CubColtPacer

I definately didn't like it when he said "horses" either but didn't mind the injury part too much. Not great, but not horrible. well, len isn't wrong for pointing out that it isn't really fair to expect the cubs to do amazing when lee, wood, and prior all go down with injuries. the big problem is that, assuming those 3 are healthy, the cubs still aren't that good, and still have a horrible organizational philosophy when it comes to acquiring new players. You honestly beleive that? You beleive that if Lee, Wood, and Prior were playing all year and even a shadow of their former selves the cubs still aren't good? No they would be good. The problem is Mr. Dumb ass actually going into the season "relying" on 2 of the most overhyped and injury prone pitchers of this decade. With Lee, Prior, and Wood at 100% this season, this team would still not be good. That is a really interesting question..taking our opening day lineup (Cedeno at short, and Walker at second), and Wood, Prior, and Lee at 100% healthy, I can't see how'd we be any worse then the Cardinals are, and probably a good amount better. Let's match up the hitters and pitchers on both teams Hitting-Pujols-Lee Rolen-Ramirez Edmonds-Barrett Taguchi/Rodriguez-Jones Encarnacion-Murton Miles/Luna-Walker Eckstein-Pierre Molina-Cedeno If you can see much of a difference in that offense, then feel free to chime in-looking at thier stats, this looks like a very similar offense. Pujols and Rolen would each be a bit better, but Barrett, Jones, and Walker have all been better for the Cubs. The other 3 matchups are almost dead even. Pitching Carpenter-Zambrano Marquis-Prior Suppan-Wood Mulder-Maddux Ponson/Reyes-Young starter (Marshall) Obviously, if Prior and Wood are healthy we have a much better starting rotation then them-it's not even close. That just leaves the bullpen and bench. Both bullpens have been pretty good this season, and the Cardinals still have the edge on the bench. So a similar offense and bullpen, and the Cubs significantly better starting rotation beats the Cardinals edge on the bench, which makes the Cubs if healthy better than the Cardinals this year. Was it smart to rely on Prior and Wood to be healthy? No-but if they were healthy, we would have been a good team.

Who was that? We only had one player double switched for-and that was in the bottom of the eighth, and he is not our best hitter (he was tonight, but not usually)-and his spot didn't come up in the order in the 9th anyway, so that basically meant nothing at all. BTW-I had no understanding of why that double switch was made-I can understand some of Dusty's double switches, but the team was down 4 runs in the 8th. To score 4, we would have had to go deep in the order anyway, and to score those runs we'd probably have to get to Murton's spot. So, in this game, it was far more likely we'd need Murton in the 9th than Howry to pitch an extra inning in the 9th-we should have just pinch-hit Pagan to start off the 9th. Oh well, I guess it really hurts the brain to try to understand some of Dusty's decisions-this one ended up making absolutely zero difference on the game, but it could have-that's the problem.

Ditto. Edmonds is performing below his 10th percentile projection in PECOTA. That's very unusual. If his problem really is a treatable injury, he might be a bargain if the Cardinals don't bring him back. His projected OBP's for the next four seasons: .396, .392, .401, .419. I guess I'll never understand these projections very well. I really don't understand why it would project a 36 year old player who has had an OBP above .385 only once in the last four years can project a player to have above .385 each year for the next four years, including a .419 at age 40. this is the first year in the last 7 that edmonds hasn't posted a +.900 OPS and +.500 SLG. wait, you're the same person saying that juan pierre can still be a very productive player, yet would object to the cubs acquiring a much more valuable player in edmonds? shouldn't you like edmonds because he's good defensively? i'll never get your love for sub-.700 OPS players and hatred of +.900 OPS players, it just doesn't make much sense. izturis and pierre are great but edmonds isn't worth acquiring. that's the bigegst friggin joke i've ever heard in my life. Can you point out to me where I thought he wouldn't be worth acquiring? The answer is I do think he is worth it-if we signed him to a couple year deal, I would have no problem paying him a good amount of money. I wouldn't sign him to any longer of a deal because his age and declining production combined probably means that his numbers might level out, but probably won't return quite to his numbers that he was putting up in his prime, and if he keeps declining he's a risk-and the longer you sign him for, the more risk you're taking. As you said, he has been very productive though in his career. I did take exception to the projections though, which seem very unrealistic when compared to his previous four years and his age. Edmonds is a better player then Pierre and Izturis, and I've never said otherwise. I only defend players like Pierre and Izturis because I don't think they are as big of liabilities as most people on the board do. Are they players in the lineup you fear like Edmonds has been for part of his prime? No-but I feel they can serve a role on a team and not make the team extremely likely to be a failure either. I think they are fine role players-that's why if somebody wants to give Pierre 10 million a year, I hope Hendry doesn't sign him-because that's the money you give stars like Edmonds was for most of his career and might still be, not good role players.

