XZero771679666304

Oh, just the usual suspects at brewerfan.net, as well as some Crew fans I know.

Don't tell them that. DBacks fans will tell you that theirs is the toughest division.

I'm sure those will come. You tend not to have those when you are winning 8-1 or 13-6. That isn't a result of catching breaks, though.

Oh yeah we generally have caught all the breaks. Like the way Mark prior and Kerry Wood went from being super good, to super unhealthy. Or the fact that Derrek Lee gets hurt and costs him two years worth of power production. Or everyone of our top picks the past few years being so great. Oh wait none of our guys from the last what, 4 drafts, have contributed to our success. Enough of their crap. Well, I was referring more to this year. If you look back over the past few years, you'd have to be on drugs to say the Cubs have caught all the breaks.

Now that I think about it, maybe this should be moved to the Cubs or rants forums.

Once again, Brewers fans are chiming in about how the Cubs are "catching all the breaks", a familiar refrain from 2007. Their main beef seems to be the Cubs schedule. This would be legit if not for the fact that theirs has been nearly as easy. They point at the Pirates (never mind that if not for the Cubs the Bucs would have a winning record). But the Crew have gotten the Giants (BAD) for a series, and the Reds (just as bad as the Pirates so far) six times. And while STL is doing well, they are far from a powerhouse. They got the Mets, we got the Mets (and while we missed Santana, we got Maine, and Figueroa who was pitching very well), the difference being that we blew them out both wins. We got Philly, who is pretty clearly a stronger team than any of the other teams the Brewers have played, and on the road. Or maybe it's that the Cubs have been playing at home a lot, except that the Cubs don't lean on their home field like a crutch as the Brewers do (44 wins at home in 2007, 41 on the road compared to 51 wins at home for the Brewers and 32 on the road). Or maybe it's those other breaks, like 2 of our best 3 (Lilly, Hill) starting pitchers sucking badly for most of the month, or 2 of our best relievers (Howry, Wuertz) stinking and causing our BP to be short, or Soriano getting hurt (and sucking), Ramirez getting off to a slow start and things not going according to plan with Pie. Say that the Cubs have been hot offensively and should cool off, but don't come with that whiny "catching all the breaks" garbage. The Cubs sure didn't catch any last year, and relatively speaking, they're not catching many this year.

Yeah, this isn't going to benefit them much this season. At this rate, the Reds will be a non-entity by the time other teams will be ready to deal, and Dusty will negate any intra-system moves that could be of any use.

After he pegged a terrible hitter and gave up a solid hit to a mediocre hitter leaving runners at first and third with no one out, Gagne deserved to blow the save, regardless of what happened afterward.

Are you defending the shirts now? Or still just fixated on whether the message is racist or not? Why split that hair when you think, "They are insensitive, rude, offensive, stereotypical and wrong?" Because I think accuracy and distinctions are important. To quote that kids book, "The Giver," "precision of language, please!" There is a real and valid difference between offensive attempts at humor and actual racism, and it is important to understand and be able to identify the difference between the two. That is a matter of semantics, and misses the point, IMO. Anyone can easily identify acts of "actual racism", and at this point they aren't tolerated. But things like what you call "offensive attempts at humor" are actually racism at it's most insidious. They are things that encourage generalization, but are seen as light hearted by those in the majority. Things like the shirt in question that serve to bring attention to what makes a person or people different (and not in a "celebration of diversity" sort of way) than the majority are by nature divisive and more often than not offensive. And it's not easy for someone isn't in a minority and isn't reminded on a daily basis in a myriad of ways that they are in fact "the other" to understand. When they are raised in the majority, and being in the majority is all they know (particularly in a homogeneous place like the midwest), then generalizing about those who are different becomes even easier. They might see slanted eyes and "horry cow" as being an amusing play on reality, because many asian people have slanted eyes and pronounce l's as r's. And even if they find it offensive, it's only because they see it as mockery. But when you are the one in that minority, and already feel alienated, those charming little anecdotes and mockeries have a much deeper effect. They remind you that you are seen different, that you are being generalized, that the majority doesn't really empathize with you. And right or wrong, it sends the message that you are seen as inferior. And there a million things in a million places everyday that are just like that shirt, even if the majority doesn't notice. And they make you bitter, angry and sad. The most dangerous racists aren't Klan members or the like, because they are pretty well marginalized and easily identified. The most dangerous racists are the ones who don't realize they are racists. Their racism isn't conscious, and they probably aren't cognizant of it at all. They see minorities' differences in a general way, and as just the natural order of things. They see jokes like the t-shirt just a humorous expression of that order. They don't see the real harm in it because outside of watching Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle, the have never been referred to in that general way, and when that's over, it's over, and they can be comforted by their status in the majority. Besides, it was funny (though I doubt they'd care to hear it every day of their lives). It is these people, probably like whoever came up with that shirt and the people who wear them, that are the most dangerous. They are because they make it institutional and societal, they keep our differences present in of all our minds. It is the most racial divisive force because it is so insidious, so subtle, like an infestation you aren't aware of. And one that, whether you are aware of it or not, effects how we interact with each other in a profound way. And people like that aren't necessarily bad, or somehow malevolent. They are just people who aren't aware of how askew their perceptions are. Like Dusty Baker and OBP, the biggest problems are usually so because you don't recognize them. Generalizing others is a problem we all have, and it usually takes form in ways that seem innocuous to us, so it is important to take the time to identify them. So I think that when we see things like "offensive attempts at humor", it is important we make it known that they aren't okay, even if we aren't actually brimming with moral outrage. Ok, I'm half asleep and I'm not sure how much sense that made, but I feel I've shared my 2 cents.

