Soul

...again, the definition of luck. But whatever. We all believe what we want to believe. And I believe I broke my promise to be done with this argument. Sorry.

And the refs just letting it all happen because Wade & Shaq are out. The rules in this league are so nebulous as to be non-existant. It's simply a game that is played according to the whims & mood of the refs on any particular night.

This is one of the best mental images of baseball I've had all offseason. Wrigley during this would rival Dodger Stadium in Gagné's heyday. No Metallica/AC-DC theme song needed, just the place going nuts. I believe Kerry is on record as being a big metalhead. So his theme music should be....?? "Balls to the Wall". I'm thinking "Harvester of Sorrow." That, or "Respect"

I guess I don't understand applying logic that assumes the Cubs have any kind of spending limit to what we do personnel-wise. I mean, 9 months ago the assumption was millions and millions lower that what it turned out to be. I don't think the Cubs have any practical limit, any more than the Yankees or the Red Sox do. There would seem to me to be little reason why the Cubs couldn't acquire Andrew Jones if a good deal came along----at least not solely on the salary grounds, or the idea that contracts will be "bad" down the line. Define bad contracts when there's no limit to the amount of money the Trib can spend.

Uh-huh. And your decision to take what I'm saying about a 162 game season + playoffs and try to cast it as saying the same thing about a single sporting event is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty, goony.

The thing that bothers me about Jack Del Rio is the inconsistency that he has had. Look at their schedule. Literally one week they look like the NFLs best team and then the very next look terrible. This is their season: Start out 2-0 with wins over the Cowboys and Steelers. Then lose a close game to the Colts, in which the Jags arguably looked like the better team. The next week they completely flop to a Redskins team that looked terrible to that point. Next week they murder the Jets 41-0 and the Washington game looks like a fluke. Then they go out and get blown out by 20 to the Texans Then the next 2 weeks, they post nice wins against the Eagles and Titans (including a 30 point romp over Tennessee) Which they follow up with another loss to the Texans. It just keeps going on and on. Great one week, terrible the next. The story of the 2007 Jaguars. QB uncertainty also contributes to this. The shock of realizing the Leftwich pick is a bust-----then you throw Gerrard in there, everyone knows he's not a real answer but they have to make it seem that they really believe in him, and it just continues. The Bears have been in that situation so many times, too. I've always wondered, even though there's no way to quantify it, how much just having Orton for almost a whole season from the beginning, and then Grossman for a whole season has helped the Bears gain their footing. Many years we had good defenses but just lost games anyway. I mean I'm sure it isn't the whole story, but having that stability has to help, and not having it just has to hurt.

Yeah not really... I can acknowlege he very likely juiced while still holding on to the admittedly irrational hope that he didn't.

He looked good in some limited BP duty, but ultimately I don't think anyone knows.

Stats show the why. Why was a team good? The game is to stop your opponent from scoring while scoring as many runs yourself. Stats show how well a team performed at each of these tasks. Stats also show why teams performed how they did at these tasks. Did a team get on base a lot, did they hit for a lot of power. Did their pitchers keep guys off the bases, did they keep the ball in the yard. Stats also more deeply show why they were successful or unsuccessful. Did hitters get on base because they took walks, or because they hit for a high average. Digging deeper, longitudinal stastical analysis has given us norms, predictors. Is a high OBP with a low IsoD sustainable? How can average be predicted using contact rate? When a ball is put into play how does the hitter have control over whether or not it will be a hit or an out? Is there a statistic that allows one to predict, eliminating interference, what that rate should be? One of the main reasons the white sox won in 05 and not in 06 IS shown by statistical analysis as I have pointed out, you are just ignoring it. The White Sox rotation was a main reason they won the WS in 05. A main reason the rotation was successful was a lower than expected BABIP. In 2006 their BABIP was as expected and they came in third. Do you not attribute the 2005 BABIP to luck? Especially when faced with the evidence comparing it to 2006. What do you attribute it to? Lower than expected-----what some people expected, based on some numbers. Like it or not, you will never be able to predict with certainty what a team will do based simply on statistics. Teams like the 2005 White Sox will forever stand as a flaming bastion that, try as you might, you cannot quantify teamwork completely into a nice little neat box. They may be used as a very strong factor, but when they fail to predict a team like the '05 Sox one must step back and accept that other factors which can not be quantified in the box score also have an effect. To simply call it luck is not only incorrect, but is actually an amusing irony since it is the very thing that the statistics attempt to dispel in the first place. I love statistics. But worship them as the end of all analysis? That's myopic. Anyhow, I doubt anyone else wants to read us go around in circles for the rest of the evening, so I'm done with this.