I won't break down Guzman here (I think it was mostly location, but I'll leave that to people who watched him closer-I was slightly distracted the first couple innings), but I will tell you the Rockies deserved all their runs. Those weren't bloops and dunks-they hit him all over the yard and hit pretty much every hit very hard until they pulled him.

That's too bad-it was a beautiful shot-waited back, and crushed it to left field.

The way the Rockies are hitting-we might need many more of those tonight.

He won't be batting 2nd much longer, eh? Lol..maybe not, as a Cub he has a .350 OBP now-way too high for a 2 hitter :D Of course, he only has 40 PA so far, so those numbers could change significantly..like the 55 point jump so far tonight.

That's Izturis's 5th BB as a Cub in 40 PA's.

I wouldn't say I necessarily disagree completely with your theory that some adjustment time is needed for some players (day games, maybe they switch leagues, etc.). However, the problem with that in regards to Pierre and Jones is that they are not really playing below career norms. Pierre was terrible last year and his only really good season was 2003. I'm not sure how you can expect improvement from him. His struggles date back before he joined the Cubs, same as Jones. I'm not sure it works for Pierre, but his 2004 year was actually better than 2003, and his 2001 numbers were better than that 2001: .327/.378/.415 2003: .305/.361/.373 2004: .326/.374/.407 Here are his career OBP numbers 2000: .353 2001: .378 2002: .332 2003: .361 2004: .374 2005: .326 2006: .328 (right now it has continued to go up this year) Pierre has had 2 miserable OBP years out of 6 before this year, with .326 being his lowest. I see no reason with those career OBP numbers not to expect at least a .340 out of him next year. Does that mean we should re-sign him? I'm not advocating that here-what I am saying is that he should improve. He had 1 terrrible year followed by 2 months of pressing too hard at Wrigley, which plenty of people have done before him. Now, he is pushing his OBP number up daily, and if he continues to do really well he could get it to .340 by the end of this season even with those awful two months. Edit: I'd like to clarify one thing in this post. When I said that Pierre should improve, I did not mean on his high career years. I meant that he should improve on his 2005 and part of 2006 numbers to get back closer to his career norms.

Pat and Ron..Ron talking about some ice cream he had seen.. Pat: So you saw the kids enjoying it then? Ron: No, it was some grownups, and they had a lot-a big amount, 3 layers I think Pat: What about the ice cream? :D

I don't think that was a great spot for your best pinch hitter in Murton-I would have liked somebody else for Neifi, but I think that was not a spot to waste a good pinch hitter.

According to game day the assist was at home...maybe he should try out as a kicker for an NFL team? I have to see this throw and who was running. I would be embarrassed if I were the 3rd base coach....may he live in shame on SportsCenter. Holliday was running, he's a pretty big boy but he's also got decent speed. Maybe he fell going around third, then decided to tease Pierre by crawling home so Pierre ran the ball home instead?? I have to believe the Ball was a sharp single. Why do the Cubs always have Monty Burns type arms in the OF? Some kid named Patterson had a pretty good arm, but his production was starting to get too good. You mean production like Patterson's in 05?

Hill shouldn't worry about this one at all. From what people were saying that his stuff was not top notch, he did a pretty decent job of limiting the damage until that home run-he'll learn from that. This isn't a great positive outing for him, but I don't think it should really be viewed as too much of a negative either.

