CubColtPacer

With Floyd, who has only had one other at bat the whole series? Floyd is hurt and can't run. Even if he did get a hit you have to take him out anyway. I thnk the smarter move was to bunt, then PH Floyd for Lo Duca possibly if needed. Floyd had just as much capability to drive the ball into an alley, over the fence, etc. as he would to make an out. Unfortunately for every Mets hitter in the 9th, Wainright had a very nasty breaking ball that the best hitters in the league couldn't have hit. Floyd's normally going to make an out almost 70 percent of the time. With him being hurt, his swing seemed to be off. Floyd was just as likely to hit into a DP as get a base hit with him hurt and not swinging as well as he usually does-and then a base hit does not get it to a tie.

That was one situation I definitely would have bunted. You need both of the runs. Floyd's only had 2 AB's in a week and is hurting. With the combination of those two factors, he is probably close to as likely to hit into a DP as he is to get a hit. If you bunt, you've got two more spray than HR hitters (I know, Reyes has power also) only needing a single to tie the game. Most of the times I'm not in favor of bunting-but that was a perfect bunting situation IMO.

When he put on that Jersey. I swear Duncan is a Genius or they are the luckiest team alive pitching wise. they turn lemons into lemonade consistantly. Look at Weaver for god sakes! actually weaver sucked during the regular season for the cards too... he just all of a sudden learned how to pitch once the playoffs rolled around. Sometimes the pixie dust doesn't come alive until they need it to, as opposed to just letting them run away with everything a la 2004-05. Yup..with their roster, they realized that in 2004 and 2005 their pixie dust ran out. So this year, they conserved it, like a Nascar or Indycar driver conserves fuel while in the lead. They conserved it so much that they almost gave up the lead, but have been putting a lot of it on now. Getting Yadear Molina to hit that kind of home run? They must have used the rest of it :D

Wasn't this our problem in 2004? Either we would win with the long ball or we sucked. Piniella has stated that the home field should be an advantage to us. If that is true (and I believe it is), then we had better learn how to win when the wind is blowing in at 20 mph. Power will not help us much in that situation. As with any good team (coach), you have to learn to adjust to the environmental conditions of the ballpark, particularly with Wrigley. If we want to be a playoff contending team....we have to learn how to use Wrigley as an advantage to us. Ken Other teams didn't have problems launching HRs into the wind at Wrigley. That's not quite completely true. The Cubs did much better at keeping pace with the opponents when the HR's were into the wind than anywhere else. This is my rough count of the number of HR's hit by each team in games where there was wind coming in, wind blowing out, or a crosswind. I didn't put the zeros into my number data, which is why you may see different amount of numbers for each one. BTW, as most of you probably know, the wind blows in many, many more times then it does out-or at least it did this year. Wind Blowing In Cubs-1,2,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,1=30 Opp-1,1,1,1,1,1,4,1,1,1,1,1,1,4,1,1,2,2,2,1,3,2,1,2=37 Wind Blowing Out Cubs-1,1,1,2,3,2,4,2,2,1,4,1,2,4,3,6,1=40 Opp-6,3,1,1,8,1,8,1,4,4,5,6,1,1,6,2,2=60 Cross Wind Cubs-1,2,2,1,1,2=9 Opp-6,2,1,1,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,1,4=26 As you can see, HR's did not play a big factor in losing games for the wind blowing in. Also, there is a huge difference in the number of HR's per game with the wind blowing in and the wind blowing out. There are only 3 numbers above 2 HR's in a game with the wind blowing in (all from the Cubs opponents). With the wind blowing out, with several less games to work with, there are 15 of those 3 HR games or more for one team (6 for the Cubs, 9 for the opposition). Environmental factors do play a big difference at Wrigley. I would agree with the solution though of getting more people on base to counteract that HR problem when the wind is blowing in.

I think he was pretty solid in the 2nd half actually. I remember seeing something about how he had one of the top 5 ERA's (maybe top 10) post-ASB. Still though, he shouldn't be pitching this well. Yeah, Suppan was 6-2 with a 2.39 ERA in 15 starts after the All-Star Break, so he's been amazing somehow for a while now. Pretty baffling. Perhaps the Cubs should inquire about him? Is Suppan a free agent? I'm not surprised he's not being talked about more, especially when I just looked up his stats. His highest ERA any of the last 4 years was 4.19, and he going to consistently put up an ERA close to 4. That's always a solid starter-certainly a big step down from the elite starters, but he's just as good as anyone else.

