The Other 15

How robotish does one have to be to believe all these versions of win shares? Any science that has Freel as one game less than Armais over 6 weeks is flawed beyond belief. How much do you think it is? Remember, the difference over a full season between the best and worst teams is about 30-35 wins, spread over 25 players. It's not that inconceivable that the difference between a mediocre to bad 3B and a good one over 1/3 of a season is about a win. I don't know, but that's no big deal because neither do the guys who came up with the formula. It's merely fodder for thought. What I do know (and the spreadsheet whiz's pretend to know better, would agree, if pressed to bank on it) is that I would rather have Ramirez over Freel in as many games as possible. uh, no offense, but...duh No offense taken, because, as you could tell by my post, i think it is a duh to want Aram in as many games as possible over Freel and that any science that says that Freel over 6 weeks is worth only one less win share is flawed.

Oh no, I hope that doesn't happen. The horror, to think that one of these days Marmol will allow runs to score and lose a game. No other reliever has had to deal with that tragedy. I'm sure as soon as it happens, you'll forget how many times his control won innings that eventually led to winning games.

I feel confident that there's a lot of baseball left to play. You looking around the league much? Notice how many teams are having issues with bullpens? Notice how bullpen numbers (individual and team) can fluctuate dramatically early in a season? Still too early to make any definitive statement other than there will be some changes made.

How robotish does one have to be to believe all these versions of win shares? Any science that has Freel as one game less than Armais over 6 weeks is flawed beyond belief. How much do you think it is? Remember, the difference over a full season between the best and worst teams is about 30-35 wins, spread over 25 players. It's not that inconceivable that the difference between a mediocre to bad 3B and a good one over 1/3 of a season is about a win. I don't know, but that's no big deal because neither do the guys who came up with the formula. It's merely fodder for thought. What I do know (and the spreadsheet whiz's pretend to know better, would agree, if pressed to bank on it) is that I would rather have Ramirez over Freel in as many games as possible.

The reason for there to be more worry about Aramis than the bullpen is because it's far easier to patch together a decent bullpen than it is to find a very productive third baseman. We all expect Bradley, Lee, Soto, etc. to start hitting closer to their career norms, but what if two of those three don't? There's ample reason to believe that Soto and Lee won't get back to what we expected and without Aramis, the offense isn't nearly as imposing as it once was. Yeah, it's real easy to patch together a good bullpen. That's why there are so many good ones in baseball. The point is, you can bemoan Aramis' loss all you want, but a bad bullpen has been giving away leads even while he was playing. You can't do anything about Aramis, but you can try to address the bullpen. It won't replace Aram, but a bullpen that does the job will make the hurt much smaller.

How robotish does one have to be to believe all these versions of win shares? Any science that has Freel as one game less than Armais over 6 weeks is flawed beyond belief.

Whaaaaaaaa, whaaaaaaaaaa,....(sob, sob), It's 31 games and "we're" already out of first place by 2.5 games!!!!!! Whaaaaaaaa.

His range is good, trouble is that he's a terrible route runner. He occasionally throws out a guy taking an extra base but he doesn't hold guys from taking extra bases, they do it all too frequently on him. If he was very good, he'd be in CF. That lasted what, a week in ST? He's an average LF who makes up for his shortcoming with a good, accurate arm. Perhaps if he came up as an outfielder he would be good, he certainly has the athleticism. If by occasionally, you mean that he's led all LF's in throwing out runners despite not playing full time, then yes, he occasionally throws out a runner. You might be seeing these games where people take extra bases "all the time" and he trows out people "occasionally", but he's been much better than your perception.

Losing Aramis is a big blow. But quite honestly, with or without Aramis, if they cannot find anyone other than Marmol to get people out late in games it will not matter who plays 3B. Even when he's good, Gooz is still giving up runs. Patton has the stuff, but appears ill at ease on the mound. This isn't the time to worry about weather or not Colorado will want him back. If Lou's not going to use him, talented or not, he needs to go. If they're that much into projects, give Stevens a look. Cotts is unreliable for late innings even as a loog. Fox? Well, I suppose it wouldn't be a season without Fox making useless appearances. Just wish it was in a Pirates uniform. Forget Aramis and target a couple of relievers or shake things up if Wells is pitching adequately by the time Z returns and move Marshall to the pen (he gets people out in any role) and keep Wells starting. Something needs to be done. That's the biggest hole on the team, not Aramis. Bradley and Lee will eventually hit close to their averages. Soto and Font should improve from where they are at. The offense should be decent even without Aramis, but who cares if leads can not be protected.

