jersey cubs fan

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.

why are people pretending that 2-run losses are determined by luck?

That's asinine. Aramis hit a freaking HR. That HR was the difference in the ball game if Lee doesn't try to steal. For the life of me, I cannot understand Cub fans. ITS NOT BAD LUCK THAT IS KEEPING THE CUBS FROM WINNING Tell me, what exactly is asinine about what I said? Asinine:" You cannot really assume Aramis would've hit that HR if Lee had been called safe or hadn't tried to steal at all." Aramis did hit a HR and Lee did get called out. This isn't chaos theory nor is it the butterfly effect. All we have to go on is exactly what happened. And what happend was a dumb play followed by a HR that should have been the difference in the ball game. EDIT> I do not think the season is over, but at this point in time the Cubs are not a good team. But with the mediocrity that is the NL Central they still have a shot. You can't assume Aramis would get the same pitch and would hit a homerun, had Lee stayed still. That doesn't make the SB attempt any less dumb. The Cubs have been reckless on the base paths. Some people call it aggressive. I call it stupid. Lou's boys have run themselves out of more than 1 inning, and that's doubly tough when you don't get on base all that frequently to begin with.

Your timeline's off by a couple of years. Grace was let go after 2000, Choi wasn't hurt and left on the bench until 2003. but wasn't he let go to make room for a younger, cheaper 1B. Julio Zuleta maybe? He left after 2000, and it was, in part, due to the Cubs having Choi in the wings. He was on a series of one year deals, and felt insulted by his last offer, which, as it turns out, was actually more than he made the next year in Arizona. The difference being the number of guaranteed years. Choi missed about half of 2001 with an injury after coming off solid 1999 and 2000 seasons. So he didn't debut until 2002.

Just say no to ridiculous T-shirt gimmicks. amen to that

Cedeno was never a top prospect. He was a relatively obscure prospect when Hendry added him to the 40-man roster, a move that shocked many. He had an outside shot of maybe one day being a cheap starting SS without dragging down the lineup. But that was about his upside. He doesn't compare to Patterson as a prospect.

I think they're 7-12 record is indicative of how they have played, and that arbitrarily including 2 run games into the discussion is nonsense. 1-run losses are often talked about as games that could go either way, with luck. But this is really stretching it. If, in most of your games, you don't score many runs, you are going to end up short with the final tally quite often. Finally, what do you mean by ability? The Cubs have the talent to be able to win 85 games this year, if things go right. They are also quite able to lose 85. This isn't some juggernaut off to a rough start. It was a very flawed team that might contend this year. So far, they aren't.

Marv Levy fell asleep. He traded his 3rd rounder to the Bears for their 6th rounder (don't tell him they don't have a 6th)

And yet, the manager wants fewer position players. Lou's been away from the NL for a very long time, perhaps he needs to rethink his late inning strategies to stop getting into this situation.

And a lot of players have completely outplayed their abilities. Guys who are struggling are not guys who are surprisingly struggling.

Pyth is worthless at this stage. It looks good thanks to a couple high scoring games. I've never liked its inability to account for feast or famine offenses like the Cubs, and that is just exasperated this early in the season. Take out the Cubs 2 highest and 2 lowest scoring games, and their average runs scored drops from about 4.6 to 4.3. The Cubs aren't having bad luck. They are a flawed team having all its weaknesses exposed. People keep talking about the 1 and 2 run losses, but the Cubs have lost by 3, 4 and 5 runs as well. When you are a bad team with a bad record, your record is going to be bad in just about every split. The Cubs need to drastically improve their play, not hope for luck to start going there way.