CubColtPacer

Are people watching this game? This is getting really interesting. 25-22 Louisville after 3, and they are getting the ball back. The thing is though, contrary to the score, the Rutgers D has come to play-they played well in the first half, but get let down by their special teams several times. Second half, they've been great-can they continue to hold? It will be a great 4th quarter.

The only big difference tonight has been the special teams so far. The Louisville kick return for the TD, the extra point blocked that turned into a 2 point conversion, the fake punt that went for a long gain, and the short punt by Louisville that got nullified by the roughing the punter. I can't believe with all that they are somehow within 11 at halftime, but I don't even know if that's close enough to be effective in the second half with Louisville getting the ball after halftime.

It might be, but it might not. If it gets to tomorrow morning (or mid-day at the latest to give a little time to inform different places), then we probably won't hear anything till Sunday night at the earliest-because that meants that Seibu would have left for the weekend without formally accepting.

?? Do you think Hendry doesn't have time for both? Figure Miller at the least got between 1-2 million, while this isn't alot, what is the gap right now in regards to re-signing Aram? 4-5 million? He needs to hold off on these recovery projects and take care of buisness ASAP. Get Aram signed now. If Aram doesn't get re-signed, right or wrong, it won't be due to available funds, but rather an estimate by the Cubs front office of how much he is worth. Wade Miller's signing will have nothing to do with Ramirez's contract.

Perfect example of using stats as a drunk would use a light pole. In 2004 Aramis was 4th in OPS in MLB for 3rd baseman In 2005 Aramis was 4th in OPS in MLB for 3rd baseman In 2006 Aramis was 5th in OPS in MLB for 3rd baseman. He is top five 3rd baseman in baseball. Pay him like one. While I support the Cubs going up to Aramis's demands of 5/75, the Cubs offer of 5/70 would be paying him like one of the top 5 3rd baseman in baseball. In fact, it would be probably one of the top 2-3 salaries for that position in the league. So it's not like the Cubs aren't offering him a fair deal-but they do need to overpay him.

He's actually performed at a high level before, none of those guys have. Career ERA+ of 112. You might be lucky to get 100 innings of 90 ERA+ out of any of those other options. Miller might be able to give you 150 inning at 100-110, and it wouldn't be ridiculous if he gave you 190 innings at 120 ERA+. What makes Miller more likely to be good than any of the younger guys? The Cubs made the playoffs the last time he threw a full season, he had major rotator cuff surgery, and he was terrible in his brief stint in the majors this year. Miller's terrible end of 2006 was still much better than any of the young guys besides Hill end of 2006. Nope. Miller: 21.2 IP, 1.71 WHIP, 1.11 K/BB, 1.66 HR/9, .232/.376/.402/.771 line against Marshall: 125.2 IP, 1.52 WHIP, 1.30 K/BB, 1.43 HR/9, .270/.356/.444/.795 line against Marmol: 77 IP, 1.69 WHIP, 1.00 K/BB, 1.63 HR/9, .250/.386/.482/.862 line against Guzman: 56 IP, 1.88 WHIP, 1.62 K/BB, 1.44 HR/9, .308/.416/.507/.915 line against Mateo: 45.2 IP, 1.62 WHIP, 1.52 K/BB, 1.18 HR/9, .288/.376/.475/.841 line against Ryu: 15 IP, 1.93 WHIP, 2.83 K/BB, 4.26 HR/9, .348/.419/.758/1.160 line against You didn't even put ERA on there or any of its derivitives-while not the end all be all, it still deserves to be on there as much as the other stats. Miller had the best ERA by far, and he had the best OPS overall with everybody but Marshall, who he had a slight edge with (and Marshall was known last year for keeping those other peripherals down by shutting down the opponent for a few innings and bunching all the hits and walks into one inning-which still makes for not a great pitcher). If all 6 were to start and get a full season, then it likely would happen that 1 or 2 of the young guys might beat Miller. They only fill one spot though-and Miller is the most likely of any one of them individually to do well next year.

