gus_dog

Amy, why are you here? Tired of CardsTalk?

I hate that silly line of reasoning. Tim Krzikstan said something to the effect of "Pujols has to win the MVP this year because he didn't the past couple years." That's as insane as Joe Morgan saying Roger Clemens has pitched better than anybody in baseball but he shouldn't win the Cy because his teammates don't score enough runs for him. It's not a lifetime achievement award. If you want to give it to Pujols you are more than justified in doing so, but don't make up silly stuff like that voters. I agree. Last year, or any other previous year should have absolutely no bearing on this season's award. Notice that I wrote 'should'. If you want to say Pujols is the driving force behind the Cardinals winning the division, then that argument has some merit. The other argument flies in the face of logic.

Here's the latest. I would call this a dead heat. G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG Pujols 130 485 105 162 31 1 35 99 300 74 52 11 2 0.428 0.619 0.334 Lee 127 481 103 168 42 2 39 94 331 69 82 15 3 0.432 0.688 0.349

Let's not practice revisionist history. Maddux joined the Braves because the Cubs pulled their offer from the table. Himes offered what he believed was fair. Maddux wanted to test the market. Himes spent the money allocated for Maddux on a bunch of crap. Maddux called after finding the Yankees were the only ones willing to beat the Cubs offer. Himes said that the offer is off the table. Maddux signed with the Braves. Maddux will now say it worked out for him, but had Himes went to the Trib and gotten permission to keep him, he'd have signed. Maddux's decision to go to the Braves was business pure and simple. No where did it have anything to do with a mythical "chance to win it all." IIRC, Maddux approached the Cubs, and wanted a long term deal. Management told him that they would not do any deals until the end of the season, and that they would talk then. Maddux said he did not want to wait, and wanted to do the deal sooner, rather than later. The Cubs came back with the same responce - wait until the season is over because they don't do deals mid-season. Then, about two weeks or so later, they announced the big deal locking up Sandberg. Maddux felt as though he was lied to, and that the Cubs had a double-standard. In the end, it did not matter what the Cubs offered - he was NOT going to sign with them.

More than likely, they will never stop believing in luck Ahhhh, the anonymous 'they'. Who exactly are 'they'?

I think the alternate jerseys look like jammies. At home, we should always wear white, no matter what. IMO, the home pants with the alternate blue jersey just looks stupid. All grey on the road is a good look, but the alternate jersey could be worn with the grey pants, and it doesn't offend me.

See, he can't finish a game..., he's not worthy of Cy Young award consideration since he can't do that. :wink:

...and Hairston, D. Lee, Farnsworth, etc. I don't get it, but they go to great lengths. Heck, I think Hairston even pulls the back of the pant leg down so far so as to 'hook' it on his heel-spikes. Strange, I know. I wonder why?

Man, those 1941-42 baby blue road unis were heinous!

Mitre's numbers this season, game by game: DATE GAME W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR BB SO NP-S 24-May HOU 0 0 2.57 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 5 2 2 0 1 5 108-70 29-May COL 0 0 5.84 1 1 0 0 0 0 5.1 9 6 6 3 1 1 87-54 3-Jun @SDN 0 1 6.88 1 1 0 0 0 0 4.2 6 5 5 0 3 0 75-41 8-Jun TOR 1 0 4.88 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 1 6 105-60 14-Jun FLO 1 0 3.55 1 1 1 1 0 0 9 5 0 0 0 0 3 99-73 19-Jun @NYA 0 1 4.19 1 1 0 0 0 0 5.2 8 6 5 0 4 2 113-64 24-Jun @CHA 0 1 5.19 1 1 0 0 0 0 4.2 7 7 7 1 4 2 93-57 30-Jun MIL 0 0 5.6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 4 3 3 1 0 4 35-26 1-Jul WAS 0 0 5.52 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 1 0 0 0 1 0 13-8 3-Jul WAS 0 1 5.51 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 25-14 7-Jul @ATL 0 0 5.26 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 3 0 0 0 1 1 50-31 17-Jul PIT 0 0 5.19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 2 0 0 0 0 0 9-6 20-Jul @CIN 0 0 5.26 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17-11 22-Jul @SLN 0 1 5.4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 2 1 1 0 0 0 10-6 25-Jul SFN 0 0 5.3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 22-12 31-Jul ARI 0 0 5.66 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 4 4 3 1 6 51-34

Yeah it gets annoying sometimes. I don't get it, but it seems like my fellow Cardinals fans sometimes have a chip on their shoulder towards Cubs fans. I don't get why they feel insecure when you look at the team's records, but for some reason they do. I just think there's a whole bunch of youthful exhuberance over there (read:immature young fellas) on that board, and it shows. It used to be better, but recently, I don't even read that board, let alone post there.

I thought the runner was safe. IMO, Perez clearly caught the ball after his foot came off the bag. I know, the umps usually give the benefit of any doubt to the fielder on the 'neighbourhood play', but regardless, Neifi was off the bag, so really, the ump got it right...., this time.

I'll give you this much, K-Town: You ARE persistent! ](*,) :wink:

I would agree with that. Except, I want a closer who has great control. In many save situations, giving up a walk automatically puts either the tying or winning run on base. Last night, I think he did about as well as he could have, given the team's defensive struggles in the 9th. I agree, the walks are maddening. I was about to pull my hair out last night - giving them extra outs in the ninth!!!! #-o To Dempster's credit, and this is what I like about him closing, he does not seem to get rattled at all. I really like his approach. If he could do a better job of minimizing walks, he would be very good. I feel that now, he is a little better than average, and alot better than what we had tried in that role.

