soccer10k

It wasn't very close at first. Nice hit by Walker.

Z will be fine. Just remember there are worse things than walks.

I had class scheduled during both Games 6 and 7 of the 2003 postseason. I skipped for Game 6 but went to my mandatory lab during Game 7 after Cabrera hit the first inning home run. I think that class during the playoffs is far worse than Opening Day.

I was at that game, standing room only seats right down the first base line. And let me tell you, if you want to know why the concrete at Wrigley was cracking after that year, it's because the stadium was shaking violently after that home run. Literally. Everything was moving, the seats, the railings. It was simply amazing. I've never been apart of something that loud and that exciting before in my life. I was starting to praise Bartman for extending the series so I could be there when they won the pennant. Of course, a short while later, I'd never be that depressed before in my life. I still haven't recovered. Wow. My brothers were at game 7 and told me the same thing about Woody's HR; Wrigley was literally shaking. The cameras caught the massive throng on Waveland Ave too. Here's another Wood video on youtube.com, the most dominant 9-inning pitching performance in MLB history. Listen to the crowd really get into it after the 6th inning (even though it wasn't a full house). Holy crap that breaking ball ... this will give you goose bumps too: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OBkYWlWoJyM&search=kerry%20wood At the end of the game, you can see someone in the bleachers with an improvised sign: "E-5" :cry: I can't wait to see Wood's Wrigley debut this year. Wood's performance that game has to be considered one of the best single game performances of all time when you consider that he was just 20 years old and had only made a handful of major league starts up to that point. I'm not saying it's better than Don Larson's perfect game in the World Series, but if you factor in how young he was, it certainly vaults him up the ranks.

I agree completely. Some people on this board act like the Cubs should be the Yankees, which isn't the right mentality. I think the Cubs have a decent team this year and could win anywhere from 75-95 games. 75 would mean Prior and Wood don't pitch much and the young guys don't play well. 95 would be the exact opposite. We'll just have to wait and see how the season plays out. Hopefully the latter.

That's exactly how I feel. I just knew the Cubs were going to lose Game 7. Game 6 was the crushing blow. They had their chance and we blew it. Josh Beckett never gave the Cubs a chance in Game 5. They had Game 6 and it all unraveled. Game 6 was as close I have ever come to crying after a game.

I'm surprised MLB hasn't said something like their hats have to be perfectly straight, I'm sure NFL wouln't allow it. I don't mind it though. (i'll wear mine a lil to the side, from time to time when I want to feel cool :) ) The No Fun League would not only have outlawed wearing your hat to the side, they would have standardized home run trots as well. No posing after you hit the ball. Must circle the bases in a certain amount of time or else your run doesn't count. Something crazy like that. If baseball players posed and strutted half as much as football players, there'd be a lot more bean ball wars. Good point. If baseball players celebrated like football players, there would be celebrations for every play. A guy would get a single and would do a dance after reaching first base. I know this isn't a football forum, but something I never understood was why a defensive back would jump up an celebrate a big hit even though the other team just got a big gain and/or picked up a first down. That always baffles me. Why would you celebrate that? Imagine a second baseman jumping around after catching a throw that held a guy to a double instead of a triple. Excellent example.

These projections are helpful in figuring out about where a team will finish. Generally a team that is predicted to finish first isn't going to finish last in their division. But like you said, there is no chance that all of the teams will finish within 8 games of each other. The Reds are just too horrible. I saw one set of predictions where no team in the NL won more than 90 games which hasn't happened ever in a full season since they expanded to two divisions per league in 1969.

I'm surprised MLB hasn't said something like their hats have to be perfectly straight, I'm sure NFL wouln't allow it. I don't mind it though. (i'll wear mine a lil to the side, from time to time when I want to feel cool :) ) The No Fun League would not only have outlawed wearing your hat to the side, they would have standardized home run trots as well. No posing after you hit the ball. Must circle the bases in a certain amount of time or else your run doesn't count. Something crazy like that. If baseball players posed and strutted half as much as football players, there'd be a lot more bean ball wars. Good point. If baseball players celebrated like football players, there would be celebrations for every play. A guy would get a single and would do a dance after reaching first base. I know this isn't a football forum, but something I never understood was why a defensive back would jump up an celebrate a big hit even though the other team just got a big gain and/or picked up a first down. That always baffles me. Why would you celebrate that?

I always hold out hope for the best case scenario and I definately would not mind you being right in this case because it would most likely mean a good season for the Cubs. Here's hoping you're right.

I'm surprised MLB hasn't said something like their hats have to be perfectly straight, I'm sure NFL wouln't allow it. I don't mind it though. (i'll wear mine a lil to the side, from time to time when I want to feel cool :) ) The No Fun League would not only have outlawed wearing your hat to the side, they would have standardized home run trots as well. No posing after you hit the ball. Must circle the bases in a certain amount of time or else your run doesn't count. Something crazy like that.

