jersey cubs fan

I've thought about that HF advantage, and like the idea, but the reasons I'm not pushing for it are that a big part of making the playoffs is extra playoff revenue for the home team, and fans getting to see a playoff game in their ballpark. Under that plan, if you are the 2nd WC, you will play a road game in the 1 game playoff, then two more road games before your first and only home date in the first round. It would be tough, and involve a ton of travel. Plus, forcing the WC teams to play 1 game before starting against the big boys is a pretty huge advantage for the #1 seed, who should get favorable pitching matchups and a more rested bullpen because of it. I think the WC teams have enough of an added challenge under the system without going all the way to the HFA thing. But I wouldn't necessarily object.

My plan would not add an extra round, it would add an extra game, well 2, 1 in each league. 3 division winners, 2 WC teams play each other the Tuesday after the season ends, winner goes on to face the #1 seed. The punishes WC teams for not winning their division, and greatly benefits the #1 seed by getting to a player a team that had to probably throw their best pitching in that 1 game playoff the day before. 1 game play-ins are great TV. But we only get them in the event of a tie. This opens up the chance at the playoffs to more teams, including those forced to face economically superior teams in their division. It actually makes it more "prestigious" to win your division, as only 20% of the teams earn the right to a playoff series, while the other 4 playoff teams have to play a 1game play-in to get there. I think this serves several purposes, it adds emphasis on winning your division, it makes being the #1 seed meaningful, it opens up the playoffs to more teams, but also makes it tougher on you if you get in via WC. MLB has to maintain interest in as many markets as possible. As it stands, you typically only have the interest in 8 playoffs markets, and then maybe 2-3 cities that came up just short. You add two WC and suddenly maybe 14-15 cities maintain their hopes into September.

admiring how dreamy patrick sharp is? if they wanted to admire how handsome he is, they would've had a better view from their defensive zone. Maybe they wanted to check out his end.

Badasses don't get hurt by having an old man hold them.

I assume you like 8 teams because it keeps it an accomplishment to make the playoffs. I think adding 2 more, for 10 total, maintains that allure. 37.5% of NFL teams make the playoffs, while 53.3% make the NBA and NHL. MLB's 26.7% is still the most exclusive, but 33.3% would still be the most exclusive if they added 2 more wild cards. It also makes winning your division so much more important, since the 2 WC in each league would play each other for the right to face the #1 seed. This also keeps the playoff season at the same amount of time, so it's not it's own beast.

I know it was always a nice rumor that was 90 percent sure of but this is nice to know How do we know anything more after reading that blurb than all the other millions of blurbs that basically said the same thing?

The 3rd back will be a guy that plays well on special teams. It's not about their running back ability.

You should get an award for saying something so profound. No one disagrees with what you said. The person who sent hate mail probably disagrees.

Well then it's Wolfe. Unless that Bell guy is a real tackler, he'd serve no purpose.

I think Bell. Peterson is likely gone, and I wasn't impressed with Wolfe. It's going to be the best ST player, which I think is Peterson. Peterson is unrestricted. He also is NOT a better special teams player than Wolfe anymore. He didn't get CBA-ified back to restricted status? What does Wolfe do on ST nowadays? I can't picture him making plays. Either way, with 2 higher profile runners, the 3rd back isn't going to be playing RB barring massive injuries.

There has to be a question about whether or not a handful of games against the Yankees will offset the cost of telling your fans you aren't trying. At least in the AL Central, even a weak team has a chance of winning in any given year. They would be much better off making more opportunities for teams to contend than forcing teams to admit if they are trying. Add a wild card team and more teams will have hope.

No, it was a mistake in and of itself.

That could be true, if Lilly comes back 100% the rotation should be fine, except for the 2 other questionable spots.

I think Bell. Peterson is likely gone, and I wasn't impressed with Wolfe. It's going to be the best ST player, which I think is Peterson.

The problem with lists like this is if you make them sensibly, nobody will talk about them.

Yes, it's quite fitting that a white guy from the 19th century had some F-ed up views on race relations.

I don't get what you are saying. Either he's possibly more marketable than Lebron, which isn't true, or that he's more interesting than Lebron, which is meaningless since there's nothing interesting about Lebron's personality. lebron hosted the [expletive] espy's, i think he's got a pretty marketable personality. Really? First off, the espy's are a joke, and I don't know anybody that has ever watched them. But I also cannot think of anything interesting about Lebron, other than the fact that he's really good at basketball and rich as a mofo.

Lou on Silva: Oh, well since that's the easy part no problem.

I don't get what you are saying. Either he's possibly more marketable than Lebron, which isn't true, or that he's more interesting than Lebron, which is meaningless since there's nothing interesting about Lebron's personality.

Since the Cubs were okay but disappointing, does this mean their year on the farm was just suprisingly not as bad as it could have been?

it's not that ESPN doesn't have people who know advanced metrics. rob neyer and keith law certainly do, buster olney does a little bit (though for a vanderbilt guy, he's still way to married to small ball and "traditional" stats), gammons did, i believe kurkjian does to some extent. but espn isn't going to start running features about UZR and WAR if 95% of their viewers don't know what those things are and don't want to know. they're a business and they cater to the casual baseball fan and the set-in-their-ways baseball fan; baseball prospectus caters to the much smaller segment of the population that is really into baseball and has an open mind for advanced metrics. Is it just me (and apparently will leitch) or did everyone first get real exposure to and explanation of advanced stats from rob neyer? If not for him, fjm may still be sitting out there with like 3 readers. btw - every time i hear timmy kurkjian talk about baseball, something inside of me dies. He likes baseball history, which I guess is cool, but the comparisons he makes are almost exclusively based on old stats. Bill James. just reading his books? how did you hear about him? I'm interested b/c I sort of stumbled upon Neyer on espn.com and his analysis really struck a chord with me. I'm not sure when I would have read about this stuff if not for him. I think Neyer was the first to hit the masses and hit the non-old people like Tim generation. I know that was my first real exposure. I didn't buy baseball stat books when I was a lad.

this is what was said, there's no room for interpretation, here. There's plenty of room. Calling the game a disappointment or calling the season a disappointment.

I would have to assume that he's the #1 based simply on being by far the most highly paid. If Olsen were to stay, he'd have to be a part-time guy, because they aren't going to go 2 WR, 2 TE, 1RB all that often. I'm guessing the look will most often be 3 WR, 1 TE, 1B, that allows for 7 blockers on any given play, and both the TE and RB can also be an outlet if the 3 WR don't get open.

no semantics. were you disappointed when they lost the super bowl? Being disappointed in the result of a game and calling a season a disappointment are quite different. The 2006 Bears were not a disappointment.

And yet they will be able to maintain these expectations for a few years, at least. Last year they had the 6th most points in the NHL, this year they are third. I understand having some disappointment whenever they lose their last game, but as long as it's not a 1 and done scenario, there's no good reason for the disappointment to be deep or lasting. Ownership is clearly committed to this team, the core is quite young. If they flame out with Huet, you can be close to convinced they will solve that problem, even if it involves cutting him to get the numbers off the books. This isn't a team with a closing window. They are a contender and quite unlike the Cubs their strength is not based simply on having more resources than the competition, and unlike the Bears, their contention isn't based on an unsustainable combination like defense and special teams with no QB. There's plenty of reason to have patience with this team and happy with something less than a championship.