Oh, Matt Murton, where forth art thau? The most beloved .288/.354/.440 hitter on Cubs message boards history.

I really don't think he has done all that much with the progression of the kids they got. I was discussing how they played really well for a good chunk of last season. It's hard to keep that going with a bunch of young players for multiple reasons. Mainly, they don't have many 162-game seasons under their belt and can become streaky because in general they let themselves get too high and too low depending on the current streak they're in. Wouldn't that be the primary objective of a manager who heads a young team? To teach how to handle the highs and lows and life in the bigs in general? The young guys they had have simply not taken the next step. A case can be made that they are all doing OK, but much more than OK was expected from that group a couple of years ago. They didn't need all of them to take that next step, but one or two could have won them the division last year.

The offseason will start looking less like a failure when the main guy they made the moves for starts hitting.

I'm stunned. Boras put together an entire booklet showing how Perez was the best LH starter in baseball. Sort of like when he printed a report (written by him) that proved to the Mets that Beltran was as good as Mickey Mantle.

Yeah, if that's true, its pretty obviously he was roiding. When I first heard the story, I was thinking it would be a JC Romero kinda story, but its becoming pretty clear he was roiding. I dunno... I do have a hard time believing Manny would stand up and fight if he was actually taking it for fertility. "My boys swim in circles" isn't exactly something you want to announce to the world. "I'm a steroid user, so you can black-ball me from the HOF" would be a lot worse message than I need help with my swimmers, no? For Manny? I wont pretend to know what he's thinking when he's acting "normally." I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Ok, I understand that, but still, regardless of his innocence or not, wouldn't the message that he was a steroid user be worse than he needed assistance with his swimmers?

Yeah, if that's true, its pretty obviously he was roiding. When I first heard the story, I was thinking it would be a JC Romero kinda story, but its becoming pretty clear he was roiding. I dunno... I do have a hard time believing Manny would stand up and fight if he was actually taking it for fertility. "My boys swim in circles" isn't exactly something you want to announce to the world. "I'm a steroid user, so you can black-ball me from the HOF" would be a lot worse message than I need help with my swimmers, no?

I have not read through this thread so maybe someone mentioned it earlier, but all this crap from Manny and Boras is a predetermined smokescreen in case he got caught. It was likely some drug usually used as a masking agent and easily acquired through a regular prescription. This was the norm in the Olympics before HGH came along. A feminine hormone (hg?) is usually used after a steriod cycle is completed to restart the bodys own hormone producing system. Bodybuilders all over the world will be laughing at Manny's/Boras' explanation. This is nothing more than a "in case of emergency, pull this excuse" button for that scumbag twosome. EDIT: Just read the previous two pages and Ok, hcG is what I was thinking of. No doubt he was roiding after reading that.

If they remotely keep winning at a .700 clip they "could" run away with it? Who could overtake them? 1906 Cubs, 1998 Yanks, 1999 Mariners, or 1984 Tigers? Look, this really needs to stop. I like St Louis' offense last year when no one was willing to accept that players like Ludwick could actually turn out to be good for a few years despite their age. And I respect LaRussa/Duncan a great deal as well. I just don't give them credit where credit is not due. They don't magically transform mediocre players into great players no matter how much a sappy Cub fan who is inflicted with Cards paranoia believes it to be true. They have made some players that were destined to be serviceable players in major league baseball serviceable. It's a great and admirable skill, but a far cry from what that sappy Cub fan always depicts them as being. Teams get off to hot starts all the time. See Milwaukee 2007. Hot starting teams without great talent up and down the entire roster will cool off most of the time. See Milwaukee 2007. Yes, it's possible that Pienro COULD be this good for the entire season with really mediocre pitching as his primary weapon. It's possible but not probable. And it's possible that Molina COULD be a legit middle of the order bat like he is during this start. It's also possible that Duncan and Barton COULD be 1.000+ OPS hitters at the bottom of the order. But a long history of baseball says to wait. This isn't the NBA. You need much more than a incredible superstar with some decent players around him to be a great team. You actually need - well, a great team to be a great team. If you don't have a great tam, you could make use of some really good players having career years to be a great team. Does St Louis have that as their recipe? Unlikely, but time will tell. Point is to wait for quite a considerable time longer than 20, 30, or 40 games before committing about how the Cards are legit. The old axiom of "WS's are not won in April but could be lost in April" does not apply to the 2009 Cubs. Being around .500 (without even considering that some players have been hurt, and others have not performed) has not pushed the Cubs out of contention. I only ask the we begin to hold off talk of the great 2009 Cardinals until they are actually that. Otherwise, it will really make some intelligent people look pretty stupid if the game of baseball evens things out, like it has a great tradition of doing, with hot starting teams.

