Probably the one place where the Cubs went very wrong this year was regarding the 100 year drought. The strategy the Cubs chose was to try to distance themselves from history or to make it seem as if was irrelevant to the team´s play. I believe that was a sensible mistake. History does weigh down on you. If you had collapses in the past they certainly will influence you in the future, and this even if the collapse was by other players from your organization.

That kind of history does add pressure and what we are seeing now is pretty much a result of it. The Cubs have weaknesses, that is not in doubt, but these are not weakness we are seeing, we are seeing a team that is playing scared and doing things that it had basically not done all year, especially in back to back important games. And perhaps, just perhaps, one contributing factor is trying to minizime or take the importance off something that is definitely huge. Maybe if they acknoweledged that the 100 year drought and the past failures do indeed add pressure to the players and creates a more difficult atmosphere, maybe that way they would have been able to really take some pressure off. The route they chose probably ended up having the exact opposite effect.

Anyway, that´s my opinion and if you don´t like it (I´m sorry to say) I don´t have others :P

I remember watching the baseball ESPN crew in 90's for the wednesday's games and really liking them, especially Gary Thorne. I don't think he's mentioned amongst the great commentators but he was one of my favorites. His calls during HRs (at the wall, Goodbye, Home run!!) were electrifying. I also saw him do NHL games and even though I don't follow hockey I thought he was great there to.

Any other guys who are great but aren't usually mentioned as being of the best?

I'm really wondering if we have the kind of offensive players that can respond under pressure. What the offense is going through right now could just be a collective slump or it could be a sign of cracking under pressure. Given what happened in 2004 and in the 2007 playoffs I think it's a fair question to ask. The history of futility of the Cubs also adds pressure even if it's constantly played down by everybody. The 2003 championship series is a prime example.

I'm not trying to be an alarmist or blow out of proportion something that may just be a slump. But I have to be honest and say that I'm really wondering if these guys are going to be able to respond offensively under pressure. Today Ryan Theriot swong at 3 pitches out of the zone with a man on second and the game on the line. I have no faith whatsoever in Soriano. I don't know what to think about Lee and Ramirez, especially Lee which has not produced as we expected. Soto? Fukudome? Can these guys withstand the pressure to come? I'm really worried that the team will go back to hackalicious mode if the going gets though.

What do you think?

Very interesting article at ESPN.com on what the future for steroid testing might be like: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=3408399

In short, rather than focusing on detecting the steroids per se, the longitudinal testing means establishing a baseline for a person's blood levels / metabolism and then determining steroid use from fluctuations of those baseline levels.

Also important of note is the number of players that have been blood tested numerous times by the World anti doping agency (WADA) and have had their tests come back clean and then later admitted to taking steroids. If that is with blood testing you can pretty much conclude that what is being done in baseball and the other profesional sports is basically a PR move and nothing more.

The government has 103 positive tests (and the corresponding names associated with the samples) from the anonymous testing done in 2003. These are 103 major leaguers, who probably used many different suppliers and different types of steroids. If the final legal ruling is that they can use this info to subponea each of them you may see a can of worms open. Different suppliers named, then they are questioned and more connections may be made. Not to mention that these are 103 positive tests from major leaguers who can't come up with the same lame excuses we've heard before (especially since the government will know for what substance they tested positive and I'm sure many of those aren't in your everyday food and drink).

Is there a double standard here?

The numbers Hill put up in the minors were astounding, specially in AAA. Those numbers alone "should have" given him a free ticket to pitch at least a year in the majors regardless of his performance. Yet as I recall many people here didn't complain when he was demoted to the minors after his lack of performance in the majors (I'm refering to the 2006 season) He was labeled a AAAA pitcher and Hendry was criticized for not selling high on him when he had the chance.

Now we have Pie, who has less credentials than Hill and I see a lot more people questioning the Cubs for not giving him the job for *at least* 2 months to see what he can do. I don't get it.

IMO, minor league numbers are a guide but not a guarantee. They earn you playing time but not a free ticket. A lot of times it's just not performance but how you look. Pie has struckout around 30% of his at-bats and has look completely lost in the majority of them. He takes fastballs down the middle and the swings at balls way outside. His swing looks out of whack to a lot of people, including me.

The Cubs have chosen to sent him down and try their luck with Edmonds, who is a no risk given they only had to pay a quarter of a million to get him. This is not the Cubs of the past who give money to an over-the-hill star. Those teams PAID for those guys. If Edmonds doesn't produce you can simply cut him and there is no harm done.

Hill didn't have anything to prove at AAA when he was demoted yet when he came back he was a different pitcher. It's obvious that Pie has important things to work on in his swing and his approach. Like I said before I just don't get all the criticism that is being handed out at the Cubs for their handling of Pie. I understand it even less when I look back at the Hill situation.

As of today these is where the Cubs offense ranks in the majors:

Runs: 1st.

Average: 1st.

OBP: 1st.

Slugging: 2nd.

BB drawn: 2nd.

Now, did anybody expect this? To me this has come completely out of left field. I never expected the Cubs offense to crack the top 10 in the majors let alone be the top offense. Being second in BB drawn is just crazy... almost seems like we are in some kind of parallel world. Now, the question is, is this real and can we expect it throughout the whole season? For the stat oriented guys, what was the projected rank of the team in these categories?

You have to figure that Jason Marquis and Ted Lilly aren't in the Cubs starting rotation plans beyond 2009 (maybe earlier depending on trades). Ryan Dempster may be in that same boat too because if he has a decent year he'll seek a larger contract than what would make sense for the team. That leaves 3 rotation slots to be filled in the near future. Who do you think will end up filling them? Will the Cubs go for pitching in the free agent market?

Starting pitching is one area where the Cubs can control their payroll, which is already quite high. They definitely have arms that can fill these spots and will be paying them very little for many years. The probable candidates include: Sean Marshall, Sean Gallagher, Donald Veal and Jeff Samardzija. I am really fine with letting them compete for the spots and see what they can do. Thoughts on this?

It's becoming clearer and clearer that Murton is not the same hitter with men on base as when the bases are empty. Does anybody have ideas as to why? I thought of sample size, but I think he has had enough at bats with men on base for the numbers to be meaningful.

I used to be a fan of Murton but as time has gone by I have become more and more bugged by his lack of production. I call him the Un-Manny. Manny Ramirez is probably the best hitter of our generation (not counting Bonds and his steroid relations) and he has a knack of driving runners home. Murton, on the other hand, has a knack of not getting runners in. His OPS with runners on as well as the % of runners he drives in are pretty bad indeed. I find it very puzzling but the numbers are there.

Murton has a lifetime OPS around .820, which is not bad at all, especially if you think his best years are still ahead. Nonetheless, somehow I have gotten the impression that he hasn't performed well interms of knocking people in (RBI's). I wonder if it's just an impression I got or if the stats corroborate this. More than his numbers (AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS) with runners on, I think a good stat would be RBI's per baserunners, and comparing that with other players in the league. I remembering seeing this stat at mlbtraderumors.com and I liked it. I don't have the time to do that analysis right now but I wonder if I'm the only one who has this feeling about Murton.