Magnetic Curses

Sure it was. They were consistently below league average in team OBP for I think almost every year except 2008 under the Hendry tenure despite having a payroll in the top five NL in that time. and the addition of edmonds, fukudome, and soto, over 1/3rd of the cubs regular position players, had nothing to do with it? like i said, tell me which cub regulars showed significant improvement in isod from 2007 to 2008. Most of our regulars did improve their isod, but likely not enough to be considered "significant." Soriano improved from .038 to .064 Aramis improved from .056 to .091 Theriot improved from .060 to .080 DeRosa improved from .078 to .091 Interestingly, Lee fell from .083 to .070 There was definitely a trend upwards from four of the five primary regulars between 07 and 08, but no huge gains either. consider that soriano's isod was at .074 before joining perry on the cubs. it's also interesting to note that both ramirez and soriano suffered in the slg department in that time.

the long wait for lebron's coronation is finally over.

Sure it was. They were consistently below league average in team OBP for I think almost every year except 2008 under the Hendry tenure despite having a payroll in the top five NL in that time. and the addition of edmonds, fukudome, and soto, over 1/3rd of the cubs regular position players, had nothing to do with it? like i said, tell me which cub regulars showed significant improvement in isod from 2007 to 2008.

i don't umderstand why they would include the testimony of a sox fan, though. if this is a segment on why YOUR stadium sucks, he should have to include his thoughts on comiskey. wrigley has its good and bad, but most of the new-era stadiums are more inspired by wrigley than any other ballpark, right up to the gentrification of the urban areas in which they're built.

i'm just wondering which players showed a "revolutionary" level of improvement in isod under perry's tenure, and i'm not talking about a marginal, no significant deviation improvment. i beat the patience drum for years before i came to the realization that there is no secret ingredient, players in the majors generally get walks because they are respected, they aren't respected simply because they take walks. the change in organizational philosophy can be more attributed to hendry than perry. hendry anointed soto, acquired soriano, fukudome, fontenot, johnson, derosa and edmonds. theriot worked on hitting the ball to where he could be effective hitting it----the opposite way, and because of that insistence on hitting to right, he frustrated a lot of pitchers into walking him. ramirez and lee haven't really changed much, except lee can't hit the ball out anymore. the cubs hitters simply aren't hitting, and i don't think that they'll magically lose their patience at the plate because it never was a huge issue to them anyway.

i want steve stone as far away from a cubs booth as possible. i would much rather listen to the accidentally hilarious and near-demented opinion of santo than the smug-to-spite-the-smug analysis of steve "kerry wood's mechanics are bad" stone.

dude, are you being sarcastic?

this thread is awesome. i can't wait until the guys get fired up because lou yells at an umpire. what is he waiting for? they aren't hitting, we need hitters. get hitters and problem solved. easier said than done.

the shocker.

It's weird, because guys force trades and holdout and generally combat with management all the time, and a lot of the time the media, especially former players will defend their right to do that because the guy has to look out for himself and everything. Yet here you have nearly universal hatred for what Cutler did, which was in effect caused by a dumb coaching decision (who tries to replace a stable QB situation?). And many guys are absolutely offended that Cutler didn't follow phone tag protocal with the owner. i know, this makes me incredibly mad, too. hopefully, everyone will have forgotten this as he's winning multiple super bowls in chicago, like those other high-profile "immature" qbs did with their teams. anybody remember the look on eli manning's face after the chargers selected him? remember smug surfer-boy elway threatening to play baseball rather than play in baltimore?

My God people, I forgot Romo. Get over it. haha, the cowboy fans are hunting you down as we speak.

This is something I can't stand about fandom. We don't know anything about his head. There's no basis for judgment there. I suspect his height was always his biggest problem. There's plenty of basis. I'm not talking about some silly notion of toughness or anything. He very clearly crumbled under defensive pressure. Not emotional pressure, or fan insults. He fell apart midgame far too often when teams started getting to him. His INTs were clearly mental F ups. That's not ridiculous fandom talking. It's just the facts. Sure, his height probably played a part, but his height was not the determining factor. You can be a successful relatively short QB. i don't think his height played much of a factor at all. it was his head, you're right. more specifically, it was his inability to avoid pressure and make time for himself. he had no instincts at all. he would flush when he had time and he would stand there when he had none. rex was the haley joel osment of the NFL, he saw more ghosts than any other qb in history, but he would just stand there and get anhilated in other situations. you'd be right in saying that it was his head. if it wasn't his head, it wasn't anything. rex had all of the tools to become a really good quarterback.

That's the downside of being a quarterback. Right or wrong, the QB gets all the credit when things go well (think Trent Dilfer on the 2000 Ravens) or all the blame when things don't go well. Trent Dilfer did not get all the credit when things went well in Baltimore, in fact, he barely got any. I think Romo is a good example here, he gets fellated by the media when Dallas wins, and when they lose, he gets criticized up the wazzoo. On the other hand, somebody like Vinny Testeverde, who was okay as a Jet, but nothing special, is beloved there. Then, Chad Pennington was absolutely worshipped up until he started winning 10 games a year, then everybody nitpicked his shortcomings and eventually hated his guts. Very weird. I think fan bases, including the Bears, take circumstances into account with how they treat the QB. Rex Grossman won a lot in Chicago, but he was dismissed by most fans because he played far too poorly, far too often, even in wins. Kyle Orton was accepted, because he was pretty simple and less error prone. There wasn't much passion in either way with him, people who did not like him didn't hate him like they hated Grossman, and people who liked him didn't like them as much as those who likely Grossman. i have to disagree with you there. there was definitely a well-defined and understood Cult of Orton that was gaining a nice head of steam before the trade. orton may have not been as liked as grossman was hated, but he definitely had a larger following.

