jersey cubs fan

I'll give them credit...yesterday they did get an awful lot of hits...its hard to get that many hits and have so little to show for it. Not really. They only had two walks. This team's problem is walks, they walk too many and don't walk enough. They had 9 hits in 33 AB, that's a .273 AVG which is actually pretty good for a team AVG. They had a .314 OBP last night, which is very bad for a team OBP. That pretty much sums up the Cubs, and is why they "seem" to score fewer runs than they "should". Throw in another runner stupidly getting picked/doubled off and it gets that much harder to score with so few baserunners.

Daily set lineup, yes. But, did he specifically say it was the lineup he fielded on Tuesday? Pretty much every writer insinuated the same thing.

Yeah, Lou's actions haven't exactly matched up well with his words.

How many of those teams were also coming off 90 loss seasons when they started slowly in April? All slow starts are not equal. Of that group, the only one I can think of that was coming off a bad year was the Dodgers.

I picked Tampa. I'd go with Boston, but they're ability to beat the Yankees is overshadowed the overall obnoxiousness of everything about them since 2004. When Tampa beats the Yankees, the Boss goes crazy, and the Yankees are just embarrassed.

Why are people so sure of this? They haven't hit for years, and the team is mostly the same. The Cubs have physically talented hitters, but they don't have many great hitters. Right now you have a CF who may actually be less productive than Pierre was last year, as well as a SS who may be less productive than last year's shortstops. 2B remains questionable, as DeRosa has surprised on the upside with the HRs, but has disappointed in the AVG/OBP department. Lee may have returned to his 2nd tier status as a 1B, without any power he's not elite. Jones had a career year last year after a slow start, and he's off to an even slower start this year, with no guarantee of duplicating those numbers. You've got a C platoon that is basically repeating what they did last year. With Soriano in LF, he'll have to improve a lot just to get to his career averages, never mind his 2006 peak season. And if he just repeats his career averages, he's barely better than last year's LF, and that's only due to a couple more HR's, he'll be a downgrade in OBP. So, even if you get guys who are currently underperforming to get back to their career norms, you could have a relatively weak offense. Bottom line is, we don't know that this team is going to hit. Many people assumed this offense was going to rock, especially announcer types who like the big names of Ramirez, Lee and Soriano. But the same flaws that led them to the back of the pack the past few years are still there: lack of walks, numerous black hole positions, reliance on veterans to repeat career years. They might hit, if guys start turning 180s and some people outperform expectations, but we don't know they will.

Chris Carpenter No he had TJS. I don't remember him having TJS, but I know he missed a season with a torn labrum.

Z is to blame for the loss as well. I know he only gave up 2 runs, but he is supposed to be an ace. An ace takes you into the 7th or 8th inning and doesnt make your bullpen have to sustain a lead for 4 2/3 innings. He got pulled after 5 1/3, that left the bullpen with 3 2/3 innings of relief. If you give up 2 runs in 3 2/3, that's a 5.40 ERA. I agree he should have done more, but even if he gets 2 more outs, and finishes the 6th, that bullpen could have easily blown the lead.

Amen my brother... They use this at Mets and Jets games. It always cracks me up because the speech didn't end up inspiring the guys. They just sat there as he ran out.

You trying to switch from suck to blow?

Ummm....that wasn't my point at all. Not sure where you got that I was trying to suggest that it would make college baseball more popular and minor league obsolete. My point was that it would make some of the stronger conferences more akin to the minor leagues from a scouting perspective. Most MLB scouts already equate the SEC and Pac-10 baseball to AA. I said nothing of fan interest. You said it's the only reason the minor leagues exist.

I'm a little concerned about the increase in ump confrontations. This isn't the NBA. I don't see more bitching turning into calls in their favor. If anything, this can only hurt.

:D never fails

You're going to have to explain that one to me. There are some situations where they are late and able to get the lighter bat into the zone at the last second and foul it off as well as the improved bat control can also foul off a pitch. So a switch to wood means the hitter changes the weight of the bat he swings? That seems counter-intuitive to me. ditto he'll have to switch if he enters pro baseball, so why wouldn't he want to be using the correct equipment his entire baseball playing life rather than having to make an adjustment if/when he is signed to a team? Similar length aluminum bats are lighter than wood. A mandatory switch to wood would have to result in heavier bats (slower swings), unless they wanted to go from a 33-34 inch bat to a 29 inch.

That could work both ways. Right now, they only have 2 guys with more than an inning of work with an ERA over 4.00 out there. They've got 3 guys, Wuertz, Dempster and Cotts, who are actually outperforming a bit.

Maybe you can say that about center, but definitely not right. If people think Soriano's struggles are due to his position, I think they need to take a minute to think about what type of hitter Soriano really is. The guy has had prolong stretches of sucking many times in his career. He's had slow starts before, he's had slow finishes, and he's had slow mid-months as well. Soriano's struggles have a lot more to do with his tendency to be an easy out free swinging hacker, than what position he's playing.

