jersey cubs fan

death

[tweet] [/tweet] Does Baker know something or is he assuming?

I think there is a lot of upside too, but I'm betting against it being achieved. I'm betting on closer to 2013 than 2014. Based strictly on yards/game, the Bears were 8th and 21st for those years so they could just be slightly above average overall and meet your criteria. I'm guessing they can be a top 12 offense, and then maybe bounce to a top 20-25 defense.

I think there is a lot of upside too, but I'm betting against it being achieved.

How bad do you think people are thinking? I get the feeling people see 7-9 or 8-8. Do you think better than that? I think they will be a little better, mostly on defense, but too many hurdles to be in the real hunt of the 9/10 win playoff teams. Beauty on the NFL is that even a 8-8 type team is usually in the hunt late into the season, so it makes for invested football viewing for most of the season. All those mediocre 8-8 Lovie years left us with only a couple games that didn't have playoff implications. Maybe if those 8-8 teams are battling for a bad division titles, but aren't most of the wild card winners 10 win teams? If you are actually an 8-8 team and aren't in a crappy division you may be technically in the race but it's usually behind multiple teams and with no real hope. Last year's AFC had four 9-7 teams that didn't qualify and the NFC had a 10 win team that I believe was eliminated before the final week. The year before there were six 8-8 teams that all missed the playoffs. If you are on the way to 8-8 your playoff implications depend heavily on stupid tie breakers that usually weed out most teams before the end anyway.

Damning with faint praise?

How bad do you think people are thinking? I get the feeling people see 7-9 or 8-8. Do you think better than that? I think they will be a little better, mostly on defense, but too many hurdles to be in the real hunt of the 9/10 win playoff teams.

He's making his bitching count.

The guy went from perennial world number one to outside the TOP 200 in a hurry. Compare it to Phil Mickelson, who was the only other golfer people paid attention to for a while. He went from perennial number 2 to gradually outside the top 10 into the 20s. It's been a steady, probably normal for his age, decline. Noteworthy only in that he was popular and good but now not as good. Whereas Tiger was exponentially more popular and successful and the only golfer with anything resembling attention from outside the golfing world, and his fall was so much more steep and drastic. It's noteworthy for many reasons.

This. I hate listening to most golf commentators/announcers because many of them savor the opportunity to make fun of his bad rounds, delivering on some payback for Tiger being a dick to them at some point in the past. If the golf community would simply report on the relevant players and let him fade away with his game (or resurface when appropriate) it would make MILLIONS of golf fans happy. I think there are a huge number of people who revel in Tiger failing, and not all for good old schadenfreude. But that comes with a sport that demands attention to the individual rather than a team. Asking people to ignore it would be like asking them to ignore the Yankees going from a string of dominance to a huge drought. That is going to be a story, and trying to play the "why is this news? why is anybody reporting this? why are we paying attention to this guy?" is disingenuous and/or naive. Tiger Woods struggling is news because it's Tiger Woods struggling. Anyway, somebody named Danny Willett is now 9 under while the Johnsons are each 7 under.

I think you meant send everyone for NL Central champs shirt/hat sizing so we can watch them go 3-and-out against the Cardinals in the NLDS. I am pretty sure he did not mean that.

Nothing to do? Hardly.

That's what makes the 2nd half exciting. They have to improve against the sub-500 teams. Right? The thing I hate is their record in 1 run and extra innings games, and their minuscule run advantage. They should go on a run but those are making me a little worried about how good the run will be.

I hold out some hope that he can catch in the future but I believe it is pretty crazy to think he can do a good job catching now, with such limited coach and experience at the pro level and having such a long road to go down even if the experiment does succeed. If the good habits are not already second nature to him, then starting him 80% of the time starting now is a terrific way to have him go back to bad habits that are more comfortable and natural to him. There is no ongoing instruction if he's catching practically every day. He's playing 9 innings each game at AAA now. I'm not sure I follow why him catching as frequently at the MLB level is going to cause him to revert to bad habits, or that he can't be coached while playing full games just like he was at Iowa. Like any other player, the results do not matter at AAA but they do in the majors. The problem with catcher is it is nothing like the 7 other positions when it comes to learning to do it properly. You can ad lib in LF and even a middle infielder can presumably just do what comes naturally. The pressure to do what he is more comfortable doing while maintaining the responsibility of catching a major league staff nearly every day is completely different than continuing to learn the ins and outs of catching in Iowa. Any error, misplayed ball or poorly framed pitch has the potential to be magnified a million times what it would in AAA. Couple that with game planning and calling games for this staff and it is completely understandable why management would not want the kid as their everyday catcher. Unless you do not think there is actual value in learning how to catch in the minor leagues you have to see the drawbacks of throwing him out there 5-6 times a week. Plus, you are ignoring Ross's bad brain and the lack of any good players being held down unfairly because of this move.

I hold out some hope that he can catch in the future but I believe it is pretty crazy to think he can do a good job catching now, with such limited coach and experience at the pro level and having such a long road to go down even if the experiment does succeed. If the good habits are not already second nature to him, then starting him 80% of the time starting now is a terrific way to have him go back to bad habits that are more comfortable and natural to him. There is no ongoing instruction if he's catching practically every day.

I think it's weird that you view it this way. He was on track to be the greatest golfer ever and after a sex scandal and injury he is now healthy but mediocre. That's a crazy story in any sport, and it is magnified in a sport that is strictly about individual performance.

But there is a need to get him in as many games as possible. This set up allows for that. Unless he was going to catch 80% of games (he was not going to catch 80% of games) this is the best option to get him to play. And there are no good players being wasted at AAA because of it. Also, Ross probably has brain problems.

Presumably you'd take him out in games when you have the lead and keep him in in games you need more runs. It would be dumb to automatically take him out in the 6th every game but I doubt that is on the table. My larger point here is that I don't think you need 3 catchers to do this. We're presuming here that Schwarber is bad enough defensively compared to Ross(a good framer/bad thrower) and Teagarden(?) that they have to pull him and risk those two taking important at bats in close games. Even if that's the case(I'm skeptical, but I might be higher than most on Schwarber the defender), you don't need 3 catchers to make that happen. Well, you can't start him at other positions if you only have 2 catchers and he can't be your primary bat off the bench if you only have 2 catchers. You have to be less aggressive using him if you only have Ross and Schwarber. This isn't just about being able to pull him in the 7th when you lead. I think it is about letting him play every day, or close to it, without the fear of being left with no catcher on the bench when Ross takes a ball in the noggin.

This seems like an overreaction to Rizzo's poor showing in the all star events. I'm going to miss him.

Presumably you'd take him out in games when you have the lead and keep him in in games you need more runs. It would be dumb to automatically take him out in the 6th every game but I doubt that is on the table.

thanks bob

WTF is wrong with him now? huh? the same injury that has him on the DL and that prompted this callup yeah, I mean I don't remember what it was.

WTF is wrong with him now?

Keeping Teagarden around allows them to use Schwarber in one way shape or form, every day. He can pinch hit. He can play some LF. He can start some games at C. If it was just he and Ross then he would have to be on the bench and ready whenever Ross started. Plus Ross probably has some brainial hangover going on. I gots no problem with it.

nobody is an everyday catcher