Hairyducked Idiot

The media is fine. Fans are overly sensitive to negative coverage of their own team.

I can discern the convenience that the arbitrary line between "true fan" and "not a true fan" is between what the poster is willing and not willing to do. no no no. True fan = anyone who can't get tickets, Not True Fan = anyone else. ohh hahaha, snarky remarks about true fans and not true fans... Listen, I'm not judging anyone about being a true fan or not a true fan. I am just saying that those who work harder to get something should have a better chance of getting it. And what's the agreed-upon standard for how we measure who worked hardest in this country? http://weblogs.cltv.com/news/local/chicago/Money%20stacks.jpg

Well people work for other reasons than disposable income. But you're talking about taking a day off and that real fans should take a day off... So only real fans who have extra vacation or sick days should be able to go to the playoffs? Well the Cubs have been good since April...if you wanted playoff tickets you shouldn't have taken that 2 week vacation to Hawaii! So true fans wait until they see if the Cubs are good or not before planning for the playoffs? Sounds sketchy...

Some people have a *ton* more faith in this defense than I do. Urlacher has lost a half-step, the pass-rush isn't that great if Harris is questionable, and the corners are bad without a pass rush. Then comes the dreaded phrase "If Mike Brown is healthy..."

I can discern the convenience that the arbitrary line between "true fan" and "not a true fan" is between what the poster is willing and not willing to do.

Nope. I'm simply saying that there is no reason to treat each and every team as a completely independent event, and deny all possibility that valid data can be gleaned by examining the past. Well the fact is that 29 out of 30 GMs are failures every year. To attempt to glean anything out of how players will play based on how previous players played acquired by that GM seems foolish to do at the end of a season. If you want to judge offseason transactions that way, I could understand(i.e. GM 1 has a great scouting eye, so even if this guy's #s don't seem that great, I trust him that there's talent in this guy waiting to come out. Or GM 2 loves spending on mediocrity and has shown no real ability to identify anything but tools goofs, so this guy will probably be just another free swinging 220 hitter with power potential.) After we have the full year's worth of data on the players, I think that's what we should be basing our judgements off of, not what Neifi Perez did in a Cub uniform. This isn't about some binary "did the team succeed or fail" issue. With your regards to GMs, why can't we say "This GM has built several teams that have faded late." or "This GM has built several teams that finished well." And from there, is it that far of a leap to "This organization has developed pitchers who hold up well late into the season" or "This organization has been bad at identifying hitters that hold up late into the year" or "This organization has acquired hitters that do poorly against No. 1-3 starters." All I'm saying is that the stock response of "Information about the XXXX Cubs has no bearing on 2008 Cubs" isn't really a valid statement.

But that doesn't matter to the Cubs because they set their ticket prices and are going to sell out regardless. They explained their decision as a way to be "fair" to fans and if you define fans as anyone who is willing to go to a game at Wrigley then sure its fair. But it ain't fair to those of us that bleed the Cubs. Buy season tickets. I will when I'm offered the opportunity to purchase them Buy them from someone who already has them. If you come up with enough money, someone will sell. If you were a true fan, this wouldn't be a problem.

Nope. I'm simply saying that there is no reason to treat each and every team as a completely independent event, and deny all possibility that valid data can be gleaned by examining the past.

I wouldn't say that. I would say that the evidence points to the fact that there is no effect at all. I would tend to agree that a cause isn't always needed to be known in order to say that an effect is probably real. I just don't see an effect anywhere (which I realize now wasn't really the point of what you were trying to get across and you were instead going more hypothetical). And it's true that there is continuity from year to year, but the Cubs have had very little of it. 3 players are left from the 03 team. Only a couple more were added that are still here from 04. Even the turnover from 07 to 08 has been fairly significant, especially when you consider what the roster was in the first half of 07. And who picked those players? And who picked him to pick those players?

But that doesn't matter to the Cubs because they set their ticket prices and are going to sell out regardless. They explained their decision as a way to be "fair" to fans and if you define fans as anyone who is willing to go to a game at Wrigley then sure its fair. But it ain't fair to those of us that bleed the Cubs. If you really bled the Cubs, you'd have season tickets and it wouldn't be a problem.

So if the sample size is large enough to show an effect, but we can't name a direct cause of the effect, we should assume there is no effect at all? I'm not saying there certainly is a "Cubs choke" effect. I am saying that its wrong to constantly dismiss the possibility on the idea that each Cubs team is a unique permutation and previous years have no effect. It's not as all the MLB players are randomly reassigned to teams each season.