He's actually performed at a high level before, none of those guys have. Career ERA+ of 112. You might be lucky to get 100 innings of 90 ERA+ out of any of those other options. Miller might be able to give you 150 inning at 100-110, and it wouldn't be ridiculous if he gave you 190 innings at 120 ERA+. What makes Miller more likely to be good than any of the younger guys? The Cubs made the playoffs the last time he threw a full season, he had major rotator cuff surgery, and he was terrible in his brief stint in the majors this year. Miller's terrible end of 2006 was still much better than any of the young guys besides Hill end of 2006.

I really liked the movement on Wade's pitches at the end of the year, so let me echo the sentiment that as long as he wasn't more than 2-4 million dollars (with 4 stretching it) then this was a good sign.

i am very happy with this signing. what an amazing switch in philosophy. nobody that i know has ever advocated going up there looking for a walk. it's exactly like perry says, shrink the strike zone, look for a pitch in that area. if the pitch is borderline, don't swing, even if you have two strikes. the likelihood that a hitter is going to get a good swing on a questionable pitch is poor anyway, unless the hitter is pujols, vlad, or aram. I am with you until 2 strikes - at that point you can't let borderline pitches go IMO. I wonder what he thinks of a platoon partner for Jones? the chances that a borderline pitch will be called a ball is much greater than a player putting good contact on it. i'm not inclined to believe the conventional wisdom of "choking up on the bat and putting it in play with 2 strikes" for the simple sake of putting the ball in play. there are worse things than striking out on a 2-strike pitchers pitch. if you can't hit the ball effectively and the pitcher happens to put the pitch in an unhittable position in the strike zone, tip your cap as you walk back to the dugout. there's nothing a hitter can do. i detest the idea of swinging at a pitch you can't do anything with, it's useless. major league hitters CANNOT be afraid to strike out on a called third strike. hitters that are are usually ineffective. The chances of it being called a ball are greater-and so more hitters need to take borderline pitches on a 3-2 count. What if the count is 0-2 though? If you take a pitch, let's say you get called out 50 percent of the time. You're in a better count, so now you get a hit or a walk 30 percent of the time, where before you only got a hit 20 percent of the time (and a 10 percent increase is also probably generous just going from 0-2 to 1-2) .5 (the remaining times at bat) multiplied by .3 (your new hit or walk percentage)=.15 which is now less than if you had just tried to put a bat on the ball. Then what happens if you are now 1-2 and you get another borderline pitch? Do you swing now? If you don't, you lose another 50 percent, and then you are already out 75 percent of the time before you even finish the at-bat. Looking at 2-2 pitches and 3-2 bordeline pitches is probably going to be better (depending on the umpire) but even that is questionable, because I think that umpires are going to call you out more than 50 percent of the time, as the edge typically goes to pitchers on a close pitch.

I shall always remember his voodoo he performed on the team's bats a few years back prior to a 8 (?) game win streak. Actually, I believe it was a 12 game winning streak that followed an 8 game losing streak. I thought it was a 10 gamer...but whatever. I remember how it ended, and that sucks. Jeromy Burnitz hit a towering flyball to right, Sammy leapt at the wall and it just went over his glove for a HR. Ugh. If I'm not mistaken, that is. Well, you have it a little turned around. It was a 12 gamer, and it was Sammy who hit a high fly into the corner in right for the potential game tying homerun, and in the corner Burnitz jumped up and robbed him to end the game.

Just like the rumor the other day, I cannot believe that the Cubs would release their number before the deadline. Some teams haven't even bid yet, and if a team is going to leak their bid, they might as well have not made one. So my inclination is to dismiss this completely (although I don't think the Cubs will be the high bidder)

How does adding 2 pitchers that, at their best, are average help? Padilla and Meche could be replaced with just about any 2 names in our organization in 2007 and get the same results. It would once again be an example of overpaying for mediocrity by signing either. What pitcher in this organization besides Rich Hill could go out and make a full season of starts with a 4.5 ERA or better next year? The likelihood of one of them doing that with the chance is certainly not over 50 percent with their results this year. They would have to get acclimated to the majors very, very quickly to make that kind of improvement.

