jersey cubs fan

People hold their knees and legs because it frakking hurts to be running full speed and then get knocked to the ground, or have someone kick you in the ankles or slide into your legs when you're running and cutting. I think the view of someone embellishing a foul has colored the opinion of what a typical foul looks like. I know the actual fouls can hurt. I'm not talking about those.

Yep. Although it can depend on the teams. The US v. Germany in Soccer probably won't have as many flops as any Duke home game in basketball. I played soccer for a long time and enjoy watching it quite a bit during big tournaments. I do thnk that it will never become mainstream in the US simply for the flopping factor. I mean, there's no reason for anybody to be writhing around in pain on the ground, get carried off on a stretcher and be back out on the field playing full bore 5 minutes later. It's just dumb. If that was eliminated, I think soccer would garner a lot more support and fans in the US. This happens so infrequently, hearing criticism of a sport based on this just aggravates me. Maybe it's just my perception, but I feel like I see fake near fatal injuries every game. Maybe I just watch too much Italy. It's probably a combination of perception and Italy. Selling a foul to get a card drawn is strategy in general, but the Italians take it to an extreme due to the historically defensive nature of Italian futbol. And as others have pointed out, there's plenty of actual constant foul selling in the NBA. When Kirk Hinrich runs into Al Jefferson and the latter falls like he was hit by sniper fire, isn't that worse? But we were discussing sports, the NBA has nothing to do with it. Ha cha cha cha cha. Ok then, how about a catcher framing a ball off the outside corner. Isn't that "selling" a strike call? That has absolutely nothing to do with faking an injury. Call it overly manly or macho, but pretending to be hurt is just a sissy thing that bugs the heck out of me in sports. Getting the wind knocked out of you is one thing, holding your head like you've narrowly missed an assassination attempt is completely different. I don't care if that sort of selling is strategy, it's obnoxious and pathetic.

Yep. Although it can depend on the teams. The US v. Germany in Soccer probably won't have as many flops as any Duke home game in basketball. I played soccer for a long time and enjoy watching it quite a bit during big tournaments. I do thnk that it will never become mainstream in the US simply for the flopping factor. I mean, there's no reason for anybody to be writhing around in pain on the ground, get carried off on a stretcher and be back out on the field playing full bore 5 minutes later. It's just dumb. If that was eliminated, I think soccer would garner a lot more support and fans in the US. This happens so infrequently, hearing criticism of a sport based on this just aggravates me. Maybe it's just my perception, but I feel like I see fake near fatal injuries every game. Maybe I just watch too much Italy. It's probably a combination of perception and Italy. Selling a foul to get a card drawn is strategy in general, but the Italians take it to an extreme due to the historically defensive nature of Italian futbol. And as others have pointed out, there's plenty of actual constant foul selling in the NBA. When Kirk Hinrich runs into Al Jefferson and the latter falls like he was hit by sniper fire, isn't that worse? But we were discussing sports, the NBA has nothing to do with it.

That would only be awesome if he returned to his younger years. The Cubs don't really need a sub .300 OBP, 85 OPS+ backup 1B on the roster.

Cabrera and Willis sparked the Marlins, not McKeon. He did slow the rate of caught stealing, I believe, but it wasn't his spark that led to that team improving. Nor will it be the spark of Jerry Manuel that turns the Mets around.

Yep. Although it can depend on the teams. The US v. Germany in Soccer probably won't have as many flops as any Duke home game in basketball. I played soccer for a long time and enjoy watching it quite a bit during big tournaments. I do thnk that it will never become mainstream in the US simply for the flopping factor. I mean, there's no reason for anybody to be writhing around in pain on the ground, get carried off on a stretcher and be back out on the field playing full bore 5 minutes later. It's just dumb. If that was eliminated, I think soccer would garner a lot more support and fans in the US. This happens so infrequently, hearing criticism of a sport based on this just aggravates me. Maybe it's just my perception, but I feel like I see fake near fatal injuries every game. Maybe I just watch too much Italy.

