SaorsaDaonnan

Really, you wouldn't be surprised if they rubbed his finger against rough service or burnt it so that they could create the grand illusion that Kerry Wood is in fact still alive? I was wondering when someone was going to bust out the Potemkin Closer theory. It was just a matter of time...

Is it so clear that the Cubs have a history of being "less than truthful" about the health of their pitchers? It can be very difficult to distinguish liars from idiots...in the Wood and Prior situations of 05-06 it was obvious that someone was not doing their job properly, but a combination of incompetence and wishful thinking seems at least as plausible an explanation as willfull deception

This is ridiculous. Mark Prior is under no obligation to make positive contributions to your emotional wellbeing.

perhaps this was an informal condition of the Ramirez/Lofton deal :-$

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=3819

Wood's miracle recovery was as surprising as it was sudden, and there is a real risk here that he will break down again soon, perhaps catastrophically and without warning. Nevertheless, the danger might be more significant in emotional terms than in baseball terms; from a talent/ roster configuration/payroll standpoint, he's definitely worth the risk. It's a surprisingly good deal. Thus ends the rational portion of the post. Surprisingly visceral reactions follow. 8-[ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ =D> =D>

fun fact: in Clint Barmes' most recent healthy season (2006) he hit .220/.264/.335 fun fact: baseball prospectus assessed Barmes' 2006 performance (535 PAs) as "the ninth-worst single-season offensive performance in baseball since 1960 among players with 500 or more plate appearances" (presumably using VORP) fun fact: Clint Barmes' career numbers are .252/.293/.379 (relevant because of his short career) fun fact: Clint Barmes sucks edit: I should note that the BP quote was written before the 2007 season began

The title of this thread is "Jacque Jones a +25 CF?", but your table lists Jones at +13, just a bit more than half that...are you somehow translating the number in the chart to a different system, or was it merely a typo? I'm guessing the latter; while the former would rank Jones as one of the most valuable defenders in the game, the latter would only suggest that he outplayed most others at his position, which isn't impossible to believe, given his decent athleticism and the smallish nature of Wrigley's outfield (if the system factors out OF size, disregard the last bit of this comment)

anybody got a razor? :shock:

Bullpucky. My argument does not require that Lilly had time to reflect. It requires only that Lilly have spent time training himself to control his reactions. actually, no. Testosterone + Nerves + Embarrassment + Hugely important situation + no self control = violent outburst

That is not what I said, although I will certainly accept blame for stating my point badly and, as I'll explain in a minute, for adding a cheap shot. S1) "throwing his glove on the ground signalled that, at least in the heat of that moment, Ted Lilly was more interested in quickly minimizing unpleasant feelings than in maximizing the Cubs' chances of winning." S2) "it shows that, in that instant, he cared more about momentary pain than about his teammates or about achievement or competition. " S3) "when the team needed him, he was too busy crying." Let's talk about S3 first. After rereading my post, I can see that it was a mistake on my part to say that. First, it was an insulting comment that played no actual role in my argument. Since I'd already made my substantive claims in S1 and S2, my decision to include S3 was gratuitous. Second, as your post shows, including S3 exaggerated the liklihood that my actual position would be misunderstood. As I'll explain in just a second, I asserted only that Lilly quit on the team after the HR, not that he never recovered or that he never restablished what I'm sure are his real priorities. But before we move on to that, I should say something about more about a third reason why S3 might have been unfair. When making an accusation, or defending against one, it is often helpful to keep in mind the distinction between justifications and excuses. Suppose that I make an accusation against someone else, saying that an action they performed was inappropriate or wrong. That person then has two options to defend himself. One option is to claim that what he did was the actually the correct thing to do. The other is to admit that he shouldn't have done whatever it was, but that for some reason he should be let off the hook. The latter option -the excuse- is a claim to the effect that, under the circumstances, it was understandable, though not justifiable, that the person did what he did, for instance because some things are just too much to ask of someone. When I claimed that Lilly's priorities went awry, I only offered an argument for why his behavior was unjustified. I never said anything about the possibility of excuses. I admit that this omission was a mistake. I made it only because I wasn't thinking as carefully as I should have been. So, if anyone wants to argue that I'm unfairly blaming Lilly for the type of emotional outburst no one should be expected to control, they would be perfectly right to criticize my earlier post for unfairly neglecting their position. But the argument that Lilly should be excused from responsibility assumes that his behavior was unjustified. It's not clear to me whether you or others here accept that. For instance, the post immediately after yours, Brian's, seems not to. The first posts in this topic also seem to assert that Lilly's behavior was justified. Since, arguably, there's no point in arguing about excuses if there's no agreement about the possibility of justification, we should talk about justification first. I assume that almost everyone here agrees that if Lilly quit on the team, then his behavior was unjustified. That amounts to saying that each player has a responsibility to the team to focus on the play at hand, and to make every effort to shove aside self-recriminating thoughts for the duration of their time on field. It seems plain to me that Lilly did not do this, and thus was in violation of his responsibility to focus on getting each batter out. One argument open to you is that some players have much stronger emotions than others, and that in some cases emotions get so strong that a player is unable to control them. Perhaps Lilly tried his best to contain his anger, but failed. If so, Lilly has an excuse. But it seems to me that you are saying something different. It seems to me that you're claiming, contra me, that Lilly didn't quit on the team. I'll quote a couple lines of your post to show why I think this. S4) S5)

