CubfaninCA

Bowden = idiot. He didn't want to move to the OF in NY or Texas. What made Bowden think he'd want to move once he's in Washington.

Poor example. Korea beat Japan 2 out of 3 in tournament played. What was Seattle's record against the team that knocked them out of the playoffs that year I wonder? EDIT: Looks like Seattle went 6-3(.667, just like Korea/Japan, but with even more games) in the regular season against New York. Seattle got knocked out of the playoffs after their first loss???? The format's flawed.

Poor example. Korea beat Japan 2 out of 3 in tournament played.

Considering Korea was 6 and 0, and then gets knocked out by a team they beat twice and who was 3 and 3, the format needs a major change. Make the final 4 double elimination or something.

Pretty poor officiating today. The refs wouldn't allow U of I to play defense the last 15 minutes of the game. Not a surprise to see Augustine not touch the ball the last 10 minutes. The U of I guards liked to dribble around the perimeter for 30 seconds all year and then launch a desperation 3.

Not much of a revelation. Pretty obvious he juiced. Oh well.

Wow Walker's knee may be worse than anyone's letting on. Funny how there's been so much clamor over improving obp, but yet a .254 guy (Patterson) is much preferred over a .340 guy (Matos).

I didn't realized NSBB was the reason for all the injuries last year. If Zambrano & Lee get injured, this site should be removed from the internet. ;) .......Lee is already injured. It's nothing major right??

I didn't realized NSBB was the reason for all the injuries last year. If Zambrano & Lee get injured, this site should be removed from the internet. ;)

Lol @ jinxes.

LOL. Could be the longest thread ever. This looks like another long season already. :( Why not have this thread? There have been tons of unnecessary "I hate Neifi, Dusty, Grissom, etc." threads.

Sounds like there's some concerns about Walker's knee. Surprising no one has mentioned that Matos had a higher obp than Pierre in 05. :) Sounds like a much better bench option than Grissom.

Have to think he's gone by opening day.. The rumors about his knee are not good at all. Probably killing the little trade value he has left.

Can somebody explain to me how playing LF would make him more valuable? He's a good hitting 2B, but as an OF, he's hardly special. It's not that hard to find a decent OF bat, it is hard to find a good 2B bat. If he was a utility man, I could see the flexibility as something that could add to his value. But his next team is not going to be paying him to be a utility man. They are going to pay him because of what he did as an everyday middle infield. If he gets 10-12m per in a multi-year deal, he'd be highly overpaid as a OF. versatility?

he honestly can't be surprised when people say he doesn't like young players. his quote about how ST is for the young guys doesn't make any sense at all. So he doesn't need to have a great spring to make the team... Molehill meet mountain. It's good to see someone will replace Macias as whoopin boy.

I'm guessing Nomar doesn't count? Nomar's health was pretty shaky when they got him so no. I liked that roll of the dice though. Can't fault them for trying. Dawson's the last big name pickup and he fell in their lap. Alou & Nomar follow. There's probably someone I'm forgetting tho.

When have the Cubs ever got a guy like this?? Please don't answer Sosa cause he wasn't putting up monster years when they got him for Bell. A smarter organization will nab Cabrera, if he's available. Don't bet on the Cubs. What about Lee? But I agree, the Cubs aren't gonna get this guy. Lee was a great pickup, but he wasn't putting up a .945 ops at age 22. The Cubs nab guys under the radar. They don't go out and get stars.

When have the Cubs ever got a guy like this?? Please don't answer Sosa cause he wasn't putting up monster years when they got him for Bell. A smarter organization will nab Cabrera, if he's available. Don't bet on the Cubs.

I can see Philly & Baltimore not playing well and Abreu & Tejada being available. As for the others.. Schmidt & Zito - No. SF and Oakland will be competitive. Manny, Cabrera & Floyd - No. Soriano - Maybe. Can see that being a mess & Washington's in a tough division w/ Atl & NY. Huff - Yes. But TB's will ask for Pie, Hill, Williams & Prior.

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists. Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble. So the earth's still flat? Different question. A theory can be proved or disproved by logical analysis of collected evidence, but non-existence of any particular thing can never be proved because for us mere mortals the collected evidence will always be incomplete, since it would require an encompassing knowledge of all things presently contained in the universe to state authoritatively that something does not exist. Non-ominiscient beings can never have more than a subset of the evidence required to prove non-existence. Different question? No, that was a non sequiter. No one can disprove the earth is flat. They can only prove that it is flat, and that is impossible. If it is impossible to prove it is flat the earth must be something else. It is fun to believe in ghosts, UFOs, and "intangibles" like the fast guy on the basepaths bugs the pitcher. But at some point most people grow up. Then again some people never do. LOL. What field teaches this idea? Science. I understand if you've never heard of it. Did you miss the chapter on Coperniucs?

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists. Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble. So the earth's still flat? Different question. A theory can be proved or disproved by logical analysis of collected evidence, but non-existence of any particular thing can never be proved because for us mere mortals the collected evidence will always be incomplete, since it would require an encompassing knowledge of all things presently contained in the universe to state authoritatively that something does not exist. Non-ominiscient beings can never have more than a subset of the evidence required to prove non-existence. We do, however, have enough evidence to disprove the theory of a flat earth. Great speed affecting pitchers isn't a theory?

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists. Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble. So the earth's still flat? Different question. A theory can be proved or disproved by logical analysis of collected evidence, but non-existence of any particular thing can never be proved because for us mere mortals the collected evidence will always be incomplete, since it would require an encompassing knowledge of all things presently contained in the universe to state authoritatively that something does not exist. Non-ominiscient beings can never have more than a subset of the evidence required to prove non-existence. Different question? No, that was a non sequiter. No one can disprove the earth is flat. They can only prove that it is flat, and that is impossible. If it is impossible to prove it is flat the earth must be something else. It is fun to believe in ghosts, UFOs, and "intangibles" like the fast guy on the basepaths bugs the pitcher. But at some point most people grow up. Then again some people never do. LOL. What field teaches this idea?

There's no way this can be proved so why bother. j/k ;) Seriously, I think guys like Wood & Pierre will be very motivated considering this is their contract years. The young guys should be quite motivated too. Who knows about the other's though.

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists. Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble. So the earth's still flat?

We've pointed out numerous examples. As a matter of fact, you have not pointed out anything worthwhile in this thread as a useful example. All you've done is point out things that are tenous at best in terms of the claims of this "conventional wisdom" that you keep harping on. We have presented a number of cases, facts, and statistics. Every single one of them has pointed out that there is little, if any, evidence to back up the claims of the "conventional wisdom". The evidence that does back this up is only in outlier cases wherein the pitcher is "weak-minded" or whatever. In the majority of cases, speed does not equate to making pitchers lose focus. The guy could be the fastest player on the field and still be a nitwit on the base paths, making him easy pickings for the pitcher and catcher. Give me a smart baserunner with decent speed over a speed demon with little concept of what to do on the basepaths any day. Prove this conventional wisdom. Back up your facts. Cite specific examples under a variety of circumstances. Show there's a positive correlation between pitchers losing concentration when some one fast is on the basepaths as opposed to when some one slow is on the basepaths. The burden of proof is on you. Prove us wrong. Huh??? Someone previously posted a sabr article that says the best base stealers (40+ steals) help the #2 hitters by 10-30 batting average points. Are you just disregarding the "facts???"""