Transmogrified Tiger

What if the team I like beat the team that played USC like that? And had as many losses as that team, and was ranked over 10 spots worse? Possible reason: Got smeared by Ohio State at home, and lost to Michigan (remember, the bad three-loss team that ND 'barely escaped') at home. Compare to Notre Dame getting rocked(similar in scale to OSU "smearing" MSU) by USC at Notre Dame, then losing agian at home to MSU. There's very little difference. Notre Dame has a tighter loss against a higher ranked team, and Michigan State has a win over someone who's ranked.

According to Cards fans in my hall, victory is an absolute certainty. Personally, I hope only that Edmonds humiliates himself.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be. I was just pointing out the ND does not attempt to schedule weak opponents to pad a schedule like many top 10 teams do. I wasn't trying to imply you were, just trying to respond to you and ndistops in one more concise post.

Knock off your ND griping. MSU could never, not with all the breaks in the book, play USC like ND did. MSU is below the Irish because their schedule has been a joke apart from ND and Ohio St. And yet the Irish playing at just about their absolute best, still lost to USC, just like MSU would have. Somehow I think you wouldn't be so dismissive of a team that played USC like that if it had been a team you like rather than a team you think is cocky and arrogant. What if the team I like beat the team that played USC like that? And had as many losses as that team, and was ranked over 10 spots worse?

come on man, all your posts indicate you are MUCH smarter than that. These are professional athletes - fan reaction shouldn't impact their production at home that much. That point holds about as much water as the "team chemistry" argument from last year. Okay, maybe it's not why they play better elsewhere(I did ask it as a question), but it still doesn't change the fact that it's stupid when we boo poor performance. But I don't want to sidetrack the thread, so carry on.

I'd rather lose a game to USC in that fashion than beat a creampuff team. It says more about the ND team to me than had they walloped New Mexico State by 50 points. The Navy game isn't that far away. I really hope you aren't going to trash ND for playing Navy. The Middies, Stanford, U-Dub and BYU are the only teams on ND's schedule that everyone pretty much knew was not going to be very good. That's 4 out of 11 games. Most Big Eleven teams play more than that many bad teams IN conference play, let alone their miserable excuse for a non-conference schedule. All those teams would be last or second to last in the B10 this year. And yes, you can't blame ND for scheduling who they did, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable when it turns out their schedule is pretty soft.

wow, never thought of that. Good tip Cuse.

Are you being sarcastic? Not at all.

Knock off your ND griping. MSU could never, not with all the breaks in the book, play USC like ND did. MSU is below the Irish because their schedule has been a joke apart from ND and Ohio St. And yet the Irish playing at just about their absolute best, still lost to USC, just like MSU would have.

Our fans act like idiots, creating a hostile environment for our own players?

I'd rather lose a game to USC in that fashion than beat a creampuff team. It says more about the ND team to me than had they walloped New Mexico State by 50 points. Sure it says more, but it's not black and white like that. One game, especially one that you lost, shouldn't be the gauge of what level the team is at for the rest of the season. It's that sort of reaction that has OSU ranked over Penn St. right now(first example that came to my head, not because you like OSU Mark). Sure Notre Dame played USC tough, but they still lost, and they haven't beaten anyone of substance that would give a 2 loss team a bump in the rankings over one loss teams and two loss teams with quality wins. Take Tennessee for example, they've lost to Florida and Georgia, a top 5 and top 10-15 team. They've beaten LSU in Baton Rouge, a top 5 team. Why aren't they getting the same hype as ND?

I don't think either defense will be able to field 11 players for OT from exhaustion, so no, something will give.

Guys guys guys, holograms.

They're a difinitive source, in the context of what we were discussing. They have interaction with fans, and players from other teams. I'm sure that's what they're basing their opinions on. What do YOU think they're basing their opinions on? As pointed out, it's not a scientific poll, but it works for the context that we need it to work. Just because a player gives a team a discount because he thinks the fans are great, does not make it so. By the same token, an unfair, outdated players poll doesn't prove it either. In the players' opinion, it is so. That's all that matters, in the context of what we're talking about. The poll is only a year and a half old. You think that Cardinal fans have done something to go from 50% (verses 13% for 2nd place) to something much less than that? The poll wasn't even close. It's 2 and a half years old. You said that St. Louis is known for having the best fans. Vance said that having the best fans is a myth. He's right, and no player poll will change that. It's impossible to determine.

They're a difinitive source, in the context of what we were discussing. They have interaction with fans, and players from other teams. I'm sure that's what they're basing their opinions on. What do YOU think they're basing their opinions on? As pointed out, it's not a scientific poll, but it works for the context that we need it to work. Just because a player gives a team a discount because he thinks the fans are great, does not make it so. By the same token, an unfair, outdated players poll doesn't prove it either.

Who says I'm "embracing" anything? You're the first Cardinal fan that actually agrees that they have the best fans. It's impossible to judge, and that survey is a joke. You have AL players who have never been to half the NL parks voting with the same weight as someone who spent 15 years in the NL. Not that the players are any definitive source as to who has the "best fans" anyway. If 2nd place were close, you'd have a legitimate grip. 46% (compared to 13% for 2nd place) is pretty decisive, in my opinion. And what, 45% of those surveyed don't even go to Busch that year? Nevermind the fact that the player's aren't a definitive source, or that the poll is two and a half years old. Did you read the footnote? Nearly two thirds (65.2%) of players with 10 years' experience favored St. Louis, and 26.4% of AL players voted for St. Louis. That means that, actually, an even HIGHER percentage of the NL players believe that they have the best fans. The players are a difinitive source, in the context of what we were discussin. Yes, and I also read the footnote that said that Chicago was second best among NL voters, and worst among AL voters. What happens if we separate Chicago, or New York for that matter? And no, the players are not a definitive source. They have minimal interaction with fans of opposing teams. They aren't predisposed to objective analysis(as any "analyst" will prove through their work). YOU CAN'T TELL WHO HAS THE "BEST" FANS. And if you start claiming you are, you take away from those who claim that you are, because the best fans in the game certainly wouldn't be so self-righteous.

