DivineBovine

Who cares about what the Cards do? The Cubs are just not good enough to win the division and make up this deficit, even against a mediocre team. They had that post all-star break run where they beat bad teams for a while and that fluke winning streak earlier in the season. That's it. The rest of the season has been abysmal. Blame it on injuries, age, whatever. They are just not that good. They haven't showed much at all this season. When they need a win, or need a hit, or need a lousy save, they just can't do it. I'm fine with it now. Disappointment now is better than disappointment in October, which would be bound to happen with this team anyways.

Classic 2009 Cubs. What's even the point of making the playoffs, so we can get embarrassed again?

And why is that so funny? He did something nobody has ever done.

WOW! Something I NEVER thought I would see. Someone slaying the Tiger, and Tiger "choking". Unfrickenbelievable. This is good for golf. Tiger got way to dominant. I still hope he beats Nicklaus's record. I hope he comes back even stronger. But this just proves the man is human. YE played his ass off. Hat's off to him.

I better not miss Cutler's 15 plays because NFL network insists on showing the 4th stringer of the Lions and Falcons fight it out over an irrelevant game.

Yes, we won 17-2 yesterday!! Time for a 2-1 loss. The pythagorean Cubs are back!

Soriano was signed around the time the Tribune put the Cubs up for sale. After all the years of being cheap bastards, the Trib decided to put out for a big contract that they knew they wouldn't have to pay out in its entirety and would maybe give the team more credibity in the eyes of buyers. After all, what type of team is more valuable, a mid-market team or a large-market team? That's how I've always viewed the Soriano signing. He was the big free agent at the opportune time for the Tribune Company. I also wouldn't completely blame Hendry, because I think that he would've chased any number of big money free agents at that particular time. It just sucks for us that the big free agent that year happened to be Soriano and not a player that could really play.

When does football season start? Because baseball season is over.

Tiger is good enough hitting his drives crooked. When he hits his drives straight, he's absolutely unbeatable. His driving is his achilles heel. He's just a "very good" driver. His iron play is as good as anyone. His short game is near the best. His putting might be the best ever. His emotional fortitude (anyone who doesn't believe in "clutch" when it comes to golf should watch what this guy has done in his career, from his US Amateur performances onwards) is the greatest of all time, with all due respect to Nicklaus. His driving today made up for his less than Tiger-like putting. I think Tiger was 3/2 odds against to win the tourney. This might be one of the few times where he wasn't a sucker bet. I really hope someone makes a run and the rest of the field doesn't fold.

182 yard 8-iron within 6 inches. It's just ridiculous. I've also been impressed with the way Tiger stuck up for Paddy after they were put on the clock Sunday and called out the officials for affecting the outcome. They were the only two in contention, it was extremely entertaining and they finished 3 minutes after 6:00. It was completely unnecessary in that situation and the officials should have known better. They were showing video of the shot he hit out of the bunker in the morning at Hazeltine in 2002. That was the most ridiculous golf shot ever hit. I remember watching it absolutely dumbfounded. Even the man himself said it was the best shot of his career. Searched youtube, unfortunately couldn't find it. The 8 iron was great, but people on TGC are saying top 5? I don't think so. I can think of at least 5 better Tiger shots off the top of my head.

I've already agreed with this. Multiple times. In this thread that you aren't reading. OK, so you say "maybe the Cubs have felt more pressure, and maybe this has affected them". If so, then we agree. But no, I'm not projecting a lot of my own [expletive] on the cubs. We all want the Cubs to win, but I can say that my life will go on if they don't, and I should hope yours will too. And no, I have not proven anything, nor have I claimed to. And you certainly haven't either. Tough to read every line in every post when a thread blows up like this.

If Tiger doesn't win this week, it will be a shocker. And I definitely did NOT feel this way about any of the other majors. Long course, wide fairways, 4 par 5's. Oh, and the fact that he's the best player of all time going for win # 3 in a row. Tiger does not want to go a year without a major. I have honestly never felt as positively about Tiger winning a major as I have this week. I'm actually the one guy who often thinks that Tiger might not win a particular tournament.

