champaignchris

nor was he strong looking. He looked overweight to me. I believe the word you're looking for is fat. As was Jose Lima. If his death had anything to do with a foreign substance being put into his body, that foreign substance was probably cheeseburgers. Still, that didn't stop someone upthread speculating about steroids.

No idea if that's the case or not, but the single worse thing to me about the steroid era in sports is that any time someone dies way too young, there's always going to be that speculation... Kirby Puckett, Reggie White, Florence Griffith Joyner, etc.

Babe's called shot at Wrigley in the 1932 Series.

It's about how many Girardi got. Cubs haven't drafted anyone that's had as many at bats since 1986. No greater significance than that. Point isn't that we're drafting guys that turn into mediocre big-league ballplayers. Rather, with only a hand full of exceptions, we're drafting guys that barely ever make it to the bigs. By the way, I used AB because that's what comes up on the BR year-by-year draft boards and I'm lazy. However, I listed everyone with at least 2000 AB since 1986 and everyone with at least 500 AB since 2000, of which there were exceedingly few.

O.K., facts... Joe Girardi was taken by the Cubs in the 5th round of the 1986 draft (the last one by Dallas Green) and he was in the league as a regular catcher for a number of years and amassed over 4000 AB. The next player the Cubs drafted to accumulate over 4000 AB was... ...well, Jeff Cirillo in 1987, but he didn't sign with the team and was re-drafted by the Brewers in 1991. The guy after that was... Well, it hasn't happened yet. Doug Glanville (1991) got to 3,900. Corey Patterson (1998) is at 3,500 and counting (slowly). Others drafted and signed since 1986 to get to at least 2000 AB are Matt Wallbeck (1987), Eric Hinske (1998), Theriot (2001), and that's all she wrote. The sum total of draftees with at least 500 AB (about one season's worth as a starter) since 2000 are: Bobby Hill (2000), Brendan Harris, Soto, and Theriot (all 2001 - a veritable draft bonanza for the Cubs), Casey McGehee (2003). So the best (and by "best" I mean saw significant action as big leaguer) position player drafted (and signed) by the Cubs between Joe Girardi (1986) and Theriot/Soto (2001) was either Doug Glanville or Corey Patterson. Which ties back into my earlier post about the '90s being hell for Cubs.

There are 2 on the current team. How dare you interrupt my hyperbole with facts!!!

I was thinking along the same lines. I'm nowhere near my lowest point with the Cubs, which would have been in 1992-1993, when they didn't resign Maddux, the culmination of a series of bizarre front-office moves that more or less started with the trade of Lee Smith for Calvin Schiraldi and Al Nipper after the 1987 season, and saw everything Dallas Green had built up (i.e., the farm system) systematically destroyed. I don't think I went to a game between 1991 and 1999. I basically don't remember anything about the Cubs from 1993 to 1997. Other than the 0-14 start in 1997, they were a completely unremarkable team. If the Sammy-McGwire thing combined with Woody coming up and an out of nowhere playoff run hadn't all happened in 1998, I may never have paid attention to the team again. Even this Century, this year isn't anything close to how I felt in 2006. At some point in 2006 I saw that they were on pace to break the Cubs record for worst winning percentage in a season. At that point, I started rooting against the team. I figured that if I was going to pay attention to them, they might as well do something I'd never seen before. I'd seen plenty of .400 seasons before... Gimme a .360 season! When they went 3-18 during a stretch in late-August to early-September, I thought I could be witnessing history. Of course, their valiant 10-9 "surge" to end the season put an end to the excitement. It's May and we're only 6 games out. What's a bad first quarter of a season in the grand scheme of things to a franchise that hasn't drafted an every day position player since Joe Girardi?

As an aggregate, the Cubs offense is actually a bit better than last year's. 7th in the league at 4.6 runs a game versus 9th in the league at 4.39 last year, across the board better BA, OBP, and Slugging. The problem is that it's sooooo inconsistent. 15 games scoring two runs or less out of 35. Houston, the worst scoring team in the league at 3.06 runs per game, has had 17 games of two runs or less out of 34. The second worst scoring team in the league, Pittsburgh, at 3.35 runs per game has had 14 games of two runs or less out of 34. The Padres are the third worst scoring team in the league at 4.29 runs per game, and they've only had 10 games of less than 3 runs out of 34 games. Essentially, while the Cubs aggregate numbers are mediocre, they have been just as likely to put up an offensive no-show as the worst offensive teams in the league. Generally, you'd expect a team's offensive production to graph out like a bell curve with a big hump between 4 and 5 runs and a gradual decline from there. However, if you graphed out the Cub's offensive production, you'd see a giant spike at 2 runs, and then a nearly flat graph from there. The bullpen certainly hasn't helped. The team ERA is up about a half a run, and that can be attributed largely to the bullpen, whose ERA is up a whole point from last year. The starters' ERAs are up about .3 runs.

They'll score 10 or 11 tonight so that their aggregate numbers continue to look mediocre.

So, I know it's only a month into the season, but that Silva for Bradley trade is looking pretty darn good.

Already stated upthread, but had to be repeated: I bet Monica Seles is O.K. with this. Tom Gamboa, too.

Anyone else notice that our starting shortstop is having a positively Juan Pierre-esque season so far.

There was no hype about him in the minors, he was exposed to the Rule 5 draft, picked by Toronto, then released by Toronto back to the Cubs, and he played his first full major league season at the relatively "old" age of 26. He was in the minors for six full seasons, posting nice but never dominant numbers. I know all of the above is mainly stemming from the fact that he's a converted catcher who consequently bloomed as a pitcher later than might usually be expected, but there's still some doubt there. Like a mini-Roy Hobbs effect... "Who is this guy, and where did he come from?" And, I suppose, there's not a little bit of Cubs fan pessimism involved as well.

