Monday Morning Headlines

by Al Yellon on Aug 27, 2007 8:50 AM CDT in Chicago Cubs News

It's a beautiful day here in Chicago. And in most of the country (save, I understand, in parts of Wisconsin where it's storming this morning).

So what are you doing sitting by a computer? Go out and enjoy summer before it's gone. The Cubs are off today, and don't play till tomorrow evening. But before you do, check out some newsworthy items from this Monday:

Shocking! I agree with Phil Rogers this morning. OK, you can get up off the floor now. He says it's time to start hitting more home runs:

Including Jacque Jones, Mark DeRosa, Matt Murton, Daryle Ward, Floyd and Blanco, the Cubs have nine guys who combined for 164 home runs in 2006. That group has produced 75 homers so far--a pace that projects to a 43 percent decrease if it continues for the five weeks that remain.

Actually, unless Soriano, Lee or Ramirez gets hot, the recent trend suggests the totals could be worse by the end of the season. The Cubs have hit an NL-low 30 homers in the second half, 26 fewer than Milwaukee.

Don't look now, but the Reds have sneaked back into the NL Central race, even with a record ten games under .500. But Bruce Miles says Lou's not worried, not this week, anyway:

There was just no getting Cubs manager Lou Piniella to bite on how important this week's upcoming series with the Milwaukee Brewers is.

"I think it's a little early," Piniella said Sunday before repeating it for emphasis. "It's an important series, but it's early. We're still in August. What you're starting to see is Cincinnati is (6½) out, and Pittsburgh is 9. The whole division is getting closer."

Somebody forgot to tell Jason Grey, a MLB.com writer, that Alfonso Soriano's playing left field these days:

Manager Lou Piniella confirmed Sunday that center fielder Alfonso Soriano, who has been out since Aug. 5 with a right quad strain, will be activated and bat leadoff for the series opener against the Brewers on Tuesday.

Well, what do you expect, when the Cubs lose Soriano for 19 games, go 8-11 in those games, and gain 2.5 games on the division lead during that time? (Hat tip to BCB reader Eric W. for the cubs.com link)

And if you're starting to hunt around for clues to next year's regular season schedule, something that's normally finalized on August 15, it's been delayed, and you won't like the reasons:

The 2008 schedule may not be completed for another few weeks, and issues regarding the Red Sox are a big reason for the delay.

First, Major League Baseball is pushing for the Sox to open the season in Japan against the Oakland A's, a move most of the Red Sox are resisting. CEO Larry Lucchino, who is part of baseball's International Committee, is one voice in favor of a trip.

The Japanese promoter has told MLB that he will not schedule the series unless the Sox are part of the matchup.

That's bad enough, but the article goes on to say:

Another issue revolves around weekend dates. Major League Baseball wants the majority of Red Sox-Yankees games scheduled for weekend series, so that the game can highlight the teams on Fox (Saturday Game of the Week) and ESPN (Sunday Night Baseball). But small-market teams, who attract their biggest crowds of the season when the Red Sox and Yankees come to town, also want their share of weekend series with the team, so as to draw even better.

Oh, please. Like we don't get enough Yankees and Red Sox on the Eastern Sports Programming Network already? Bleah.

Now go out and enjoy the rest of this day. Read a book. See a movie. Sleep in (OK, so if you're reading this, you haven't done that). You can resume stressing about the pennant race tomorrow.

Tweet Comment 179 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

1st!!

sorry lou but its not still early. its time to build a lead in this division.

by tbizzle83 on Aug 27, 2007 9:18 AM CDT reply actions

What is Lou really saying?

Lou is trying to hold the Cubs back from emotionally peaking. Looking out the Cubs simply play their game and win 10 of ten over the next 17 they are at 76 wins with 16 games remaining...that is when the final leg of the race will begin.

StL 4 games...6 games home and away with resurgent Cincinnati, 3 games with Pittsburgh and 3 with Florida.

Splitting with StL and Cinci while winning 2 of 3 with Pitt and Florida will give the Cubs a winning formula of 9 of 16 and final 85 wins...

Milw-09-24-98--Brown in for defense--bases loaded--flyball--HE DROPPED THE BALL!!!NO NO NO, cubs lose 8-7

by Ivy Walls on Aug 27, 2007 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions

We actually have 5 games left vs STL

Due to make-up dates.

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions

Nevermind

I see you're referring to games after the 13th

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions

Ironically I have looked over these numbers

For the Cardinals to reach 85 wins and that is what I think is the best the Cardinals can do without doing something almost historic....they have to win 22 out of their last 35, (.621) ball, Cubs win 19 out of 33 and that is .576 ball....

I have the Cubs winning 3 of the 5 games with the StL games; (they win the makeup game where STL must return back from AZ after a day game--meaning they are not in their Chicago hotel beds until well after midnight...for a 2:00 day game, and Cubs come back from Pittsburgh after a day game and are home for the WGN evening news.

So if the Cubs win 3 of 5 that means the Cards have to win 20 out of the remaining 30 with the league. The rest of their schedule they must win at .667) clip, with trips to AZ, Mil & Hous, plus hosting Phil and hot hitting Cinci that gives them troubles...I can see the AZ swing bringing 2 losses....plus a loss to NYM on another makeup game during a road trip, that means Cards have to go 19 out 26 (.730)

Against the likes of Phila at home Milw on the road....(I see them going 3-3)...forcing them to go 16 out of 20 against Houston (7), Cinci (6), Pitt (7). There are two 4-game series, that will not be a sweep, at least 2 losses, and then they must sweep the other two series and win the other 2 of 3. An almost perfect final 5 weeks with a grueling travel schedule today being the final off day. This why I think a reasonable expectation is that the Cards repeat at 83 wins at best more probably 81 or 82

Milw-09-24-98--Brown in for defense--bases loaded--flyball--HE DROPPED THE BALL!!!NO NO NO, cubs lose 8-7

by Ivy Walls on Aug 27, 2007 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions

nice

Very detailed analysis

"These are terrible times, and I shouldn't joke about them." --Warren Zevon

by ExNorthsider on Aug 27, 2007 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions

I've just notices that if Cincy's rotation

doesn't change... the Cubs will thankfully skip past Harang twice... however, so will the Cards.

The Brewers won't be so lucky though. They'll face him both times.

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Power outage reason

could be the wind has blown in seemingly all summer. I don't have the proof but I did hear Pat Hughes talking about the high number of times the wind has blown in.

To me, let it keep blowing in. HR's are great, but if we start hitting them our luck is we'll start giving them up to. We're doing OK with doubles, singles and base clogging walks. Our pitching staff is #2 in NL ERA, pitching wins, remember that.

I think we need to be careful what we wish for with the HR. If anyone can promise wind blowing out and we can out homer our opposition 3-1 with all theirs as solo's and ours with 2 guys on, I'll take it.

My guess is things will start to even out.

This is Harry Carray, goodbye from Wrigley Field and So Long Everybody.

by mrcubsfan on Aug 27, 2007 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions

I don't think so

because they haven't hit many HR's on the road either. Also, I'm pretty sure they've been outhomered, which means the wind apparently isn't affecting the other teams. Something else is going on.

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions

Um... they've been outhomered everywhere.

I would have to attribute the lack of power to poor approaches at the plate in RBI situations.

Gotta either know the first pitch fastball is coming... or work the count to get to an obvious fastball situation.

Unfortunately, we have some free swingin guys like Jones, who get up there and guess... and hack away at sliders in the dirt.

Guys with the best approach at the plate: Theriot, Ramirez, and Kendall. D-Lee gets downgraded for taking too many meatballs early in the count, then getting called out on strikes... and DeRosa lays somewhere in the middle. Then, we get to our free swingers: led by Jones (who completely raises the bar in this category), Soriano, Floyd, Fontenot, etc.

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions

I've often thought

that Jones needs a Costanzaesque approach at the plate.

Confused?

Here...Geaorge Costanza had much success in an episode of Seinfeld when he chose to do everything the opposite of what his instincts told him to do.

Translation...

Since JJ is fooled so often by that breaking ball in the dirt (or sometimes not even), and it would appear that sometimes, if not most of the times, he is expecting a fastball, then why not assume they are ALWAYS going to throw a slider or curve in the dirt. Take most pitches and then maybe thisngs would work out better.

I am no math wiz but if we did the numbers, we may find that the chances of the pitcher going to a fastball are slim and even if he does to get a strik or two, that he will inevitable havr to go back to the breaker and we have ourselves a walk.

PRESTO!

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions

Wow

in reading back, that last paragraph was painful. in my defense, someone was talking to me.

