CubColtPacer

Until 3 of OU, Okie Lite, Bama, and LSU lose, then yes its too early to say that. Yeah, the problem for Wisconsin is that their schedule is likely going to be the weakest of all the national championship contenders. They had a very poor non-conference schedule, the Big 10 is not great this year, and missing both Michigan and Iowa will hurt them as well. It's quite possible that some 1 loss teams will end up being ahead of them in the computers.

It wouldn't have been fair to Auburn either to put the time back on the clock though. If South Carolina had the time initially, they would have only had time for a desperation Hail Mary because the clock would have started running before the field goal team would ever get on the field. If the officials had put time back on the clock, South Carolina gets to kick a field goal. And it's a little different from the Texas-Nebraska game. In that game, the clock had to stop right when the ball hits out of bounds and then didn't restart until the start of the next snap. In this game, the clock stops when the officials signal it's a first down after the player is down and the clock starts on the ready for play. Putting time back on may or may not have been the most accurate thing to do (SC probably deserved time but it depended on when the official made the signal to stop the clock for the first down). But to put time on would have penalized Auburn more than not putting time on penalized South Carolina so not putting time on probably was the most fair thing to do.

With 5 games left, the Rays were 2.5 games behind the Red Sox. But if there had been a second wild card, the Angels would have only been 1 game behind the Rays. On the National League side, Atlanta was up 3 games on St. Louis with 5 to play. If there had been a second wild card, St. Louis was only up 2 on the Giants. At that point, it looked like 2 wildcards would have ended up causing closer races. Now it turned out this season that in the final 5 days both Boston and Atlanta choked and let the teams right behind them catch up. So yes, the final day or two would have been devalued (although those teams would have still been fighting for who gets to be the home team in the play in game). You can't really predict how many playoff teams will cause a race to go down to the final day. Sometimes 1 wildcard will cause things to go to the last day and sometimes it will be 2. But the more teams you let in, the more chance there is for races in the final 2-3 weeks. More often then not it's going to cause more drama not less.

Ricketts of course has the authority to fire Quade, but he's not the manager's direct boss like he is for the GM. I don't think Ricketts wants the image of being meddling unless he has a very good reason to do so.

Atlanta: http://www.sportsclubstats.com/MLB/National/NLEastern/Atlanta_ChanceWillMakePlayoffs.html 99.64% on August 25th Boston: http://www.sportsclubstats.com/MLB/American/ALEastern/Boston_ChanceWillMakePlayoffs.html Strangely enough, Boston's chances also peaked on the same day, when they hit 99.90% on August 25th. nate silver did an article about the biggest collapses in baseball history when he was still with BP... the 1995 angels had the biggest choke, because on august 20th they led their division by 9.5 games and led the next-closest wild card contender by 12 games. they were 99.988% likely to make the playoffs, or 8,332-to-1 to miss it. the 2007 mets ended up blowing the division, and were 99.8% likely to make it. i don't think there were teams with odds that high in 2008, 2009 or 2010 that blew it, so the red sox would be the second-worst choke in MLB history. the braves would be #4 or #5, depending on whether the red sox miss out (the braves would also trail the infamous 1951 dodgers). Silver did an article on the depth of the Red Sox collapse a couple of days ago: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/september-collapse-of-red-sox-could-be-worst-ever/

So far between rushing and receiving he's only averaging 3 less touches a game than last year. And the fact that Ringer has done absolutely nothing in his limited carries either makes me wonder if the Titans offensive line could be the issue.

I wouldn't put it past Quade to do such a thing...got to get that last win to save his job! And why not give the Cubs a worse draft position for next year's draft, right? Will Quade play mostly veterans in the last game? Or will he mix in some rookies not named LaHair? In the words of Dusty Baker, "I can't turn my back on Holly." I think Monday was the play the kids for the last time night. It will probably be mostly the veterans tonight.

That's an interesting question to ask after attending a game where LaHair took 2 pitches just a little bit off the plate to walk with a chance to knock the tying run in from 3rd with one out. A more aggressive hitter would have been swinging at anything close with two strikes in that situation to try to drive the run home. He took 7 balls total on the night and also took 2 called strikes.

Sandberg isn't going to be satisfied with a job like that. He feels like he deserves to be a manager somewhere. He might agree to be a bench coach in the right situation if he felt like it would lead to him getting a managerial job, but I doubt he would take any lesser job than that.