First of all, I think Dempster is clearly the best option we have at closer right now, and that he should be stuck with unless he absolutely loses it, but . . . I think the attitude in the quote above is similar to how Dusty felt when JoBo and Hawkins were stuggling so bad at times. They were getting hit hard and were giving up runs, but weren't necessarily blowing saves. I won't call Dempster a Very Good closer just because of an impressive save %. He's struggling in the role, whether his save stats indicate it or not. I haven't seen Dempster really get smacked around like those guys were. It seems to me Dempster's struggles have come (for the most part) because of walks and/or poor team defence.

inconsistent offence + bad bullpen = not alot of wins for the starters.

IIRC, Dempster has blown two saves, but got the win both times.

ayah, wiiicked haaad coor!

He has been really very good. I like him in that role, especially since the Cub don't have a stopper in the set-up role (although, he's doing a pretty good imitation). I know, he's a starter, but he's a pretty intimidating reliever. It has really helped out the bullpen, and the team too, IMO. Isn't that what it's supposed to be all about? Helping the TEAM?

Todd Walker

But better than losing a game or 3 in standings as well, too. at this point in the season, gaining one game every other week or so may as well be losing three. but i agree...they're playing better of late. Yes..., I guess so. At least they're pitching better, and scoring more than two runs per game. That defence is still atrocious. I counted three missed DP's last night. Two in the ninth inning alone. Neifi WAS off the bag, and then he made an awfully tough throw to Dempster, in a really difficult area to handle. Earlier, Nomar's bad throw not only cost the DP, but allowed two runs to score. It was a good thing Zambrano had it going on, because if it was Williams pitching, I think the Astros might have gotten to him. Zambrano's mettle has toughened even more this year. Zambrano has easily been the Cubs best, most consistent starter the past three years combined. IMO, this man is our ace.

Statistically, I think they were better last season. Theres a month left, and their roster is pretty banged up and inconsistent. The bullpen isn't as good. You almost had me, until here: Nope, they are not the brink of failure. They are not to be confused with last year's team. They are different...., greatly.

As a Cards fan, I'm not going to totally disagree with you (and I'm not offended). They didn't play well in the World Series last year. Until the Cards prove that they CAN win it, then you have to assume that they won't. One difference would be that they'll have a true "ace" to take with them this year (barring injury). Carpenter wasn't available for the WS last year, and it was pretty apparent that the Cards didn't have a single pitcher who could stop the bleeding for them. Carpenter is that guy. And keep in mind that anything can happen in the playoffs. Just because something happens in one series of games doesn't mean that the same thing will happen in the next. The Cubs' recent losing streak is a good example. No offense, but the Cubs were just awful, in every aspect of the game, for a week and a half. Then, when the Cards came to town the Cubs looked great. Baseball is a funny game, and you never know what will happen in any 4 or 7 game stretch. I agree with K-Town. Anything can happen, and last year doesn't mean jack for this year, IMO. One thing though - they have to get there first, which in and of itself is no small feat these days.

I disagree with you. I didn't really see any name-calling, and very little 'ugliness'. I also disagree with your assertion that '(Cardinal fans would have been long-ago banned from this board for such behavior, and if I retliate in kind, I'll surely be gone).', because that is simply not true. It smacks of the children from CardsTalk who come over here and post 'Cubs Suck, you guys are morans', and then complain because they get banned. Go figure. Nobody wants you to 'conform', however, your arguments were continuously beating the same points over and over again. When several other posters refuted this with more detailed statistical information, you either ignored it, or fell back on your previous argument, as if the new information brought into the discussion had no bearing. Please, don't martyr yourself here. You are welcome for debate, and the same rules apply to everyone, but you have to at least TRY to find the middle ground. If that middle ground can't be found, you just agree to disagree, and that's it. JMHO. I've been called "ignorant" twice. Do you want me to show you the posts? To me, that's "ugly". As far as finding a "middle ground", I did that about 4 pages ago: I've also admitted to being a "homer" a LONG time ago. I've also said that it wouldn't be unfair for Clemens to win. Is that not "middle ground"? As for being banned. Don't tell me what I would and wouldn't be banned for. I WAS banned. I made two posts before being banned. Here they are. Tell me which one is out of line: Which rule did I break? Boy, I should have known that would come back to bite me, and you would go dig up some post that you think got you banned in the past? Have you communicated with the moderator who banned you? I really can't answer the specific reason you got banned since I did not do it. I won't apologize, since this activity is outside the realm of my control. I have found, however, that opposing views are welcome here as long as the posters are respectful and they do not bait. That's been my experience, and speaking to your other post, I have not seen anything in this thread that would merit banning. That's not to say that someone might not have been 'wrongfully banned' before, but I cannot speak to that - only the mod should answer for that action. I think if you persued it with the Mod, they would present their case (however weak or strong it may be). I seem to recall there have been periods of time when nsbb was inundated with opposing fan trolls, and the Mods might've had a short leash on them. It is too bad if you wrongfully got nabbed in an 'internet forum dragnet', but you are here now, so I suggest you let it go. When I was referring to middle ground, perhaps you might consider that the number of complete games a pitcher throws might not be the leading indicator for making them Cy-worthy. I should have been more specific. I never saw anyone call YOU ignorant (until Warpticon just did), but I did see where people referred to a comment as such, and yes, there is a difference. Warpticon actually made a very good post on the term ignorant as well. Attack the post, not the poster.

There ya go.