Then why did someone try to explain the pressure on the Cubs during the last five years as them having expectations to win? It was specifically said that they won in 2003 NLDS because nobody expected them to, but then lost recently because the expectations put too much pressure on them. Yeah, that was just 1 sentence in a longer post by me. Why do people keep cutting one sentence out of the context of a longer post and jump on it? Really, I think expectations add to pressure, but it is only 1 factor. Not everything.

you're projecting a lot of your own [expletive] on the cubs, here. is there more pressure in the playoffs? yes. is there more pressure on the cubs than the DBacks or Dodgers? Debateable, but let's say yes. Did the Cubs fail? Yes. But did all of that cause them to fail? It's hard to say if it even played a part, and sitting on your couch getting pissed off everytime Steve Phillips says STEVE BARTMAN doesn't make it so. It's correlation, not causation. At least it's not proven causation. I never claimed to have PROVEN anything. This can never be PROVEN or DISPROVEN. I am simply putting forth a theory, and it has obviously stirred up a lot of discussion. Great. That's what the board is for. Forget I even mentioned the B word. But do you really think it is so ridiculous that the Cubs have actually felt more pressure than other teams recently?

Wait, having road fans makes it worse for them? "What about the endless references to Bartman?" Endless? Players aren't fans. How often do you think Bartman actually comes up in a player's life? A few times when a media guy asks about it and that's it. " What about the way Wrigley and the city goes crazy when they win?" That *never* happens in other cities. They golf clap when their teams win the World Series. OK, cut 1 sentence from that post and jump on it. Sorry I even mentioned Bartman. Read the rest of the post. I'm saying the Cubs feel a lot of pressure. Pressure affects athletes. Maybe that's why the Cubs can't perform under pressure.

So your theory is: Play in high school and know scouts are in the stands? No problem. Play in minor leagues knowing your future as a ballplayer is on the line each and every season? No problem. Break into the big leagues, knowing that rookies need to perform immediately or get labeled "AAAA," No problem. Play for a team whose fans really want to win? Oh no, too much pressure! Here's Greg Norman: Play as a young golf pro with no money? No problem. Win tournaments all over the world and become number 1? No problem. Have a 6 stroke lead in the final round at the Masters against Faldo? CHOKE. What about Dan Jansen. US olympic trials? No problem. World Championships? No problem. 1988 Olympics? Fall twice. Both of these guys just wanted it too much and couldn't handle the pressure. Everyone has a breaking point. Chance? I don't think so. The ability to handle pressure is critical in sports. Some athletes are like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan. Others are like Greg Norman. You clearly haven't read anything in this thread. No one is denying that pressure can affect people negatively. I'm simply responding directly to his post. I actually don't see the point of your post.

So your theory is: Play in high school and know scouts are in the stands? No problem. Play in minor leagues knowing your future as a ballplayer is on the line each and every season? No problem. Break into the big leagues, knowing that rookies need to perform immediately or get labeled "AAAA," No problem. Play for a team whose fans really want to win? Oh no, too much pressure! There's a difference between pressure coming from yourself and pressure coming from millions of rabid fans who are ready to label you satan if you don't perform in the biggest situations. I mean, are you really going to pretend like the Cubs getting swept the last 2 seasons had absolutely nothing to do with pressure and choking? Seeing as how Arizona and LA had just as much "pressure," the answer is pressure had the least to do with it. Umm, either that or they handled the pressure better, which is the whole point of this thread. Also, those teams did not have as much pressure on them as the Cubs. Not even close. Are you telling me you don't think the Cubs choked at all in the past 2 postseasons? Precisely. I am only trying to figure out a rational explanation for why the Cubs have failed to perform when it counts the past 5 seasons. Going back to 2003, when they had almost no expectations and actually won a series in the post-season against a team they weren't supposed to beat. And all of the sudden when people started believing in them, they haven't performed at all. They won the last 2 division titles because they had by far the most talent in the division, not because they played well under pressure. Many people who completely discount "clutch" simply ignores the fact that pressure affects athletes. Some people thrive under pressure, but most people frankly don't. For every Tiger Woods, there are a hundred Greg Normans. Hitting a baseball is not like throwing dice. If you are nervous and your hands are shaking, it is not affecting the dice. Baseball is different. I would think that this is a given. And then there are those who believe that pressure affects ballplayers, but can't find a reason the Cubs seem to feel it more than others. What about the thousands of blue shirts they see at every road game? What about the endless references to Bartman? What about the way Wrigley and the city goes crazy when they win? Of course they care. Even if you don't think the players care at all about the fans or what they think, what about the last 2 postseason chokes? You don't think they care that they got swept and embarassed in two straight postseason series? You don't think Milton Bradley cares that he is making $10 million and playing the worst ball he's played in years? Of course they care. There is no team out there that feels the pressure more than the Cubs. Not the Yankees. Not the Red Sox. Nobody else.

