Skyballer

Whether you like Theriot or not, he has every right to ask for 3.4 million. Hes a league average shortstop and league average shortstops make more than that. I'm not saying hes worth the numbers fangraph comes up with, and I wouldn't argue if you said he was replaceable. The fact remains though that a league average shortstop has every right to ask for 3.4 million.

Based on what I've observed on this board it seems to be that the best line up is to simply put your best hitter in terms of OPS first and then go down the list from there. I was debating the actual validity of that claim. I should note however that the idea gains alot of validity after reading Weis21's post about the your best hitter hitting at the end of the game. Like I said before I'm still not fully sure in my own mind how to construct an ideal line up.

Each team has 162 games, so by definition you're going to have a last PA 162 times. 9 spots in the lineup. Average of 18 PA. Obviously, some spots (those with crappier players in them) are a bit more likely to be the last one in a game, but I still don't see much of an issue with rounding up 2 PA. I think you missed my point. Maybe I wasn't clear but I wasn't saying I had a problem with the actual number 20, I have a problem with people throwing out that number when those 20 PA are over the course of an entire season, or 162 games. Wins and losses obviously occur on a game by game basis, not as a direct result of season statistics. So it makes a little more sense to bat players strategically rather than just strictly OPS based. That being said when your #1 hitter has a sub .800 OPS and youve got guys OPSing well over .850 than you've also got a huge problem. I don't think I could make a perfect lineup, but both the common OPS theory on this board is almost as flawed as the BA/SB theory applied by so many managers.

I never said that Theriot should bat second, I merely said the simplistic idea of "get my best hitter the most ABs" is definitely flawed. I didn't say it was a terrible idea, but people on here just like to throw out the 20 PA like its gospel

I have yet to really take a side on the lead off idea. On paper I like the idea of getting your best hitter the most AB's and going down in the lineup from there. But I wonder how this breaks down game by game when at most (assuming no one is replaced) your lead off hitter can only get one more AB per game. To me when you consider that it makes a little more sense to be a bit more traditional. That is assuming your lead off hitter is actually a good hitter in addition to being quick on the base paths and drawing walks, working the count etc... I'm still not convinced one way or the other but to me the simple AB idea is at least slightly flawed when breaking it down game by game.

My money is on Calero. Veteran middle reliever is Hendry's boy and always has been.

It's a close one but I have to go with Youtube. I spend far too much time one there listening to music and searching for live performances, and occasionally when looking for a random funny video, there's always that too. I love the sleeping dog runs into wall as well as the tranquilized bear on the trampoline. Google makes a close second simply because it is the most amazing search engine ever.

My biggest question with Marlon Byrd is his CF defense. He looks pretty big for a center fielder and I question his speed. I know UZR pegs him at dead average but I'm curious what other metrics have to say about him. I'm also curious as to his raw skills, such as depth perception, speed, arm strength and accuracy. I've personally seen very little of him so I can't judge. If anyone has seen any amount of OF play from him I'd be interested to hear their analysis.

My understanding was that he was basically the unspoken team captain. He's the guy that talks to all the players and tries to help them through things, known as a real leader. But to my knowledge the Cubs have no "captain"

He reminds me of my dad, aka the RBI/win worshipper

It's a simple enough question, is Lincecum the best pitcher in baseball, if not then just the National League? In his two full seasons he's posted ERA+'s of 169 and 176, with 169 being a league leader. K'9's of 10.5 and 10.4, both league leaders and of course led the league in overall strikeouts both years with 265 and 261. His Hr/9 is 0.4 both years, with the first being a LL. H/9 of 7.2 and 6.7, the first being a LL. It should be noted that by best pitcher I mean a combination of performance, "stuff", and likely future production barring and kind of random injury (not related to the small frame and crazy delivery).

See the problem there lies in the fact that Theriot>Blanco.

