys will ever have truly bad seasons, but in the case of somebody like Dempster, who has been wildly inconsistent over the course of his career (even his walk rates have varied, from as low as below 4 to as high as above 6 per 9 innings. I think Dempster could have a decent year next season, or he could be bad. It's tough to say for certain. That's part of the trouble with relievers, and why it's risky to sign them longterm.

Now that hurts. Why do I feel like the guy in the GEICO commercial? Well, I'll be 50 in April, and the guy who asked about OPS is in his late 60s. The guy that said I was "carrying on" about on-base percentage claimed to be a Cubs fan for 60 years. Were these questions sent to you via telegraph?

I still don't know who he is and this story has been out for a while.

I'll pitch in if I need to. I think we could raise the sufficient funds here...maybe Tim would even give you free premium for life. The smart thing to do would be to collect enough money to place a bet that would cover that bonus. The Cubs are listed as 9-1 to win the WS next season on one site (the Cubs are always overbet due to their popularity and the fact that everybody wants to make money off them when they finally do win). So, collect about $17,000, bet on the Cubs to win the WS, and then you're covered, unless he somehow wins the MVP without the team winning. If he's traded to another team, that teams picks up the cost of the bonus, and we're off the hook.

Ryno

I have a friend who claimed he offered Eli a shot and Eli just said, "I don't do shots."

It's going to be a long time before you see pieces in the mainstream media that are akin to what they do in BP and the Hardball Times. Now and then, yes, but not regularly. And with some good reason. While most of the people here are in-tune with sabermetrics and the like, you must remember that this is a very specialized board and that many in the general public don't have the foggiest notion of what things like VORP are. Nor do they care to learn. I had an older reader ask me what OPS was. Another asked why I was constantly "carrying on" about on-base percentage. The job of the baseball writer in the newspaper is to tell a story. Sometimes that story revolves around stats. Other times it centers on human interest or injury or intrigue of some sort. On top of that, you have very limited space with which to work in the paper. (As more papers focus more on their Web sites, that problem will be alleviated somewhat, thankfully.) I still have to write for a general audience and bring many of them along slowly when it comes to some of the newer thinking that's shaping the game. daggum it!

Isn't Eli getting booed by the fans in New York?... Yes.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Giants fans have no faith in Eli, and Coughlin has already tried throwing him under the bus.

I hope so, but he can't prove consistency (even if he's awesome in all of them) in 3 games. Lord knows he's had awesome 3 game stretches already this year. We won't really know the answer to that question until next year. Whatever... I'm just looking forward to this weekend to find out who we're playing next week. I disagree. If he has 3 straight great games in this postseason, nobody is going to go into next season with doubts.

I don't disagree with you. I'd just like to see how he does with his first real, full season under his belt (on top of all the OTA's, practice, training camps and all that). He has legit game experience going into this offseason. Regardless of how deep the Bears go in these playoffs, this offseason is going to hopefully be a chance for him to take that next step. With the way this season has gone, he has lots to build on, both good and bad. That's just my take. I'm probably biased because I've been a big fan of his for a long time, but I think it's a valid point. Well, I never wanted them to draft him in the first place, but now that he's here, and has shown what he has shown, I think you have to at least give him a chance to lose the starting job next season. By the way, this postseason is going to hopefully be a chance for him to take the next step.

Considering there is no such thing as a relief QB, obviously you are wrong. It's not a job he can have.

If it was 1.5 seasons, you'd have a point, but it's spread out of 4 seasons, so you don't. It's not just game time that guys learn from. He's had more than enough film and practice time to be better, and he's had enough game time to be better than he is. I haven't given up on him, but I'm sick of the "it's only been 20 games" arguement. That made some sense in October, when he'd played very few games. He's had plenty of time. Now he has to get the job done. If he craps the bed in the playoffs, you have to seriously consider drafting a QB this April who could takeover in 2008, or midway through 2007 if he doesn't show improvement next season.

Couldn't have put it any better myself. He's on game what, like 20, of his career? The fact that he's had as many great games as he had already bodes very well for his future. His bad ones may be worse than some other guys', but his good ones are better than most guys' too. At this stage in his career, you just have to put up with the inconsistency. How can people want to give up on him already? This city is just way too impatient. He's played 24 regular season games and 1 playoff game. I don't think you have to put up with his inconsistency. He's got to become more consistent right now. But he's the QB, and he should be the QB through the playoffs, and he should be at least in the picture for QB next season, unless Griese somehow looks much better this summer.

The first Vikings game?

Well, I think you're clearly wrong about Rex's upside. You don't have the good games he's had without having significant upside as a QB. FYI, Jeff George had multiple seasons where he qualified as top 10 in several categories. George started 10 or more games 8 times, so he was hardly a backup. But he was a journeyman. I think Grossman's career path is much more extreme, he's either going to be really good, or disappear from the league. I don't see him bouncing around.

I am so glad you do not make personnel decisions for the Chicago Bears. I want to win not baby sit some headcase. In the playoffs you can't fool around and wait and see if your QB can turn it around, especially one with thin skin like Grossman. I don't see Grossman having thin skin. Regardless, it's absurd to suggest starting Kyle Orton over him.