Yeah, that's pretty much right on, except that bleacher tickets are relatively cheap (IMO). But that increases the number morons. I for one never said that Wrigley didn't attract a relatively large number of drunken tools, just that they were mostly relegated to the bleachers, and that most of the fans in the ballpark are all right. It's true - there are a lot more drunken asses in the Wrigley bleacher than there are in the entirety of most other ballparks. However, Marty Brennaman obviously has some sort of deep seated and irrational hatred of the Cubs on top of that fact.

You wonder how Derrek Lee won a batting crown and had 99 XBH in the three hole and only ended up with 107 RBI in 2005? Dusty values one thing above all else in the leadoff spot: speed. Even if it means batting two guys with sub-.300 OBP's at the top. So long as they are fast, dude. In other words, get used to it.

Dead on.

I'm not convinced Johnson would be terribly exposed. He certainly is better against LHP, but the guy did OPS .869 in nearly 500 AB's in 2006, and .744 in 400 AB's in 2005. (if I am not mistaken, he poor 2007 can be attributed to injury) His career OPS of .754 would be acceptable in CF, IMO. He's certainly a better bet than Angel Pagan was.

This. This x 2 - except that he lost me during the whole Merker vs. Broadcasters thing. He lost me when he decided to throw a live grenade at Chad Fox's arm. Yeah, I was literally stunned as that was happening. I think everyone other than Baker knew what was going to happen.

I remember in 2004 when Kerry Wood left a game in LA with triceps tightness.

Oh, I agree. A lot of the behavior out there is embarrassing, and should be fixed. But to say that is emblematic of most Cubs fan's behavior is ridiculous. I hope that beer guy from today got roughed up a bit afterwards. That was incredibly dumb. It's nothing new. The first time I saw it personally was in 1988 when 3-4 guys tries to dump their beers on Lenny Dykstra, all at once. The first few rows of bleachers have long been inhabited by nimrods.

He hates the Cubs, and he is just ranting like senile old man.

Oh, I agree. A lot of the behavior out there is embarrassing, and should be fixed. But to say that is emblematic of most Cubs fan's behavior is ridiculous.

You're wrong, and most of your posts are awful. It's a shame you're here. It's difficult to imagine anyone thinking Marty was "right on" after he boldly proclaimed the Cubs wouldn't win the division because "they are the Cubs".........and of course we are reigning division champs. Oops. :blush: No one really cares about Marty. No one outside of the handful of Reds fans listen to him and his pbp of a team no one cares about. Let him piss and moan in obscurity. If he and the Cubs haters he give some fuel to want to portray all Cubs fans as the same as a few jackass bleacher creatures, so be it. It's all out of bitterness.