This is way people need to stop using the "win/loss" as a stat to evaluate a player's ability. Too many uncontrollable variables happen. The bottom line is that while in Denver when the Broncos' "D" played halfway leage average, Cutler was easily one of the game's best QB's without question. It was those games in which that same D played crappy that Cutler had to go outside of his game to keep his team in the game. If the Bears "D" is even half as good as the D that took the Bears to the Super Bowl a couple of yrs back, and the Bears are battling the Eagles as the best team in the NFC. Exactly. Cutler is better than his record would indicate because he had a horrible defense blowing the leads he would build (or putting the team in a deficit he'd have to fight out of). Collins, for instance, is worse than his record would indicate because the Titans win games because of defense and Chris Johnson. If the point is to evaluate the production level of an individual, you should look at what that individual has some control over. In football no one player can win or lose a game and therefore shouldn't get the credit for winning/losing. Only for how well he does in pursuit of a win. i think if you take each season individually, yes. but the rule obviously fades over time. great quarterbacks don't have career losing records. the quarterback is the most consistent variable from season to season, the other parts are too hard to coordinate, a linebacker may pull a hamstring, a defensive tackle may blow out his knee, a safety may have recurring injuries. a great quarterback takes the bite out of injuries to defensive players, a great quarterback is the ultimate stabilizing force in the football universe. Warren Moon was only 105-108 as a QB. Fouts was 89-89. Sonny Jorgensen was 69-80. And Archie Manning's record is well documented. Drew Brees who is regarded as the 3rd best current QB in the league is 56-53 as a starter. Basically, my point is that it happens. All those teams had/have horrible defenses consistently in their careers. i think those guys are pretty much the exceptions and not the rule. you have to play on some pretty rotten rotten teams from year-to-year to be under .500 and be a hall of famer at qb. and archie manning, to me, was never a great quarterback. anyway, i think we're arguing to different points.

This is way people need to stop using the "win/loss" as a stat to evaluate a player's ability. Too many uncontrollable variables happen. The bottom line is that while in Denver when the Broncos' "D" played halfway leage average, Cutler was easily one of the game's best QB's without question. It was those games in which that same D played crappy that Cutler had to go outside of his game to keep his team in the game. If the Bears "D" is even half as good as the D that took the Bears to the Super Bowl a couple of yrs back, and the Bears are battling the Eagles as the best team in the NFC. Exactly. Cutler is better than his record would indicate because he had a horrible defense blowing the leads he would build (or putting the team in a deficit he'd have to fight out of). Collins, for instance, is worse than his record would indicate because the Titans win games because of defense and Chris Johnson. If the point is to evaluate the production level of an individual, you should look at what that individual has some control over. In football no one player can win or lose a game and therefore shouldn't get the credit for winning/losing. Only for how well he does in pursuit of a win. i think if you take each season individually, yes. but the rule obviously fades over time. great quarterbacks don't have career losing records. the quarterback is the most consistent variable from season to season, the other parts are too hard to coordinate, a linebacker may pull a hamstring, a defensive tackle may blow out his knee, a safety may have recurring injuries. a great quarterback takes the bite out of injuries to defensive players, a great quarterback is the ultimate stabilizing force in the football universe.

berrian had maybe one of the most clutch catches in bears history in that game.

I agree. Low-ceiling, but at that draft spot, you'd know you're getting someone who'll come in and do what you know he can do. There's no mystery with TH. He'll be a serviceable bench player/energy guy. Isn't Hansborough just sort of a white Joakim Noah though? Maybe energy-wise but Noah is/will be a far superior defender and better rebounder, thanks in part to his athleticism and size. and hansbrough is a far more polished offensive player than noah ever will be. i like his energy on the offensive end and his presence on the offensive boards. i think that he could be a starter on a good basketball team.

call me crazy, but i'd be just fine with psycho t.

but the thing is, lebron needs a #1 option. he and jordan might have won a few titles in their day. although pippen may have been the best defensive player of all time and that team was a true 2-way demon-brood that locked you down and then ran over your face. yeah, scottie was probably a better fit.

i don't like marshall and i think he should be traded while he's still got some value.

great post. i really didn't start to doubt lebron until i saw him disappear at the olympics. i was embarassed that our so-called "best player of all-time" took a big bloody dump all over the floor at beijing. no one will ever have the drive of jordan, kobe comes the closest but kobe still has an aspect of his game where he settles for terrible shots simply because he allowed to take them, though he's a much better outside shooter than MJ ever was. lebron has already shown that he doesn't have it. sure, he's frustrated and acted like a total punk after he got beat, but that doesn't mean he's very competitive, just means he's a baby. jordan, the few times he did get beat, sucked it up and acted like man, at least to the public and knew that if someone beat him, they outplayed him that night.

and you're in denial, too. you don't understand that i'm agreeing with you. jordan was not a killer in his first 6 years and his siatuation is almost identical to lebron's with a few minor minor details. These statements say otherwise. no, they don't.

and you're in denial, too. you don't understand that i'm agreeing with you. jordan was not a killer in his first 6 years and his siatuation is almost identical to lebron's with a few minor minor details.

and let me say that i am absolutely proud of lebron for suceeding when Jordan couldn't. you know, being the overwhelming favorite of analysts and fanboys alike going into the playoffs. jordan was terrible at that and lebron appears to be on the right track. DOMINATION!

no, i'm agreeing with you. i think this nba title will be the first of many for lebron. can't wait to see his ring!