Yep. Although it can depend on the teams. The US v. Germany in Soccer probably won't have as many flops as any Duke home game in basketball. I played soccer for a long time and enjoy watching it quite a bit during big tournaments. I do thnk that it will never become mainstream in the US simply for the flopping factor. I mean, there's no reason for anybody to be writhing around in pain on the ground, get carried off on a stretcher and be back out on the field playing full bore 5 minutes later. It's just dumb. If that was eliminated, I think soccer would garner a lot more support and fans in the US. Which is just another reason not to watch the NBA. Paul Pierce

Never watched a soccer match, eh? The irony of a baseball fan thinking soccer is slow is hilarious. Oh yeah, standing around is way faster than dudes running, passing, kicking, heading and colliding for two chunks of 45 continuous minutes. Yeah, I'm not a soccer "fan" by any stretch, but I manage to watch at World Cup or Olympic time...and I can't say that it's boring. Not my cup of tea, but not boring. And if you want flopping, try the NBA. Whining, try arguing balls and strikes? I enjoy a soccer match now and again, but it clearly wins the flopping and whining debate.

I have to agree wholeheartedly. Not to be mean or cocky or anything, but eh.

Baseball strategy in general is mythologized way beyond its usefulness. It's pitch ball, hit ball, field ball much more than anything else. Obviously the NL uses pinch hitters more frequently, but the average NL team has had only 98 of their 2445 ABs come from pinch hitters this year, while the AL has had 27 out of 2431. The difference in number of RBI is 12-5, while R is 10-3. Some argue that it's actually a little more difficult for an AL manager to know when to pull his pitcher, because he doesn't have the incentive of getting him out of offensive purposes to save him from letting the guy go to long. I think that's all a bunch of hooey really. I know our resident coaches take offense to such notions, but it's not about strategy, it's about performance on the field by the players playing the game. And even then, the AL can still use SB, sacrifices and all the rest if they want to try and strategize to a victory. The only real difference is they don't pinch hit for pitchers. But they will switch up pitchers and hitters for the purpose of matchups and all that good stuff. So that's essentially 3.5 times the strategic situations (98 vs 27) in the NL vs. the AL. I'll take that. I don't think it's a myth. We all watch a lot of baseball. Obviously it's about opinion. I like NL baseball better, and I enjoy the increased need for strategic switching. I like seeing what the manager will do now that the pitcher's spot has come up and he needs to make a move, or whatever. What I don't understand is why some people can't accept that others like it that way (not you specifically, but in general). That assumes pinch hitting for the pitcher is the only strategic decision a manager makes. And how much strategy is that anyway? It's the 6th or 7th inning, you need runs, your pitcher is up, you pinch hit. That's not much of a strategy. Have you ever watched a Yankees Red Sox game? AL games don't just last 4 hours because of the DH, they last long because managers spend half the time strategizing pitching matchups late in games.

I checked out the daily herald blog today and Bruce's partner in crime, who covers the White Sox, said don't be surprised if Beckham is the starting SS come openind day 2009. Is that really a possibility? I know college hitters are generally the best bets to make it and get called to the bigs early, but he'll have under a half a season of pro ball under his belt by then. How many guys have pulled that off?

Baseball strategy in general is mythologized way beyond its usefulness. It's pitch ball, hit ball, field ball much more than anything else. Obviously the NL uses pinch hitters more frequently, but the average NL team has had only 98 of their 2445 ABs come from pinch hitters this year, while the AL has had 27 out of 2431. The difference in number of RBI is 12-5, while R is 10-3. Some argue that it's actually a little more difficult for an AL manager to know when to pull his pitcher, because he doesn't have the incentive of getting him out of offensive purposes to save him from letting the guy go to long. I think that's all a bunch of hooey really. I know our resident coaches take offense to such notions, but it's not about strategy, it's about performance on the field by the players playing the game. And even then, the AL can still use SB, sacrifices and all the rest if they want to try and strategize to a victory. The only real difference is they don't pinch hit for pitchers. But they will switch up pitchers and hitters for the purpose of matchups and all that good stuff.

