third eye

Technically a FC, but I'll take it!

Given that the last couple of HR predictions led to singles, I'll try again. Floyd going deep here...

OK, I'll try one more prognostication before giving it up. DLee going deep here..

Wow, shocked if it is. I hated her in 24. I actually rooted for the cougar to catch her. Absolutely! So did I. Why the hell was there a cougar in that episode anyway?

For Pete's sake, who is that in your avatar Prime Time? It actually says her name in the avatar. Doh! Yeah, didnt pay attention to the words when there was the pic to look at.

Wow, shocked if it is. I hated her in 24.

Soriano going to homer here...

For Pete's sake, who is that in your avatar Prime Time?

Huge! Well done Marquis!

I did but i'm watching on a TV Me too. Problem with the feed.

I think they call it 'Cubbie swagger' The organization has for ages valued physical tools and hollow statistics over quantifiable skills, therefore they bring in players from other clubs who fit this mold (Pierre, Soriano, Jacque). I actually went a game with a friend recently who was not a baseball fan. But he had read Moneyball, and as I explained to him the Cubs' approach with "toolsy" players, even he got a chuckle over how they were in the dark ages. Not that Moneyball should be baseball gospel necessarily, but some forward thinking would be a welcome change.

Steve Stone on the Score today made the point about prospects in the Cubs system not being taught the basics. It was in response to a quote by Piniella. But the thing is, the everyday players on this team for the most part did not come from this system. Why do they continue to fail in these situations? OK, I guess you can insert the obligatory bash Hendry answer here.

Wow, trully awful. Though Young made some nasty pitches there. Still, no contact whatsoever.

Wow, the Cubs are getting much better swings this time through the order. Was visibility an issue at the start of the game?

No adjustments. He barely had a .700 OPS at Iowa this season (.250/.310/.414). He's just a bad hitter who seems to catch fire when he's called up before quickly cooling down. Yikes, color me underinformed. Didnt see the AAA OPS number. Anyway, thanks to Angel for being the game saver today... And almost yesterday.

What the heck has happened to him? Anyone heard of any specific adjustments he made this year in the minors? He flamed out after a strong spring training last year, and I expect him to regress this year eventually as well. But is there any reason to think he might be able to conitnue hitting at a decent clip over the long haul? He's been on an absolute tear (sample size arguments aside) so far since coming back up.

Fair enough. Pointing out my wording mistake does not change the point of my post. Your attention to detail is noted, but I was simply trying to point out that leads at this junture in the season can be and have been erased over two-week strecthes where hot streaks are aligned with slumps. If this were the Cardinals of a couple of years ago, I'd be alot more worried, because we know what they have done over a whole season. I just dont see the Brewers being able to maintain it.

Not trying to be unrealistic, but the 8 game lead by the brewers at this point in the season reminds me of the Cubs in 2001 breaking out to a 6.5 game lead over the whole division in 2001. Remember they lost it by 5 games by the end. Yes, it does look insurmountable, but honestly, coupling an 8-2 stretch by the Cubs with a 2-8 stretch by the Brewers puts them right back in it. And I would be willing to bet alot of money that both of those stretches will happen for both teams during the season. I just think the Brewers, while talented, still arent a mid-90s win team yet. Its possible they could be the Tigers of this year, but I'm still not convinced that they will run away with the division. Before I get railed on for using anectodotal evidence over hard stats on this board, let me clarify that I dont expect the Cubs to be 8 games better than the brewers the rest of the way. I just wouldnt be shocked to see them back in the race at some point. And I fully expect a couple of months of .500 or below baseball out of the brewers at some point this year.