I think he was pretty solid in the 2nd half actually. I remember seeing something about how he had one of the top 5 ERA's (maybe top 10) post-ASB. Still though, he shouldn't be pitching this well. Yeah, Suppan was 6-2 with a 2.39 ERA in 15 starts after the All-Star Break, so he's been amazing somehow for a while now.

I just looked it up. Piniella was asked about managing at Wrigley. He was talking about the park, and I think he is referencing that at Wrigley the wind blows in more than it does out. Here is a quote right after the ones that have already been mentioned in this thread:

Parker and Housh are the two I feel most confident about, then I would start TO and Jones next. I'd select Coles as my flex player. Johnson doesn't score enough, Addai and Jones-Drew are risky (they are big one week, not so big the next week right now-it depends on how the game goes if they even get double digit carries right now)

There wasn't really any time for their to be a market for Glendon. One site I'm looking at has Glendon being signed on Halloween last year. I'm not sure that's quite right, but I know it was before free agency actually started. I'm sure somebody would have given Glendon at least a couple million dollars last year, just like somebody will give Jason Marquis that money this year. Marquis sucks, but comparing Rusch's career to his is doing Glendon a big favor. Is it? Throw out this year for Rusch (since I'm comparing each one of them before going to free agency-so Rusch before last years free agency, and Marquis before this year's free agency) Here are their last 5 years before that free agency Rusch:01: 8-12, 4.63 ERA, 1.45 WHIP 02: 10-16, 4.70 ERA, 1.44 WHIP 03: 1-12, 6.42 ERA, 1.75 WHIP 04: 6-2, 3.47 ERA, 1.23 WHIP 05: 9-8, 4.52 ERA, 1.57 WHIP Marquis: 02: 8-9, 5.04 ERA, 1.54 WHIP 03: 0-0, 5.53 ERA, 1.50 WHIP 04: 15-7, 3.71 ERA, 1.42 WHIP 05: 13-14, 4.13 ERA, 1.33 WHIP 06: 14-16, 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP I'd rank their seasons in this order: Rusch 04, Marquis 04, Marquis 05, Rusch 05/Rusch 01/Rusch 02 (they are all about the same season), Marquis 02, Marquis 03, Marquis 06, Rusch 03. So Rusch in their 10 combined seasons before free agency had 4 out of the best 6 seasons-I don't see why the comparison would not be valid whatsoever.

My thought always would be on that-if you could only buy one and keep it on your shelf, which one would it be? Which ones are such classics that you can continue to enjoy them?

I agree with all of those-Bond movies could even be split up by actor possibly (since people look at the different movies very differently). Also, the Terminator movies, possibly the Superman and Batman movies. I'm sure there are more important ones out there that I'm not thinking of.

Two others that quickly come to mind for me are Back to the Future and the Rocky movies.

There wasn't really any time for their to be a market for Glendon. One site I'm looking at has Glendon being signed on Halloween last year. I'm not sure that's quite right, but I know it was before free agency actually started. I'm sure somebody would have given Glendon at least a couple million dollars last year, just like somebody will give Jason Marquis that money this year.

A comment that was made by somebody else got me thinking about a new contest. What about doing movie franchises as a contest? The franchise would have to be at least a trilogy to be eligible, but it can be more movies than that. Franchises with big breaks in them that have at least 3 movies on each side (like Star Wars or Star Trek old/new) can be divided up into each section. What do all of you think about that idea, and if you wanted to do it, what would be some nominations that you would want to see in the contest?

It was simply a combination of factors for 2006. One was that a significant amount of our money did not give us much this year. Wood-12 mil Lee-9.5 mil Maddux-9 mil Prior-3.65 mil That's over 34 million right there that didn't produce past April (and some of them didn't produce at all). Wood, Lee, and Prior were due to injuries-and Maddux's contract was seen as the overpaying to get us over the top which did not happen. There was about 10 million in contracts given out to non-producing players as well-so add that in there. The key to the Cubs was this year simply was their depth. They did not build enough depth into their starting pitching or the middle of their order-and those are the two places that got hit by the injury bug. That's what destroyed them more than really anything.

I'd be fine with a Lugo signing, but I'm a little scared of him. He's gotten much better the last two years, but really struggled when he came over to the National League. If Izturis was traded and Lugo played short, I would be fine with him-at second, I'd rather look at some other options first.

