Keener98

Thats nothing compared to what Theriot did for the Cubs, I dont care what those stupid stats say.

I understand in the grand scheme of things being ranked 25th or 27th doesnt mean much, but I also believe being ranked helps recruiting. Kids see the top 25 and often times dont see 26 on down, and I think it does weigh in on recruiting. Maybe not much(hell look at U of I's recruiting lately) but often times the little things can come in to play. What would really help their recruiting is if they beat Michigan. Also like Andy has said the polls are very much a what have you done for me lately thing. Illinois lost their last game to a team that isnt very good. Look, we all understand why the pollsters do the things they do, doesn't make it right. Arguing that since Illinois lost to a team that isn't very good(on the road) justifies them being below a Michigan team that lost to Appalachian St. and got murdered by Oregon(both at home) is madness. But it was last week. Games played last week have more impact on the polls than games played 7 weeks ago. I dont argue that Illinois has a better body of work. Its not how the polls work. Also teams like Michigan are always going to get a few added points. What you may want to ask is why is Michigan ranked higher in the computer polls? These polls dont put higher merit into recent games. Thats been my point this entire thread.

I understand in the grand scheme of things being ranked 25th or 27th doesnt mean much, but I also believe being ranked helps recruiting. Kids see the top 25 and often times dont see 26 on down, and I think it does weigh in on recruiting. Maybe not much(hell look at U of I's recruiting lately) but often times the little things can come in to play. What would really help their recruiting is if they beat Michigan. Also like Andy has said the polls are very much a what have you done for me lately thing. Illinois lost their last game to a team that isnt very good. Look, we all understand why the pollsters do the things they do, doesn't make it right. Arguing that since Illinois lost to a team that isn't very good(on the road) justifies them being below a Michigan team that lost to Appalachian St. and got murdered by Oregon(both at home) is madness. Hey SSR, did you notice that Penn State is ahead of the Illini? I think thats an even bigger joke than Michigan.

He doesn't hit well enough for the outfield, and he doesn't field the position well enough to get away with diminished batting production. What in the sam hell are you talking about with this?

Damn him for making a mistake. Guess what every single person on this team made stupid mistakes this year, not just Ronny

Once again, great argument.

Ryan Theriot 2007 OPS .672 Cesar Izturis 2007 OPS .643 There really is no difference except Theriot needed to have a month of having a 900+ OPS to reach his numbers, and Izturis didnt. So Theriot was basically better than Izturis for 1 month, and then other than that 1 month, Izturis was the better offensive player.

Nobody is calling for Murtons head cause his numbers compared to Theriots put Murton in the Hall of Fame. But hey, does anybody else want to throw out the great"board generalization" because it really helps your argument when you do it, believe me.

I understand in the grand scheme of things being ranked 25th or 27th doesnt mean much, but I also believe being ranked helps recruiting. Kids see the top 25 and often times dont see 26 on down, and I think it does weigh in on recruiting. Maybe not much(hell look at U of I's recruiting lately) but often times the little things can come in to play.

Yea I thought Andy was trying to justify it, I didnt realize he was trying to argue on how the voters operate. Hell I know how the voters operate But anybody who doesnt think the name on the front of your jersey plays a big part in voting in the polls is foolish. The Michigans, Miamis, Notre Dames, FSU, etc... will get votes just because of who they are, their resume really doesnt mean much when it comes to voters.

Please...list these "facts" for me. * Offensive and defensive statistics (you can look them up). * The Cubs winning percentages with Theriot starting/Cedeno starting. All the "mathmeticians" that want to say that Theriot "sucked" in 2007 - I don't really know what to say. I am sure he will improve, and I am sure there was a reason why he started at SS most of the year. I know he was inconsistant at best offensively, and didn't play SS like Ozzie Smith. I can appreciate that the 2007 Chicago Cubs were a hell of a lot better than the 06 Cubs - and they got almost all the plays from SS because of Theriot. I watched a hell of a lot of games this season, and we definately had a better team when he was in the lineup. I love players like Theriot, and hope he is our SS/2B for as long as he plays like he did in 07. I'll bet you if you asked any member of the team they would agree with me too. The Cubs finished 65-62 with Theriot starting, and they were 20-15 when Theriot did not start. They were 8-6 when Cedeno started this season. If you want to make the winning percentage argument, you're arguing for Cedeno because his winning percentage was a lot higher than Theriot's. The Cubs scored 4.496 runs per game when Theriot started. They scored 5.17 runs per game when Theriot did not start. They scored 5.07 runs per game when Cedeno started. But but but but........good job CCP

Losing to the 15 team in the nation now is only a "decent loss"? I dont care when IL loss was, the reason Michigan is ranked and Il isnt is because they are Michigan, and Illinois is Illinois. Id think its pretty simple. Who has Michigan beaten? Illinois has beaten the then #5 team Wisconsin, and a top 20 team at the time in Penn State. At the time, Notre Dame's 2005 win over Michigan was a road win over a top 5 team and by the end of the year everyone was trashing it because Michigan lost 5 games. You can't change the criteria for a good win to fit your team. Wisconsin's not very good as they've proven in their ugly wins over The Citadel and Iowa plus their 2 losses, and Penn State isn't either. Although they were ranked higher when Michigan beat them than when you did, so I guess that was an impressive win. If Illinois had won five straight and Michigan had just dropped a game to a team without a league win in over a year, you'd be looking at the reverse situation, there's not a doubt about it. And yes, as Missouri has no win better than a neutral-site win over an unranked team (Nebraska just got steamrolled at home by Oklahoma State and barely squeaked by the BSU Cardinals, so it's safe to say they aren't all that good either), it's 'only' a decent loss. You keep talking about Michigan winning 5 straight. Big deal they have beaten. 1 team worth a crap(Purdue) and then 1 decent team(Penn State) and 3 teams that suck(Notre Dame, Eastern Michigan, and Northwestern). They are ranked because they are Michigan plain and simple. I'm speaking through the voters. 5 straight wins will always outweigh 1 straight loss, no matter who it's against, in the polls. Simple fact. Especially when you are Michigan, Notre Dame, Miami, etc.... Doesnt matter cause after this Sat Michigan will go back to being unranked.