not even close to being analogous. a pitcher's job is to pitch well. there are things that are out of his control. the gm's job is to build a winning team. included in that job is the expectation that he fix things that come up that are out of his control (ie injuries). it is mind-boggling that people still defend hendry, who has put together a team that has disappointed for three straight seasons despite a ridiculously huge payroll. seems like a lot of people here got used to baker's excuses and are now making them for hendry. So you do pin the 2004 collapse on Hendry? What more could he have done? Who else in baseball did more to improve their team over the previous year than him that year? (Maybe Epstein) I can agree with two straight diappointing years for the GM but not three. If this team doesnt deliver, then I agree he needs to be replaced. But I think arguing that he has failed to deliver every year is an oversimplifications, particularly from a group who tends to be more analytical of other aspects of the game. That's not making excuses for him. It is examining the source of failures rather than assigning blanket guilt by association. I am not defending all of his decisions. As I stated in the previous post, he has philosophical shortcomings. I just dont agree with the logic that a sub .500 record in 4 seasons makes him an overall failure as a GM. It is too skewed by one year.

To me, saying that the won-lost record in a vacuum should define a GM's success is like saying a pitcher's effectiveness should be determined strictly by his won-loss record (an extreme example, but directionally analogous). There are too many other variables that come in to play. A pitcher can execute his pitches and hope his offense provides him some runs. A GM can execute his game plan and hope his team stays heatlhy and that the aggregate runs scored and allowed are reflected in the final record. Saying he is under .500 in his tenure isnt fair either, because before last year he did have a winning record, and the team was in contention for the majority of the previous three years. He absolutely put together the most talented team in baseball in 2004 in my opinion. I still peg that one on Latroy's inability to nail down the one-run saves. Add to that the Cubs were 10 games under .500 in 1 run games that year (clearly related). Even a .500 record in that department puts them at 94 wins, in the playoffs and a major threat to win the WS. I cant fault him at all for the failure that year. Two obvious caveats: 1. Yes, he clearly undervalues OBP. 2. He didnt add pitching depth to the 05 and 06 teams. Last year was a disaster all around, and can be largely pinned on him. But he put together strong teams the previous 3 years. I dont blame him for freak injuries to Nomar and Prior in 2005. No one could have seen those coming. That team would have been in contention for the WC all year had those two been available. He clearly has flaws in his baseball philosophy, but I think his overall track record is unfairly scewed by last year's performance.

As mad as we all are at how this team has played, if it weren't for Eyre, they would have 3 more wins! I think people would feel reasonably positive about a team that is 10-9 rather than 7-12. Somone correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't he blown leads in 3 games already (giving up multiple runs in each)?? This one, the first one in Atlanta and another one on the previous homestand? (It is possible that one of them I am thinking of was Ohman, but I'm pretty sure Eyre has blown 3)

I agree that it is way too early to pass judgements on this team. The Cubs in aggregate have given up the fewest runs in the division and have scored the second most. We have been getting really hurt in the close games. I tend to think that will even out, given time. Unless people really think the players on this team are too "unclutch". I don't really want to open that can of worms, though.

I expected him to be the #2 ace, but this is really amazing. Not to piss on anyone's parade, but also remember how Maddux started the year last year.....We must take caution in April statistics... not really the same situation. While I generally agree with taking a cautious approach to april stats, the difference here is how thoroughly Hill is dominating hitters. The numbers, particularly WHIP and K/BB are outstanding. Greg Maddux had the wins and a great ERA, but even he admitted that he was getting lucky in a number of the games. That caught up with him later on. With Hill, hitters are looking totally clueless up there. There doesnt need to be luck involved because they aren't even making real contact. He obviously wont continue at the current pace, but he shouldnt regress as far as Gregg Maddux did. Also, he does have the previous half season of dominant performances to suggest this is not a fluke.

So you have him winning the Cy Young eh? No, he gets beaten out by Z, who recovers from a rough start and catches fire to finish with a 20-3 3.02 campaign.

RADAR A MAN A PLAN A CANAL PANAMA AMANAP LANAC A NALP A NAM A Doesnt Pat like to use numeric palindromes for his attendance game guesses? My Rich Hill 2007 palindromic prediction: 19-13 3.191 ERA