If Castro is legit, then him at short and Theriot at second could make a really good middle infield. But I question whether they would really want him to break camp heading for Chicago at only 20 years old. I think he needs more time.

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20091123&content_id=7704422&vkey=pr_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc I didn't see this posted anywhere and I'm not sure it makes a big impact on the team but I figured I'd post it. What is an executive VP anyway? Is it any different from a normal VP? And why didn't we have one before?

Oh, OK, everything's fixed. I guess with Obama as President things like redlining, blockbusting and the 15% tipping point for white flight will vanish. All of those studies after studies that show that people whose names are considered or who even just sound "too black" are hired at a dramatically lower rate than white applicants of equal or lesser qualification are now all better, right? Mojo it's pretty simple, if African Americans are starting to take some of the highest offices in the nation, some of which are based on America's vote, we ain't as racist as feel good liberal minded white people like to say we are. Think about it, black man voted into office. If were really as horribly racist to the extent you think, it doesn't happen. Period.

Though you'll likely refute it it, you need to see that white racism and black prejudice (I differentiate because I think racism hinges on power. You can still be prejudiced as [expletive], however, without power) come from profoundly different places. The contexts, both today and historically, are completely different, so to compare the two equally is both the height of irony and intellectually dishonest. That's not justifying black prejudice across the board, but to generalize it as being the same as white racism simply isn't realistic. If a black person dislikes a white person, or anyone else, because of the color of their skin, its racist. Racism is wrong. I'm not saying that white racism and black racism are the same thing, merely that neither are justified. Black people justify it because they were oppressed. That much is a fact, but its also something that the vast majority of white people today did not participate in. White people use just as bad reason to justify their racism, either because they just think they're better, or they're afraid of black people cause they are more violent, also a fact. The bottom line to me is that both sides are using facts to justify their racism, but they are twisting the facts to make them fit and entire race when they simply don't. Racism by definition assumes the prejudicial party is in a position of power. As that is not and has never been the case for blacks in this country, they technically can't be considered racists. This is an equal country offering equal power, the highest office in the land is currently held by an African American. We have black representatives and senators as well as black judges and even supreme court justices. Colin Powell was the Secretary of State, Commander in Chief of the US Army Forces Command and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Black people have had their fare share of power in this nation, and it was well deserved. Furthermore, certain definitions of racism assume that the prejudicial party is in a position of power, not all.

Though you'll likely refute it it, you need to see that white racism and black prejudice (I differentiate because I think racism hinges on power. You can still be prejudiced as [expletive], however, without power) come from profoundly different places. The contexts, both today and historically, are completely different, so to compare the two equally is both the height of irony and intellectually dishonest. That's not justifying black prejudice across the board, but to generalize it as being the same as white racism simply isn't realistic. If a black person dislikes a white person, or anyone else, because of the color of their skin, its racist. Racism is wrong. I'm not saying that white racism and black racism are the same thing, merely that neither are justified. Black people justify it because they were oppressed. That much is a fact, but its also something that the vast majority of white people today did not participate in. White people use just as bad reason to justify their racism, either because they just think they're better, or they're afraid of black people cause they are more violent, also a fact. The bottom line to me is that both sides are using facts to justify their racism, but they are twisting the facts to make them fit and entire race when they simply don't.

We have, really? So me and you, along with the other people on this board have not only been around for two centuries, but we've spent it screwing over black people? Funny, I don't recall being 200 years old and I don't recall screwing over black people. Have you, someone else on this board? Please enlighten me. 45-50 years ago a black person couldn't even sit in the same restaurant or drink from the same drinking fountain as whites in many places. It's disingenuous to act like civil rights injustices in this country took place eons ago in a time that nobody can remember. Fair enough, thats still a generations difference and its still something that the majority of white people either weren't aroud for or didn't support. Blatant racism or hatred towards white people is no more justified than any other form of racism. maybe i missed someone saying it is, but i haven't seen that. of course it's not. i've tried not to comment too much in this thread because i'm sure this is a topic people will never agree on, but i think expecting hundreds of years of oppression (to put it very mildly) to be completely swept away and forgotten by the parties involved (particularly the oppressed) in a generation is completely irrational. i think you also underestimate the number of people still active in our society who lived through some of these things. It's amazing that some of the people expressly marginalized as "surplus people" socially, economically and politically over the entire history of this country wouldn't be too fond of the people that that society was designed to benefit and empower the most. That, to me, is an attempt to justify black hatred/racism towards white people. As for the second part, the history does not change, you're right about that. However to blame people for it today, or to use it to justify or explain racism or hatred is dead wrong.