One more thing on Pierre-he certainly follows a trend on this team the last few years that position players aquired in the offseason have trouble swinging the bat at first as a Cub. I've looked back through the past 5 years and looked at several first season Cubs. To make this easier I only took what was considered to be the biggest bat acquired each year (I'm going to look at Pierre and Jones this year) 2002-Moises Alou- April-.133/.188/.267 (only 30 at bats here) May-.211/.276/.274 June-.316/.376/.490 July-.259/.310/.420 August-.318/.392/.492 September-.314/.368/.471 Total-.280/.357/.462 In 2003, his splits evened out dramatically (if you want, I will provide them-along with everybody on this list second year splits)-and he batted .293/.361/.557 2003-Mark Grudzielanek (only starter in the first two months that was acquired besides Miller-Grudz is the bigger bat here) April-.275/.308/.373 May-.297/.355/.366 June-.300/.364/.400 July-.333/.394/.475 August (no numbers-only 8 at-bats) September-.359/.395/.474 Total: .314/.366/.416 Next year: This one is an incomplete case: Grudz was hurt after starting 7 for 15, struggled when he got back for about a month, then got better and finished with a .307/.347/.432. 2004-Derrek Lee April-.233/.333/.411 May-.275/.351/.431 June-.385/.444/.673 July-.280/.339/.630 August-.270/.325/.514 September-.226/.333/.377 Next Year: .335/.418/.662, with every month being above a 1.000 OPS 2005 had no free agent acquisitions that survived to this season, so here is 2006 First Jones 2006 April-.228/.274/.474 May-.310/.343/.510 June-.337/.358/.538 July-.237/.260/.419 August-.240/.345/.480 Next year-Obviously unknown at this point. Juan Pierre 2006 April-.258/.289/.333 May-.226/.267/.290 June-.283/.352/.381 July-.345/.380/.496 August-.297/.350/.378 Next year-??? This seems to indicate that generally, a person's first year with the Cubs will start out very slowly. I don't know if that's shock at the weather or what, but the splits have been dramatic for all these players over the months in the first year. In the second year, these players tend to start out much better than they did in the first year. Will it happen for Jones and Pierre? I don't know-but they seem to be following the pattern of Alou, Grudz, and Lee. People acquired in the offseason for the most part have had very rough beginnings, but they have usually recovered as the weather heats up to have a decent season. The next season has generally been better then the first (except for Grudz-who was hurt half the season, and had less than 300 at bats on the season including his rehab at bats, and put up about the same season in 04 that he did in 03). Players tend to get better after their first year with the team, and I think Pierre might be no exception to the rule.

These are hairs that don't need to be split. .325 is just as crappy as .320, and Pierre has been right around there for the past 1.5 seasons. He has a .350+ OBP in each June, July, and August. In 2005 he only had one month with a .350+ OBP. If he finishes August with a .350+ OBP and does the same in September, he could end the year with close to a .340 OBP. It's not great, but it's much better than April and May. Exactly-it's not an argument for resigning him per se, but if we assume he's already on the roster for next year-it's certainly reasonable that he would post a .340 OBP next year-which is still not great, but is still a step up from having it just be optimistic for him to break .320.

the cubs fan base is not the pacers fan base. wrigley field will always be full. Wrigley will always be full, sure-because going to Wrigley is an experience, even when the team is not liked that year for whatever reason. Do people think that Chicago Cubs history dates back to 2003? Wrigley Field will not always be full. It has not always been full. It was extremely easy to get tickets in the 90's, and the park was quite frequently only half full. The excitement of '98, along with a general improvement in all baseball attendance, got people's attention. But between 2000-2002, tickets were still easy to come by. The failures of the years following 1998 drove down demand. 2003, and the very new idea of good young players that could win games and create a consistently successful franchise, brought about equally unprecedented demand. Tickets have been selling out quickly in February. But continued failure by the team will eat away at that demand, and empty seats will continue to rise. I'm sorry-I should have said it better-more people will come out to Wrigley then at other places for the experience, but you are right-even at Wrigley, the signs of dissatisfaction with teams have been apparent in some years.

the cubs fan base is not the pacers fan base. wrigley field will always be full. Wrigley will always be full, sure-because going to Wrigley is an experience, even when the team is not liked that year for whatever reason. The main place where you'll see it is in how many people are watching the games on TV-it probably will not get to as dramatic of effect as it did with the Pacers, because I think it is a great deal easier to tell when a basketball player is not giving any effort than a baseball player, but it does affect many fans reactions to the games.

I'm a firm believer that fundamentals are neccessary to win. I believe in clutch hitting, and I believe in giving it your all 100% of the time. When Ramirez doesn't hustle I get upset. The reason being that I believe everyone should always give it their best effort no matter what. It is just like any other job. I think everyone should give 100% no matter what. Whether you work at McDonalds, in an office, as a salesman, or play pro sports I think you should give your whole heart all the time. If you look at all the truly great players in any sport they all wore their hearts on their sleeves. Brett Favre(I hate him but he does), Cal Ripken Jr, Griffey Jr (remember when he ran into the wall catching a ball and broke his wrist), Jordan would play with a fever and still have games of his life. I hate guys who don't play up to their potential because they don't have the motivation. First off, I hope my post didn't come off as being too caustic. My 3 week old has been keeping me up all week, so I'm a bit edgy. I shouldn't generalize like I did. My main point was that the majority of the fanbase has not correctly identified the reasons why our team isn't good. They have an idea, albiet a very basic, general one, but until they realize that Ramirez's hustle is an annoying but not fatal flaw, or that it's not that Dusty should be fired not because he doesn't yell enough, but because he's a really bad manager with glaring tactical and strategic flaws, we're not going to see any change come about. MacPhail probably hears the complaining of the fanbase as being indicative of a fanbase upset about a losing season, and not a failed direction. That's a problem. This organization is pointed in the completely wrong direction. I'm not sure that most fans think that Ramirez's hustle is a fatal flaw in the Cubs winning. For fans who don't follow things like we do though, Ramirez's lack of hustle is one thing that makes them not want to be fans anymore, even if the team is winning. The Pacers of the past 2 years are a great example of this for people. After the brawl, the team played its heart out and snuck into the playoffs. The city embraced the team, and was behind them all the way. The next year, once again the team snuck into the playoffs, but there was a great deal of things like arguing with officials and not playing your heart out. The result was that the fanbase went way down even with the same number of wins. I think fans complain about Ramirez's hustle not because they think if he hustles it will magically lead to 10 more wins, but that a great deal of fans feel they would rather have a team that they feel they can support completely rather than a win at all cost mentality. Fans who follow things as much as we do on this board generally realize that we can't do anything about Ramirez's hustle, so we'd rather concentrate on the changes that would help the team win first.