Jocketty can have Jones. That would be great. [insert comment about Jones's surefire .900+ OPS as a Cardinal]

Who says I'm "embracing" anything? You're the first Cardinal fan that actually agrees that they have the best fans. It's impossible to judge, and that survey is a joke. You have AL players who have never been to half the NL parks voting with the same weight as someone who spent 15 years in the NL. Not that the players are any definitive source as to who has the "best fans" anyway. If 2nd place were close, you'd have a legitimate grip. 46% (compared to 13% for 2nd place) is pretty decisive, in my opinion. And what, 45% of those surveyed don't even go to Busch that year? Nevermind the fact that the player's aren't a definitive source, or that the poll is two and a half years old.

Who says I'm "embracing" anything? You're the first Cardinal fan that actually agrees that they have the best fans. It's impossible to judge, and that survey is a joke. You have AL players who have never been to half the NL parks voting with the same weight as someone who spent 15 years in the NL. Not that the players are any definitive source as to who has the "best fans" anyway.

I think that's the first Cardinal fan I've actually seen embrace the "best fans" title.

I love the irrational ND-haters. Under Ty this team would have been 2-4 because they would have absolutely gotten blown out at UM and they would have found a way to blow the Purdue game. The reason that Henne 'had his head up his butt' was because that was a glimpse of a defense that will be much, much better in the future once they plug in some top recruits. ND is going to win out this season, and they can beat anyone they would be matched up with in a BCS game. Texas or VTech would be tough games but ND has proven they can beat anybody after Saturday's game. Also I wouldn't be surprised if the Irish ran the table in 2006. The PSU/UM game sounded like a good game but it also sounded like UM got the usual aid from the refs that they always get at home. I wonder how many games' outcomes have been changed over the years at the Big House due to the refs' jobbing the opponents. ND IS that good. If you wanted to rank teams solely on how they looked on the field, not on past rep, than ND would probably be a top-5 team right now. I know you can't put them there with two losses because it would give them a chance to win the title...which they shouldn't have considering two losses. But I don't think it's irrational to think ND is playing top-five caliber football at this point. ND-haters are always fun to make fun of. It's too bad that for so many years they were right, but the Irish are soon to return to their rightful place at the top. For crying out loud, THEY LOST THE GAME. Notre Dame is looking a frightening bit like last year's Cal team.

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound. OK take those einnings out and run his numbers. What about 2000, 2002 and 2004? What about 2001, 2003, and 2005? From 2003 on Farns has been very good, and he had a down year in '04 in which he still wasn't terrible. What are you trying to prove? What am I trying to prove? I just stated that to me he wasn't that much different than Heredia. What are you trying to prove? You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to prove he's good (ignore his bad years and 2004 really wasn't a bad year and he was a bad starter so ignore that). You're the one getting worked up. Are you his agent or something? You're the one who inserted Farnsworth into the thread, and ignoring every success he's had to try and paint him as not all that great. He is different than Heredia. One of Farnsworth's "terrible" years is similar to Heredia's for his career, they aren't comparable.

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound. OK take those einnings out and run his numbers. What about 2000, 2002 and 2004? What about 2001, 2003, and 2005? From 2003 on Farns has been very good, and he had a down year in '04 in which he still wasn't terrible. What are you trying to prove?

26 starts for 130 IP. That's almost a quarter of his career time on the mound.

As a Cub, Heredia never had a WHIP below 1.33, an ERA below 4.76, a K/9 over 8.65, or a K/BB greater than 2(excepting his mark in only 16 IP after he was acquired). Almost all of those are worse than Farnsworth's career numbers. They aren't similar. I said career numbers. Heredia was much better the rest of his career than he was as a Cub, that's obviously going to color people's opinions like they have for Farnsworth. Also, Farnsworth's career numbers are skewed by a good chunk of innings where he was an ineffective starter. Heredia: 4.42 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, 6.89 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, .255 BAA, .746 OPS against Farnsworth as a reliever: 4.24 ERA, 1.36 WHIP, 10.38 K/9, 2.43 K/BB, BAA and OPS unavailable(eyeballing it it looks to be easily better than .255 and .746) Farnsworth is pretty clearly a better reliever. I didn't say he wasn't better. He may be better. But the difference between Farnsworth and Heredia is much less than the difference between Farnsworth and elite relievers. That was the point. Heredia sucks and Farnsworth ain't that much better. Neither is true. Heredia wasn't a bad reliever for a couple years. And no one is claiming Farnsworth was good his first few seasons. However, Farnsworth the last several years has been very good, and trying to compare career numbers of someone 10 years older who was much worse as a Cub than his career numbers would indicate doesn't change that. I think heredia is only on year older. You must really like Farnsworth if you're willing to say that Heredia hasn't been that bad. That's you prerogative. Sorry, confused Heredia with someone else. I said wasn't that bad for a couple years. You must really hate Farnsworth if you're going to ignore all the success he's had and use his numbers from 5+ years ago to try and drag him down to Heredia's level.