A truly stunning development.

romantic? i dont even like the white sox. i'm not all that big a fan of small ball. i've just argued that it can be very beneficial in certain situations. the SB% and other stats you're mentioning you get a distorted picture of the truth when looking at the totality of the production. you have to take into account there are situations where the probabilities change. meaning, i don't see much problem with the KC Royals running at will with their speedy players. the negative effect of a CS is much less pronounced than having say, a guy getting caught with Ortiz and Manny coming up to the plate. the situation for the Royals is that they don't have enough power in the lineup to make the penalty for this as severe. i don't think all outs are created equally. if you're facing Joe Nathan with bad hitters, bunts or steals are probably going to be the smartest way of trying for the tying run. I agree, but the problem here is that the stats show that the Sox didn't do that stuff particularly well. They did not rank well in sacrifices. They did not rank well at all in situational stats. The stats say the Sox didn't advance via sacrifice that much, or score via sacrifice that much. That's aside from the poor SB%, or that the Sox had few non-HR XBH, indicating a LACK of team speed. Or that they weren't good at all at getting men on base in any situation.

thats the best reasoning you can give for it? boy are those teams who exhibit great fundamentals really lucky. 2007 diamondbacks...horseshoe...ass... Except the 2005 Sox ranked poorly in sacrifices, SB%, OBP, avg w/risp (second to last in the AL), avg w/risp and 2 out and walks. You know, most of the fundamental/smallball stats. Meanwhile, they were right at the top of the league in HR (most of them solo), and team ERA. They didn't hit many doubles or triples, either, just homers. It was a team that didn't get on base, and pretty much waited for the longball to get a lead for their insane pitching. I can understand how a casual fan could have watch Pods run all over in hi inefficient way and think they played smallball, but the stats paint a diametrically opposed picture. And we're not talking about close enough for interpretation, we're talking night and day. It must be really romantic to think the Sox won the series in 2005 because of good ol' fashioned fundamental ball, because so many cling to that notion in the fact of pretty clear empirical evidence to the contrary. The Sox won by hitting homers (mostly solo and early), while their great pitching clung to the small leads they had. There is more than one way to score a run, but the Sox weren't particularly good at any of them other than the homer.

You're stuck on this notion that Pods got on base a ton and that was his primary value. The problem with that is that he didn't get on base a ton. He didn't score a lot of runs. You're ignoring the concrete evidence that says he wasn't very good, even at the job you are saying made such a huge difference. You are buying into the mythos of the 2005 Sox and not the reality of the 2005 Sox. The reality where Pods didn't get on base a high rate, didn't get driven in by the heart of the order a lot, and didn't change the game with his speed. Not many doubles, not many triples (where's that game changing speed?). Poor stolen base rate, not many runs. The reality where the only stat in which the Sox were in the upper half of the league was homers. That was a team that waited for the homer. Dead last in doubles, way down the list in triples. Bad team OBP (just because Pods had the second highest OBP on a team with no one that got on base does not mean he was good at it), bad team CS%, middle of the pack in sacrifices. Average to well below average in all the "small ball" areas. I have empirical evidence on my side. You are the one who is choosing what to believe. The stats don't lie. This is a clear case of perception vs. reality. If you want continue to argue, you'll have to find someone else. I find it taxing to debate with people who look past the facts. So he was not very good? He was an all star... He was also hurt, if he stays healthy he would of scored over 100 runs. 2005 Post Season .286 avg. 2 HR 6 RBI 9 RUNS 14 HITS 1 DOUBLE 3 TRIPLES 6 STOLEN BASES 7 BB's .397 OBP .551 SLG% .948 OPS your right he was not good at what he did :roll: Without him, the Sox do not wave the 2005 Baner :thumbsup:

Again, I never said Pods was a better player, but he is a better lead off hitter than Lee... nine carlos lees are going to score more runs than one scot podsednik and 8 carlos lees. Maybe, but that team would not win anything either... I would like for you to be promoted to GM of the Brewers. X2

Again, I never said Pods was a better player, but he is a better lead off hitter than Lee... nine carlos lees are going to score more runs than one scot podsednik and 8 carlos lees. Maybe, but that team would not win anything either... #-o