soccer10k

It was a dominating season by a hated rival. That's why the Cubs fan in me says it was one of the worst. As a baseball fan, it was one of the best seasons I can remember. I wouldn't necessarily refer to the Mets as a hated rival. They sure as hell were in 1985. Well I am a bit out of my league since I was all of 1 year old in 1985 so I don't think I followed baseball then as much as other people may have. I realized that after I wrote my previous response.

Exactly. If a player swings at the first pitch and gets a hit, nobody criticizes him for it. But if he gets out, then he gets butchered. Many times, the pitch that a hitter swings at needs to be considered also. If it's a good pitch and a hitter just misses, then leave it at that and don't rip into him. But if a hitter swings at a horrible first pitch and gets out, then yes he should have let it go. There is a difference.

It was a dominating season by a hated rival. That's why the Cubs fan in me says it was one of the worst. As a baseball fan, it was one of the best seasons I can remember. I wouldn't necessarily refer to the Mets as a hated rival.

comon up to Minneapolis.. :D Yeah, Minnesota isn't exactly known for filling up their stadium either.

This Cubs fan says it was one of the worst pitching seasons in my lifetime. ? Um, he pitched for the Mets. NL East... Just because he pitched in the same division as the Cubs you won't admit that it was a great pitching season? If I misinterpreted you let me know. But that's how I took your statement.

This Cubs fan says it was one of the worst pitching seasons in my lifetime. ?

Definately Gooden. If he stayed clean he could be matching Clemens win for win right now in a semi-competition for the greatest pitcher of our generation. Like somebody else said, that 1985 season was one of the best pitching seasons in recent memory.

There is no way the Marlins are sold out. Back in 2003 they barely started selling out their games until September.

There is no such thing as a perfect player. Every player has some things they excel at some things they don't. The Cubs just so happened to choose an offensive minded catcher. They know that Barrett is going to make mistakes. The same thing goes for second base. They have started Walker for his offense even though he is a liability defensively. At shortstop Ronny Cedeno is good defensively but we don't know what he's going to give the team behind the plate. The list just goes on and on. If the Cubs put in Hairston and some great defensive catcher, people on this board would be complaining that the Cubs don't have enough offensive firepower. Personally I like Barrett. This is just one game and nothing to get worked up about.

6 runs is pretty good for the offense. good point

you have that wrong, it's going to be 161-1. minor setback.

so much for that.

we do need somebody on base so murton can tie the game.

who is coming up for the Cubs in the 9th

crap

Rusch's era is now down to 4.5

I miss Steve Stone - "I could handle a bat, I just couldn't swing it. I hit .103."

So much for that prediction.

Murton is going deep again. I can feel it.

Yes but his power numbers are crazy against Rusch. There goes Aurilia. Again, not much of a difference as how he does with the rest of the league. I mean, his stats may be a little better against Rusch. BTW he hit .247 last year, must have been a good year.

Stone just said that Adam Dunn has killed Rusch even though he has a BA below .200 against him. I'm not disputing that I'm agreeing with him. Doesn't Adam Dunn bat .230 every year so dropping below .200 against a guy isn't really that big of a drop?

Another good start to the game. Now if only we can pitch a little better today.

GONE!!

That was hilarious.

Do you need more evidence against Barry Bonds? Honestly. Look, I know that many other players, including NSBB favorite Sammy Sosa, have seen huge changes in their bodies, but nobody has as much surrounding him as Barry Bonds does. Do I think Sammy took steroids? Yes. Am I fairly sure he did? No. Am I fairly sure Bonds took steroids? Yes. That's the difference. And yes, true baseball purists DO care that somebody who hit "365 home runs" took steroids. Brady Anderson, a man with only 210 home runs, was the first example of a guy that wasn't anywhere near a home run hitter that suddenly became a home run hitter when he hit 50 in 1996. Obviously in 1996 nobody was talking about steroids but, even as an 11 year old kid, I distinctly remember saying that it was weird that somebody whose previous high was just 21 home runs. I care that steroids are removed from the game and thousands of other people do also. This is a big deal and it is something that needs to be addressed. I could give a rat's ass about Tim Raines and his coke because coke doesn't help you hit a ball farther so don't try to use that argument. As long as I'm ranting, something else that ticks me off is that some people(re: Torii Hunter) claim that the only reason baseball is making such a big deal out of this is because Barry Bonds is black. I'm sorry but does Torii remember what happened to Mark McGwire when he pleaded the fifth in front of Congress all day last year? McGwire got skewered in the media for not saying anything and many people considered McGwire to have admitted his guilt. How about the 47835 replays of Rafael Palmeiro's finger pointing escapades after he tested positive last year? The steroids problem is an issue that baseball needed to address because they waited too long to do it. Yes I'll admit that I loved the Summer of 98 when McGwire and Sammy were going homer for homer. But nobody knew how widespread steroids were. I just think it's pathetic that baseball needed Congress to step in and basically force them to implement a strong steroid policy. The whole steroid problem is why I hate Donald Fehr. He realized that there was a problem and refused to give in one bit. I don't think the situation would be as bad as it is had baseball put in the testing policy it currently has a couple years ago on its own. But the public views this as baseball only doing what it has to do to keep Congress of it's back. Honestly I don't think baseball has done enough yet and I would like to see it do more. What that entails, I don't know. But more must be done and soon.