I was saying inevitable, even if the pitcher goes with back to back fastballs for strikes, he will inevitably go back to the breaking pitch and we have ourselves a walk!

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions

Cubs power numbers down due to combo factors

Wind blowing all summer probably 10-15 HR's that might have made the basket instead of being caught or off the wall.

Lee still recovering from his wrist injury. Ramirez having a wrist injury...Knock off 20 HR's here...(Ramirez and should have 25 HR's), Soriano's injuries, (5 HR's)...Jones poor first season...10 HR's so I can count 45-50 HR's.

But the biggest reason is a change in approach. Piniella has them hitting and winning with situational hitting, taking walks, moving runners over, scoring runs with RISP at higher percentages...

Milw-09-24-98--Brown in for defense--bases loaded--flyball--HE DROPPED THE BALL!!!NO NO NO, cubs lose 8-7

by Ivy Walls on Aug 27, 2007 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Maybe they were

all sharing Neffi Perez's power drinks last year. Who knew? ;-)

Prince Fielder...he is neither.

by LAcarl519 on Aug 27, 2007 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think

that free swinging is at all related to the lack of power. If anything it's the opposite. Soriano's leading the team in HR and he's probably the biggest free swinger on the team. Jones hit 27 bombs last season and was just as big a free swinger last year as he is this year (and this year he still has more HR than Theriot or Kendall).

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions

I agree

free swingers are usually your streaky home run hitters, like a Soriano.

In today's game, a lot of the homerun hitters are first pitch hitters. Pitchers today are less prone to throw fastballs on hitters counts, and will toss up breaking balls/change ups on 2-0, 2-1 and 3-1 counts. They know the hitter is going to be ready to put a big swing on a good pitch, and many guys end up getting fooled in those situations.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Aug 27, 2007 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions

Stats

Since the all-star break here are Jones's numbers: .331/.377/.489. Not bad for a guy who just guesses and hacks at sliders in the dirt.

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions

Don't you see though

that stats or no stats, if a man, during this stretch of baseball, doesn't come up lucky, he is worthless to the team (at this time only). He has been great as of late but we need smarter AB's in the next couple weeks and IF he is a guesser, then, we need better than that.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions

I agree

the wind may account for some of the power shortage at home, but not on the road.

If I am not mistaken, I believe homerun numbers are down quite a bit across both leagues. Is pitching better? I really don't know. Is the ball a little less lively this year? It could be, but it is probably a blend of several factors.

One factor could actually be the influence of Pinella. Situational hitting with this club was abysmal under Baker, and that is one thing Piniella teams have always excelled at. Compared to 06 - OBP is up 10 points, runs per game are up .5 and most importantly, avg with RISP is up 20 points.

I am not saying the severe homer drought is all Piniella's philosophy, because home run hitters usually get close to their career numbers, but I do think it is one of probably several factors as to why the power is down.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Aug 27, 2007 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions

Dare I suggest that

PED's may be a part of this equation?

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions

And I mean with

pitchers and hitters.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions

Careful with that

pitching wins statement. I tried this recently and was told (and agree more now) that without the offense, pitching aint gonna win nuttin.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions

screw Fox... why not bid out the BSox-NYY series

to another network like Notre Dame?

But it also shows why I have to a series conclusion that McPhail was the smothering effect that kept the Cubs down for so long. BSox and NYY are at the top of the payroll and the Cubs as a major market team should also be in the $125-$130M class.

This could mean a 14M and 10M position player and another $6M pitcher. Let me see possibly IRod behind the plate and a real RF'er plus another left handed reliever

Milw-09-24-98--Brown in for defense--bases loaded--flyball--HE DROPPED THE BALL!!!NO NO NO, cubs lose 8-7

by Ivy Walls on Aug 27, 2007 9:21 AM CDT reply actions

So....

anyone know a place where I can find a countdown clock to the next Yanks/Sox series? My world feels empty without it....

What a bunch of crap. I have a friend who lives out in Boston and doesn't get why this is a big deal because everyone "cares" about that series. I loved the town when I visited there a few years ago, and would perhaps even call it my favorite big city, but this is the kind of crap that makes me hate the East Coast for no reason.

Al, I know you talked about the schedule making process in a post a few months ago (I think around the time of the snowouts in Cleveland). Nice to see MLB has sorted all that mess out and has moved on to focus on the true problems facing the schedule.

Anyhow, maybe MLB can finally learn to put together a schedule that doesn't involve playing the same team on back to back weeks with nearly the same pitching matchups in each series, which as a fan is really ridiculous to watch.

by hawkeyenation on Aug 27, 2007 9:53 AM CDT reply actions

The easy solution, of course...

... is just to have the Red Sox and Yankees play every day of the season and be covered by all TV networks simultaneously.

</sarcasm>

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Aug 27, 2007 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions

And make sure....

It's on every channel.

Every. Single. One.

I just don't get the fascination with the series when the two teams currently sport the largest margin between first and second place teams. There are far more important series going on coughcoughCubsandBrewerscoughcough

It would, frankly, be awesome if one of the two teams was just pitiful next year after MLB had tried so hard to get this series rammed down the throats of everyone. That would be sweet sweet revenge by the baseball gods.

by hawkeyenation on Aug 27, 2007 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions

Comedy Central

Yes, I know everyone here is tired of the national media's focus on the Red Sox and Yankees, but let's face the facts: those teams have a historic rivalry and are consistently good. The same cannot be said of the Cubs and many other teams with large fan bases. And this week's huge divisional showdown involves two teams that are a combined 3 games over .500. If the Cubs and Brewers played in the AL East they would be a respective 13 and 14.5 games out of first, hardly worthy of national attention. While I would love for the Cubs to make the playoffs I'm not under the illusion that this is anything more than a slightly-above average team. We are not one of the top 8 teams in baseball and if we make the playoffs it will be because we're lucky enough to be in the worst division in baseball. I don't know about any other people here, but I for one do not want the first Cubs World Series title in 99 years to be achieved through sheer luck. I'm all for replacing the divisional format with a two-league system and the top 4 teams from each league advancing to the postseason. While that would still be unfair to some American League teams this year, it would at least move towards a more balanced and fair playoff system. At present, barring a major hot streak by the Cubs, they will likely luck their way into the playoffs, rather than earn their spot.

by ms9av on Aug 27, 2007 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions

say what?

I for one do not want the first Cubs World Series title in 99 years to be achieved through sheer luck.

you are joking, correct?

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions

Not Joking

Maybe I'm a little too young and haven't been waiting quite long enough, but when the Cubs do finally win it all, I'd like it to be done by a team that wins more than 83 games. The Cardinals title last year was a joke and reflects negatively on the baseball playoff structure. I want the Cubs to win and to do so with a good team, not one that merely benefited from a flawed system that rewards streaky play over a three-week period in October rather than season-long excellence.

by ms9av on Aug 27, 2007 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions

isn't idealism swell?!

a world series ring is a world series ring, regardless of the road traveled to achieve such.

i do appreciate your thoughts though.

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions

Yup.

Ask any Cardinal fan if they'd give back last year's title because they won "only" 83 games.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Aug 27, 2007 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes

You must be too young. When was the last team that won the series based on "season-long excellence"? Not the Cards, not the White Sox (faded badly down the stretch), not the Red Sox (wild card team that got lucky in the playoffs), not the Marlins (wild card team that got lucky in the playoffs), etc. Doesn't matter how you win it as long as you win it. If you don't want to enjoy a Cubs world series because you think it reflects badly on baseball's playoff structure that's your problem. I'll be celebrating my ass off. GO CUBS!!!

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions

well said, cubsbak!

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah... Seriously

I'll be going nuts!

And personally... it would be even sweeter if it was a "miracle" Cinderella playoff run, instead of being a team that wins 116 games.

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions

Only disagree slightly on the Marlins...

Who had the best record in all of baseball after May 1 in the 2003 season. They did get lucky to get to the World Series, but they weren't a fluke choice to win going into the playoffs.

But otherwise I completely agree. You'd have to go back to the Yankees teams of the late-90s to see a team exhibit regular season excellence and win the World Series.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions

And as for celebrating...

I COMPLETELY agree. I'll probably have to miss a week of work I'll be so celebratory.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Maybe Not Excellence, But At Least Goodness

Looking back to 1950, and disregarding the 1981 season, only four teams with less than 90 wins have won the World Series (2006 Cards, 2000 Yanks, 1987 Twins, 1959 Dodgers). I realize 90 wins is an arbitrary number, but it at least signifies above-average play. I would obviously celebrate any Cubs World Series, but I would prefer that team not be remembered as the worst to ever win the championship.

by ms9av on Aug 27, 2007 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Worst ever?