We have, really? So me and you, along with the other people on this board have not only been around for two centuries, but we've spent it screwing over black people? Funny, I don't recall being 200 years old and I don't recall screwing over black people. Have you, someone else on this board? Please enlighten me. 45-50 years ago a black person couldn't even sit in the same restaurant or drink from the same drinking fountain as whites in many places. It's disingenuous to act like civil rights injustices in this country took place eons ago in a time that nobody can remember. Fair enough, thats still a generations difference and its still something that the majority of white people either weren't aroud for or didn't support. Blatant racism or hatred towards white people is no more justified than any other form of racism.

We have, really? So me and you, along with the other people on this board have not only been around for two centuries, but we've spent it screwing over black people? Funny, I don't recall being 200 years old and I don't recall screwing over black people. Have you, someone else on this board? Please enlighten me.

It's amazing that some of the people expressly marginalized as "surplus people" socially, economically and politically over the entire history of this country wouldn't be too fond of the people that that society was designed to benefit and empower the most. There are Countless programs supporting African Americans, there is a United Negro College Fund, and the media and the schools tell us everyday how horrible white people were/are. Bottom line, what my great granddaddy did to another black kid's great granddaddy should not have any effect on me or him. I didn't own slaves, nor do I think any white man still living right now ever owned slaves (I could be wrong on that). All the wrongs that were imposed of African Americans (yes there are plenty of them, yes they were terrible) are a thing of the past. Not only that but the government, universities, and private groups pour millions of dollars specifically into helping black people. Let the past be the past and lets move on from mistakes our ancestors made.

that 0.49% african american population in bennett, colorado really gives him a perspective on race that we just can't understand. First of all, I never claimed that anything I said was indeed true, I never laid claim to the veracity of anything I said. I merely said it was my personal opinion based on my personal experiences. I did not claim to have a wealth of personal knowledge or experience either. Second, I live in Bennett and I think that 0.49% is actually higher than what it really is. I seriously know like 6 black people in the whole town. My point is though that I live 30 minutes from Aurora and 40 minutes from Denver, both towns in which there is a large amount of minority races, most notably black and latino. I also lived Puerto Rico for several years where white people simply didnt exist outside of the Coast Guard base. I also was born and lived in Toms River NJ up until the third grade where the % of African Americans is not really low or high (I don't know the actual number). All I can say is that based on people I Personally know of Personally have heard, African Americans tend to be more racist towards white people that vice versa. AGAIN: I AM NOT CLAIMING THIS TO BE TRUE BUT MERELY A REFLECTION OF MY ADMITTEDLY SHORT LIFE EXPERIENCE.

Adding to what banks said, In my personal experience (which apparently isnt allowed on NSBB) black people tend to be more racist against white people then visa versa. I'm not saying that all or even the majority of blacks are racist, nor am I saying that there arent racist people, and nor am I claiming that this is fact. But i will add my two cents of personal experience and tell you that that is what ive seen.

Mine kinda suck but two things that stick out is the No-hit by Zambrano and Carlos Marmol's ten pitch, three straight looking-strikeouts.

I have a twitter, cause a friend told me to. I've never used it. I don't have a Facebook. I have myspace and its mainly just for talking to people from out of town. I don't do any of the games.