Rerisen

What's wrong with Lou? Only that he might be coaching the Yanks. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2617224 Does that open the door for Torre to the Cubs? :shock:

I'm not against the sac bunt on principal but I'm definately against this Cubs teams sac bunting. From what I have seen the last few years, might as well just start banging your head into the wall as soon as its called for.

In 1992 Cubs had Doug Dascenzo at center field for most of the year and he hit 0 HR's, would have figured that team would be on the list. They probably outhomered him, just not by 5.

Half the players in baseball or more were probably guilty of being on 'something'. Players have cited the numbers and used words like 'rampant' but people just refuse to believe it. So names trickle out one by one and until one's own favorite players or team's are singled out refuse to accept the likely reality. They really need to call about a 7 year period from 97/98-2005 the 'steroid era'.

It seems impossible to totally block out that kind of pressure. It is possible that some batters can simply use that crucible of an intense moment to really hone their skills so that they are doing everything possible to be in a position to succeed. No doubt the adrenline is going at a faster rate than batting in the first inning. I'm sure most dont 'slack' on purpose in other parts of the game but maybe that pressure can be a focusing tool while its a liability to others more prone to choking. Though is is very rare to find many guys that will go a whole career producing clutch numbers every year. It seems to vary greatly.

When all other things are equal, you take the guy who has the advantage in the one area that is not. I realize this, but how much more valuable is the player with the higher average? I realize a single more than likely drives in a run then a walk...but again....I want to know how valuable that hit is. i take the guy with the higher isoD, and i'll tell you why: isoD is generally a more consistent statistic than BA. when the guy who's hitting .330 inevtiably hits a slump and is down around .270, his OBP will be at (assuming his isoD is remaining static) .320. conversely, when the guy who's hitting .270 gets hot at the plate, (remember, isoD is static) and his average jumps to .300, his OBP is at a whopping .410, which is unbelievably valuable to winning. the next year, the guy with the high isoD will invariably put up a good to great OBP regardless of whether his BA is at .260 or at .330, while the guy with the lower isoD will be very unpredictable. Good point. This is why a guy like Rickey Henderson still had a .387 OBP when his average was .219 with the Mets.

Do players get dumber when they put on a Cubs uniform? This is like the same boneheaded stuff Alou used to do. Of course then we go and ditch him and he hits .350 for the Giants and you hear nothing about the same kind of stuff he did here. :-k

His body is breaking down and he's almost 42. Really Bonds this year reminds of Sammy's 2004 season. I suspect he is going to only get worse and much faster. I heard the other day, at this pace, Bonds wont catch Hank till sometime in 2008. Or more likely, never. When these hulking Home Run brutes start to decline and have physcial problems, their career comes to an end rather quickly. What disgusts me is the respect and fear pitchers are still showing Bonds. I guess habits die hard. He's hitting .217 but still gets walked as if he's hitting .375 and his OBP is still way over .450. Make the guy prove he still deserves that kind of treatment.

I love that we have Pierre leading off. And its great that he has speed. But if speed is not your thing he has a .390 OBP in day games the last 5 years or so (IIHC). So what's not to like? :)

If Bonds wasnt approaching Babe's and Hank's records I wonder if steroids would still be an issue in baseball this year? Or if it was someone more liked by the media. Not to excuse Barry in any way, I cant stand the guy. But probably a quite large percentage of guys hitting large amounts of home runs were tainted by steroids throughout the last 15 years, but its not really a big deal because no one cares if someone at 365 career home runs was helped by steroids to pass up 20 more players in the all time books who were ranked somewhere back at 98th place all time.

I do. Which is why I think someone who may know a social psychologist should get an opinion. Nothing personal, I just don't trust your opinion on this. My problem with the chemistry argument is that probably the two best baseball teams I've seen in my lifetime: the As of the early '70s and the Big Red Machine were both known to have chemistry issues. In fact I've read over the years about how there was a lot of animosity on those teams. But they were just dominant. Is there such a thing as off the field and on the field chemistry? Really competitive people often dont get along or may get into fights off the field. Sometimes maybe even you get into it with your best friend, but when you get on a team together you play exceptionally well. Even if you motivation is outdoing the guy you hate on the other side of the outfield. Isnt it also possible that when people talk of chemistry they might not just mean social relationships but how well a team is balanced. For example following the NBA this season (where chemistry is probably even more important) you could look at the Knicks this season and see that they actually have alot more talent than teams similar to their record. But its often said they have no chemistry because they have too many redundent skill set players. Francis and Marbury, Crawford and Rose. Too many guys offensively oriented and not enough hustle players. And also their players dont fit into the typical mold of the players their coach usually builds a team around. Yet if you rated each of their players individually on a scale of 1 to 10 you would come up with a much higher total than the other worst teams in the league. In baseball this might be seen as something like when Boston got rid of what many considered superior players for the sake of upgrading their defense.

Public agrees with you. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGP1H82.html

Hey NSBB. I thought Raffy was having a rather mediocre season from the get go and it made you wonder. But after the All-Star Break, his numbers were starting to ramp up for what its worth. To me this is not even a mild shock. It always grated to hear the arguements that no one should be even speculated to have used steroids unless it was proven beyond doubt. Are we to believe the only steroid users in baseball were Canseco, Caminiti, and now Raffy?

Kind of like the rest of the team? Scoring runs in the final two games when they don't matter. I don't see how it could have hurt starting him in the Mets series to give Sammy and Alou a day off for the home stretch. I believe everyone expected Sosa to at least somewhat pull out of his abysmal second half. He never really did. Most teams are not going to play a rookie with less than 20 Major League at bats in the last few weeks of a tight Wild Card race. That is understandable. However, Dubois should never have been in the position to not have at bats by that point in the season. That is why you get the young guys at bats early in the year. Test their mettle then so you know if they will be reliable later on. Give your veterans breaks and days off early on so they are not gassed and can make a strong run of games at the end. Dusty did not do that and that was a major failing.

He's looking good today but I sure would be curious to see how he did in a critical game down the stretch instead of in a game that is meaningless.