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/news?slug=ap-woodsfuture&prov=ap&type=lgns This wasn't a smart move from Tiger. I mean, what did he really gain from winning this? Only a 14th major as far as I can tell. I could understand if he was going for a milestone that he might not have a chance to do again. Like if he had won the Masters, the U.S. Open and the British already in a year and had this injury going into the PGA Championship. In that case, go for it because you might not have another shot at the Grand Slam. But this seems kind of pointless to me. Sure, you won this major, but now you guaranteed to miss the next two. Not to mention that it wasn't a guarantee that he was going to win this one. What if he didn't win? Then he would have done all this for nothing. Maybe he figured Elin would lose all the pregnancy weight by now and it was a good time to go on a 8-month hiatus.

The cynic in me assumes Omar made the decision to buy himself another couple years with a new manager. If he held onto Willie the rest of the year, the chances that both of them got the ax would have gone up considerably.

Haha. "The poor play isn't his fault. But uh, I'm firing him anyway at 3am." This is the guy that was once called one of the 5 best GMs in baseball. I'm guessing that this wasn't Omar's call. Bad execution but for the right reasons though. What are the reasons though? The Mets biggest problem is that all their very old injury prone players are either injured or completely not performing. A team cannot fire the players. I don't think Willie is a particularly good manager. You can trade or release them. I don't think he's particularly good or bad. But I think the GM made some really bad decisions with some really old and injury prone players. I don't see Willie abusing talented young arms. The only argument I have heard is that the team looks flat or dysfunctional. I think they just look old and injured. The free Metro paper listed 3 mistakes by Willie and Omar. They are: Willie - slow start to season because they "lacked energy to start season". Race comments. And "his young team lacked leadership last September and Randolph did nothing to push them into performing better." That's gibberish, and that's the excuses I've been hearing as the reasons for his firing. He can't push them to perform better or add energy. He's a freaking manager.

He didn't have to make a great play. He didn't make a great play, he made a routine play for major league 3B, including what was a pretty poor throw, and still got the out with plenty of room to spare. Arbitrarily saying you think it had a 50% chance of succeeding means nothing. It was a horrible decision.

this is my issue with it. i don't think the bunt was intrinsically a bad idea but given the context of the night i thought it was an awful one. i was cursing about the play as soon as i heard pat say "bunt." Reed Johnson is horrible against righties with a sub-.300 OBP this season. I'd say there was a better than 30% chance of it working from the time Johnson made up his mind. Unfortunately, it wasn't a good bunt and in between the time he made up his mind and the time the bunt was laid down, Longoria began to suspect that a bunt might be coming and was starting to charge in during Percival's delivery. Your arbitrary assignment of percentage chance for success is meaningless. It was a horrible inexcusable decision.

this is coming from a guy that likes soccer. You know the old saying about soccer and golf. We love to play it because it is so boring to watch. Not even close to the same thing. In golf they hit a shot, walk 200 yards, then stand over the ball for 30 second, then walk around it for few more, talk to the caddy and then hit the shot. Putts are even worse because they walk around the ball for a minute looking at every single angle and slope, then take some practice swings, look at the lie a little more, take a couple more practice swings and then finally shoot the ball. And in soccer, players kick the ball around the field, and the ball is never close to the goal for 95 percent of the match. It's without a doubt the most boring sport I've ever tried to watch. At least the players are doing something on the field (i.e. kicking the ball around) rather than walking for 200 yards in between shots. There's not a chance soccer is more boring than golf. Not even close. If you are talking about a 2-man playoff, maybe. But as others have stated, most golf on TV involves very few shots of guys just walking around. There are several shots shown in any given minute.

