n/t

Usually, in late August of a season like this, I would be agreeing with you.  Here is why I'm not: The National League is so bad this year, and the Central Division is so wide open, that I do not believe for one minute that the Cubs cannot be right back in the middle of things next year.  Contrary to what is said and written about this year's Cubs, there is a lot of talent on this team.  The team just needs the kind of leadership in the dugout and clubhouse to blend this talent together so that when they walk across the white lines, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  This year, on any given day, they are simply nine talented guys out there playing in the same uniform.

We need one more big bat to go in the middle of the lineup with Lee, Ramirez, Barrett and Jones. Pierre is not the best leadoff hitter in the world, but he has had a good second half and I think you need to bring him back because if you don't, that creates another huge hole, and I'm not sure there is going to be a better one out there this offseason. The rotation is in shambles, but the back end of the bullpen has been great.  I really think, one more big bat in left field, two starting pitchers, and a change in attitude from the manager and coaches, and we can be back in it in '07.  The National League is wide open and there is no reason to believe that will change next year.  It's up to Jim Hendry and Andy MacFailure and whether they want to make it happen.  Whether they will or not remains to be seen, but it would not really take all that much.  

are why I am having trouble really attending this blog.  It seems that there are people who tend to want a homogenized view on the future of the franchise.. its their opinion or your opinion is the stupidest thing they've ever heard.  

Truth be told, why not wait until you know the off-season is done to make comments about next years chances.. If the Cubs were to pick up two impact free agents one of which was a pitcher and one a power bat/RBI guy.  Then would you not say that the team at least has a SHOT. Yes, I would.  I think the Cubs are 3 players away from competing and those players are available.. Two quality Starting pitchers one of which is an ace one of which is a solid middle guy.  And one power hitting OF/2b/SS.  Any of those positions will do.  I want the Cubs to be successful. It seems like a lot of people have turned in their desire to watch baseball to watch the Cubs in return they have received a bitingly cynical view on everything Cubs and everything baseball.  

I will root for the Cubbies next year no matter what they are my team, and baseball isn't a game to be taken too seriously.  It isn't my life, it was once my passion; however, it is still just a game.  Anyway,that's that. I shall dissapear again until put on notice by Julie (dropped to 5th she needs to put HERSELF on notice).

you're forgiven.

You do realize that you're basing almost all of your opinions/beliefs on nothing that is supported with statistical evidence, right?  Aside from assuming we can expect similar production from Aramis Ramirez, nothing else you say here is based on anything other than opinion.  Sure, they're your opinions and you're entitled to them, but to ignore, discount, or even make fun of those who do use statistical analysis to show that this team is not going to be very good next season is ludicrous.

There's no evidence whatsoever that could suggest a player just suddenly masters the art of seeing the ball better.  It doesn't happen.  The correlation coefficient of batting average is 0.43, which means their is a tremendous variance from one season to the next in a player's batting average.  Ignoring this because you think he mastered the art of seeing the ball better is definitely an opinion you're entitled to, and you may ultimately even be right, but the evidence we have suggests that you aren't.  

All of your opinions are qualified with "anything is possible" or "you can't say that for sure."  Of course not.  Nothing in this game is for sure and nobody understands it in its entirety, but we do have strong evidence to suggest that Barrett will not ever again reproduce this batting average just as we have reason to believe Derrek Lee never will match his 2005 numbers again either.  Yes, it's possible, but highly unlikely.  

What you don't seem to understand or are simply ignoring is that most people who say the Cubs have little chance are basing this on statistical evidence and a few logical assumptions as well.  I agree that it's entirely possible that the Cubs could contend, but the likelihood of that is slim to none.  This is a numbers game, if anything, and they simply do not support the Cubs being a successful team unless they spend upwards of $130 million on the team next season.  

So go ahead and believe that Barrett is an improved hitter when the overwhelming odds are that he's been lucky at the plate.  .260 hitters don't suddenly become .320 or .330 hitters.  It DOES NOT happen.  It's possible, but rare.  Same goes for Derrek Lee.  

Just as many argued at great length that guys with walk rates like Dempster do not make good closers despite his stellar first season as a closer.  As it's turned out, the numbers were right.  Dempster isn't a good closer.  YOu have to be careful to base opinions after a career year.  You see, a career year, by definition, is one that is not likely to happen again or it wouldn't be called a career year.

We can also expect a modest regression to the mean for Jack Jones next season.  He's outperformed his career numbers already.  His career averages tell us he's not this good.  I'm sure it's possible to believe he just suddenly got better at his age, but again, it's highly unlikely.  

It's also highly unlikely to expect Mark Prior to step into the rotation next season and be anything close to functional after nearly 3 seasons filled with injuries.  Not to mention that we now have "rumors" (from the same guy who first broke his sore shoulder this spring training) that his injury is the exact same as Kerry Wood's in 2005.  How did 2006 work out for Kerry Wood?