If that is the argument that is fine. Quite flawed, but fine. Just think, that "worst team ever to win the World Series" would be just a bit better than the other 29 teams that were so bad that they couldn't even defeat the "worst team to ever win the World Series". I would suppose 29 managers would be set to be fired if that were the case.

Eighty-five percent of the f*ckin' world is working. The other fifteen percent come out here. -- Lee Constantine Elia, 1983.

by krummy12 on Aug 27, 2007 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Hey

When I win the lottery I'd love for the jackpot to be $500 million instead of just $100 million, or $10 million, or even just $1 million. But either way you won't hear me complaining. I'll just celebrate and be happy.

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Further....

... the 1984 Cubs were, without question, the best team in the NL, and the 1989 Cubs also had the best record in the league.

Fat lot of good that did us. I'll take a World Series win even if the Cubs get in with a LOSING record.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Aug 27, 2007 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Yep

Talk to Sweet Lou and ask him which year he is most proud of: 1990, when his Reds went 91-71 and upset the A's in the series, or 2001, when his Mariners won 116 ballgames and lost the ALCS to the Yanks?

Anyone care that the last Cubs team to win the world series, the 1908 team, won the pennant only because Fred Merkle stupidly didn't touch second base after a game-winning hit, forcing a critical game against the Giants to be replayed? Of course not. We only care that the Cubs won it all that year.

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions

Indeed

There is absolutely no way I would feel bad about this team winning a WS. I've never understood that argument beyond insulating one's self from disappointment. It's much easier to say "I hope this team fails", because there's always a better chance of one of the other 7 playoff teams winning it all. It's either that or you are Jay Mariotti and devoid of any human emotion.

by BigJimSlade on Aug 27, 2007 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Baseball Not A Lottery

I appreciate your analogy, but most competitive sports leagues are designed to try to measure the best team over the course of a season, or at least pit the best teams in an end-of-season tournament to decide the champion. They are meant to measure skill, whereas lotteries simply measure luck.

I guess all I'm trying to articulate is that I think there is a breaking point where a championship can lose some of its value because it was achieved in a certain way. At what point do you begin to question the design of the entire process?

If the Cubs were somehow to make the playoffs with a sub-.500 record and get hot and win it all, I don't know if I could wholeheartedly celebrate it. While you may say that makes me less of a Cubs fan or too much of an idealist, I would argue that I would want that championship to mean more than just a winning lottery ticket achieved through completely random luck. While some like their champions lucky, I prefer to have them good.

by ms9av on Aug 27, 2007 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions

No

The only competitive sports league that is designed to measure the best team over the course of a season is college football. The rest of them have playoffs. And the winner of the playoffs wins the championship pure and simple. If the Cubs manage to win the playoffs they are the champions and if you can't appreciate that, well, then, too bad for you.

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions

No

Sure, but playoffs are meant to involve the best teams. I'm not against upsets and am not oblivious to luck (it is always a factor to some degree), but I don't think certain teams should be put in a position where they can upset another. We may root for Cinderella teams in the NCAA's, but generally, with the notable exception of last year, sub-.500 teams are excluded from entry. And NCAA basketball is different because there are so many teams that a broadly inclusive tournament is needed in order to measure teams that have played different schedules. But in baseball, where over the course of 162 games teams can be accurately measured against each other, there is no justification for allowing a sub-.500 team a chance to produce upsets in a postseason tournament.

by ms9av on Aug 27, 2007 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions

No again

The playoffs are meant to involve the best teams from each region or division. That's why MLB has divisional play. To maintain fan interest, MLB doesn't want the NL playoffs to consist of, say, 4 teams from the same region (i.e. the east coast).

Nevertheless, no matter what system is in place, if the Cubs come through and win the championship they will have earned it whether you can appreciate that or not.

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions

Crazy

That is just crazy, crazy logic. What you're basically implying is that the 162-game baseball season with 30 teams is a flawed system because it pits 8 playoff teams against each other in a two or three week period to decide who is the "best" team. Of course there will be luck and random events occuring over that two or three week period that may go a long way to deciding who is ultimately crowned World Series Champion. And just the same, the team that the general public views as the "best" going into the World Series, doesn't always in it.

That's all part of the game. Even if there is a possible "fix" for the perceived problem (which would seemingly include retracting 10 teams so that each roster is littered with the better players instead of some of the roster filler on each team today), the same random events could still win the title.

What do you suggest, a one-game playoff whereby the team with the best record pitches from 45 feet and runs on 75 foot bases while the teams with worse records play from 60 and 90 respectively?

The whole analysis that suggests you would "apologize" for a Cubs championship in 2007 is absured....at best.

Eighty-five percent of the f*ckin' world is working. The other fifteen percent come out here. -- Lee Constantine Elia, 1983.

by krummy12 on Aug 27, 2007 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Luck

Sure, it's a tournament largely measuring luck and/or dominant starting pitching. But you should have to earn your spot in this tournament, not luck your way into it.

by ms9av on Aug 27, 2007 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions

Under the imbalanced schedule

winning the central division will be earning it.

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions

Hardly

The combined winning percentage of Cubs opponents this year is .493, 27th out of 30 teams. All six NL Central teams are in the bottom eight in strength of schedule in MLB. The Cubs play in the inferior league, and in the worst division within that league. So the unbalanced schedule helps them, rather than hurts them. I don't see how you can argue against that.

by ms9av on Aug 27, 2007 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions

Who cares?

Under your system we'd probably be selecting 8 American League teams for the playoffs, or maybe 7 teams and the Mets. That would be stupid. It's set up with 2 leagues and 3 divisions. Other than the interleague games, you essentially have the same schedule as the other teams in your division. If you finish with the best record in that division you make the playoffs. Get over it. Would you rather we all just voted on the best teams or had a computer figure it out based on opponents win-percentage, etc. like they do in college football? I wouldn't. Let's play it on the field in the playoffs and see who wins.

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions

Still Time

And just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that this years Cubs are a bad team. There's still plenty of time for them to get on a roll and finish strong. So I guess I'm just musing on the possibility of that situation occurring, not that I think it will. I'm hoping for a 20-13 finish and 86 wins, and with that I'd be satisfied. I know the difference between 83 and 86 wins is minimal, but it seems somewhat significant in my admittedly arbitrary mind.

by ms9av on Aug 27, 2007 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm hoping the

Cubs win the central division and I could care less how many wins it takes or what anyone thinks. This isn't a beauty contest.

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions

I have read all of your comments on here today and

with each one I become even more confused. If you had said once in passing that you would not be satisfied with the Cubs winning the world series this year if they only win 83 games, that would maybe be one thing, but you keep arguing your point...

I'm with the others on here who say it would not matter to me if they entered the playoffs with a losing record.

I also do not understand how you could think the Cubs would not have earned the title even if they won the central division after an 162 game season and then won the world series after three best-of series (which as the examples people have provided show, is not the easiest accomplishment even for the "best" teams). Yes, the central division appears to be weak this year. But in theory, with the unbalanced schedule, a team could win their division with few wins because of parity within the division.

Also, after last year's record, a new manager and quite a few new players, and coming back from as far back as they were in the division earlier in the year, I am even more confused how you could say that a world series championship would not be earned and am dumbfounded how you can say you would not celebrate it.

by lji001 on Aug 27, 2007 6:03 PM CDT up reply actions

I had to laugh at your idealism, but

let's consider the possibilities of your preference. Let's just say that the Cubs steamrolled the league and won 115 games. Can you believe the pressure to win it all? It would be a foregone conclusion that they should win which would make a loss, even in the WS, a big choke job in the eyes of fans. We have enough baggage already as life long Cub fans not to have to endure that prospect. I say any World Series win is sweet, regardless of the circumstances.

Ask any Indians fan how they feel about the 1954 team and see if they have fond memories of that series.

by billybuck on Aug 27, 2007 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Or fans of the 2001 Mariners...

... who tied the Cubs' 1906 record with 116 wins, and didn't even MAKE the World Series, much less win it.

The system may be flawed, but it's not likely to change any time soon.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Aug 27, 2007 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Agreed

I agree, but I just want the team to win in spite of the flawed system, not by virtue of it. I don't want that amazing moment to be tarnished or cheapened in any way. In any case, I guess I'm in the minority but it's been interesting hearing people's thoughts on the subject.

by ms9av on Aug 27, 2007 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions

So, when Halle Berry

shows up at my door and says she wants to make mad passionate love to me tonight, but not because she loves me, but only because she wants to make her man jealous, I should just kick her sorry ass out the door and tell her to get lost, right?