Thank you Derwood.

I saw this on the truth and rumors part of cnnsi.com. Here is the link. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scorecard/03/31/truth.rumors.mlb/index.html IMO, this means Prior will be out until June and Wood will go back on the DL again before Prior gets back.

What? So as long as somebody is getting paid to do something, it justifies doing it? You aren't making any sense here. Wojo has the right to call Farns an idiot, and to even go beyond that in the way he calls him an idiot. But others have a right to call him a hack for how he goes about doing his job. Go ahead and criticize what he writes. I could care less about that. But don't criticize him for writing. There is a distinct difference between the two. Obviously you don't understand the difference. I am not a hypocrite because I'm not criticizing either of you for voicing your opinions. I don't agree with what you are saying and am voicing my opinion on that. Wojo is getting paid to write a column and his job description requires him to write his opinion on the current happenings of the sports world. He is getting paid to do that. As I said, if you don't like him then don't read him. It's not very complicated. I understand what's happening here, and it's pretty clear you're writing yourself into a corner. I can criticize him for writing what he wrote. I'm not criticizing him for writing. I'm not even criticizing him for what he wrote. I'm pointing out how absurdly hyprocritical it is to say a writer has the right to write what he wants as long as he's getting paid, but a normal citizen doesn't have the right to criticize him for writing what he wrote. No matter how much you try to twist it, that's what you are doing, and you are plain old wrong. So first off, you were calling me a hypocrite. Secondly, I never said that a normal citizen doesn't have the right to criticize Wojo for writing what he wrote. I just said that nobody has the right to criticize Wojo for writing in general. You have not understood my statements. I said it's okay to criticize what somebody wrote. My point was that it's Wojo's job to write what he thinks and you can't criticize him for writing what he thinks because it's his opinion column or book. Again, you can completely disagree with everything he says because that's your opinion. You can even say that he is a horrible writer and you will never read his work. But you can't criticize him for doing his job. That's my point.

I assumed you were calling me a hypocrite and obviously misunderstood you. My bad.

Haha, that's good.

What? So as long as somebody is getting paid to do something, it justifies doing it? You aren't making any sense here. Wojo has the right to call Farns an idiot, and to even go beyond that in the way he calls him an idiot. But others have a right to call him a hack for how he goes about doing his job. Go ahead and criticize what he writes. I could care less about that. But don't criticize him for writing. There is a distinct difference between the two. Obviously you don't understand the difference. I am not a hypocrite because I'm not criticizing either of you for voicing your opinions. I don't agree with what you are saying and am voicing my opinion on that. Wojo is getting paid to write a column and his job description requires him to write his opinion on the current happenings of the sports world. He is getting paid to do that. As I said, if you don't like him then don't read him. It's not very complicated.

And that is where you are wrong. Criticizing somebody simply for voicing their opinion on something is hypocritical. As I said, you can criticize somebody for what their opinion is, but you are flat out wrong thinking you can criticize Wojo for saying what he wants to. He gets paid to write a column and got paid to write Cubs Nation. You can disagree with every word that comes out of his mouth but don't criticize him for doing his job. If you do that then I suggest you change your user name to HypocriteinNY. That's wrong. Very wrong. Life is not NSBB. You can criticize people for having the lack of courtesy to talk about people without acting like a name calling child. You might think somebody is fat and ugly. But you can keep that to yourself. And if you don't, you better believe somebody is going to criticize you for voicing your opinion. Didn't you call me a hypocrite. Wouldn't you consider that name calling?

Wait, he has the right to call somebody an idiot, but somebody else doesn't have the right to criticize him for that? Sure he has the right to free speech. But so do the people who think he's a hack. I can't stand how hypocritical some can be when it comes to free speech. You have the right to freedom of speech, but you also have to be willing to take the consequences of whatever you say, short of government interference. Freedom of speech does not protect you from criticism for saying what you say. I never said somebody doesn't have the right to criticize Wojo for calling Farnsworth an idiot. I just said that nobody has the right to criticize somebody for voicing their opinion on a matter that they are getting paid for. As for the Dusty example, Dusty isn't getting paid to talk, he is getting paid to manage a baseball team. That is a completely different thing. Wojo's job requires him to say what he thinks. Dusty's doesn't.

And that is where you are wrong. Criticizing somebody simply for voicing their opinion on something is hypocritical. As I said, you can criticize somebody for what their opinion is, but you are flat out wrong thinking you can criticize Wojo for saying what he wants to. He gets paid to write a column and got paid to write Cubs Nation. You can disagree with every word that comes out of his mouth but don't criticize him for doing his job. If you do that then I suggest you change your user name to HypocriteinNY.