cool? you call this kind of immature crap "cool?" cool would have been focusing his anger on the next batter. cool would have been setting his self-pity aside and performing the job to the fullest extent of his ability. diverting his attention and wasting his energy on an event that could no longer be controlled is the antithesis of cool. throwing his glove on the ground signalled that, at least in the heat of that moment, Ted Lilly was more interested in quickly minimizing unpleasant feelings than in maximizing the Cubs' chances of winning. it shows that, in that instant, he cared more about momentary pain than about his teammates or about achievement or competition. when the team needed him, he was too busy crying. what the hell is wrong with NSBB tonight? coming out in praise of Lilly's infantile tantrum is perfectly in step with the sentiments described by a majority of the posters during tonight's game thread, where several posters went so far as to say that they would prefer the Cubs to perform badly in the playoffs rather than well, provided that the Cubs aren't going to end up winning the world series. what kind of fan would rather his team do badly, just so he doesn't have to end up disappointed? what kind of fan would rather his team go three and out than lose a well-played game seven of the world series? what kind of fan would rather his team lose in an embarassing ****fest than lose a beautifully played game like the recent Padres-Rockies match? apparently, the type of fan who enjoyed Lilly's juvenile outburst. we are not dead. we are not a good team, and we are only debatably as good as our opponents. so far we have [expletive] all over ourselves in some of the most frustrating ways possible. aside from Zambrano and Soto, Wood, and a handfull others, we have played horribly. poor defense has worsened unbelievably bad pitching from normally solid pitchers. aside from, inexplicably, Jacque Jones, even our normally more disciplined hitters have swung the bat like idiots. Soriano has been an embarassment. we are overwhelmingly likely to lose this series, and very probably we will have deserved it. but why go in for all this self-immolating emo crap about rolling over just to lessen the pain? why celebrate the fact that Lilly stopped competing after that pitch, or that so many so-called fans want the team to lay down and die? how could anyone want to be the kind of weak spirited quitter that doesn't even have the pride to die well? and what kind of fan of baseball would rather call off the games just to save himself a little distress? what kind of competitor would give up even the smallest chance of a shot at eternal glory just in order that his probable death might come about more comfortably? some of you will say that you have been hurt too much. I say that you have learned to fear the pain so much that you no longer really care. edited for minor grammatical mistakes

I can't imagine anyone thought he'd make it back this year. He didn't believe he could do it himself just two weeks before he came back. that's exactly the point. just weeks before he came back, nobody thought it would happen. the expectations were completely rational. nevertheless the prediction did not come to pass. perhaps there is a parallel. that's what I want to point out: that improbably good things sometimes happen, but only if you don't quit

that right, mofos. Kerry Wood is pitching in the playoffs. so how many of you stuck a fork in him over the last couple years?

exactly. so far we've played like [expletive], so obviously the best reaction is to pour gasoline all over ourselves while complaining about the inevitability of defeat. since things are going so badly, maybe we should just forfeit now and ensure that we won't get our hopes up anymore.