Losing to the 15 team in the nation now is only a "decent loss"? I dont care when IL loss was, the reason Michigan is ranked and Il isnt is because they are Michigan, and Illinois is Illinois. Id think its pretty simple. Who has Michigan beaten? Illinois has beaten the then #5 team Wisconsin, and a top 20 team at the time in Penn State. At the time, Notre Dame's 2005 win over Michigan was a road win over a top 5 team and by the end of the year everyone was trashing it because Michigan lost 5 games. You can't change the criteria for a good win to fit your team. Wisconsin's not very good as they've proven in their ugly wins over The Citadel and Iowa plus their 2 losses, and Penn State isn't either. Although they were ranked higher when Michigan beat them than when you did, so I guess that was an impressive win. If Illinois had won five straight and Michigan had just dropped a game to a team without a league win in over a year, you'd be looking at the reverse situation, there's not a doubt about it. And yes, as Missouri has no win better than a neutral-site win over an unranked team (Nebraska just got steamrolled at home by Oklahoma State and barely squeaked by the BSU Cardinals, so it's safe to say they aren't all that good either), it's 'only' a decent loss. You keep talking about Michigan winning 5 straight. Big deal they have beaten. 1 team worth a crap(Purdue) and then 1 decent team(Penn State) and 3 teams that suck(Notre Dame, Eastern Michigan, and Northwestern). They are ranked because they are Michigan plain and simple.

You forgot Cubs GM is Jim Hendry on your list.

Please...list these "facts" for me. * Offensive and defensive statistics (you can look them up). * The Cubs winning percentages with Theriot starting/Cedeno starting. All the "mathmeticians" that want to say that Theriot "sucked" in 2007 - I don't really know what to say. I am sure he will improve, and I am sure there was a reason why he started at SS most of the year. I know he was inconsistant at best offensively, and didn't play SS like Ozzie Smith. I can appreciate that the 2007 Chicago Cubs were a hell of a lot better than the 06 Cubs - and they got almost all the plays from SS because of Theriot. I watched a hell of a lot of games this season, and we definately had a better team when he was in the lineup. I love players like Theriot, and hope he is our SS/2B for as long as he plays like he did in 07. I'll bet you if you asked any member of the team they would agree with me too. Why are you sure that a 28 yr old will improve, and a 25 year old wont? You say you love players like Theriot? So you like sub .700 OPS hitting, wont take a walk, doesnt take pitches, and is average at best defensively type of players? You need to take your LSU blinders off, and reailze that Theriot is not a major league caliber SS. Theriot made his year by having 1 great month and 5 sub par months.

Losing to the 15 team in the nation now is only a "decent loss"? I dont care when IL loss was, the reason Michigan is ranked and Il isnt is because they are Michigan, and Illinois is Illinois. Id think its pretty simple. Who has Michigan beaten? Illinois has beaten the then #5 team Wisconsin, and a top 20 team at the time in Penn State.

Michigan's won five straight and Illinois just lost to a team that had no Big Ten wins in a year. And Michigan lost to a D2 school and their resume is nowhere close to being as good as Ilinois It will look much better than Illinois after they beat them this week. Ok if that happens why would it look better since IL isnt even ranked? We are talking about right now, and right now IL has a much better resume.

Michigan's won five straight and Illinois just lost to a team that had no Big Ten wins in a year. And Michigan lost to a D2 school and their resume is nowhere close to being as good as Ilinois

Except Harang is nowhere near as much of a girl as Prior, and has already had seasons of throwing tons of pitches on his arm. Besides that, it will be the same. So Prior is a girl cause he needed surgery?

Yea those 14 innings tell us nothing at all

ILL-

That was exactly my thinking.

How do you figure? Other pitchers have had similar surgeries to Prior and came back to regain form. I forgot the prime example...wasn't it Chris Carpenter? I'm not saying to expect ANYTHING from Prior. He could easily never regain form. But to completely dismiss him as a middle reliever I think is a bad idea. Exactly. Apparently, Prior had significant damage (which would explain the drop in velocity and mysterious undiagnosable pain he had for a couple years) and the repair went well. Let's see what he comes back with. Come on Prior was just a big baby who couldnt deal with a little pain. He was clearly never hurt, and was basically just faking it because he likes sitting on his ass and not playing baseball. He is a figment of your imagination dude,. Don't forget he was on steroids, too. Those tiny calves last spring were telltale. Ah yea how could I forget the steroids. I mean he went to USC, and its in California, and so is BALCO, coincidence I think not...

How do you figure? Other pitchers have had similar surgeries to Prior and came back to regain form. I forgot the prime example...wasn't it Chris Carpenter? I'm not saying to expect ANYTHING from Prior. He could easily never regain form. But to completely dismiss him as a middle reliever I think is a bad idea. Exactly. Apparently, Prior had significant damage (which would explain the drop in velocity and mysterious undiagnosable pain he had for a couple years) and the repair went well. Let's see what he comes back with. Come on Prior was just a big baby who couldnt deal with a little pain. He was clearly never hurt, and was basically just faking it because he likes sitting on his ass and not playing baseball. He is a figment of your imagination dude,.

What a bunch of crap.