XZero771679666304

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Izturis is plotting his sabotage in the OD circle.

When you're a Cubs fan, life is a bad feeling.

Do something positive plz, Murton.

What are you insinuating here? Well, the dumb hick was singing the 7th inning stretch tonight. I imagine that would be a case of the hole finding Barrett.

o rly LOL at all the unintentional sexual innuendo.

What are you insinuating here?

To say the least. Just make contact. Yes, please. To the right side, if possible.

To say the least.

Wow, that's ridiculous. Not really. You're telling me that since there were 15 balls hit into play for Verlander and all of them were recorded as outs aren't lucky? There were 9 balls hit into play for Escobar and only four of them were recorded as outs. You tell me which player is more likely to have success. Yes, and how hard and where the balls were hit don't matter. You're right. A pitcher has NO CONTROL on the directional vector of a batted ball. To argue otherwise is to be stupid. How hard? Probably, BUT most hits aren't the hardest contact off of bats. Most hits are looping liners or groundballs through the infield -- hardly hot shots. So a pitcher can't induce balls to be batted to the opposite field by pitching on the outer half, or vice versa? Or induce more ground outs by throwing stuff that breaks down and in, or fly balls by throwing stuff in, up and on the hands, or rising heat? I didn't say a pitcher couldn't change the trajectory of a ball up or down. Groundballs actually wind up as hits much more often than flyballs, like three times as much, and today 11 of the 15 balls in play were of the groundball variety. Sure a pitcher can induce a ball to a certain side of the field, but he doesn't have control on whether it goes right to the shortstop or two feet beyond his range. ALL of that is pure luck. Well, if you can induce a weakly hit ball in the direction you want (say in the direction of Perez and Polanco), then you have given yourself a good chance of getting an out. A combination of factors largely controlled by the pitcher. Sure, there is a huge element of luck in involved, but to say it is all luck just doesn't jive. If Verlander doesn't have his best stuff, maybe the grounders aren't hit as hard, or he misses over the heart of the plate and a grounder goes up the middle instead of at the SS. Or if he misses up or down, grounders or fly balls turn into line drives. Or if he isn't on his game, the balls are hit harder, etc. The fact that Escobar gave up 5 hits and 3 runs while Verlander gave up nothing is not a function of pure luck. Some luck, but not nearly all.

Wow, that's ridiculous. Not really. You're telling me that since there were 15 balls hit into play for Verlander and all of them were recorded as outs aren't lucky? There were 9 balls hit into play for Escobar and only four of them were recorded as outs. You tell me which player is more likely to have success. Yes, and how hard and where the balls were hit don't matter. You're right. A pitcher has NO CONTROL on the directional vector of a batted ball. To argue otherwise is to be stupid. How hard? Probably, BUT most hits aren't the hardest contact off of bats. Most hits are looping liners or groundballs through the infield -- hardly hot shots. So a pitcher can't induce balls to be batted to the opposite field by pitching on the outer half, or vice versa? Or induce more ground outs by throwing stuff that breaks down and in, or fly balls by throwing stuff in, up and on the hands, or rising heat?

Wow, that's ridiculous. Not really. You're telling me that since there were 15 balls hit into play for Verlander and all of them were recorded as outs aren't lucky? There were 9 balls hit into play for Escobar and only four of them were recorded as outs. You tell me which player is more likely to have success. Yes, and how hard and where the balls were hit don't matter. You're right.

Yeah, except for the 5 hits and three runs. That's pretty ridiculous.

102 mph from verlander in the 9th

Someone please tell me that Washburn had to hit a curveball. There is no reason to throw anything else to an AL pitcher.

I have been an ardent Cubs fan for 20+ years (most of my life) and the 2004 team had more talent than any other in that time. Such a massive disappointment. For a brief time at the end of that season, I almost believed there was a curse.

The Lakers I understand but how can you hate the Raiders? They've sucked for the last four years. It's like picking on a crippled kid. Al Davis, maybe. Or perhaps the whole Raider image.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I've shown you proof that the Cubs hit and score in clutch situations. But they can't pitch at all in those same situations. But because you were pessimistic after the bullpen blew the lead, you want to throw out the stats and say you have no faith in a comeback? You have every right to feel pessimistic about this team...I sure am. But I think you're focusing it on the wrong area of the team. Ok...stats don't lie. But I'm talking about perception. When I watch the Red Sox or the Angels, I see a team confident in its abilities...teams that can win when down in the 8th or 9th. Has this team gotten better at "clutch" this year as compared to the Dusty teams. Absolutely. Stats don't lie. But I still feel that when this team is behind going into the 8th and the 9th, we will not come back. Again, it's just a perception. Maybe from past years, but nevertheless it's still there. BTW, did the Cubs get a runner on base in the 9th last night? Expecting the Cubs to mount a comeback every time they are behind late is totally unreasonable. Even half the time is unrealistic, even for "clutch" teams. By mounting a comeback, I mean even an unsuccessful one. Teams have closers for a reason, and even the mediocre ones shut teams down 80% of the time. So the Cubs didn't get a runner on base in the 9th last night? So what? If a team gets runners on base in close and late situations even a third of the time, they're doing pretty well.

Soriano used to be a Yankee.

It was 2004, I think the final was 11-10. Edit: Here we go, under April 16th. http://mlb.mlb.com/multimedia/tp_archive.jsp?c_id=chc&ym=200404

I anticipate Pagan being sent down when Floyd returns from the bereavement list. Really? If Aramis is back in the lineup before Floyd comes off the bereavement list, I think Fontenot goes back down when he does. I know this makes little sense, but it's what I see happening.

I thought the exact same thing.

I agree Harvey or Burgess would have been a pick with much more upside, I think that pick had a lot more to do with the price tag then anything else And that's what pisses me off most about it. I agree 100% with you, a team that can spend 136 mil on soriano, 40 mil on lilly, 21 mil on marquis cant dish out a little extra money to a prospect with a high upside? It was very frustrating to watch I think the pending sale has a lot to do with it. All the big contracts were given out before the announcement. But the team was still for sale when they were given out, was it not? I could be wrong, but I don't think that it had been announced the club was for sale until near the end of spring training.

Throw some long hair on him and he's Shaggy from Scooby Doo.

I for one think Jones needs to be dealt. His playing is adversely affecting both Murton and Floyd, who are both better players than Jones. Now that Pie is up, this will only get worse since there is no reason for him to play CF anymore. If he was hitting even as well as he did last year, I might think differently, and he would certainly be easier to move. If I am the GM, I trade Jones, even if I have to eat 50-60% of the remaining contract.