right, and choking exists. clutch does not. Both involve the effect of pressure and emotion on the ability to perform. I don't see a big difference.

So your theory is: Play in high school and know scouts are in the stands? No problem. Play in minor leagues knowing your future as a ballplayer is on the line each and every season? No problem. Break into the big leagues, knowing that rookies need to perform immediately or get labeled "AAAA," No problem. Play for a team whose fans really want to win? Oh no, too much pressure! Here's Greg Norman: Play as a young golf pro with no money? No problem. Win tournaments all over the world and become number 1? No problem. Have a 6 stroke lead in the final round at the Masters against Faldo? CHOKE. What about Dan Jansen. US olympic trials? No problem. World Championships? No problem. 1988 Olympics? Fall twice. Both of these guys just wanted it too much and couldn't handle the pressure. Everyone has a breaking point. Chance? I don't think so. The ability to handle pressure is critical in sports. Some athletes are like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan. Others are like Greg Norman.

I don't understand why people find it so hard to believe that "clutch" exists. Athletes in every sport ever played have choked. Football players. Basketball players. Golfers. Speedskaters. Some people handle pressure better than others. Is it so hard to believe that this is the case in baseball as well? How can statisticians equate the act of hitting a ball moving irregularly and unpredictable near 100 mph to a coin flip or a roll of the dice? The Cubs have been playing under more pressure in the past 5 years than any other team in baseball. The Red Sox have won. The White Sox have won. The Yankees win all the time. Cub fans have suffered more than any other fans in sports. It's only natural the players want to win badly, and feel the pressure, no matter what they say. Look at the "clutch" stats. Look at the dismal playoff record in recent years. Look at what we do when we have a critical series against the Rockies while the Cards play AAAA teams. We lose. We leave men on base. We strike out. We can't make pitches. Believe me, I am as scientific as the next guy. But I am definitely a believer in the effects pressure has on a ballclub. To me, that is what "clutch" means. Performance under pressure. I definitely feel that the Cubs are under a ton of pressure, and I definitely believe in "clutch".

Ok, why is this the biggest major? I'm speaking from shameless ignorance here. It seems to me like the "biggest major of the year" is always the one that finished most recently. The birth place of golf, links style golf, very old courses. Kind of like why Wimbledon is the biggest major in tennis. Just a since of history every year this time, kind of like going to Wrigley or Fenway. Well I knew St Andrews was that, but I didn't know the whole slew of British Open courses were similarly prestigious. If I were to guess, I would have said the Masters was the big kahuna of the majors. The Masters is the biggest to the casual American fan. The golf snobs prefer the british open due to the history and tradition. Its similar to how you and me prefer bud light but the beer snobs need belgish fancy [expletive]. This is always debated. Almost everyone agrees that the PGA is probably not the biggest major. But the Masters, the US Open, the British (or as the snobs refer to it- the Open Championship) all have advocates. There is no tournament universally regarded as the "biggest". Here is how I see it: The Masters: Tradition, amazing course, same course every year, first major of the year. Produces great champions- Tiger, Phil, Nicklaus, Watson have all been multiple winners. This seems to indicate that it is a great test. My pick for best major. My tennis comparison: Wimbledon The British: My second favorite. Totally different game than we are used to here. Rewards creativity, wind play. It favors a particular type of player. Watson, for instance, would never have had a chance in any other major at age 59. This is criticism I have- some recent Champions, Paul Lawrie, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, Ian Baker Finch, were 1 hit wonders who haven't done much else in their careers. Jean Van De Velde should be a British Open Champion. Conversely, I highly doubt Phil Mickelson will ever win this one. It doesn't always produce the best champion. And for the Europeans who get all annoyed at Americans referring to the Open Championship as the British- screw them. They call the Masters the "US Masters" all the time. The US Open: Traditionally punishing. The USGA has recently changed this up somewhat and made the courses more playable. Played on some of the greatest courses in the country. And even with the punishing rough, the best player of the week always seems to prevail, and it isn't always the guy that hits it straight and keeps it out of the rough. Big bombers compete with finesse players on the same course. This is up there with the British in my mind. The PGA: A strong field, picks newer less conservative and less traditional courses. I like that. Tends to have lower scores than the US and British, which I also like. Still, the end of the year timing and less prestige hurt this tournament.