It's all about how you get there. I'm not suppose to enjoy the moment because the premise might be flawed. This is basically the same logic...yikes!

Prince Fielder...he is neither.

by LAcarl519 on Aug 27, 2007 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions

Have to say I agree...

are you kidding? Who cares how they get there? (Well I guess you do but...) If they get there nd win it all, I am fine with that. I prefer not to think of it as luck either...

more an unpredictable and disappointing start to a season where the team cam eback an played the kind of ball they were expected to.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions

Fox/ESPN should just sub-contract

out the games to YES and NESN, and save all the work of actually producing the games themselves.
It appears they have no original ideas in game scheduling, anyway.

But, it's probably the sales departments of these networks that want those games, anyway. The programmers are probably ordered what to do.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Aug 27, 2007 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions

Summer in NC...

Means 95+ degree temperatures. I'll pass on summer for another week or two. :)

The power outage is really quite amazing. You don't expect an entire team to have a down year in HR. And the weird thing is that the power outage can't be blamed entirely on the wind blowing in in Wrigley: the Cubs have 57 HR in 64 games at home, and 47 in 65 games on the road!

The pitching has really carried us this year (thankfully). Hopefully the offense will get better, especially given the amount of money invested there.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 10:16 AM CDT reply actions

If you need something to celebrate

after two disappointing Cub losses, you can celebrate my team's sweep (in the Irish Baseball League) of an away double header against the Belfast Northstars on Sunday. We (the Greystones Mariners) won 15-0 and 10-4 in games characterized by some good fundamental play (by local standards). They were important games because they seal the team's entry into the 4-team playoffs in September. Let's hope the Cubs can sweep the Brew Crew this week and make their own playoff chances even stronger.

Why does everybody stand up and sing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" when they're already there? ~Larry Anderson

by JohnM on Aug 27, 2007 10:25 AM CDT reply actions

Irish Baseball

That's awesome. I've always wanted to play for the Irish Olympic baseball team... once it becomes an Olympic sport again.

by IllinoisCubs on Aug 27, 2007 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions

Well

there is still a national team, and you just missed US-based try-outs on Aug. 4th for college/HS players eligible for Irish citizenship. The next European championship tournament is next year.

Why does everybody stand up and sing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" when they're already there? ~Larry Anderson

by JohnM on Aug 27, 2007 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions

Soriano implications

Cubs played sub .500 with 8-11 record. For a week one OF'er will be optioned to AAA, or until Friday when the playoff roster is set. My guess is that Murton is optioned as Monroe has replaced his role as a RH bat off the bench and RF'er for Floyd's platoon.

The question is then when will Pagan return who can still be placed on the final 25 man playoff roster but then remain on the DL or will Pie stay on the playoff roster or will the Cubs acquire a bat off the bench (I suspect they are attempting to acquire Stairs) who offers more than another LH bat and 1B/OF part time player, he offer genuine humor in the locker room. Or will they add Stairs and bring the pitching staff to 11 (all likelihood) and keep Pie who can have an impact on the basepaths in late innings.

Milw-09-24-98--Brown in for defense--bases loaded--flyball--HE DROPPED THE BALL!!!NO NO NO, cubs lose 8-7

by Ivy Walls on Aug 27, 2007 10:27 AM CDT reply actions

Stairs seems like an odd addition...

we already have Ward, who serves basically the same role of good-natured heavy-set guy who bats LH and plays OF/1B. Could be that he's added, but it seems odd to me.

I'd have to believe it's Murton sent down for the week, and then I'd have to believe that Pagan replaces Pie on the playoff roster (if he returns). He's a better hitter right now than Pie, and he's a switch hitter. Defensively, Pie is superior, but Pagan is adequate at CF or RF.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions

Indications are that Pagan will not return

at all this season. With the logjam in the OF, combined with his colon problem, there's not much us e for him prior to Sep 1st... or on the eligible playoff roster.

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions

Pagan

As I understand it, if the Cubs name Pagan as one of the 25 (which I believe that they can as long as he is on the 40 man roster), then if he is still "on the DL" at the start of the playoffs, they can then substitute anyone else for him. This makes a good deal of sense for the Cubs. They name Pagan and Pie but neither Murton nor Monroe. Then, if Monroe continues to stink up the joint, they don't have to be stuck with him on the playoff roster.

by frustratedfan on Aug 27, 2007 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions

All fine but

I will take Monroe for a postseason with what he did last year. Even if this year isn't so good. Murton does not have that experience and production in his past

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions

Wouldn't You Want

the option if Monroe continues to hit for the rest of the season like he has so far this season. Have any of the "pro-Monroe" people looked at his numbers this year?

Month Avg OBP SLG OPS
June .195 .220 .286 .505
July .209 .259 .328 .568
August .219 .235 .250 .485

Will he continue to hit like this? If he does this for September can anyone really make any legitimate case that he should be on the post season roster? Pointing out past performance isn't all that instructive. Carl Everett posted an .888 OPS for the White Sox only two seasons ago. And he's out of the game.

I am not advocating that any one person be given the position, merely that it would make sense to use flexibility so the Cubs don't HAVE to give it to Monroe if he continues to make the Mendoza line look like "all star" numbers.

by frustratedfan on Aug 27, 2007 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions

Let me ask you this:

Who would you rather have playing a corner OF position in late innings: Craig Monroe or Matt (Oops, I forgot to squeeze my glove... and that ball rattling around the corner will eventually bounce over to me) Murton?

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions

That's not the question

The question is whether the Cubs want to keep the option of having Craig Monroe on the playoff roster without committing to it. If he continues to hit like this, I would take almost anyone on the 40 man roster over him. And, of course, he's not the first option for defense. That's Pie.

If you go into the Post Season with:
Jones, Pie, Soriano, Floyd, Ward and DeRosa as your OF'ers and with
Lee, Fontenot, Theriot, A-Ram, DeRosa and Cedeno as your IF's
I think you are stronger than with
Monroe and not Cedeno.

This equation changes, of course, if Monroe should start hitting. But looking at the numbers, that's really not a realistic expectation. But putting Pagan on the roster gives the team more flex -- assuming that I remember the substitution rule correctly.

by frustratedfan on Aug 27, 2007 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions

Well...

I don't think any playoff roster should have Ronny Cedeno on it. His baseball IQ is zero

And quite frankly, if the strategy is to save the decision for later, by allowing a roster substitution for the injured Pagan, I feel the Cubs will still be keeping Monroe over Murton. I think Pie will keep a spot for his defense and baserunning.

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Your lineup...

assumes only 13 position players. It's doubtful that a playoff roster will carry only 13 position players, as there's less of a need for the extra pitchers in the postseason. Therefore, I'd assume either Monroe or Murton is the 14th. Thus, it indeed does come down to Murton or Monroe. Unless Cedeno is discarded (which I suspect will be the case - I doubt he's on the roster), in which case Murton and Monroe might BOTH make it.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions

2 Catchers

I assume that they will keep 2 catchers, 11 pitchers and 12 position players (other than Catcher). The question is who is the 25th man. As I see it, its Cedeno (because he can play defense and gives the Cubs the back up shortstop) or Monroe (he's a PH off the bench and plays adequately in the outfield) or Murton (in the highly unlikely event he is given enough playing time, hits well and Monroe essentially goes hitless the rest of the season and Cedeno gets hurt.. and even then I could see Fox on the roster instead)

But the basic point is that EVEN IF you are sure that you want Monroe on the post season roster, he's clearly number 25. So buy yourself some flexibility. Put Pagan on the post season roster and then sub him out when he doesn't come off the DL. If things go as you expect, its Monroe.

by frustratedfan on Aug 27, 2007 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions

14 players means...

2 of Cedeno, Murton, and Monroe, not just one of them. That was my point. You hadn't included 14 players in your breakdown, just 13. But you seemed to be implying that only one of the 3 would make the roster, which would have left us at 24 players.

Also, I see no situation in which Fox makes it over Murton if both are healthy. Murton hasn't been great this year, but Fox has shown absolutely nothing.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 6:06 PM CDT up reply actions

No Situation?