Well, this may be true. However, Ricketts is a business man and a Cubs fan to boot. He loves Sandberg and he knows the fans love him. He has an angry fan base and he knows a move like this will appease 80% of them. Add Prince to this and he sells out every game. Signing a manager, even Sandberg, isn't going to be enough to bring people to the game. Managers can't make a team win. Good players and winning games are what bring the most people out. You want a good GM to bring in and develop good players. Telling your GM who they have to hire as manager isn't a smart way to bring in a good GM. I agree. However, go to a Cubs convention, mention Sandberg's name and see the reaction. He is absolutely loved here. Ricketts knows this and Ryno has won in the minors over and over again. 71-68 60-78 71-69 That was Sandberg's record his first 3 years in the minors. He's had very good teams the last couple years, but his teams have not won over and over again. He's had 2 very good teams, 1 very bad team, and two mediocre teams.

the problem i have with it is that you can have a 98 win team, maybe the second-best team in their league, lose a division by a game and have to play a one game playoff to advance to the wild card round. say they're pushing hard to win the division so they don't have to play in that playoff, and they burn their ace in the last couple of days of the regular season - now they have to pitch their #2 or #3 against the other wild card, who might have made the playoffs without much trouble and have their ace ready to go. then the winner of the wild card game probably goes on to play the 5-game series only using their ace once. do not like the one game playoff idea. I do see that as a significant disadvantage for the first wild card. But I think the many pros outweigh the cons. In that scenario under the current model, the teams don't fight too hard for the division down the stretch but just pack it in for the playoffs. They would now fight hard for that division title. It would keep more teams and fanbases in it for a longer period of time. As others have mentioned, the 1 game playoffs would be very exciting to watch It rewards division winners. It rewards the #1 seed. Right now, there is little incentive to go after that #1 seed because the wildcard is frequently not the worst team in the playoffs. The cons: It hurts the 1st wildcard It probably makes the trading deadline even less interesting as there will be less sellers (although if that causes teams to pay higher prices for talent, maybe that's a good thing for parity sake? But that's just a guess so this is still a con) It might make the #1 vs the wildcard team a less interesting series (you can decide if this is fair for the #1 team or bad because it's bad for entertainment) Division imbalance becomes even more important.

Doesn't seem wise? Because he's pretty good at a decent price? Those are the exact reasons why I would trade him - he has pretty good value and the return would be significant. If not I keep him. I honestly feel like this team is more than one or two pitchers away from being respectable. Dempster has a player option. He isn't going to exercise that option just for him to turn around and give permission for the Cubs to trade him especially from what we know how much Dempster wants to be in Chicago. And even if he did, Dempster's another guy whose peripherals were a lot better than his results this season and so it isn't exactly the greatest time to sell high anyway.

Nolasco and Morrison are the best two players in that deal. I can't imagine the Marlins come even close to agreeing to that unless the Cubs are sending 4-5 significant prospects.

Oh really? I know. And I still wouldn't bet on ND beating any other team by 2 TD, even Purdue or Wake. Would you? It depends on what the bet is. If the bet is ND beating any team by two TD's, I would happily take that bet. I'd consider it even if the bet was they have to beat two more teams by two TD's. If the bet was they beat a specific team by two TD's, I wouldn't take that bet because ND's habits are so schizophrenic. But I do think that some teams coming up are substantially worse than any team they've played so far and ND could very well win by 2 TD's even if they do commit some turnovers.

No, what specifically about being moved around the lineup between 5 and 7 do you think causes a problem? His pregame routine is the same, right? The pitches he sees are basically the same, right? His approach in any given AB is basically the same, right? (And if not, that would change much more as a function of game situation (score, inning, # outs, runners, etc) than lineup spot, and that effect would be there even if he hit in the same lineup spot all year long.) So what specifically would make it so challenging to hit 5th one day, 7th the next, then 6th, etc? What's changing? You're challenging me on points I'm not making, so please stop trying to goad me into fights I'm not starting. I've stated numerous times now that this is likely primarily a "head" issue and indicative of the mess that Quade has made out of the lineups. Moving Soriano between 5th, 6th, and 7th is not an example of Quade messing up the lineup. As I stated last page, no MLB player this season has started even 80 games in the 6th spot or the 7th spot. Every player in those spots has to get used to hitting 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th in the AL. It's unreasonable for Soriano to believe he should get to stay in one spot when nobody in MLB in that part of the batting order has gotten to stick in one spot. I'm not saying he definitely should have only hit in one spot. Personally, I think players who typically hit 6 and below shouldn't be hitting in the 1-5 spots except when necessary. And how does the lineup construction of this season somehow become a hard and fast rule? OK, so no player started more than 80 games from those spots. Last season Soriano started 105 games hitting 6th. So which is "right?" Neither is right per se. That's the point. Occasionally you'll find a team stable enough to start a player in the 6 or 7 spot most of the time, but not often. Last year there were 4 players (Soriano started the most games of any player in the league in either of those two spots). Players shouldn't expect to be able to stay in one spot. The fact that Soriano didn't get that privilege this year isn't a sign of Cubs bad management but just the reality of that part of the batting order.