boozer is a free agent after next season too, so they'd wouldnt be able to sign him and another big name. I just read the ESPN article which pretty much said they could not get a FA in 2010 if they got Boozer and signed him to an extension. That sucks. What about paying a luxury tax? Reinsdorf has said he wouldn't pay a tax if they weren't contenders.

Oh yeah. If they scored Boozer and managed to score an elite player in next years FA class makes them a title contender. That would be potentially very nice. Rose Wade Boozer I like.

Oh PLEASE say no to AI. Even talk on this thread is scaring me, although I highly doubt that the Bulls would even think about him. No wonder the Pistons were so thrilled with Gordon. They just had AI (and were also dumb enough to trade Billups for him).

Almost every single thing you said is a vague generalization about Ben Gordon that isn't backed up by any evidence. For example, you said he can't create his own shot, but he also doesn't know how to come off screens. Yet 85 percent of his shots were jumpers last season and he efficiently averaged 21 ppg. 21 points on 16 shots a game. That's very good. This is dumb. This is like saying, "I'd rather keep Ryan Theriot than Aramis Ramirez." Why would you "rather they keep" a worse basketball player? No. Last summer, Gordon was mulling over an offer from the Bulls and they gave him a deadline to accept it (why they gave him a deadline, I have no idea). Shortly after their arbitrary deadline had passed, Gordon came back to accept the offer and Reinsdorf yanked it off the table. Basketball is not like baseball where you can analyze stats forever. I'm going by what I've seen. I'm not saying Gordon cannot score. But a lot of guys can hit jumpers. Guys who can get hot and drain jumper after jumper, but can't handle the ball or play defense are pretty common in the NBA. They are role players. Watch how many times the Bulls needed a bucket in a tight game and Gordon got the ball. The results weren't good. He made very few game winning shots. When double teamed or when the team knew he was getting the ball, he could not score. At 6 foot 3 or so, he is a below average to average ball handler, and that won't improve at this point. I'd trust him to take an open shot to win a game more than anyone on the team, but I would never want him to get the ball and try to create a shot. He cannot score off the dribble. And that's fine, if he realized it. But he kept trying to force offense when it wasn't there. When the other team tried to stop him, it wasn't difficult to do so. How many times have we seen him get stuffed or stripped when the game was one the line. I saw it too many times. Cash is tighter in the NBA now. The salary cap is going down, and teams are cautious with money. Give the team a chance and see what they come up with. Comparing the Gordon with Deng is also unfair. Luol has been injured, and I'm sure the Bulls wouldn't have given him that deal if they knew he was going to spend so much time injured. But when they signed him, plenty of teams wanted Deng, and everyone around the league uniformly thought that Luol was more valuable than Gordon. Comparing Hinrich to Theriot and Gordon to Aramis is even dumber. Hinrich and Gordon are different types of players, and plenty of teams would love to have Kirk as their PG. Hinrich does absolutely everything better than Gordon other than shoot the ball. EVERYTHING, and he isn't a bad shooter. He is very tradeable, and I'm fine with letting him go if the right offer comes along. I think they can get something good for him.