What is the general consensus on Matthews? My guess is that he will get a deal too expensive and too long for his skills. Other opinions? I would agree with that assessment. He has a chance of being productive enough for his contract, but he's probably not going to outperform his contract, and there is a pretty good possibility he won't live up to his contract. It wouldn't be a very good risk IMO.

They booed Santa Clause, that's all you need to know It wasn't that great of a movie, to be fair. What movie? That actually happened. It was a joke because the e was added on to the end of Santa Claus, which made it the movie with Tim Allen in it rather than the person.

Well, I guess the bye week still didn't help the Colts injury situation that much. Wednesday injury report came out with 21 players questionable. Notable names include several starters on defense (Freeney, Reagor, Gardner, Sanders) our 3rd and 4th corners (Jackson, Hayden) pretty much all of our backup defensive linemen (Reid, Klecko, LaCasse, Thomas), our starting center and 2nd tight end for our 2 tight end formation (Saturday, Utecht) our 3rd, 4th, and 5th receivers (Stokely, Moorehead, Wilkins) and our kicker and punter, along with a couple of others. I hope half of those players can play, or else you might see people at positions you have never seen before.

I don't know how many different threads this argument needs to span before it gets read, but this is a poor observation. Please go and study Sorianos career splits and then reconsider your opinion. His best numbers are continually demonstrated at leadoff, with mediocre to poor numbers in the 3 and 5 hole (respective to what you want out of those slots). The big-time flashy numbers that make Soriano attractive occur at leadoff, and it is easily his best lineup split for his career. Sometimes a spade is a spade - Washington figured that out. Where did he bad in 2002 and 2003? Granted his best numbers occured this season but was that due to him batting leadoff, or just improving as a ballplayer?(or sadly a contract season) I simply can't agree with putting that kind of RBI potential at leadoff. In 2002 and 2003 Soriano was a leadoff hitter. In 2004, he batted 3rd. In 2005, it was mostly 5th, and in 2006 he was back to leadoff. Soriano certainly seems like somebody who a team would want to put in another spot in the lineup, but it appears like he is more comfortable at leadoff.

This is the first week that my market has 3 very good games on it. I am unfortunately in the Titans zone, but this is their bye week. I get to see Pittsburgh-Atlanta, Carolina-Cincinnati, and my Colts play the Redskins. This looks like the start of 3 weeks in a row that I get to see the Colts on TV, which makes me very happy.

It is ridiculous, but it certainly won't be unprecented whatsover. For example 2000-Washington beats Miami, Miami beats Florida State, they all finish 10-1, rankings go FSU-2, Miami-3, Washington-4. Or 1993 when ND beat FSU and then lost to BC in a very close game, and FSU got the nod and won the national title. The system always seems to be in college football that head to head is close to meaningless, and it's all about SOS and when a team lost. Michigan being behind ND if they lose to OSU or OSU being behind Texas if they lose to Michigan will just be a continuation of the college football tradition.

I am also a big fan of Murton, but he provided absolutely no evidence that he can hold down center field...even in Wrigley. Bad breaks on balls...even misjudged a few. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here...Matt's barely adequate in left. I can't see him playing every day in center, at least not for long. Ditto for Jones. A Lee/Jones Murton outfield would be among the worst defensively in the league, and Jones and Murton at this point are league average offensive players. A shoddy defensive outfield like that would have to be way way way above average offensively to compensate, like a hypothetical Sheffield/Garciaparra/Lee or something like that. Which Murton did you watch? Of the three he seemed to have the greatest learning curve for Wrigley. His fielding pecentage is better than Jim Edmonds and better than Jones, with the upside of youth, speed and learning the field he could be a great one. I also think Murton is better for Wrigley, but only because his strengths play better into Wrigley than a person like Jones. Jones is much better going back towards the wall and struggles sometimes coming in, while Murton has a great deal of trouble near the wall but can make the plays in his range everywhere else. Of course, Murton's arm is better because it's more accurate (I think Jacque's arm is actually stronger, but who can tell when his throws go into the ground or 10 feet over the catcher's head).

There were a couple of threads. Here was one of them. It wasn't the most explicit one he made, but this will give you the idea-it's about 3/4 of the way down the first page. viewtopic.php?t=35835&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The Colts have traded a 2nd round pick for Booger McFarland of TB. Does anybody know if he has gas left in the tank?