Hello Sean Payton?? That's actually a legitimate argument though. I would vote Payton but Mangini has to be second. Although I would consider voting for Art Shell over both of them seeing as he has done an absolutely spectacular job this year. My problem was with the "locks in" argument. Mangini is far from a lock, though he's clearly a strong candidate. I'd put him 3rd behind Payton and Fisher though. Mangini will win it though. Because the national media says so, and many voters will simply watch ESPN and take it to heart, then vote without really trying to analyze the situation. In short, the same way of doing things that made Romo the starting pro bowl QB will usher Mangini in as COY.

I'll never agree with this, it ignores the plain truth. Getting great performances out of guys is just getting great performances out of guys. No stars coming into alignment. No horoscopes with Moons waxing in Scorpio. Just a really good job by a bunch of people all attempting to get those great performances from those players. A success story. White Sox circa 2005 -- great job, great success story. Regardless of the proof I provided above, don't you think the timing of all of those great performances is lucky? If half of their rotation would have had a great year in 05 and the other half in 06, then they wouldn't have made the playoffs in either year. Heck, pythagorean has them missing the playoffs in both years as it is. You think of it as proof of luck, and I think of it as proof of an organization do a great job for a season. Pythagorean is another of these stat analyses that attempts to determine winners while ignoring all the non-statistical things that have an impact on whether a team wins or loses. A team is not a collection of statistics. That's a video game. As easily understood in my tone, I do not base my case on pythagorean, but rather the lucky batting average per ball in play that the rotation had in 2005. Calling it proof of a great job means that you believe that the whitesox had control over the much lower than expected BABIP. If that is the case then why did they not control it in 2006? (Hint: its not the case). Their defense did not change significantly. The disconnect is, you believe stats will prove out who is the best team. When it doesn't, you call it "luck." I know there's more to a team and how they perform than just stats, and so I incorporate statistics into my assessment but don't get frustrated when they don't prove out, and don't turn to luck as an explanation when my set of stats didn't work as a predictive model. The reason the White Sox won in '05 and not in '06 may not have been shown in the statistical analysis, but it most certainly doesn't suddenly become luck just because it can't be explained with stats (or, more precisely, with the stats that people decide to use).

What is your reason for lumping those who think luck plays a part, into the group that is begging for luck to bring the Cubs to the World Series? It's a rather absurd line you are drawing in the sand. Luck plays a part, whether you want to admit it or not. It's not the determining factor. You still need the talent and skill and determination to get into a position where good luck will mean anything. And it's not necessarily true that every WS winner has been the recipient of more good luck than anybody else. But luck plays a part. When an 83 win team wins the WS, and virtually the same pitching staff goes from WS heroes to regular season also rans, you know luck is involved somewhere. Or more likely, they just played better than their opponents in that season when necessary and won the World Series because of it.

I'll never agree with this, it ignores the plain truth. Getting great performances out of guys is just getting great performances out of guys. No stars coming into alignment. No horoscopes with Moons waxing in Scorpio. Just a really good job by a bunch of people all attempting to get those great performances from those players. A success story. White Sox circa 2005 -- great job, great success story. Regardless of the proof I provided above, don't you think the timing of all of those great performances is lucky? If half of their rotation would have had a great year in 05 and the other half in 06, then they wouldn't have made the playoffs in either year. Heck, pythagorean has them missing the playoffs in both years as it is. You think of it as proof of luck, and I think of it as proof of an organization do a great job for a season. Pythagorean is another of these stat analyses that attempts to determine winners while ignoring all the non-statistical things that have an impact on whether a team wins or loses. A team is not a collection of statistics. That's a video game.

Yowza!! That'll be like Wrestlemania, the Super Bowl, and the World Series all rolled into one!! Hmmmm. Depends on who is on the list, I suppose. If it's Bonds, then yeah that could be a blockbuster. It might be Sosa too. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I think it very likely Sammy juiced and the truth should come out even if it hurts.

I doubt Coughlin will do it, but then again, I would never have believed the Giants (and the Cowboys, for that matter) could wind up such an undisciplined, 'me-first' ballclub. I know they've got egos on that roster, but I thought Coughlin was a different sort of coach than the kind that lets the inmates run the asylum. I think alot of people are thinking they might have overestimated Coughlin. I'm one of them.