No, what specifically about being moved around the lineup between 5 and 7 do you think causes a problem? His pregame routine is the same, right? The pitches he sees are basically the same, right? His approach in any given AB is basically the same, right? (And if not, that would change much more as a function of game situation (score, inning, # outs, runners, etc) than lineup spot, and that effect would be there even if he hit in the same lineup spot all year long.) So what specifically would make it so challenging to hit 5th one day, 7th the next, then 6th, etc? What's changing? You're challenging me on points I'm not making, so please stop trying to goad me into fights I'm not starting. I've stated numerous times now that this is likely primarily a "head" issue and indicative of the mess that Quade has made out of the lineups. Moving Soriano between 5th, 6th, and 7th is not an example of Quade messing up the lineup. As I stated last page, no MLB player this season has started even 80 games in the 6th spot or the 7th spot. Every player in those spots has to get used to hitting 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th in the AL. It's unreasonable for Soriano to believe he should get to stay in one spot when nobody in MLB in that part of the batting order has gotten to stick in one spot.

I think you're reaching a bit here. Back when Lou was considering moving him from leadoff, he was pretty clear about he would hit anywhere in the lineup, but he didn't want to be juggled around. And the language barrier was still a factor. It was quite different than this: He's obviously more upset with the fact that he's batting lower in the order than the fact that he's moving around from 6th to 7th. As someone mentioned above, this looks like an athlete on the decline who hasn't accepted it. Doesn't make Soriano a bad person, and I'm sure he works just as hard no matter where he hits, but he's going to have to accept he's on the downside of his career at some point. And comparing this to Castro is a bit of a stretch too. Castro is a young player who clearly presses when he's hitting third, considering how damn good he is hitting #1 and #2. Soriano is equally bad no matter where he hits (which is basically #6 or #7 anyways, and is probably based mostly on matchups). I don't doubt he doesn't want to hit lower in the lineup, but it's my opinion that the lineup juggling is the bigger issue. When he was dropped to 6 he didn't complain, and I'd bet that if he had been dropped to 7 and left there for the most part we wouldn't have heard this, either. And no, he hasn't been "equally bad" across the 5-7 spots. And no, I don't think it's a stretch to think that almost any player, regardless of ability or skillset, is going to struggle in at least one spot if they're being bounced across at least 3 spots in the lineups for significant PA thanks to their managers crappy ability to construct a lineup. Do you know that no team in MLB has started any person in either the 6 or the 7 spot for at least 80 games? That's only half the season! The thought that anybody who is in one of those two spots can expect to stay there for most of the season is a myth. Soriano's 58 games in the 7 spot is actually pretty stable compared to most of MLB.

Pomeroy just tweeted something saying you have less than 50 percent chance of winning if you elect to tie a football game with 2 minutes left, so you may not be. Your chances are even lower if you are down by 1 and the other team has the ball though. Exactly. The Colts are in a bad situation either way, but this way at least if the Steelers had a penalty or one bad play they might go conservative and play for OT. Going for 2 and hoping you get it (and obviously the Colts offense is not working on all cylinders) and then letting Roethlisberger have plenty of motivation and 4 downs to work with is a recipe for disaster. The Colts are only 40% at best to make the 2 point conversion, and they're going to lose 50-70% of the time they make the 2 point conversion. Those are really bad odds.

Nah, giving Roethlisberger four downs to work with only needing a field goal in this situation would have been very bad. And that's if the Colts make the two. I'd much rather play for a last second drive or OT if they somehow stop the Steelers here.

Of course Painter does what he does best. I don't know anymore if the rest of the Colts team is just this bad or if they are just getting some of the worst QB play in the league.

Yup. It's especially good because that Super Bowl has to be one of the least remembered, and of course everybody associates the Raiders with futility. The Colts offense longest drive has been 49 yards and they have a chance to win this game somehow.

Ravens?? Nope.

Watching this game, it feels like the Patriots will need to be the ones to do it if the 8 year run of the Patriots, Steelers, or Colts making the Super Bowl is to continue. It's a great trivia question to ask people who has last represented the AFC besides one of those three teams. And considering the Colts need a score, might as well go with Painter. He very well might turn it over, but Collins hasn't moved the ball whatsoever during the last 3 games. It's unacceptable with the Colts receiving talent to throw 29 passes for less than 100 yards (and he was basically the same last week before garbage time).

agreed...took away the biggest advantage the bears had on most of the league. It's also helped the Bears coverage unit which has been one of the worst in the league the last few years. In fact, the differential between what the Bears average on kickoff returns and what they give up is the best this year so far that it has been in years.

Such is the life of a 6/7 hitter though. A team cannot afford to keep a guy like that in one spot all year long. If Soriano is a 7th hitter normally, he needs to move up to 5th or 6th when injuries/days off (especially for somebody like Soto) happen. And to have one of the middle of the order hitters out happens a lot during the season. It would be nice if he could stay in one spot all year long, but it isn't very realistic. The main way you can keep everybody in their preferred lineup order is to drop in the replacement in the same spot in the batting order as the regular, and that isn't a great tactic either.