goonys evil twin

I agree. Just need to look at the Steelers game from last season when their speed was limited in the snow. But the B & B debunking needs to be looked at carefully all the same, to make sure their observations indeed hold true. They sure looked good in the 8 degree Atlanta game last year though...but that might be because Vick was slowed because of the cold. The Bears are still hard hitters, and no one likes to be hit hard in the cold. The difference there is the cold vs the snow. Snow is bad for speed teams. Cold is not. The Bears don't have big fat guys taking on blocks, but they hit very hard.

Wait, what? How has no reporter asked Lovie about this nonsense being reported nationally? Did we all just miss something? Was I watching my imaginary television Sunday? There was an article referencing Turner's reaction to the national media's take on this issue.

I would. Zito will play his home games at AT & T Park, Lilly at Wrigley. Zito will be in the NL West with its share of pitcher's parks, Lilly in the NL Central. Petco is the only true pitcher's park in that division. LA has been well below average, but that's a reflection of the crappy offensive teams they've assembled lately. Dodger Stadium was top 10 last year, and Juan Pierre aside, it should stay that way with the influx of good young offensive talent. AT&T is about average, but Coors and Chase are still 2 of the premier hitter's parks in the game. A pitcher's park or hitter's park is not a reflection of how good the home team's offense is. It's a reflection of how many runs are scored. Yeah, it will show up in the run totals, but not in any sort of pitcher's park rating.

Someone please point me out if I'm wrong, but I don't think other drugs will show up on this. I think it was just 'roids. I know what sparked this test back in '03 was because of all of the rumors of 'roid usage. We test quite abit in the military, and I know that there isn't one test that catches all drugs. Each sample usually gets tested several times for certain groups of drugs (i.e. one test reveals opiates, etc...). The more tests you run on each sample the more money the labs will charge you. I don't believe MLB was testing for pot or other similar drugs. I don't know if they were also targeting cocaine or any of the other harder drugs. I was under the same impression as you. But I do believe there was talk of looking into testing for other drugs, which might have just been an unreported side issue.

Please clarify this comment, if you don't mind. Lilly is coming from the most unfavorable splits of any pitcher on the market, and still you have a concern? 30% games against Red Sox/Yankees is a far worse split than pitching in the NL Central, no? NL Central ballparks, not necessarily the lineups. There are a few launching pads in the NL Central, Cincy, PNC, Minute Maid, and then of course, Wrigley is prone to giving up the long ball. I'm not sure about the new STL park.

I would. Zito will play his home games at AT & T Park, Lilly at Wrigley. Zito will be in the NL West with its share of pitcher's parks, Lilly in the NL Central. Petco is the only true pitcher's park in that division. LA has been well below average, but that's a reflection of the crappy offensive teams they've assembled lately. Dodger Stadium was top 10 last year, and Juan Pierre aside, it should stay that way with the influx of good young offensive talent. AT&T is about average, but Coors and Chase are still 2 of the premier hitter's parks in the game. A pitcher's park or hitter's park is not a reflection of how good the home team's offense is.

I'd think he'd be happy, since the current lineup fails to strike fear into anybody.

Why is that? He'll be 22 this season, hardly an unprecedented age to start in the big leagues. He's stopped at every minor league level. And he's got 426 pro innings under his belt. That's almost as many as Rich Hill. I really don't know much about the guy, but on the surface, it doesn't seem that you need to be high to think he could be MLB ready this season.

i just read that on yahoo, some of you thought we had it bad with Lillys contract The number of years is bad on the Zito contract, the pay is not. With Lilly the number of years isn't so bad but the pay is. Zito will probably perform better given the dimensions of Pac Bell. I really worry about Lilly in the NL Central ballparks. So you think that Zito is worth 18 million a year? It depends on how you define worth. In this market? Maybe. The unit, Mussina and Pettite made about $17m each last year. Those are all old guys whose best days are behind them. Zito compares favorably with those guys right now, and he's much younger. Plus, the market is paying more than it was when those guys signed those contracts, much much more. 7/126 is probably the equivalent of a 4/56-60 just a few years ago.