What you don't seem to understand is nobody is saying teams only win with luck. Luck plays a part. Luck plays a part in every baseball game. Seeing eye singles and linedrives that are caught have a lot less to do with execution than luck. Luck, or chance, plays a large part in baseball. You don't win 90 games because of luck, and you don't lose 90 games because of luck. And counting on luck to bounce your way is asinine. But it plays a part. I do understand this. But statistically there is no way for little momentary quirks to hold up on one side of the ledger, any more than it's possible to flip a coin 100 times and have it register 100 "tails." Therefore it is not an issue when determining who wins the World Series. I think the real issue here is that some people want to tag injuries, or career years, or exceptional above-the-norm performances as "luck." That's completely off-base. Not luck at all. It's just a great year, and all the things that go into it. A team that gets several great years from guys, or plays "over their heads," or whatever-----they aren't lucky. They just did a great job that year. Okay man, you keep thinking that. 100 consecutive tails is not anywhere close to having the balance of luck being on your side over the course of the season. "All the things that go into it" includes luck. You're right, I will keep thinking that. Nothing anyone says will knock me out of the real world, and into the realm of the "prisoners of hope" who wish, if they could only get lucky (like those darn White Sox), they could see a Cubs World series.

I'll never agree with this, it ignores the plain truth. Getting great performances out of guys is just getting great performances out of guys. No stars coming into alignment. No horoscopes with Moons waxing in Scorpio. Just a really good job by a bunch of people all attempting to get those great performances from those players. A success story. White Sox circa 2005 -- great job, great success story.

What you don't seem to understand is nobody is saying teams only win with luck. Luck plays a part. Luck plays a part in every baseball game. Seeing eye singles and linedrives that are caught have a lot less to do with execution than luck. Luck, or chance, plays a large part in baseball. You don't win 90 games because of luck, and you don't lose 90 games because of luck. And counting on luck to bounce your way is asinine. But it plays a part. I do understand this. But statistically there is no way for little momentary quirks to hold up on one side of the ledger, any more than it's possible to flip a coin 100 times and have it register 100 "tails." Therefore it is not an issue when determining who wins the World Series. I think the real issue here is that some people want to tag injuries, or career years, or exceptional above-the-norm performances as "luck." That's completely off-base. Not luck at all. It's just a great year, and all the things that go into it. A team that gets several great years from guys, or plays "over their heads," or whatever-----they aren't lucky. They just did a great job that year.

I'd love to delude myself into thinking the Cubs have the best pitching in the NL Central, but as of Christmas eve, in my book, that honor clearly belongs to the Milwaukee Brewers. Take a hard look at Capuano's #'s last year..combine those with a full year of Sheets, throw in Suppan, Bush and Vargas and the Cubs have a VERY formidable foe in their division that's geographically North of them. This is also a staff that has 2 pitchers in the pen who have made AS teams as closers (Turnbow and Cordero) along with some good looking youngsters and holdovers....our pen may have a slight edge, but it's real close. Well, maybe you're right. Who knows, maybe if Prior comes back strong and Hill breaks out we'll be OK. I don't know----the Brewers always seem to pull a fade to finish the season, and I wouldn't count on Sheets for an entire year. His rehab didn't exactly go as smoothly as the Crew was hoping. We'll see. Everyone's undefeated right now :wink:

.340 consistently over the course of the season is, I believe, a great improvement over Pierre. Even though it's only 10 points higher than Juan, he was so terrible in the early/mid season it contributed to burying us in the standings. By August it didn't matter if he was getting on base at a good clip---it was all over by then. But we'll see. The thing is, I don't see how Theriot can be counted on for anything. Nobody has seen how he might adjust when teams start figuring out his weaknesses. I'm rooting for the kid, but he only has somewhere around 140 ABs. That's not enough to pin any hopes on or make any plans, IMO.

Don't lump me in with that crowd. I could give a crap if someone said the Cubs were lucky to win the World Series, primarily because I'd be too busy celebrating the fact that the Cubs won the World Series. I personally feel it's very fair to say that luck plays a large role. Any fan who gets upset because someone said their team was lucky to win needs to grow a thicker skin. Luck or not, a World Series title is still a World Series title. I really don't care if the Cubs win on a walk-off homer or a bad-hop grounder as long as they win. Once they win, no one can take that away from us as fans. If people want to call it luck, let them. I will go out on a limb and say that as the current team stands, if the cubs win the world series in 2007 it will be lucky. If they get the performances necessary to win the World Series this year, luck won't have anything to do with it. If there was such a thing as a lucky WS champ, the Cubs would have won one by now (since '08).