What are the odds that just ONE young pitcher who made his debut on a team turns in a respectable performance the following season?  5% maybe?  And you're suggesting that THREE of them could do this?  Again, HIGHLY UNLIKELY!  Not impossible by any means...but the chances are slim to none.

Murton can hit 20 home runs next season based on what?  His minor league numbers?  No.  His Major League numbers?  No.  His slugging average?  No. His isolated power?  No.  His .255/.300/.375 line as an everyday player?  No.  Just exactly what are you basing this "murton can hit 20 homers next season" stuff on?  Not impossible, but nearly impossible and there's no reason at all in this world to think that he can do this.  NONE.  PERIOD!

So Juan Pierre's horrible 2 months to start the season should be ignored based on his last 3 months?  We shouldn't consider his horrible OBP in the leadoff spot and his horrible stolen base percentage, which has effective nullified ANY value at all that he may have with his 40+ SBs?  Just ignore this?  His .280/.325/.375 line we should just ignore, too?  We should just pay this guy $8 million per season to produce at the level a replacement player could?  Just because you think it took a 6 year MLB veteran 2 months to adapt to hitting in one of the friendliest hitting ballparks in the game?  Just because you think Dusty made him bunt even though bunting has been a HUGE part of his game in the past?  Just ignore all of this?  

So we should also count on production from players who are oft-injured?  Should we pencil Prior in as the ace and rely on him for 22 wins next season, too?  Should we ignore the fact that wrist injuries have been known to be problematic and even have ended the careers of some?  

We're just going to trade all of this surplus talent we have to get players via trade?  What surplus talent?  Who are we going to trade exactly.  What players might other teams be interested in that the Cubs could afford to lose?  Just trade the talent we have at the minor league level so we can improve 25 games from one season to the next and contend next season?  This doesn't strike you as the least bit odd?

Also, please tell me why you think the Cubs are going to invest in a top-tiered free agent.  Seriously.  The last such one they signed was ANDRE DAWSON!  And he gave them a blank check.  Again, not impossible that Hendry goes out and targets maybe one elite free agent, but highly unlikely based on what we know about the Chicago Tribune.  It's NOT a freaking coincidence that the Cubs have not signed an elite free agent to market value since the Tribune has owned this team.  Do you really see this coming to an end?

So while I agree that it's possible, but can you see that it's also not likely?  "Not likely" doesn't mean impossible though the Cubs are at such a disadvantage it is damn near impossible for it to happen.  

Going back to the advent of the Wild Card 61 teams have won fewer than 70 games (not counting the '94 and '95 strike-shortened seasons).  ONLY 3 of those 61 teams--4.9%--made the playoffs the following season.  4.9%!  2 of those teams, I should point out, were the Cubs--the '97 and '02 Cubs.  The ONLY other team in this span to have won less than 70 and reach the playoffs was the Arizona Diamondbacks.  That 1999 team won 100 games after going 65-97 the season before.  That team spent a ton of cash in that offseason also.

4 out of 300 teams have managed to turn their losing season one year into a 25-game improvement the following season.  That's 1.3% of all baseball teams.  It's actually happened 5 times, but the 116 win Mariners only won 91 the year before.  It's hard to count that year considering they were pretty damn good the year before.

The NL Central average win total is 89.7 games.  Since you can't shoot for the Wild Card, the Cubs must try to win 90 games and half the years the division has been one it's taken more than 90.

The Cubs are currently on pace to win 68 games.  Keep in mind that this is a team that will be playing a lot of youngsters in September and will likely not win 68 games, but somewhere closer to 65.  But let's say 68 for the hell of it.

The Cubs would have to improve 22 games to give themselves a shot to win the NL Central.  22 games!  22 game improvements aren't more common than 25-game improvements.  

Can you see how darn difficult it's going to be for the Cubs to accomplish what you're saying?  Other teams have had injury problems before and they haven't done what you're saying they can.

If we apply just a little common sense knowing that of the only 3 times a team has lost less than 70 and then reached the playoffs the following season that 2 of those times were the Cubs, it's awfully hard to believe the Cubs are going to make it 3 out of 4 teams.  It seems nearly statistically impossible that when less than 5% of teams have done so that 75% of the times it happened was the same team.  It's just not likely.  Regardless of what happens in the offseason.  Teams just don't improve as much as the Cubs need to very often.  

No matter what you believe or what you're opinions are, you can't look at this information along with an abundance of other information that suggests how difficult it will be and tell me they stand a good chance.  They don't.  They stand a slightly better chance of making the playoffs next season than the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates, which isn't saying much at all.  I assume you'd agree that neither of those teams are going to be in the playoffs in 2007, right?