What if Blanco is still hurting. Would the Cubs go with Soto - a catcher with no MLB experience as the only backup, or would they go with a hurting Blanco and carry Fox as added backup? I have been accused of being overly fond of Murton. But I just don't see him on the playoff roster if Monroe's on the roster. (I just don't see the need for Monroe. He has been putrid for most of the season. Not bad. Putrid.

by frustratedfan on Aug 27, 2007 11:35 PM CDT up reply actions

Opps.

I counted DeRosa twice.

That being said, it doesn't change my primary point. If Monroe keeps hitting like he has been hitting, he looks like he would be a horrible waste of a roster spot. I would demote Murton to AAA, activate Pagan and put him on the roster. Then, when he goes back on the DL, the Cubs have the roster flexibility. Do the Cubs have anyone in the minors with a similar "injury" situation? If so, I'd demote Pie and Fontenot as well and put both of those guys on the 40 man and activate them to the 25 man roster. I'd do this on the 30th after the game. The Cubs would be very shorthanded on the 31st, but would be set for a very adjustable roster for the post season.

by frustratedfan on Aug 27, 2007 11:44 PM CDT up reply actions

Why activate Pagan?

You could just as easily keep the roster as is, and then DL whomever you want to demote for the playoffs at season's end, right? I don't see the value in bringing up Pagan to not play in early September when you could effectively have the same versatility at the end of the year as well.

For example, if Murton is the odd-man out, you just keep him on the roster until the last game of the year, then put him on the DL. It works the same way, right?

by SouthernCub on Aug 28, 2007 7:38 AM CDT up reply actions

DL

Not if Murton's not hurt. The rule is that players have to be hurt to be on the DL. But there is no rule, as far as I know, that hurt players have to be put on the DL. The Cubs, in fact, have kept Hurt players on the active roster.

by frustratedfan on Aug 28, 2007 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions

We must ask ourselves

why the Tigers would toss away Monroe for nothing. They're in the middle of a tight playoff race and know more about him than anyone else. Obviously they lost complete confidence in his ability to help them. Do we really expect he'll magically get his act together?

He didn't cost us anything so I don't have a problem seeing if we can catch lightening in a swinging jug. However, he has to earn his way onto the playoff roster, if there is to be one.

It's not too late to go to Soto

by tharr on Aug 27, 2007 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions

We must also ask ourselves...

...why this same Tigers organization took Neifi Perez off our hands at roughly the same time last year. Sure they were hurting for an infielder after some injuries, but in hindsight it appears their scouts didn't do their homework - Neifi only hit .200. Obviously, he was drinking the wrong kool-aid... ;-)

My point is I wouldn't worry so much about what other organizations are or aren't thinking. If I'm Jim Hendry, I care more about what our scouts think and/or what Lou wants.

So far, I'd say Hendry's hit at least a double with Kendall - his Cubs stats are way way better than what he was doing with Oakland this year.

AVG OBP SLG OPS
Oak .226 .261 .281 .542
Chc .298 .392 .404 .796

So I'm guessing that our scouts had good things to say about Monroe - Trammel certainly did - so I'd sooner go with him in the postseason than either Murton or Cedeno.

Hopefully they all get a chance to prove themselves in September and we'll see.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Aug 27, 2007 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions

The Neifi trade

was completed in a different scenario. The Tigers needed a backup IF to replace someone batting .220. The Cubs were looking to trade Perez partly to get rid of someone they knew was essentially worthless. So, as in the case of Monroe, the owning team knew more than the acquiring team. The Tigers took a chance on Neifi because he had played for Leyland in Colorado in 1999.

The Kendall trade was merely a salary dump by a non playoff team. Granted, we've gotten more than we hoped from him, but it's still an unknown what are the Cubs plan for Soto next year.

I hope Monroe catches fire. But I doubt that is likely or he'd still be in Detroit.

It's not too late to go to Soto

by tharr on Aug 27, 2007 8:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Wait...

"The Tigers needed a backup IF to replace someone batting .220"

Placido Palanco was batting .220 when he got injured?

This I did not know.

Hmmm.

It is AUGUST, and we're STILL IN IT! YES!

by TheEman on Aug 27, 2007 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions

I never said

Polanco was hitting .220. I said the Tigers needed to replace someone batting .220. That was Santiago. See the following which details what was going on.

It's not too late to go to Soto

by tharr on Aug 27, 2007 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Here's the link

http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060816&content_id=1613050&vkey=news_det &fext=.jsp&c_id=det

It's not too late to go to Soto

by tharr on Aug 27, 2007 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions

Pagan

The Cubs don't have to "name" Pagan to the playoff roster on Aug. 31. Anyone who is either on the 25 man roster or DL on Aug. 31 is eligible for the post-season roster. If a player who was on the active roster on Aug. 31 is injured after Sep. 1, he can be replaced on the play-off roster by anyone meeting the following qualifications:

On the 40 man roster (including 60 day DL, though must be activated) on Aug. 31
Pitchers must be replaced by pitchers, and position players by position players

"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007

by DeRoMyHero on Aug 27, 2007 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions

how dare...

mlb cater to the two teams with the largest fan base and most compelling rivalry in the history of sports!

*sarcasm*

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 10:36 AM CDT reply actions

A rivalry created by the media for the media.

by IllinoisCubs on Aug 27, 2007 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Blah blah blah

we don't care about that rivalry no matter what the history shows.

As for the largest fan base, I'd say the Cubbies have nearly the largest "true" fan base while the Yanks pride themselves on selling gang banger hats to gang bangers and then chalk them up as fans. Not quite the same thing. Red Sox, not so much of a problem with but still say whatever.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 10:39 AM CDT reply actions

blah, blah, blah?

nice preamble!

maybe you don't care about the rivalry, but rest assured mlb and the yankees and red sox fans certainly do.

"true" fans, puhlease! how does one measure "true fandom"?

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions

Rest assured...

... that there are millions of fans outside the northeastern USA who don't care about that rivalry, and in fact, there are 28 other teams, many of which are involved in tight playoff races of their own this week.

Just in case you hadn't noticed.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Aug 27, 2007 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions

Sox/Yanks...

series consistently get the best ratings. That's why MLB does it. They want to put the game on that makes the most viewers happy (i.e., gets the most viewers to watch), and that is unfortunately a Sox/Yanks game.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions

Here is why

this rivalry gets such great ratings. Because that incredibly devoted fan base are at home with the game on the tv while Cub fans are AT the games rooting for their team...regardless of where the Cubs play.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions

I'm pretty sure your argument lacks water...

Red Sox fans fill up many opposing stadiums when the Sox are on the road, same with Yanks fans. And Fenway and Yankee Stadium are packed, too.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions

I have not noticed

and I certainly get the opportunity to watch plenty of road games for these teams since they are handed a good portion of national broadcasting.

For instance, watched the White Sox get their asses handed to them at the Cell recently and most certainly did not notice them (both visually and/or auditorily) during the game.

Yes small sample size, buut it is the most recent and they did give those losers quite a whipping. I suppose I would have expected those so called fans to make themselves heard.

I know Cub fans would have.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions

The Yankees and Red Sox

consistently rank atop the league's road attendance figures. This season the Red Sox are 1 and the Yankees are 2, which is pretty typical (they were 1 and 2 in 2005 and 2006 too). Anyone who's ever lived in an AL city knows the Red Sox and Yankee fans typically take over a stadium whenever their respective teams are in town. I watched some of Saturday's White Sox-Red Sox game and it was obvious to me there were at least as many Red Sox fans in attendance as White Sox fans.

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions

Exactly...

I couldn't find the stats to support it, but the Yanks and Red Sox definitely make their presence felt in road stadiums.

Anyone who has ever met real Yankees fans and Red Sox fans know they're as die-hard as any fans in baseball. And there happen to be more of them than for just about any other team.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions

team attendance reports

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions

Thanks...

that does show that the Cubs aren't bad (3rd or 4th every year) at drawing fans on the road. But we are behind the Yanks and Sox every year, which is why the networks all want that series to be aired.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions

you're welcome.

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions

Still wondering how they guage

who are visiting team fans. If numbers are based solely on home field attendance then that seems stupid.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions

It's a simplistic measure...

but it's not stupid. Can you think of any other reason besides road fanship that teams like the Yankees and Red Sox (#1 and #2 every year) and the Cubs (#3-4 every year) are always atop those measures?

I'm pretty sure that when you consider the trends over time, it's a fairly accurate picture of whose fans "travel" best. Or, at least which teams draw the most interest from fans in general (which is actually more relevant from the networks' standpoint).

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Road Attendance Backs Up the Claims, too.