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing. Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves. Detroit has improved their team this offseason. Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul. So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit. What happens if the team that won the world series improves significantly in the offseason and then doesn't even make the playoffs the next year? Would you then call it luck? I never call winning the World Series luck, no matter what. And my argument is, neither should you----or you risk being intellectually dishonest. Because you know damn well if someone else called the Cubs lucky for winning it, you'd be upset. Any arguments to the contrary are just fans being fans. In order to win a world championship in any sport luck is involved. However, luck in certain degrees. The 72-10 bulls were lucky that they had no major injuries. The 2005 Whitesox were lucky that their rotation performed significantly better year than the exact same rotation in 2006. So far use of "intellectually dishonest" in this thread is completely ridiculous. If you are going to use it correctly you should say "It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact that the Whitesox won the 2005 WS on the strength of their rotation, who significantly excceded expectations, as those same pitchers regressed to career norms in the 2006 campaign in which they finished 3rd in the division. No luck there at all. Just great coaching, great assembling of a group of guys willing to work hard, and great execution. The fact that they didn't do as well in 2006 simply indicates that they didn't do as good a job. And that's all. There is no luck. Only superior performance vs. inferior performance, and all of the pieces of the puzzle at various levels that go into that.

The Vikings and Giants were both winning teams when we faced them. And there's only 5 winning teams in all of the NFC, and we've beaten the one of those that we've faced, so it's not like anyone in the NFC has faced a lot of stiff competition. Not to mention that if the Giants and Packers hadn't played us this year, they'd be at .500 Ok, I'm reaching here.. Giants were the sure super bowl pick according to ESPN when we faced them. Afterwards, they went into a downward spiral from which they never recovered. And guess what? The same happened to Seattle. They've never been the same since we destroyed them at Soldier Field. A division winner in name only. I think injuries to both teams have more to do with that than us destroying them when we played them. Injuries are no excuse. Everyone has injuries. You either overcome them, or you aren't good enough to. And that's it. You were implying that both the Giants and Seahawks haven't been the same team because they got destroyed by the Bears and all I'm saying is that injuries have more to do with their losses than them being destroyed by the Bears. It certainly seems to have set the tone for the remainder of their seasons. Besides, I doubt Coughlin or Holmgren would dare play the injury card. Using injuries as a reason for failure is a fallacious argument----it supposes that the norm for NFL teams is a relatively injury-free campaign, which is completely false. Teams must have capable backups at every position, or they just simply aren't all that good. When it comes to Seattle and NY----those ballclubs have had many of their injured players returning lately, and are arguably playing even worse now than they did when they were more severely "handicapped" with injury.

Just because that's the average market price doesn't make it a good idea. The idea is to go cheap at certain spots by using young guys so that you can spend the extra cash on real difference makers. Suppan is not likely to be one of those. Yep, and I never said it was a good idea. you cant think this is a bad signing for the brewers, statistically he cannot be that much better/worse than the other pitchers signed in this price range this season. I know we all love statistical analysis, but when pitching is so thin, you cant argue with a guy who consistently pitches around 200 innings and wins more than he loses Unless the Brewers are planning on spending money with the Cubs or some of the other big spenders, then I don't see why I can't think this wasn't a real good signing. If it won't hamper additional moves that the club will make, then I suppose it's alright. All along, the reason the Cubs could pick up mediocre pitching is because there's theoretically no hindrance on future moves (the Trib has no budget---despite what they try to say). I don't think the same holds true for the Brewers, but I will admit to not knowing for sure. Same probably holds true for the Royals, who just picked up a mid-line guy for massive dollars and now will likely have few options to improve themselves further.

I'm not sure Fons will derive a big OBP advantage from batting leadoff with the Cubs. He'll have DLee and Aram batting behind him, as opposed to the lameass Nats hitters from 2006. Pitchers will have good reason to challenge him a lot more in 2007, which hopefully will lead to more HRs, but IMO it will almost certainly lead to a significant reduction in walks. The key to getting Soriano out has always been outside the strike zone. I'm not sure challenging him is really that good of an idea for pitchers. Plus, I don't think having Izzy hitting behind Soriano is going to be much of an improvment over those "lameass" Nats hitters. Walk AS. Get obligatory GB from Izzy. Hope you can get out Lee, or Aram, or both if obligatory GB was not a DP. This sounds like a viable strategy, and not appreciably better for the Cubs than other teams. I would imagine most other clubs will have a decent OBP guy in the 2-hole. So I'm thinking Soriano will be on base plenty with the Cubs. The only catch is whether Lee & ARam can drive him home. Lee + ARam, much as I like them, is not the end-all-be-all of power hitting duos. Opposing clubs will not be weeping and gnashing their teeth, of that much I am certain.