Careers could be damaged because guys took steroids. Don't blame the release of the truth for their careers being damaged. That being said, this isn't a good thing for anybody. It only adds to the distrust between MLB and the MLBPA. I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for some bum who used roids and is exposed. But dishonoring the confidentiality of this test only makes further testing more difficult. I know that if you sleep in hay you shouldn't be surprised to wake up itchy, but what if some guy tested positive because he smoked a hooter with his college buddies a week before the survey? As someone said earlier, the positive tests might show more than steroids. If they do, it seems this zeal to get Bonds is going to needlessly embarass other players. I guess I shouldn't feel sorry for them, but I do. Yes, that would really suck. They can all blame Bonds, for refusing to come clean. Do you guys really think some guys' career will be ruined if it's leaked that he smoked pot in 2003?

There's no such thing as illegal in baseball. It wasn't strictly against the rules, but illegal drug use was, and steroids without prescriptions are illegal drugs. The players risked ruining their own names by taking the stuff in the first place.

I'm not sure where you're getting this... http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/sortableStatsTeam?div=NFL&stype=offense&stable=downs&stat=penTot&dir=descending&season=regular This has the Bears 5th in the NFL with 106 penalties. 3rd in total penalty yards with 879. http://www.nfl.com/stats backs this up as well. That is the Bears offense. Switch to the defense.

not all that big? Are you nuts? That picture sure didn't make him look all that big. He has a modest bicep bulge when squeezing his arm up against his side and taking the photo from an odd angle. Big deal. I know manual laborers who never go to the gym and definitely aren't on juice who look bigger.

Careers could be damaged because guys took steroids. Don't blame the release of the truth for their careers being damaged. That being said, this isn't a good thing for anybody. It only adds to the distrust between MLB and the MLBPA. I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for some bum who used roids and is exposed. But dishonoring the confidentiality of this test only makes further testing more difficult.

People who like to use statistics to evaluate baseball teams are admitting that statistics cannot predict everything that will happen, and that luck can play a part in the final outcome, and you are on here chastising people for myopic stats worshipping. Your unwillingess to admit that luck can play a part in the outcome of a sporting event goes beyond myopia, it's plain old foolish.

If traded for wisely, A. Jones makes this team a contender NOW, playing any of the OF positions. Pie is still a huge gamble. CF is a gaping hole on this team right now, and they need another big hitter desperately. Jones in CF doesn't make this team a contender. The only thing that will make us a contender are the successes of Hill and Prior. A CF, even one as good as Jones, doesn't make enough of a difference offensively to overcome a rotation of 1 ace, a #3 (Lilly), and some veteran projects (Marquis and Miller). Well, if Hill completely bombs, that would hurt. But the pitching is probably set, and the team needs to settle the CF as well as they can to help their chances in 2007. An offense that includes Jones in CF could make this a top 3 offense in the NL, which would go a long way toward overcoming even an average pitching staff. You are right that not much would overcome a disaster in the staff, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't improve the offense.

If traded for wisely, A. Jones makes this team a contender NOW, playing any of the OF positions. Pie is still a huge gamble. CF is a gaping hole on this team right now, and they need another big hitter desperately. If the cubs were wise they would just platoon Jacque. The difference in the production of a platooned Jacque and Andruw Jones is surely smaller than the value of Pie et al. CF is not a gaping hole on this team, SS is. I agree that a platooned Jacque would be a great option in CF, however, it does not appear that the Cubs have any plans to attempt such a platoon this year. This is why CF is a gaping hole on this team. The fact that SS is also a gaping hole just makes it all the more important to solve the CF problem.

If traded for wisely, A. Jones makes this team a contender NOW, playing any of the OF positions. Pie is still a huge gamble. CF is a gaping hole on this team right now, and they need another big hitter desperately. I understand the "hold onto the prospects to ease the pain of the backloaded contracts theory", I just don't think it means they have to hold onto everybody. At some point, I think it's perfectly fine to "switch strategies" and trade for some talent instead of just signing it. And as mojo pointed out, this team is built to win now, but they are still in need of another player to make it likely they win now. I would be perfectly fine with a trade of multiple prospects for an impact player, and I do not think that would make it impossible to field a good team in '09 and beyond. First of all, Wilken should continue that inflow of talent. He's got 2 more drafts before the '09 season, and they can sign young foreign players as well. The talent pipeline is not going to dry up because of one big trade today. I'd much rather trade multiple prospects for an impact player today, than occasionally trading away 1 or 2 at a time, or losing 1 or 2 to rule 5, to keep getting mediocre players.