Dempster? :? is there something wrong with that? he plays hard and he's a phenomenal person. Im just surprised. why? as Tim was emphasizing a couple days ago regarding Theriot, there is a HUGE difference between liking someone and thinking that they're a great player. the fact that analytic people tend not base their decisions on emotions hardly implies that they don't have them.

this board was generally negative toward Chip during his tenure as the Cubs' television play-by-play man, but the proliferation of MLB-AM services and cable/satellite sports packages has revealed to many of us just how brutal a majority of professional baseball announcers are. I'd say that the criticism heaped on Chip by this board a few years back was deserved, but that his overall game was much better than we realized. Chip's place in broadcasting history is very forgettable, but surprisingly enough he is superior to a majority of his contemporaries.

I think the Fox announcers for Saturday's Braves-Brewers game (Levin-Girardi, IIRC) said that Chip Caray will do some games alongside Tony Gwynn. Anybody else catch this?

1. Wood -- -- -- 2. Howry 3. Marmol 4. Zambrano 5. Lee 6. Murton 7. Lilly 8. Dempster 9. Ramirez 10. Wuertz Soto is growing on me quickly, Pie has a shot, Prior could work his way back on, and I still like Guzman a lot and, of course, Matt Stairs remains my favorite Cub (non-Ryno division)

damn, sorry about that, hadn't seen your post...

karmic readjustment

I am a Cubs fan. I am also a fan of high quality baseball. When the Cubs do not enjoy periods of sustained success, my overall enjoyment of baseball is dramatically diminished. When the quality of baseball is low, the fun of watching successful Cubs teams diminishes. Others have mentioned the Cardinals' victory last season: I say that if the Cubs' 2007 were to mirror the Cards' 2006, the victory would be somewhat hollow. I am not impressed with success alone: whoever said that he'd rather be lucky than good was, to my mind, a great fool. If the Cubs win without deserving it, it would be, to be sure, less depressing than yet another failure, but it would fall well short of being completely satisfying. Baseball is not football: better teams lose short series all the time. If we know in our hearts that we were not the best team, how could we justify the joys of celebration? If an inferior team wins by the force of luck alone, it is not much to be proud of. As a fan, I will not be satisfied until and unless I see a consistent pattern of intelligent baseball decisions, comparable to or better than those made by than the best front offices in baseball, and supported by a system of scouting and coaching designed to discover and instill the best available baseball strategies in players and managerial personnel. I will not be satisfied until the Cubs can be reasonably be described as industry leaders in at least some phases of this game, nor until the team has eliminated from its baseball decision procedures all remnants of its current antiempirical philosophy. I will not be satisfied until the organization demonstrates a robust conceptual understanding of the ideal value of baseball players and consistently implements strategies derived from this understanding. I will not be satisfied until the team comes close to maximizing its chances of winning. I am pleased that the Cubs are in contention this year. I will be pleased if they make the playoffs, and it is even possible that you would see tears in my eyes if they were to win. I want to win. But I will not be satisfied until I see a team that correctly positions itself for victory. I do not like, and cannot fully support, a team that does not deserve the success it enjoys. I grew up watching Michael Jordan and the Bulls, and Ryne Sandberg, and to my mind, that is the standard of success. I say this: if you do not strive for excellence, you do not deserve my respect as a fan. If the Cubs do not strive for excellence, they do not deserve the loyalty of the fans who love them. Edited for minor grammatical problems

dare I ask why?

good job

DOMINANT