Tiger probably done for season, hope it was worth it.

So assuming no major speed bumps, we're looking at a conservative ETA of sometime in 2010? Conservative would be 2012(2009 A+, 2010 AA, 2011 AAA). If he advances well it might be sometime in 2011. Wow, I always thought pitchers could move up the system much quicker than hitters. I realize he is a foreign prospect that is probably extremely raw, and I understand keeping him in Peoria this year, but I figure if he dominates in Peoria, why not bring him up to Tennessee to start next year. And if he does well in Tennessee, why not Iowa to start 2010. And if he's still pitching well in Iowa, and we need a spark in Chicago bring him up during the year. But this is why you guys know the system better than I It really doesn't matter whether he's a foreign born prospect or American. Pitchers tend to graduate one level per year at the lower levels when they're younger (most foregn prospects, HS draftees) while the older pitchers who are more advanced move up at a quicker speed (college draftees). There's no point in skipping Daytona just because he succeeds or even dominates in Peoria, you have to determine he's ready to skip all the way to AA to do that. There's no point in doing that since he's so young and still pretty raw - he has a lot that he can learn at high-A next season (if all goes well this season). I could see a call up to Daytona in August if things continue well well for him this season. what's the standard IP count for high school pitchers coming up through a system before hitting the majors? Isn't it something like 500-600 IP? Rhee will have barely more than 200 IP at tne end of 2009 if he stays healthy and doesn't miss time. I'd think anything before 2012 would be fairly aggressive.

I highly doubt that. Sure his trade value is lower than it was after last season, but it's still going to be somewhat high. And it should be about a million times higher than Coco Freaking Crisp.

Haha. "The poor play isn't his fault. But uh, I'm firing him anyway at 3am." This is the guy that was once called one of the 5 best GMs in baseball. I'm guessing that this wasn't Omar's call. Bad execution but for the right reasons though. What are the reasons though? The Mets biggest problem is that all their very old injury prone players are either injured or completely not performing.

The Cubs played a little sloppy last night, they didn't deserve to win. However, if I had to blame one person it would be Reed. He had his head up his own ass three times 1) trying to stretch the single (worked) 3) stealing third (didn't work) 4) bunting on that turf (didn't work). There's a reason why Tampa has the fewest sac bunts in baseball and it ain't b/c they're managed by an Earl Weaver clone with a lot of big hitters. I don't understand why you're complaining about him stretching that single into a double considering that it worked, but whatever. As for the bunt in the 9th, it was a great idea. If Longoria doesn't make a perfect play on that ball, the game would've been tied. Unfortunately, he did make a perfect play. Nothing wrong with dropping down a bunt there. Yesterday I drove backwards down the highway, it worked so I'm going to try it today too. Whatever works man'. I love Len but he's dead wrong. It wasn't a perfect play it was a routine play and Johnson was thrown out by 15 feet. Johnson should know better than to bunt on a billiard green. Like I said, there's a reason why Tampa doesn't bunt. 15 feet? Boy that's not much of an exaggeration or anything. I'm watching the replay right now on ESPN and as the 1B is gathering the ball, Johnson's left foot is planted and he's making his final step to the bag with his right. So unless Reed has a 15 foot stride, you're off by about 10-12 feet. The firstbaseman was standing on the bag with the ball in his hand well before Reed reached 1st. Probably 3-5 paces. Not only was he out by a very wide margin, but they clearly didn't have to make a perfect play to get the out. it was a horrible throw and he was still out by several steps. Defending that bunt is absurd. It was a horrible decision whose execution was made all the more difficult by the playing surface. People blindly applaud being aggressive, "pressuring the defense" or trying to make things happen, but that was a straight up idiotic move by Reed Johnson.

Freaking Neifi Johnson. What a stupid idea. He was out by a mile and that's a routine play, especially on carpet.

Edmonds everyday? Why?