No credible journalist would write "If stupid were a country George W Bush would be it's capitol" and expect to keep his/her job. What little I've watched of Rome I haven't like so I don't watch, nor do I listen. That is the thing, if you are a sportswriter you are also a journalist. If you want any credability you stick to what is on the field not what is between someone's ears. Here is what the Richard could have wrote: After Farnsworth was roughed up yet again during the failed run to the wild card he probably sealed his fate with the Cubs when he had to go on the DL becuase he kicked a fan. No not the ones who were swearing at him. The one who attempt to cool him down after failing on the field. It probably wasn't the smartest thing he ever dd and may have cost him a lot of money. No columnist may have said it exactly like that, but many have said something along those lines. Do you even remember the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and how often Bush was ripped for supposedly not responding quick enough? Have you ever heard of political cartoons? Sure they don't actually say Bush is an idiot in words, but they damn sure imply it. There is a thing in this country called freedom of speech. I don't have the freedom to call you an idiot on this board because I would get kicked off. But if I wrote a book, I could call you an idiot. That's what Wojo did. He wrote a book about the Cubs and his personal opinion about the Farnsworth injury was that Farnsworth was an idiot. If you don't like it, you don't have to read him. But don't criticize Wojo for writing what he feels in his book or in a column because he has earned the right to do so. He has earned nothing but his hack status. Sure he has the right to say whatever he wants and I have the right to criticize his writing. Freedom of speech works both ways, does it not? Yes freedom of speech does work both ways. But you can't criticize him for saying whatever he wants to. However, you can criticize his opinion. There is a difference between the two.

No credible journalist would write "If stupid were a country George W Bush would be it's capitol" and expect to keep his/her job. What little I've watched of Rome I haven't like so I don't watch, nor do I listen. That is the thing, if you are a sportswriter you are also a journalist. If you want any credability you stick to what is on the field not what is between someone's ears. Here is what the Richard could have wrote: After Farnsworth was roughed up yet again during the failed run to the wild card he probably sealed his fate with the Cubs when he had to go on the DL becuase he kicked a fan. No not the ones who were swearing at him. The one who attempt to cool him down after failing on the field. It probably wasn't the smartest thing he ever dd and may have cost him a lot of money. No columnist may have said it exactly like that, but many have said something along those lines. Do you even remember the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and how often Bush was ripped for supposedly not responding quick enough? Have you ever heard of political cartoons? Sure they don't actually say Bush is an idiot in words, but they damn sure imply it. There is a thing in this country called freedom of speech. I don't have the freedom to call you an idiot on this board because I would get kicked off. But if I wrote a book, I could call you an idiot. That's what Wojo did. He wrote a book about the Cubs and his personal opinion about the Farnsworth injury was that Farnsworth was an idiot. If you don't like it, you don't have to read him. But don't criticize Wojo for writing what he feels in his book or in a column because he has earned the right to do so.

He wrote it because Farnsworth is an idiot. He wrote it because Farnsworth got himself injured in the middle of the wild card race for kicking a fan. Farnsworth is an idiot because there is no reason to suffer a stupid injury like that late in the season. Completely uncalled for. I'm not trying to defend all of Wojciechowski's work, just this quote. No writer who is writing a book about baseball has the right to impune someone's intellignece that way. He could have written it any numbr of ways. Instead, he wrote what he wrote, because he thought it was funny and catchy. It was neither. Or he wrote it because Farnsworth refused to grant him permission to use his interviewws to sell his worthless book. I choose to believer the latter because the guy is a punk ass loser who can't string two thoughts together without trying to seem smart. How in the hell do you know that Farnsworth is stupid? Becuase he looks it? Becuase he kicked a fan after a poor outing? Becuase you gave him an IQ test. It was the same way with Patterson. It wasn't enugh that he was having a bad year. He also had to be lazy, uncoachable, and uncaring. This kind of crap has to stop. The sportswriters can get by with writing almost anything. That's the freedom that being a sports columnist gives you. Wojo can write whatever he wants. Do you get mad at Jim Rome when he rips people on national television? Because sports columnists rip players multiple times every single day. Do you get mad at people who rip our government and say George Bush is an idiot, because there is no difference in calling Bush an idiot and calling Farnsworth an idiot. None whatsoever. So don't single out sports columnists in this one. You have to point the finger at every single columnist, because they all do it.

He wrote it because Farnsworth is an idiot. He wrote it because Farnsworth got himself injured in the middle of the wild card race for kicking a fan. Farnsworth is an idiot because there is no reason to suffer a stupid injury like that late in the season. Completely uncalled for. I'm not trying to defend all of Wojciechowski's work, just this quote.

haha. i bet he does. i would like to see c.c. sabathia's also. i bet his is off center also.