I went into this season thinking that if Wells put up 3rd or 4th starter type numbers that this year would be a success for him - 180+ innings, an ERA right around 4, an average starter, basically. I still thought last year was a bit of an illusion and that at his age, and for his salary, league average would make him a great asset for the team. But, to this point, he's equaling, or even surpassing his performance from last year. His WHIP is up a smidge, but he's still not walking anybody and he's keeping the ball in the park. Can a guy who was considered a non-prospect that didn't post eye-popping stats in the minors keep this up? I note that his H/9, HR/9, and BB/9 he's posted so far in the bigs, while better, are still very similar to the stats he posted in his 7 years in the minors. So, maybe he can keep this up...

If Silva continues to post a sub-1 WHIP for the rest of the year, Rothschild should be inducted into the Hall of Fame immediately.

The Dodgers and Giants moved due to stadium issues more than "being run out town" by the Yankees' popularity. New York didn't want to finance two new stadiums. L.A. and S.F. were happy to step in, and Baseball liked the idea of opening up the west coast with two of its most successful teams. Who rooted for what team depended on where you were in the city. Yankees were (are) in the Bronx. The Dodgers were in Brooklyn. The Giants were in Manhattan. It was much like the North Side/South Side divide in Chicago. In the late 40's and 50's, New York was the absolute epicenter of baseball. From 1949 to 1958, at least one New York team was in every World Series, with the Yankees playing either the Dodgers or Giants six times. That streak would have continued to 1966, if the Giants and Dodgers hadn't moved. After the other two teams moved, the Yankees had five years where they were all alone in New York during which time they arguably had their best stretch in team history (in the midst of going to the W.S. 9 times in 10 years, winning 4 - the Mantle, Maris, Berra, Ford years), and then after the Yankees dipped a bit the Mets had an absolutely horrible start as an expansion franchise. That pretty well cemented New York as mainly a Yankees town with the Mets having their enclave in Queens.

The same kind that has sex in the crowded bathroom of a football stadium with a stranger while her husband is watching the game.

Possibly meaningless statistics: NL 8th batter averages per team in 2009: 563 AB, 60 R, 143 H, 11 HR, 62 RBI, .253/.326/.371 NL ph averages per team in 2009: 226 AB, 26 R, 52 H, 5 HR, 30 RBI, .231/.321/.362 NL P averages per team in 2009: 297 AB, 17 R, 41 H, 2 HR, 16 RBI, .138/.179/.175

I made a promise to myself some time in the mid-90's to never get excited about a Cubs season until they were at least 10 games above .500. That promise has served me well over the years. I remain interested, but not excited until that point. That said, I think some are being overly pessimistic concerning this year's team. I think they'll still have a winning record and an outside chance at a playoff spot.

The "Z has become a bad pitcher" thing is overstated. Is he putting up numbers like he did from 2003 to 2006? No. He's still never posted an ERA+ under 117 as a full time starter. That's better than mediocre. That's pretty darn good. The early inning meltdown thing isn't particularly common for him either. He failed to pitch 5 innings in three consecutive starts last August. That was the game he was hurt and then the first two games coming off the DL. In his other 25 starts, he made it through at least 5 innings 24 times. In 2008, he pitched at least 5 innings in 21 of his first 22 starts, then pretty clearly got fatigued. Failing to make it to 5 innings in 4 of his last 8 starts, with some of that also due to the fact that the Cubs were so far in the lead at that point, Lou wasn't pushing him to eat innings. In 2007, he made at least 5 innings in 32 of 34 starts. As for only 9 wins last year... He had an 8 start stretch where he only gave up 15 ER in 53 and 1/3 innings (2.53 ERA) and only recorded one win, which is why the win for pitchers is the single most useless statistic in baseball.

More friendly? Have you spent any appreciable time in Central Illinois? It's not open warfare in the streets, but you can draw a line from about Des Moines to Terra Haute, and a hundred miles on either side of that line is a region of fairly fierce partisanship for one team or the other. My daughter is seven years old and doesn't really watch much baseball, but she knows for every kid in her class whether they come from a Cubs family or a Cards family. George Will has written quite a bit about growing up a Cubs fan in Champaign, Illinois and having to deal with Cardinal fans.

The only rivalries in baseball even worth mentioning are Cubs-Cardinals, Yankees-Red Sox, and Giants-Dodgers. Braves-Mets might be a distant, distant fourth.

The big market/small market labels get tossed around by a lot of people without a lot of clarification about what they actually mean when saying it. I see Oakland referred to as a "small market team," when they're in the sixth largest media market in the country. Here's an actual list of the 210 media markets by size.

Every player I think of that might deserve to be on that list over the players that are there was actually acquired in a trade... Derek Lee: Nope, Hee Seop Choi trade. Jon Leiber: Nope, Brant Brown trade. etc.

Clark Griffith isn't on the list but Jose Cardenal is? I mean, I know it was a real long time ago when he played, but it seems to me that the first thing you should do before compiling such a list is check into who's been inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame as a Cub, not to mention the franchise's top 10 lists of such statistics as wins, innings pitched, games started, complete games, and that newfangled Adjusted ERA+. If you're going to put players that were only on the team for three or four years on the list at all, shouldn't Rogers Hornsby be above Bill Madlock?