One of the great flaws of sabermetrics, it's sort of an offshot of Heisenberg uncertainty. Almost all of the data we study was collected in the context of player and teams who *weren't* trying to maximize sabermetric principles. Exactly what you were talking about with the bunt thing. The run expectancy charts were created when everyone was sac-bunting X amount. If we drop sac-bunting to Y-amount, we change the situations and need new charts.

So the argument is that he whiffed on the last two year's picks? I agree with that, but I'm inclined to give him one more draft.

The Cubs are up 69-0 with 2 outs bottom of the 9th up 3-0 game wise and an 0-2 count on the hitter. He hits a flare for a single and 1000's scream uh oh, here comes the heartbreak, they're going to choke this one away. I've heard stories of the angst when the Bears were down 3-0 in Super Bowl XX.

That's why I hated when he started drafting offense, beginning with Olson. Defenses age very, very fast and need constant new blood. I believe the Bears can win with a defense/special teams philosophy, but it will require constant drafting of top defensive talent. I disagree with the bolded. He drafted Olsen in the 1st, but he wasted a 2nd and 3rd on crap defensive players that year. He was all about defense and special teams in the 2006 draft. He got cocky with his ability to get away with overdrafting. What he should have been doing was drafting QBs and OLine every year in the 2-4 rounds. Yes, defenses age fast and it was important to keep restocking with fresh young bodies. But, while the notion that they can win on defense alone may be true, it's stupid to live by that rule. They need to keep restocking the defense with bodies, while also building the offense. Instead, they let the offense stay as mediocre as ever, and failed to restock the defense. You can't do it all. You have a cap and seven draft picks each year. If you want to have an elite defense, you are going to do it at the expense of the offense. Edit to add: Unless they ever get around to having a true franchise QB.

I'd rather the Cubs be allowed to use a free-market auction system and sell to the highest bidder themselves. I hate the idea that "true fans" deserve anything.

How bout people who can't afford to take off work and don't sit in front of a computer all day? Can you only be a real fan if you take a day off of work to sit on a computer all day, or work in an office? What if that soccer mom has been a lifelong fan, but has to actually watch her kids during the day rather than sit in front of 100 VWR windows waiting for one to pop up? If they were true fans, they would find a way to make it happen. Probably the minority viewpoint here, but one I believe in. If you prioritize the Cubs enough to want playoff tickets, you will have an off day saved or find someone to watch your kids. If not, you'll have to get them on the secondary market. Besides, with this lottery system they will more than likely have to do that anyways. If you are a true fan now, you can get them on the secondary market. The true fans will get them no matter what, under this theory, so it doesn't matter how they are distributed.

Everything happens fast in the NFL.

How so? He got by in 2005 and 2006 with an aging offensive line. That's it. But up until those years he was constantly tinkering and adding to it. It was not several years in a row of winning that gamble. They started to decline during the 2006 season, it did not come up out of nowhere as some Bears beat writers try and pretend. The gamble was ignoring the line going into 2007 and again in 2008, and he lost bad. Okay, he gambled on an aging offensive line two years in a row and won. He lost the third year, and he tried in the 2008 but it was too late. I call a division title and a super bowl appearance "winning" the gamble.

That's why I hated when he started drafting offense, beginning with Olson. Defenses age very, very fast and need constant new blood. I believe the Bears can win with a defense/special teams philosophy, but it will require constant drafting of top defensive talent.

He gambled that he could get by on an aging offensive line several years in a row and won. I'm going to give him at least this year and next to turn this downswing around before I completely lose faith in him.

If you believe in clutch ability, we've got a whole separate set of problems. Nope. But I believe, for example, in pitchers wearing down. Is that something we've seen a lot of examples on with the Cubs in recent years? Something that could perhaps be systemic to the organization itself?

I would agree, but I'd also make a judgement on Angelo. Regardless of the fact that he's only picked in the top 5 once, he's had 7 opportunities to pick in the first round and has not selected one impact offensive player. The closest thing he's picked to an impact offensive player anywhere is Hester, who has really only had an impact on special teams. And of those 7 opportunities, he's picked one impact player overall, with Harris on defense. I think it's more than fair to doubt, if not completely disregard the chances of Angelo making the right pick in the top 5. On that issue, I'd just rather he never draft offense. Ever.

I'm not making a judgment on Angelo, I'm saying I'd rather a team not pick in the top 5 if they aren't getting a surefire franchise QB or tackle.

Why does everyone assume that if dedication were the deciding factor, they'd be in the top 45k?