Oh, no it's not. Everyone in their lineup will hit over .300 like they are now. Their team ERA is bound to remain at 3.50 for the remainder of the season. That's really good, but then I expect nothing less of players exposed to LaRussa and Duncan. I just wonder how they failed to do that last year. You mean when they won 86 games in an awesome division? Yes, that's exactly what I mean. At their absolute best, with guys like Wellemeyer, Lohse and Looper carrying a heavy load, they were still worse than the 2007 Cubs. Sorry, I just don't wet my pants in fear of teams built with that type of pitching. Get back to me when they make a move for a substantial pitcher in order for me to take them seriously. Until then, or until the Cubs prove that they are this bad for 60 or 80 games, I will continue to not take the Cards seriously. After the Cubs incredible start last year, the Cards worked themselves to within 1 game of the Cubs by late July. Oooh, it's the Cards, time for me to fall to pieces with fear. Alas, the season goes deeper than that and they soon became a afterthought again. This is nothing more than a hot start by a team taking advantage of a early season home schedule. I was much more concerned with the 2007 Brewers than I am right now of the Cards. Wellmeyer, Boggs and Pinero, along with that bullpen, do not inspire a whole lot of fear from me just yet. That's not to say the Cards can't win this division, but that'll take a lot more of the Cubs laying down than the Cards out pitching them for a season. Still way too early for any penis envy of the Cards.

Oh, no it's not. Everyone in their lineup will hit over .300 like they are now. Their team ERA is bound to remain at 3.50 for the remainder of the season. That's really good, but then I expect nothing less of players exposed to LaRussa and Duncan. I just wonder how they failed to do that last year.

That's only because Canseco couldn't get that one last team to let him get to 500. There are several gentlemen on that list without half the class Conseco had considering they got there the same way he nearly did.

A cool thing is that they have hardly any ushers and the ushers that are there are "to help". Me and a buddy used to go at game time, buy 7 dollar tickets and then walk down to field level. For having small crowds, the fans are really into it. Much louder than a lot of places that draw 5-10k more people. Somewhat OT: has anyone ever had the unfortunate experience of going to a game at Dodger Stadium? Their ushers are complete jerks. You have to enter through an assigned gate and there's very little walking around. Someone is always stopping you and redirecting you towards your seat. And don't even think about trying to move down even if it's the 8th inning and the place has emptied out. Chavez Ravine is host to fight nights in the stands on a regular basis. Security has to be especially aware here.

Or he can serve it when he will otherwise need off days anyways. It's not like there wont be a shortage of those.

Seriously! On Baseball Tonight (I know, consider the source...) they were talking up all the "division leaders" and whether teams like the Cubs should be worried. Nevermind the fact that they actually still have a winning record. It's ridiculous. It's like trying to predict how worried an NFL team should be after week one. This would actually be more like the first quarter of the week one game. Its way to early. That being said i cringe whenever i see neal cotts coming in Is that new math or East Carolina Pirates math?

From personal experience, both injuries are likely to linger a lot longer than 3-5 days. Meaning that both can get worse quicker and easier than they get better. Lee and Aram will need to pick it up.

I'm pretty sure Blanco signed for the league minimum. That said, I don't really miss him. And I don't care all that much about our backup C. They all suck. Just be glad we're one of the few teams with a good #1. Hammerin' Hank is 3 for 9 with 2HR's so far for that juggernaut otherwise known as the Padres