Careless
-
Posts
20,912 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Careless
-
He is really good at throwing those ints. and the fact that peterson has outplayed benson all year would be hysterical if I wasn't a bears fan
-
WOW nice hit!
-
I think the footing has played a major factor in this. Orton's accuracy issues are supposedly due to some mechanical issues with his footwork. Look at that field-it looks like it was chewed up and spit out. I'm not shocked there are offensive issues today. The defense needs to hold us in this. NO is playing on the same field. At least from what I've seen on TV, the Saints seem to be having more problems with their footing than the Bears. That play where the saints rb fell down at the snap then brooks tried to figure out where to go and fell over was great
-
i Would throw the deep ball more accurately than orton.
-
nice int for an end.
-
:roll:
-
WHat a terrible call. I'd be pretty miffed that I had to use a challenge on that. Wow, I was wrong. yay replay
-
So is 40-2 Ohio state over IL the best score of the year?
-
I wouldn't mind ron on TV where I can actually fill in the blanks with my eyes...
-
Insanity sooner rather than later in this case, I'm afraid
-
Are/have you going/gone Trick-Or-Treating in 2005?
Careless replied to Omar's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
If I was only 1/4 my actual age... -
Players vote Andruw Jones Player of the Year.
Careless replied to chopsx9's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Well, considering how similar a year pujols had, the only chance Lee had was to get many more HR or RBI or for the cubs to make the playoffs despite the crappy hitting aroundd him. You just can't expect Lee to get significant votes when the best player/best player on a winning team votes are split, then the best player/player with the most HR+batting average votes are split. -
Well, this made up my mind. Fire jim hendry (my new sig)
-
Players vote Andruw Jones Player of the Year.
Careless replied to chopsx9's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
0/0=undefinied. you mean 0/1 or 0/<0. While 0/0 is an interesting mathematical problem, it has nothing to do with having a small chance of winning -
:shock: Washburn isn't as overrated and is a LEFTY. I believe that we need at least one lefty in the rotation. Don't get me wrong, I'd love Burnett but Washburn won't demand as much and probably won't want as many years as Burnett wants. Why? I never understood the fascination with having a lefty in the rotation. What exactly is the point? :lol: I hope you weren't expecting a reasonable answer to that.
-
Burroughs was horrible last year (250/318/299) - our favorite whipping boy Neifi had him by 85 ops points. 63 points, btw
-
We can already detect signs of many off these in the brain, yes that'll be my last hijack unless I can't help myself
-
:oops: yeah, that other crappy west coast NFC team.
-
Good thing we don't have word filters
-
Superman can shoot magical happy beams from his eyes. No contest
-
Current Pictures of Busch Stadium Destruction
Careless replied to mjohnson71's topic in General Baseball Talk
Am I the only one who cringes at the thought of cleaning all that up? -
New Orleans too...2-6 The rest of those teams are a combined 20-8 right now. If you ask me, that's a pretty tough schedule. you forgot arizona
-
Yes, we have. Not sure exactly what pressure (I assume 1 bar) 100 degrees is, but changing air pressure will change the boiling point. :twisted:
-
Yes, it is. And you used it in completely the wrong sense, as its antonym To explain: unless you think you can repeat this exact baseball season thousands of times to observe the "chemistry" in teams, it's absolutely not empirical. I was talking about 10 years of baseball. Observation by various sources backs up that chemistry was existent and mattered somewhat w/ most of the title winners. And yet, there was not a single repetition involved. Completely non-empirical. And there is no objective way of saying anything that could have been observed showed chemistry to be a deciding factor, but that's going back to the start of the thread.
-
Yes, it is. And you used it in completely the wrong sense, as its antonym To explain: unless you think you can repeat this exact baseball season thousands of times to observe the "chemistry" in teams, it's absolutely not empirical.