Ditto. Edmonds is performing below his 10th percentile projection in PECOTA. That's very unusual. If his problem really is a treatable injury, he might be a bargain if the Cardinals don't bring him back. His projected OBP's for the next four seasons: .396, .392, .401, .419. I guess I'll never understand these projections very well. I really don't understand why it would project a 36 year old player who has had an OBP above .385 only once in the last four years can project a player to have above .385 each year for the next four years, including a .419 at age 40.

No problem..yeah, I acutally looked it up about an hour ago. Iowa finished 5th I believe, and WSU was 6th..ND finished 9th that year, but couldn't get invited. You may be right on 1998 though-they finished with 9 wins, but they didn't finish in the top 15 of the BCS-I'm not sure what the eligibility requirements were back then, so I can't be sure if they were eligible or not that year. That was of course the first year of the BCS, so they might have changed some things from then (Wow-that was a while ago-that was the Jarious Jackson year if I'm remembering right when he got hurt on the last play against LSU right before USC).

Except for the 2 times that they were turned down from BCS. Would you like to provide the years that they were eligible for the BCS and got turned down? Since the BCS has been in existence, Notre Dame has been eligible 3 times-2000, 2002, 2005-they've been invited twice Edit: Actually, my mistake on this one. I originally thought they had been invited all 3 times, but then I realized that they had not been invited in 02 with 9 wins-the more I think about it though, I seem to remember that there was no choice-there were no at large bids available that year, as Iowa and Washington State both got in automatically due to their top 6 BCS ranking, even though they were both the second best team in thier conference (Ohio State and USC were above those two). So ND had no chance to be invited that year)-so they were invited both times the bowls had a spot to give them. I knew they wouldn't turn you media darlings down. :P Hey, at least ND has had a quality team every time-unlike BCS teams like Pittsburgh, and Florida State (of course, not their NC year-but they've made it at least twice when they were an average team at best with 3 or 4 losses on the season already). ND is forced to be at least on par with the top at large teams out there to get a bid, and their getting selected when eligible negates the disadvantage they have to other teams with never being able to sneak into a big bowl with several losses.

Except for the 2 times that they were turned down from BCS. Would you like to provide the years that they were eligible for the BCS and got turned down? Since the BCS has been in existence, Notre Dame has been eligible 3 times-2000, 2002, 2005-they've been invited twice Edit: Actually, my mistake on this one. I originally thought they had been invited all 3 times, but then I realized that they had not been invited in 02 with 9 wins-the more I think about it though, I seem to remember that there was no choice-there were no at large bids available that year, as Iowa and Washington State both got in automatically due to their top 6 BCS ranking, even though they were both the second best team in thier conference (Ohio State and USC were above those two). So ND had no chance to be invited that year)-so they were invited both times the bowls had a spot to give them.

Yeah, this is a situation where I don't thing that he can be defended. Looking at the replay, he looks like he was safe, but that doesn't matter in this spot..the decision was just absolutely terrible.

HR's in the first 3 innings matter just as much as HR's in the last 3. What matters more is the situation they were hit in. Is a solo shot in the 1st to give a 1-0 lead worth relatively less than a Grand Slam in the 9th when you're losing 15-2? Yes, it matters more what situation they were hit in. I am a big supporter of Aramis, and I think that his numbers conclusively show he just doesn't hit meaningless home runs. I just saw an anomoly in the data that makes me think he could do even more-but that doesn't mean that I'm not extremely happy with his production already.

Good work Cubbies75..the only thing I don't really like that much is that only 3 of Aramis's 27 home runs have come in the 7th, 8th, or 9th-but I think you pretty well showed that his home runs have come mostly come in close games, which is what I personally already suspected. Again, good work on that.