Let me remind you in the past 3 years Alou has played in 155, 123, and 98 games respectively. He will also be 41 this year. I understand the importance of OPS to an offense but I also remember Alou's horrible OF defense, throws, and baserunning miscues during his last couple years with the Cubs. That being said, I'd rather have the moderately younger (38 this year) Gary Sheffield who up until last year, played in 155 or 154 games the three seasons prior. He also provides great OPS. People need to get off the Alou bandwagon - stop smoking that stuff. Sheffield may be the better player, but is he worth more than Jones and Alou and the possible other prospects the team might have to give up to acquire him? That's where the question comes in-I don't think Sheffield alone is worth more than the combination of Jones and Alou (which fills one big bench spot also), and prospects that can go to another trade. Now, I don't think the Cubs will get Alou-but if they could, I think that option would be better than trading Jones+ for Sheffield.

A quick search resulted in this: Here's the source on that one: http://pages.map.com/pinto/2003_03_09_BMarchive.html And then there is this one: The source on that: http://www.glenndickey.com/_gd.php?view_one=yes&which=385 That's about all I can find for now. That's a very interesting pair of quotes-I think it's a very positive thing that he wants hitters to be agressive only in small area, but to try not to hit a pitcher's strike, and to never swing at something outside the zone.

I watched the last drive of that game. It was simply one of the most surreal things that I have ever seen. From the heavy fog that was making it hard to see to the terrible camera angles to the announcers yelling "I think a bat almost came in here", it certainly didn't feel like one team was trying to come back in a college football game. I couldn't believe either that they refused to run Wolfe at the 2, although their first down play should have been caught for the TD.

That's not the point. He inherited a team capable of winning the division. If he didn't, they wouldn't have won the division. Wait a minute-the original point is that a GM who takes a team capable of winning a division and doesn't do much more isn't that good of a GM. You said that the Cubs were capable to win a divison at the end of 2002. That means that basically the Cubs team from 2002 had a reasonable chance to win the division (with some minor upgrades). What you're saying there is that every team is capable of winning the division at the end of every year-but the original poster was saying without major moves they weren't able to. IMO, the Cubs did not just tinker from 2002 to 2003-they would not have won the division without all those moves they made. If you disagree, that's fine-but I certainly didn't look at the end of the year in 2002 and say that the team was 1 or 2 moves away from a division title.

Hendry inherited a team that won 88 games 2 years before, then the team went out and won 88 games and won a division. That sounds nice, but that doesn't mean the team he inherited could win the division. The 2001 Cubs were nothing of what it looked like at the end of 2002. They had talent at the end of 2002, but the talent was completely different than what it was when they won 88 in 01-the only players even available to Hendry from the 01 team were Sosa, Hundley, Mueller, Wood, and some bullpen guys. That's it-the team in 03 had an almost complete turnover. That's a great deal different then his point that the Dodgers were ready to win then and there. Hendry inherited the team at the end of 2002. The 2003 team was very similar. The rotation, the primary reason they won, was already in place. It's simple absurd to claim that Hendry didn't inherit a team capable of winning a division. He inherited a team, and they won the division. I guess I just don't believe that the team at the end of 2002 could have won a division if they had all been retained for 03. There was plenty of talent there, but there were a great number of holes as well. I don't think the Cubs come anywhere close to a division title without filling at least some of those holes, such as a bad lineup with a quickly declining Fred McGriff and a terrible Todd Hundley (or Joe Girardi) and a mostly awful bullpen.

Hendry inherited a team that won 88 games 2 years before, then the team went out and won 88 games and won a division. That sounds nice, but that doesn't mean the team he inherited could win the division. The 2001 Cubs were nothing of what it looked like at the end of 2002. They had talent at the end of 2002, but the talent was completely different than what it was when they won 88 in 01-the only players even available to Hendry from the 01 team were Sosa, Hundley, Mueller, Wood, and some bullpen guys. That's it-the team in 03 had an almost complete turnover. That's a great deal different then his point that the Dodgers were ready to win then and there.

