CubColtPacer

it's difficult to have sympathy for them. they made their bed, they have to lay in it. they could've become part of a conference long ago, but remaining independant just brings in too much money with no need to share the revenue with other teams. they have a choice, not be so greedy or continue having difficulty getting the at large bid. I don't really think he was complaining about ND's process, just explaining that it's not the cake walk into the BCS that so many antis like to portray it as. Yup-I'm not complaining whatsoever other than to refute the assumption that ND gets special treatment just because they are ND, as many of the people around the country have said in the past (Oregon last year for example). ND has an advantage in getting selected when they are eligible, and it balances nicely with the disadvantage they have of not ever being able to get in due to winning a conference in a down year. Those balance out to the point that I think it is fair for everyone. with words like "unlike BCS teams" and "forced" and "never being able to sneak" it kind of sounds like complaining. die hards will never admit this but its true...there are certain teams that don't fall as far as others in the polls after a loss and certain teams that will get the nod over other teams in the rankings even if they have more losses plus less than impressive schedules and certain teams that generally are ranked higher at the beginning of the year than they probably should be. some teams just get pushed up when it isn't justified. two of these teams used to be Florida and Nebraska, but both programs hit bumps. another of these teams is Michigan, but they have pretty much been exposed. and another team, and I am a fan (they are my second favorite CFB team after my alma mater), is Notre Dame. just look at my favorite team, Wisconsin. they pounded Auburn in their bowl game, finished with identical records as Auburn, but some how finished right behind Auburn in both polls. why? why does a voter sit down, make out a list, and put team A ahead of team B the day after team B trounced team A? because one is a traditional powerhouse. the other is an annually competetive team, but not a traditional powerhouse. sorry guys. it's nothing to be embarassed or ashamed about or defensive of. it's just something that goes along with being a historical power house in a sport. the same goes in college hoops, see Duke, NC, and any other traditional powerhouse. Well, yes-at the start of my post, I was trying to prove there was a disadvantage to being in the position they wre in as well as the advantage that had already been pointed out that they were going to get picked if the y were eligible. That's why I said in my last sentence of my original post that the advantage was negated by the disadvantage-which would make it fair. I personally do not agree with you that ND gets that favoritism in the polls. 2002 is a perfect example of this. There were 6 teams that were undefeated after 8 weeks when the first BCS standings came out-Oklahoma, Miami, ND, Virginia Tech, Georgia, and Ohio State. At the time, ND was rated as having the top schedule in the country by those rankings (the other teams schedule strength was 13th, 27th, 25th, 9th, and 28th respectively). Because of their schedule strength, Notre Dame was #1 in 4 computers, #2 in 2 computers, and #4 in one computer. What were they ranked by the polls? 6th-by both polls, even after going undefeated so far with the hardest schedule. I just don't see very often how ND gets the favortism of the polls-there are just as many people that hate ND as those who will vote for them.

Taveras immed. came to mind, how many speedster leadoff guys are there in general? (Of course, he has struggled at getting on-base) Hmm, do you count Ichiro as a speedster leadoff guy? I see Ichiro, Dave Roberts, Brian Roberts, Damon?, Furcal?, Reyes, Hanley Ramirez, Rollins, Posednik, Figgins-those are the other leadoff hitters out of the 19 that qualify that have at least 20 stolen bases (Sizemore had 18)-I'm not sure you would count those players as speedster leadoff hitters (that's a really hard thing to define). Looking at some players who didn't qualify, Freel, Lugo, and Luis Castillo could both be put in that category also. Of course, half of those players are not outfielders.

I believe your slugging number post all star break should be .723, not .575.

it's difficult to have sympathy for them. they made their bed, they have to lay in it. they could've become part of a conference long ago, but remaining independant just brings in too much money with no need to share the revenue with other teams. they have a choice, not be so greedy or continue having difficulty getting the at large bid. I don't really think he was complaining about ND's process, just explaining that it's not the cake walk into the BCS that so many antis like to portray it as. Yup-I'm not complaining whatsoever other than to refute the assumption that ND gets special treatment just because they are ND, as many of the people around the country have said in the past (Oregon last year for example). ND has an advantage in getting selected when they are eligible, and it balances nicely with the disadvantage they have of not ever being able to get in due to winning a conference in a down year. Those balance out to the point that I think it is fair for everyone.

Wow. I knew Marmol walked a bunch of guys but I didn't realize he walked 8 and the Cubs have allowed 10 walks on the day. I guess it's not surprising that the Cubs have walked the most batters in the majors this year. Yup-what was shocking to me was how easy it all was. It was pretty easy for the Rockies to stand up there and walk all day when few pitches get even close to the plate. It seemed like that one batter he would throw 3-4 strikes in the at bat, and then walk the next guy on 4-5 pitches where very few if any were borderline pitches-and that seemed to happen all day long.

Theriot! What a time for that one!

Well, the triple prediction came through-nice hit Pagan.

There were 3 balls on Murton. If he couldn't hit it because it was a ball, he should have let it go. (Although, if you're worried about Barrett being tired with the day game, I don't know why you would start him 5 times in a row and make him even more tired).

Hey, it's only a 270 ERA for the game...could be worse :D

What is there to choose from ?? ............ 04/03 - 08/12 AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS Cedeno 386 35 96 10 5 4 128 29 12 76 0.249 0.274 0.332 0.605 Perez 217 25 55 12 1 2 75 24 5 21 0.253 0.267 0.346 0.612 Oh, definitely-it's not as there is a much better option on the roster. If they are all terrible though, I'd prefer Cedeno or Theriot to get the start at this point. It's not something that I'm worried about whatsoever-it's not like one start a week is going to be the difference between those two players developing or not though.

The only thing I can think of is Kim's splits. Against right: .271/.306/.398 Against left: .313/.408/.497 Of course that doesn't explain Neifi very well-even though he can bat left handed, he's been pretty terrible from the left side of the plate this year. It may explain the way the order is structured though-although it is still a head scratcher.

Also Bruce, I'd love to hear your opinion on if giving Murton and Pagan both playing time is justified or not.

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.