Transmogrified Tiger

Probably not. Here's the final ERA+ marks from BR: Clemens 221 Pettitte 174 Willis 153 Carpenter 151 Pedro 148 Others of note: Oswalt 141, Zambrano 131, Peavy 134 Santana led the AL with 153, followed by a Millwood/Buehrle tie at 143.

Cubs 2005 numbers, total and with RISP Total NL Rank RISP NL Rank OBP .324 11 .336 15 SLG .440 2 .414 7 OPS .764 4 .749 10 PA 6161 10 1605 15 Aside from the drop in slugging, it seems to be the problem isn't so much as a lack of performing with RISP, as simply getting RISP in the first place. Players and coaches who don't understand the value of getting on base lead to not having runners on base to drive in. I think performance with RISP is very much a problem. 15th out of 16 in the NL in OBP with RISP is a big reason for being 4 games under .500 But I do agree that the organizational hitting philosphy needs to change. How do you fix it though? There's no such thing as a guy who's a "good RISP guy". They call them "good hitters". Improving the offense as a whole will help the RISP woes, and that's about all you can do to fix it. With as impatient as we were at the plate this year, those numbers show we were even more impatient with RISP. Our OBP was 12 points higher with RISP, how were we even more impatient?

javascript:emoticon(':!:') Exclamation It works...but you have to delete a bunch of crap around it, I think. For the more obscure smileys, it's better than keeping the mouse over it so you can see what you need to type.

Hooray!

Cubs 2005 numbers, total and with RISP Total NL Rank RISP NL Rank OBP .324 11 .336 15 SLG .440 2 .414 7 OPS .764 4 .749 10 PA 6161 10 1605 15 Aside from the drop in slugging, it seems to be the problem isn't so much as a lack of performing with RISP, as simply getting RISP in the first place. Players and coaches who don't understand the value of getting on base lead to not having runners on base to drive in. I think performance with RISP is very much a problem. 15th out of 16 in the NL in OBP with RISP is a big reason for being 4 games under .500 But I do agree that the organizational hitting philosphy needs to change. How do you fix it though? There's no such thing as a guy who's a "good RISP guy". They call them "good hitters". Improving the offense as a whole will help the RISP woes, and that's about all you can do to fix it.

I don't think that's true. A pitcher can make a perfect pitch, but the batter still has the ability to do something productive with it. The batter has a slight edge from being the one who acts second. Whether that makes hitting more valuable or important, I don't know. Maybe in that situation the perfect pitch is a breaking ball in the dirt that the batter can't do anything with. There is no such thing as an absolute perfect pitch, only a perfect pitch in relation to what the batter is expecting/trying to do. The batter always has the ability to have the perfect response though, whether that response is taking a pitch for the ball, or hitting it 500 feet.

I don't think that's true. A pitcher can make a perfect pitch, but the batter still has the ability to do something productive with it. The batter has a slight edge from being the one who acts second. Whether that makes hitting more valuable or important, I don't know.

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. Similar in scale? O$U won by 11. Not as close as a last second three point loss. If people want to look just at the record and not how ND got there (just because Pitt and Purdue are a combined 5-8 doesn't change the fact that ND destroyed them in their own places, and ND's two losses have come in overtime and with 3 seconds left in the game, both against ranked teams), then that is their business. Having watched every minute of all six ND games this year I feel there's no reason at all why ND cannot be considered a top 10 team. If we are going to credit ND's hanging with USC almost exclusively to a rivalry and to the home field, then where was this when Purdue and Pitt were getting smoked at home by ND and when UM turned the ball over three times in the red zone against ND? The OSU game was close til the end, the scale comment was in response to the hyperbole on your part. Of course Pitt and Purdue being terrible doesn't change the fact that ND smoked them. It does change the fact that smoking those teams implies that the winner is good. I never said to credit ND's hanging with USC entirely to homefield and rivalry, I said that it was part of the reason why I thought it was closer than I anticipated. It was never part of any analysis on my part towards ND. Right now Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue are 7th, 9th, and 11th respectively in the Big 10 standings.

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]