Sorting the same link previously posted by average road game attendance should show how well a team's fans travel while being independant (relatively) of stadium size bias. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance?sort=away_avg&year=2007&seasonType=2

#1 Boston
#2 Yankees
#3 Mets
#4 Cubs
#5 Barry Bonds

I certainly won't claim this is 100% positive proof, but it illustrates the claim with a quick & dirty check.

by MarchHare on Aug 27, 2007 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions

Try watching...

a Phillies game or an Orioles game or a D-Rays game. The recent Orioles series was essentially a home series for the Sox. And the D-Rays constantly are packed with Sox and Yanks fans. Even interleague games in Philly fill up with Sox and Yanks fans. Trust me, there's a reason they call it Red Sox Nation and Yankee Nation.

And contrary to what you suggest, Cubs fans don't fill the stands in most other parks. They do so in Arizona because there is a tradition of Cubs fans in Arizona dating back to long before the D-Backs existed (same reason the Sox and Yanks dominate Tampa). They make up a decent contingent in St Louis due to the proximity and rivalry (just like in the Sox/Yanks series, and just like Cards fans fill Wrigley too). And they can do it in other parks like San Diego because teams like that don't get much fan support, which is the same in KC for the Sox/Yanks.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Hmmm

you say they do it in SD and places like this because the teams fail to fill the stands anyway.

I suppose i can only pick on your DRays comment but what the heck do you say about them?

Do they usually pack the house? Who cares if you can hear their fans in Tampa?

As for Cubsbak, we must have different hearing and sight because there is no way I agree with your statement about the fan presence there.

As I said before, I give more credit to Sox fans (Red that is) than the Yankee fans but I for one do not notice the Yankee fans at the games like I do the Cub fans. I know commercially they exist everywhere but when I watch a road game for the Yankees, it does not appear that they are overrun by their fans. Maybe I am wrong.

Question: How do they determine who are Yankee/Red SOx?Cub fans at road games?

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Road attendance

is just the attendance at the games those teams play on the road. The idea being that over time the teams whose fans "travel" best (or are in general are most prevalent at road games) will lead the league in this number every year.

There is no measure of how many fans are fans of ANY team in attendance measures (home or road). But can you honestly look at those numbers (#1-2 every year in road attendance) and NOT come to the conclusion that Sox and Yanks fans show up more than other teams on the road? It's not a 2007 thing - it's every year.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Doesn't

it depend on what team they are playing?

IMO, a team that has good road attendance at Wrigley, or even in the bronx for that matter, may have that good road attendance because of their fan base. Maybe I am wrong but to just assume good road attendance is because the team has devoted fans seems dumb. And what about the poularity factor?

By this I mean that there must be fans who see a game just to see the Yankees, Red Sox, or Cubs even. Not necessarily because they are fans.

How many people went to see the Giants because that meat head was closing in on the record?

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Popularity factor?

What exactly are you trying to argue here? Popularity factor could also be the reason Cubs games sell out every day, so I don't think you want to go that route.

Road attendance records illustrate which teams draw the most interest. Whether that be "real fans" or casual fans (or anti-fans), I'm pretty sure that, over time, park effects are weeded out (you play in many different parks).

Also, the Yankees and Sox play 2 teams regularly with terrible attendance (Toronto and Tampa Bay). So I'd argue that their attendance numbers on the road are actually HURT by the stadiums they play in, because those teams have terrible home crowds. That they are #1 and #2 is probably a further testament of their fanship.

I don't think you're going to be able to ever prove who has more "real fans." You can try to disparage Yanks and Sox fans as not being "real," but there just isn't anything to substantiate that stance. It just comes across as petty jealousy of them.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions

Give me a god damn break

I am not saying that they are not real fans as the basis of my discussion of why they get more play time on national broadcasting. In fact, I have done nothing but make points supporting the "realness" of Red Sox fans throughout this whole discussion.

You said that fans are apparent at parks like Tampa and I said probably because those teams have no fans. Kinda like you tries to argue about SD (which hardly rivals the DRays).

Realness is not the topic IMO, it hasn;t been for a while. Yes I think that some of the best fans (if not the best) are Cub fans buut I do not base this on any stats.

Call me jealous if you'd like but I have no admiration whatsoever for Yankee fans or the Yankees themselves (though I am enjoying the Bronx Is Burning). I like my Cubs and that is that. I think that there is a lot of commercial value to the fanbase in the Bronx.

Can I prove it? No, call it a ragingly jealous hunch.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions

See our other string in this thread...

No need to curse about it. Sheesh.

You seemed to ask for a rationale as to why the Yanks and Sox get preferential treatment. The answer was given (they get better ratings). You then suggested it's because their fans don't travel. Well, they lead the league in road attendance, which is as close as you're going to get to approximate the "travel quality" of a team's fans.

If you want to simply be angry that the Sox and Yanks draw more fans, that's fine. I'm just as proud of my Cubs fandom, and proud that we have a large fan base. And I'm jealous that the Yanks and Red Sox get more attention from the media. I'm just saying that it's not some Sox/Yanks conspiracy putting them on the air. They have more people who want to watch them. Sucks for people like me (not in Chicago), but that's just the way it is.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Numbers do not lie.

My problem has only been that you selected a PART of my discussion and claimed that it was my explaination for the choice to air so many Yanks/Sox games. It wasn't. We got distracted by a discussion about "true" fans (probably because of my own use of the term) but that was never my aregument pertaining to this topic.

If the numbers say they draw more interest fine, I believe them. Do i think that the system convinces me that the best road attendance goes to the team that draw the best "travelling" crowd? Not really but I see no other way but to ask fans when buying the tix who they are there to root for. Realistic huh?

Still, I have to reiterate that my statements about the Red Sox have been favorable and it is truly the yankee fan base that is suspect IMO. Oh well, I feel the same way about White Sox fan base. Just my opinions though.

PS. Sorry for the cursing.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions

i'll tell ya this...

i live in central ny, have for 40 years, and there is no such thing as a fair-weather yankee fan.

they are as loyal a fan there is.

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Perhaps I am wrong about

road game attendance and the correlation between that and fanship.

If I were to guess though, as to what team gear is most widely worn by individuals with nothing really staked in the team, I would guess the Yankees. Call it effective marketing or whatever. I see a lot of Yankees gear worn in Asia and in many other countries. I find it hard to believe that their die hard fan base is so world wide.

Though, in typing this, I remember the many fans of the Cubs that are from many other countries so perhaps I am mistaken about this too.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions

I imagine that...

asking every fan that entered the park who they cheer for would result in a ranking order extremely similar to that obtained simply by taking average overall attendance in road games. The method you mention would be more precise for sure, but I'm guessing the trends are the same. There may be some noise in the crude estimates generated by ballpark effects, but I'm guessing that it's rather small in comparison to the impact the actual fanship impact has.

Could it be different? Possibly. But I highly doubt it. I think the sample size is large enough and over time the park differences are dissipated enough that the true impact of team's road fan attendance comes out anyway.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Seems to me like us Cub fans

fill up the park on the road quite often... especially against the more local competition in our division (which is just the same in comparison to the Yanks and BoSox fans, who help fill up the parks in the clusters upper east coast cities).

Look at a Cubs vs Reds game at Cincy on tv... Cubs fans everywhere, helping them fill that park. And traditionally, it's been the same for Milwaukee (Wrigley north). St Louis always draws good attendance regardless, but Cubs fans make the trip, and vice versa.

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions

They fill up stands pretty well...

3rd or 4th every year - just behind the Yankees and Red Sox.

My point isn't to disparage the Cubs fans and their willingness to attend road games (I'm a Cubs fan in NC). It's just to note that relative to the Yankees and Red Sox, we don't draw fans to stadiums as well as they do.

Azweber was implying that Sox and Yanks fans are "real" fans like the Cubs fans. I think that's silly, and not supported by any sort of factual evidence. For every anecdote that azweber can provide suggesting Cubs fans travel better, I can point to NC and Florida for examples where die-hard Yankee and Red Sox fans outnumber die-hard Cubs fans. And looking at the attendance stats further support that.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions

Well

you must have mistyped if you re-read.

I am not saying that the numbers show that Cubs fans are the only real fans. My initial statement was regarding why preferential treatment was given to these fan bases. The best explaination I heard was ESPN's tendency to favor that side of the country. We then regressed into discussing the "better fan" issue to which I question the road pressence of these teams. Of which, there does not appear to be an accurate way to measure. I think that there are great fans of all teams. Do I give more credit to Cubs fans because I am one? Sure. Do I give credit to fans of the Red Sox yes because of the type of suffering they have endured (like Cub fans). Do i think there is a good chance that people are fans of the Yankees because of more commercial reasons (and not all of course), yes. Same is probably true for some Cub fans...certainly not the bandwagon factor though.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions

In that case...

if all you're questioning is why the Yanks and Sox get preferential treatment on TV, the answer is pretty obvious: their games get the best TV ratings, and their games draw the most fans to stadiums. That's pretty straightforward. I don't think it's an East-Coast bias thing, I think it's a dollars and cents thing.