Just because USC beat them in Week 1? You're arguing that Arkansas going undefeated in the SEC doesn't deserve to be ranked above a USC team that lost to an unranked Oregon St. ? Every game matters. If two major conference teams both have one loss and Team A beat Team B, then why shouldn't Team A be ranked ahead? strength of schedule, conference record, when the game was, etc., etc., etc. Doesn't matter. Team A beats Team B. Do you remember the 2000 National Championship game between Oklahoma and Florida State? Well Miami handed Florida State their only loss that year but because it was early in the year and Miami lost later in the year, Florida State was incorrectly ranked higher in the polls. Miami should have played Oklahoma that year. USC should be ranked ahead of Arkansas if they both have the same number of losses. I don't really understand how there could be a better factor for which team is ranked higher under the circumstances (both with one loss) than the head to head result. In your 2000 thought process, you missed one thing. Florida State did lose to 11-1 Miami, but Miami lost to 11-1 Washington. Washington under that logic should have played for the national title, not Miami.

I'm not sure about still the easy pre-season schedule. Duke, Southern Illinois, Kentucky, the preseason NIT (hopefully past the first two rounds), and I know this game is actually during the conference season but Connecticut should make this non-conference season again a little too much. I fully support having a couple tests non-conference, but playing what is likely to be 4-5 top 25 teams non-conference (depending on how the preseason NIT goes) before going into the Big 10 is a little too much for me. Well, this team learning the system will certainly be battle-tested by the time it comes to conference play once again, however.

Yeah. It would be kinda weird for Florida to win the SEC championship title game and Auburn make the NCG because of that. I mean is it a championship game or what? Im sure people from Auburn might argue this but they are just being silly. Arkansas has 2 tough games coming up so Auburn may end up getting the chance to prove it in the title game. Doesn't Arkansas have to lose twice in order to have Auburn win the division? Yes, Arkansas has a 1 game lead and the tiebreaker, so they would have to lose twice before the end of the year for Auburn to sneak into the SEC title game. It's possible though-Arkansas has Tennessee this week, and still has a team like LSU later in the year.

I'm just saying the altitude can be a factor - there is a reason Denver teams have the greatest home-road record disparity in every sport. don't take that as a pick against ND. It definitely does, and the Air Force style of offense doesn't help either. The difference between that 2002 and 2006 teams is that team was heavily defensive oriented, and this one is offensively oriented. I think ND will win, but they have to execute-if they get behind early, it can be very, very hard to catch up to a team like that sometimes.

I still think they'll be top 14 even with a loss which would make them eligible-and I can't see the Sugar Bowl passing on ND, even if they shouldn't take them (I'm not saying that they should or they shouldn't-I really don't know). The money possibility is just too strong.

They're number 25. But I have a hard time believing they're better than a lot of the 3 loss teams from power conferences. I saw them play against B.C., and the teams were very even. B.C. was very, very lucky to get away from that game with the win in double OT.

Can someone explain to me why the computer's averages are so different from the BCS poll? What do you mean exactly? Why do the computers disagree with the polls so much, causing the huge difference in the poll? Or do you mean that the top team gets 25? In the computer averages, 25 is best. If you get a 25, that means you're #1 in that poll-all the way down to 1 point, which means you're number #25 in that computer poll actually. Edit: That is of course until it says the entire computer average: then you want to be #1. the first thing you said. They have Cal at #4, but in the BCS poll, theyre at 8. Also Michigan is almost unanimously the top team in the computer rankings Well, it's mainly because computers don't care about margin of victory or how you look. Michigan has the best SOS of the undefeated teams, and so they are #1-but in the human polls, OSU has looked better, so they are #1 in the polls. The computers have Cal much higher than they are in the polls because Cal has never been able to recover from the image of them getting destroyed in Tennessee in the polls, while in the computers it is once again that they have 1 loss with a good SOS.