What is your reason for lumping those who think luck plays a part, into the group that is begging for luck to bring the Cubs to the World Series? It's a rather absurd line you are drawing in the sand. Luck plays a part, whether you want to admit it or not. It's not the determining factor. You still need the talent and skill and determination to get into a position where good luck will mean anything. And it's not necessarily true that every WS winner has been the recipient of more good luck than anybody else. But luck plays a part. When an 83 win team wins the WS, and virtually the same pitching staff goes from WS heroes to regular season also rans, you know luck is involved somewhere.

Just because .328 is average for a leadoff hitter doesn't make it a good idea to get that out of that spot. As much as we complained about Dusty, I would say over 1/2 of ML managers would put a speedy basestealer #1 over a guy like Murton. Again, that doesn't make it a good idea. .340 should be the bottom of acceptability from a leadoff hitter's OBP. Especially since the goal should not be averageness. .341 was the 17th best leadoff OBP in baseball last year. You had to beat .350 to be top 10. Only 8 teams make the playoffs every year, which leads one to believe it's not a good idea to strive, or settle for, averageness. You should be disappointed in a .340 OBP out of leadoff. Just like you should be disappointed in a 4.50 ERA and an 81-81 record. Yeah, it's kind of acceptable. And his SLG definitely means his overall production will be better than most. But a .340 OBP is definitely at the very bottom of what you'd want at leadoff, and .350-.360 should be what you get.

What you don't seem to understand is nobody is saying teams only win with luck. Luck plays a part. Luck plays a part in every baseball game. Seeing eye singles and linedrives that are caught have a lot less to do with execution than luck. Luck, or chance, plays a large part in baseball. You don't win 90 games because of luck, and you don't lose 90 games because of luck. And counting on luck to bounce your way is asinine. But it plays a part. I do understand this. But statistically there is no way for little momentary quirks to hold up on one side of the ledger, any more than it's possible to flip a coin 100 times and have it register 100 "tails." Therefore it is not an issue when determining who wins the World Series. I think the real issue here is that some people want to tag injuries, or career years, or exceptional above-the-norm performances as "luck." That's completely off-base. Not luck at all. It's just a great year, and all the things that go into it. A team that gets several great years from guys, or plays "over their heads," or whatever-----they aren't lucky. They just did a great job that year. Okay man, you keep thinking that. 100 consecutive tails is not anywhere close to having the balance of luck being on your side over the course of the season. "All the things that go into it" includes luck.

What you don't seem to understand is nobody is saying teams only win with luck. Luck plays a part. Luck plays a part in every baseball game. Seeing eye singles and linedrives that are caught have a lot less to do with execution than luck. Luck, or chance, plays a large part in baseball. You don't win 90 games because of luck, and you don't lose 90 games because of luck. And counting on luck to bounce your way is asinine. But it plays a part.

That is only true if the other options were higher OBP guys. Murton is, but you could just as easily insert him in the 2 hole. DeRosa might be, but he The key to not screwing over Lee and Ramirez will be finding decent OBP out of the 2 spot next year.

Well, I doubt he'll be on base "plenty", that, to me, would suggest a really good OBP. Soriano is never going to have a really good OBP, he could be above average and a little more than adequate. But getting on base will never be a strong point of his game.

I'm not sure Fons will derive a big OBP advantage from batting leadoff with the Cubs. He'll have DLee and Aram batting behind him, as opposed to the lameass Nats hitters from 2006. Pitchers will have good reason to challenge him a lot more in 2007, which hopefully will lead to more HRs, but IMO it will almost certainly lead to a significant reduction in walks. The key to getting Soriano out has always been outside the strike zone. I'm not sure challenging him is really that good of an idea for pitchers.