You at one point suggested that the reason they get good TV ratings is because their fans don't go to games, and that's where the road attendance thing came up. I think you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone Sox and Yanks fans don't travel. While road attendance measures don't definitively prove that Sox and Yanks fans travel well, they certainly don't help your argument that they don't travel well.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Okay

so technicall there is no proving either side of this discussion.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions

Well...

I think it's clearly proven by the TV ratings and the attendance records. For whatever reason (casual fanship, die-hard fans, hatred) the Yanks and Red Sox are the most popular teams to watch either on TV or in the stadiums. That's pretty much proven.

We can debate why they're the most popular to watch, but that's pretty pointless and that is definitely hard to prove. Looking at it objectively, though (i.e., taking off our Cubs hats), I'd say the facts lean in favor of my argument.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions

Half the US population

lives east of the Mississippi -- and, to make it easier, both teams are EST. That time zone is also the most populated time zone. Is it any wonder the Nets want the most eyeballs looking at the commercials in prime time? The CST zone barely counts. The MST zone isn't on anybody's radar.

If it wasn't for Los Angeles and San Francisco (sorry Seattle and SD) the PST zone wouldn't be much of a factor for television.

The Yanks/Red Sox get ratings in the area that are the most important. (To the networks, anyway)
A discussion about 'nations' v 'nations' is interesting, but doesn't pertain to what brings in the cash to the nets.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Aug 27, 2007 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Completely agree...

it's a pretty simple reason the Sox and Yanks get the tv coverage - they're the most watched teams in MLB. It's not a conspiracy. It's just a simple matter of dollars and cents.

It's interesting when juxtaposed with the NBA, which regularly schedules to cater to the West Coast teams. The "East Coast bias" has not been an issue there, where the best/most popular teams during the last few years have generally been west of the Mississippi.

It's all about money. The teams that get watched the most get the most tv coverage, because that's what draws the ratings and thus the money.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions

Anecdotal Evidence

This is certainly borne out by what was observed in Phoenix this summer. While the attendance was up by about 10,000 over the norm when the Cubs were in town, Chase Field did not sell out the way it did when the BoSox were in town.

The Saturday night game of this past weekend's Cubs-D'Backs series was the 4th highest attendance at Chase this year. The first 3 highest were the 3 games in the series Boston played here earlier in the year.

by jazzman56 on Aug 27, 2007 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions

And, if I remember our

friend over at Snakepit Ball, or whatever the site is -- he was OK with Red Sox Nation invading Chase Field, but not OK with the thousands of Cubs fans.

It was just the novelty factor of the Red Sox. So New Englanders are 'nicer' than Cubs fans?

I don't think so.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Aug 28, 2007 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions

i realize...

that there are millions of fans who couldn't care less about the rivalry, but there are millions who do and giving the rivalry priority, from a national broadcast perspective, creates more revenue than any other rivalry in sports...and that's a fact!

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions

btw

you're correct, the only true gauge in determining fan base is the amount of hats sold. viewing audience and road draws are certainly not indicative of a team's popularity.

your take on the yankees is quite sophomoric.

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions

Well thank you

I appreciate the compliment!

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions

And

since you didn't really grasp the true point of my comment (that the cubs fan base is more noticeable than almost any other team (road and home games considered), then does that mean that youare so freshmanic, or are you a freshmaniac??

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions

Really?

Yankees and Red Sox fans care about the Yankee-Red Sox rivalry? Really? You've opened my eyes!

PERRY!!!!

by Goat Whisperer on Aug 27, 2007 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Just another attempt

by Selig to sell out to the highest bidder. As long as his people run the clubs, it will always come down to dollars for the owners over wishes of the fans.

It's not too late to go to Soto

by tharr on Aug 27, 2007 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions

In this case...

dollars of the owners = wishes of the fans (at least the largest collection of them). Dollars of the owners are directly related to the number of fans watching. If more fans wanted to see the Cubs series than the Sox/Yanks series, then the Cubs would be the series being aired by the networks.

by SouthernCub on Aug 27, 2007 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions

Compare it to

the political parties. The far right and far left have a disproportionate influence on national candidates. It's the vocal minority selecting for the whole.

But in the long run, is it in the best interest of the country to have extreme choices? Same goes for baseball. Is it in the best interest of the sport to have it so heavily tilted to the NY/BOS conflict. It merely creates a shift of power to them and a corresponding larger payroll and a resultant heavy advantage which isn't good for the game.

It's not too late to go to Soto

by tharr on Aug 27, 2007 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions

Ones that exist everywhere

in many different countries. Ones who show up to ballgames all around the country and make their presence known. one who stick by a freakin team that has been losing for 100 years.

Exactly why i say Red Sox fans are a good comparison. Yankee fans probably choose their teams by the fine fashion that they run out into the market place.

And yes, blah blah blah was a nice choice i thought...you know, captures the true essence of your annoying statements above.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 10:50 AM CDT reply actions

ohhh, i see

...one who stick by a freakin team that has been losing for 100 years.

so, yankee fans are not true fans because the team they follow wins championships unlike our beloved cubs?

good argument!

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions

I believe the term is

bandwagon...or fairweather...you make the call. You clearly know a lot about this.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 10:58 AM CDT reply actions

azweber9, you win!

"If you'da been thinkin you wouldn't 'a thought that." ~~ "Squints" Palledorous

by rm463 on Aug 27, 2007 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions

Webster Popadopolous.

n/t

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 11:02 AM CDT reply actions

Off Topic

But is anyone else going to the Iowa/NIU game at Soldier Field this weekend? It feels odd to be excited about football and baseball at the same time, as the last time it happened was 03, but even then the Hawks were just emerging. Really looking forward to being up at Soldier and rooting on the Hawks. I will probably pass on the 5AM tailgating. Still trying to figure out how my body made it through football seasons in Iowa City.

by hawkeyenation on Aug 27, 2007 11:16 AM CDT reply actions

GO HAWKS!!!

I love this team!!!!!

by sue369 on Aug 27, 2007 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions

I'll second that motion.

Goooo Hawks!

by Mr Snrub on Aug 27, 2007 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions

I grew up 40 minutes

south of Iowa City. So I'll third that motion.

Go Hawks!!

Go Riverhawks!

by Neifi Puppy on Aug 27, 2007 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions

Oh yes

GO HAWKS

Really can't get the season underway. I miss going to school and football season in Iowa City. Ahh the memories.

by hawkeyenation on Aug 27, 2007 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions

good to see

good to see such a strong iowa city delegation on bcb. i grew up there, but didn't go to school there. maybe for medical school . . .

by Mr Snrub on Aug 27, 2007 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions

being a huge cubs and bears fan

It is really exciting to see my hawks playing at Soldier Field this weekend! Heres to a big win on the gridiron to finish off, hopefully, a big series win over the brew crew. Go Hawks and Cubs.

by BigZ 4 Cy on Aug 27, 2007 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions

Go Huskies

I cant go to the game and I know we dont have a very good chance but someone around here has to support NIU.

I can't believe I'm batting 9th again -Ted Lily

by NIUcubbie on Aug 27, 2007 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions

Best sports fans!

I really don't see the use in trying to decide which team has the most devoted fans! I have to say that New Yorkers seem to be pretty devoted to their city and their sports teams. I think Cubs fans are just as devoted to the Cubs and that will never change. I'd say lets just agree that Baseball has the best fans :)

by adam316 on Aug 27, 2007 11:17 AM CDT reply actions

What a reasonable suggestion.

How then do we address the preferential treatment that Yankee/Red Sox fans get within the media though because I don't want to have to see these games all the time?

It is of course, rhetorical because those fan bases will continue to get the treatment they get and we will get what we get. I am just glad I am not an out of towner forced to cope with this arrangement.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 11:24 AM CDT reply actions

ESPN = Eastcoast Sports Network

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions

Where's the C for coast?

I'm confused!