Maybe that should tell you something about how useless pythagorean records are this early in the season. Pyth record means nothing. Actual wins and losses mean something. The Cubs have actually won just 36.8% of their games, and they actually have to play a lot better if they want to be in the race this year.

Indeed. That's basically why baseball is the only major sport that has that "intermediate" level i.e. the minor leagues. even though hockey has fallen by the wayside, they have the CHL/ECHL (AA), and the AHL (AAA). Though player development is tons different in hockey. Yeah, I don't think more wood bats is suddenly going to make college baseball more popular and minor league obsolete. I don't see how olemiss can back up his claim. Are you kidding? Wood bats would make a huge difference. Ive never seen a college baseball game, aluminum bats are the main reason for that. The difference between wood baseball and aluminum is huge to me. "ping" does not invoke baseball memories for me. Not to mention the gigantic advantage it give the hitters. They can foul off certain types of pitches all day long, with the wood bat they would probably K on. I guess my love of pitching is one of the reasons I loathe the metal bats. The collge game is almost comical to me. Id probably go see alot of college games if they used wood. I think alot of other people feel this way. Just my 2 cents. If you've never gone to college baseball games before, I'd bet heavy money you won't go to many in the future if they changed. Regardless, even if a couple people do share your feelings, and actually do follow through, that won't do anything to minor league baseball, or college baseball, overall. The notion that minor league baseball only exists as an intermediary between aluminum and wood is what I'm taking issue with. Minor league baseball exists because players take time to develop, baseball is not a heavy physical game (ie, dominated by youth), and because enough people support it financially to maintain all those teams. The aluminum bat came about in the 70's, minor league baseball started long before that.

In what world is 50% good? When you add that to their other losses it makes for a bad team. When extremely bad teams do win, it tends to be by very little, ie 1-run games. But the problem with all this talk about 1-run games is that a poor record in 1-run games now does not mean you are likely to even that out later, as the luck brigade would like us to believe. Childish. So is hoping for luck.

In what world is 50% good? When you add that to their other losses it makes for a bad team. When extremely bad teams do win, it tends to be by very little, ie 1-run games. But the problem with all this talk about 1-run games is that a poor record in 1-run games now does not mean you are likely to even that out later, as the luck brigade would like us to believe.

Indeed. That's basically why baseball is the only major sport that has that "intermediate" level i.e. the minor leagues. even though hockey has fallen by the wayside, they have the CHL/ECHL (AA), and the AHL (AAA). Though player development is tons different in hockey. Yeah, I don't think more wood bats is suddenly going to make college baseball more popular and minor league obsolete. I don't see how olemiss can back up his claim.

The only people talking about their 1-run record are the people who keep blaming their struggle on luck and blindly expecting things to just even out. Pythagorean record doesn't mean things will even out. You have proof that it won't? Proof? No I don't have proof. I'm not saying this season is over though. And I'm not throwing out nonsense about how it's just luck that's hurting this team right now. This team is hurting itself. From the ownership situation, to the organizational philosophy, to a manager and coaching staff that don't appear to have fixed past problems, to players that keep failing at the same stuff, this team is hurting itself. Luck is not hurting them. This isn't a 7-3 team with an 0-9 luck record. This is a 7-12 baseball team that has to play a hell of a lot better if they want to get to the quite mediocre level of an 85-win, we hope that's enough, season.

The only people talking about their 1-run record are the people who keep blaming their struggle on luck and blindly expecting things to just even out. Pythagorean record doesn't mean things will even out.

Go figure. The study also went on to note that if you win a lot of 1-run games, it might not be repeatable, but if you lose a lot of 1-run games, your chances of losing more 1-run games continue. Teams whose records are propped up by 1-run wins, struggle to maintain those records. Teams whose records are held back by 1-run losses, don't really make up for it down the road.

Some are arguing that luck is more likely to play a role in a 2 run loss than in a 5 run loss. Some are being completely ridiculous in their overeliance on luck to change things around. The Cubs are 0-5 in 1 run games. That doesn't mean anything. They've lost 1-0. That's not luck. You can't win when you don't score. They lost 6-5 in a game blown by Zambrano and Ohman. That's not luck, that's bad pitching. Just because you lose a 1-run game doesn't mean odds are you'll win your next. There's a theory that 1-run games eventually will even out. They don't of course. They never do. The Cubs aren't losing coin flips, they are losing baseball games. Why? Well, there's a lot of reasons. And if luck has played a part in any, it's about the smallest part. If they want to get to 85 wins, a .525 winning percentage, they must now go 78-65, for a .545 winning percentage. Any perceived lack of luck early isn't going to affect the rest of the 143 games. Is this a .545 winning percentage team? That's an 88 win type of season, and I think that's at the very top of their possibly range this year. It'll take great improvement of play, not luck, to turn this season around.