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions

ESPN= Eastern Sports Programming Network

by LT on Aug 27, 2007 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions

The media

Is all about the dollar $ign$. Unfortunately I do have to agree that they cater to the Yanks/Redsox, but that too will likely never change. What we need is enough baseball channels on cable that we can watch whatever our favorite team is whenever they are playing. Can somebody make that happen?

by adam316 on Aug 27, 2007 11:28 AM CDT reply actions

I think

the MLB package has that but it is quite costly (both dollar wise and on a marriage!).

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Aug 27, 2007 11:29 AM CDT reply actions

If I was running a network I'd do exactly

what FOX is doing. The problem is, most of the other teams can't even fill their parks with their own fans most nights so why the hell would a network want to put them on national TV? Just to be fair? FOX is a money-making enterprise.

If the Cubs ever had a few consecutive winning seasons, they would become an honorary east coast team. FOX would love to have the Cubs be a major baseball power. They just haven't cooperated.

by TR on Aug 27, 2007 11:41 AM CDT reply actions

True but...

We'd still get Fox's C team and, as is always the case, at least one person in the booth who absolutely hates the Cubs.

by hawkeyenation on Aug 27, 2007 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions

Not being a homer

And not kissing the Cubs asses doesn't mean you hate the cubs.

by BigFatZ on Aug 27, 2007 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions

True....

but finding every single thing wrong with them and slurping all over Tom Glavine's wife, or the like, probably means you could give a damn.

by hawkeyenation on Aug 27, 2007 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions

You are looking for bias

that isn't there. I think we are all sensitive to criticism from other announcers. Matt Vasgergian may be a crappy pbp guy, but I don't really hear any bias on his national telecasts. I hear a crappy pbp man, but I don't hear this extreme bias that he shows as a Padres broadcaster on a national telecast.

Stupidity, yes. Bias, no. Same with Buck/Mc Carver. Are they biased on national telecasts? I don't think so. Are they crappy? Yes.

And now that we have access to the other team's broadcasters on EI, we can see just how much 'homerism' there is. And, it might make us irritated when we hear it -- you have to remember, this is a local channel - it's not catering to us. It may now be national due to changes in pay-per-view sports television, but it's really for the home fan in (your market here.)

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Aug 28, 2007 12:43 AM CDT up reply actions

Question

...for us people in WI limited to watching the Cubs on WGN: does Comcast get all the games next year with the Trib. Co's sale of the team? I was watching on Saturday wondering. If this is really old news, I apologize, but I hadn't heard.

by BigJimSlade on Aug 27, 2007 12:34 PM CDT reply actions

I don't think anyone knows yet.

Depends on how the media properties are broken up.

My guess is that nothing happens in time for the 2008 season to begin, and any changes would take place in 2009.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Aug 27, 2007 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions

Hey Al, in terms of MLB schedule for 2008

Is it possible to ACTUALLY give the Cubs and Brewers a different schedule next year? They might as well share the same team bus for crying out loud. It's ridiculous.

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 1:09 PM CDT reply actions

I think it has been a good test

of which team is better. When you are playing teams during the same week, you get a good feel for who deserves to be on top.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Aug 27, 2007 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions

Part of the reason this is done...

... is to save travel costs. It makes sense for a team visiting Chicago to visit Milwaukee either before or after.

If that sort of thing happens for home games, it sort of follows to have it happen for road trips too.

Not sure I agree with this concept, but that's undoubtedly why it's done.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Aug 27, 2007 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions

Is it also possible...

...for next year to eliminate interleague play, and the "inter-division rivalries" that result in playing the cardinals 18 times....

....i know, i know, i ask a lot, but i really don't like the new scheduling

by bobby h on Aug 27, 2007 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions

It obviously makes sense for homestands

When we're both home at the same time... to make traveling easy on the visitors. But, we've been having some of the same exact road trips as well... like last week out to the west coast. Pittsburgh and Washington right after the break... etc.

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions

It takes both luck and skill

to win it all. No matter how good a team may be, the element of luck is always present. I see what you're saying, but I'm with the contingent that thinks the process works just fine. If we can "luck" into the playoffs and then play with enough skill and luck to pull it off? Great!

What is really a problem are these sports where 16 teams make the playoffs, etc. Why play the season at all then? That is a flawed system, though it hasn't bitten those sports in the ass. Yet.

"Mine, mine, says the squirrel to the transformer, unclear on the capacities of electricity." -Dean Young

by Kegler on Aug 27, 2007 2:54 PM CDT reply actions

Wasn't it '03

when some fans were commenting on how the Cubs were developing a kind of "bad boy" attitude that they didn't like? I recall some criticism of the sort, people saying the Cubs should win with class, be the "lovable winners," etc. Whatever. They could all be in line to do life as soon as the Series is over, with the prison wardens given first-rate seats, and all I'd want is a win.

Makes me a bit of a hypocrite in some ways, but I want to know what it's like to have the best team for once. I'm tired of sucking. Period.

"Mine, mine, says the squirrel to the transformer, unclear on the capacities of electricity." -Dean Young

by Kegler on Aug 27, 2007 2:59 PM CDT reply actions

Looks like the Astros GM

and manager have been fired.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2993335

Hopefully it demoralize the team, and they will play awful the rest of the year.

Go Riverhawks!

by Neifi Puppy on Aug 27, 2007 3:05 PM CDT reply actions

Oh yeah. Just f'n great.

A day before they open a series vs the Cards.

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions

Dead-cat bounce?

I always thought teams with new managers were supposed to do better, at least initally.

by Not Bruce Froemming on Aug 27, 2007 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions

This late in the season?

With the GM and the Manager fired? What do they have to play for? The owner raised the white flag already. Some guys will be padding stats... and the others will be staying out all night partying on the road.

1-RUN GAMES = 16-19 | EXTRA INNINGS = 2-7 | HOME = 33-31 | updated on 8/22

by SackMan on Aug 27, 2007 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think

there's any love lost between the Astros and the Cards. I doubt the Astros will just lay down for them.

by cubsbak on Aug 27, 2007 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions

College football has some work to do

if they really want to determine a champion via seasonal play. The whole BCS thing is a crock. A lot of worthy teams, even some mid-tier schools, never even get a look. If any sport league should institute some type of playoff system, it's college football.

"Mine, mine, says the squirrel to the transformer, unclear on the capacities of electricity." -Dean Young

by Kegler on Aug 27, 2007 3:13 PM CDT reply actions

Y'know,

I'd rather the Astros win a few more ballgames, not a few less, especially those they play against the Cards and Brewers. If they tank, I hope it's only against us (7 games).

"Mine, mine, says the squirrel to the transformer, unclear on the capacities of electricity." -Dean Young

by Kegler on Aug 27, 2007 3:16 PM CDT reply actions

Yesterday

Worst 9th inning I've witnessed in ages. Like slow torture. Valverde seemed determined to hand the Cubs the game, but they refused to bite despite numerous chances.

"Have Keith Moreland drop a routine fly. Give everybody two bags of peanuts and a frosty malt, And I'll be ready to die." -Steve Goodman

by danimal15 on Aug 27, 2007 4:58 PM CDT reply actions

Absolutely.

See my post near the end of Sunday's game thread.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Aug 28, 2007 12:45 AM CDT up reply actions

Tigers 16, Yankees 0

Holy Crap! I love it!

The damnyankees are 8 games back entering the long-awaited BOS-NYY series, the only one the country cares about....

There is no place like Nebraska - Go Huskers!

by sanantonecub on Aug 27, 2007 10:10 PM CDT reply actions

Slezak on Soriano's return.

Carol Slezac makes a very good and convincing argument in today's Chicago Sun Times:

If his stint on the disabled list taught us anything, it's that Alfonso Soriano is the Cubs' most valuable offensive player. So I must ask, at the risk of injecting a dose of sobriety into the celebration surrounding his return to the lineup: Why is he coming back so soon? Why risk further injury to your MVP, knowing you're going to need him desperately down the stretch and, hopefully, in the postseason?
Soriano has admitted he's not yet 100 percent. Manager Lou Piniella has admitted Soriano isn't 100 percent. So why is Soriano returning to the lineup nearly a week ahead of his projected all-clear date? His eagerness to play is admirable, but that doesn't mean it's smart. If ever there was a time for the Cubs to err on the side of caution, this is it.

Is Soriano's activation a week ahead of schedule, at 85%, a good move or a desperation move?

by Fraggin Judge on Aug 28, 2007 8:44 AM CDT reply actions

Well boys...

I made some T-shirts this morning to wear to the park during this final stretch. One of them was a nice big "W" shirt... and the other one, well... it fits this board darn perfectly:

The boys of summer have come a long, long way since last year, when you could see me at the park wearing this shirt I made during August and September: