Cubs Now!

2007-09-21T20:00:00.001-07:00

Two and a half years after posting last, I'm doin so tonight. Eight games to go, a game and a half lead. The Cubs should pull this off. More later.

2005-05-31T18:23:00.000-07:00

No One's Reading, So What The Hell?

One of the most boring debates on sports messageboards is who is, or what makes, a fan. You're not going to get me into this. Scroll down this if you're into it. You also know that a discussion has been brought near to the bottom when someone decides that folks are interested in the fact that he makes six figures.

There's no right or wrong reason to be a fan. Think about it, most players take the LaTroy view that they are "playing for the other 24 guys" in the lockerroom. Indeed, if you took the entire Cubs roster, put it in St. Louis, and brought the D-Rays roster, dressed them in Cubbie blue, I'd root for the Cubs. We are indeed rooting for laundry. It's irrational, but it is what it is.

So, if someone wants to bitch about the Cubs, complain they are unlikable, or just a crappy team, so be it. They can still be a Cubs fan if they truly hold that as part of their identity. Just as you can be a Cubs fan, enjoy rooting for the team, care little about the statistical nuiances of the game, as long as you hold that as part of your identity.

I'm a Cubs fan. There's no reason for it. I enjoy the statistical aspect of the game, I like discussing strategy, complaining about Dusty, bitching that Corey needs to understand the value of a walk, and generally everything that is funny about the Cubs. But I'm not going to get my borderline personality into a tizzy when someone says that they like the Cubs without an in depth understanding of the game. So be it.

2005-04-21T12:47:00.000-07:00

One Tenth Over

Incredible isn't it? I haven't updated mainly because I think Andy Dolan does a much better job at summing up the Cubs than anyone else, and it's overkill to post there and here. But I wanted to express my feelings in a longer fashion.

The Cubs split in St. Louis. Last night's win will ultimately prove more costly than today's loss. Nomar is out at least two months with a ruptured tendon, ripping his groin muscle away from the bone. That probably hurt. The two to three month prognosis translates to 6 months in Cubs' training staff years. My guess is that the Cubs will not resign Nomar after the season. If that's right, his career Cubs stats will be: 57 Games, 216AB, .264/.326/.389, 4HR, 24 RBI. Really, really sad.

Nomar was going to hit. Regression to the mean works both ways. Just as Derrek Lee is not going to hit .417 this year, so Nomar would have approached .300/.350/.500. It's sad because during his stint with the Cubs, he seemed to enjoy playing for the team and the fans. The fans liked him. He seems like a good guy. Just a sad thing.

Nomar's injury coupled with today's loss got me off my ass. This is the second time the Cubs have been shutout this year. Like the previous time, Ryan Dempster pitched a solid game (six innings, one earned run), with nothing to show for it, but a shrinking ERA. Dempster is doing an adequate job of filling in for Matt Clement, both in performance and in taking tough-luck losses. (Next time, the Sun Times' resident jack-ass mentions that the Cubs really miss Clement, remember that Clement was so awful that he was benched for the "pennant run" last season. He's also getting paid a ridiculous amount of money for a guy who has a career record of 70/75 and an ERA of 4.32. Good riddance, Matt.)

But today's game highlighted the worst aspects of Dusty Baker's management style. I'm tired of Dusty-bashing (the forced use of Neifi at second, while not sound, worked, prior to Nomar's injury). But his complete failure to look at statistics as a guide to match-ups pisses me off. He's managed the Cubs for three years during which Mike Remlinger has occupied a prominent space in the bullpen. Remlinger is a useful pitcher, if used to his strengths. While a lefty, Mike dominates righties and gets toasted by lefties. His splits for this year? .300/.417/.400 vs lefties, .083/.083/.083 vs. righties. Small sample size? Sure, but it holds up over the last three years: .266/.329/.428 vs. lefties, .184/.289/.273 vs. righties. Three years, strong statistical evidence that Remlinger, despite being left-handed, should not be brought into a game to get a lefty out. Three years, long enough for a manager watching every game, every inning, every pitch to figure it out.

So, today, with the Cubs down 1-0 in the bottom of the eigth, with Michael Wuertz having retired four batters in a row, Dusty decides to bring in Remlinger to face Larry Walker. The only explanation for the move is a lefty-lefty match-up. It wasn't based on an individual match-up as Walker was hitting 444/565/722 in 18 at-bats against Remlinger. Remlinger proceeds to give up a homerun to Walker. Dusty then takes him out because Pubols is a righty. You know, the kind of hitter Remlinger is actually really good against. Two more runs given up by Chad Fox. 4-0 and it's over.

Now, Dusty would claim to be playing the percentages. Lefty-lefty match-ups are generally preferable. That's the book. Gotta take Remlinger out against righties, righties hit lefties hard. But that's the aggregate and using the aggregate when you have special knowledge about the specific makes no sense. Dusty can't be excused for this. I've known about Remlinger's inverse split for three years. So have you, presumably, if you're reading a presumed-dead Cubs blog. But it's the easy way--lefty-lefty matchup is the rule, I was just following the rule.

It would be nice to see someone really make him justify his use of pitchers in the ninth. This is pretty easy stuff to figure out. I'll write more later tonight.

2005-03-29T17:28:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow's It

Kerry Wood is set to pitch tomorrow. He was scratched once for a bad back. Then pushed back a day to get in his full five days between starts. No one is buying this crap. The disaster of last spring and regular season has left the Cubs with zero credibility when it comes to the status of injuries.

If Wood starts tomorrow, I'll regain some interest in the season. But if Wood's scratched, and Prior's out indefinitely, there's really no point in pretending the Cubs will be competitive this season. So, for all our sake, let's hope the man can take the hill tomorrow, or 1999 will seem like a dream season.

2005-03-14T16:03:00.000-08:00

Within days of hearing that Kerry Wood is suffering from bursitis, we learn today that Mark Prior is suffering from elbow inflammation and irritation on the ulnar nerve. Wood is "playing catch" on flat ground at least until Wednesday when he may pitch off a mound. Prior? Well, he's out indefinitely. That's not good.

When asked about the injury to Wood, Dusty Baker said "Back in the old days, everything was bursitis." Well, now a days everything's ball-bearings. But that provides no relief to this Cubs fan. The only possible argument or hope that the Cubs would be better this year than last was that they would have a full seasons from Wood, Prior, and Garciapara. If Prior and Wood go down, we're looking at a team reminiscent of those grand mid-90's Cubs squads, with Rusch, Mitre and Dempster filling the roles of Kevin Foster, Amaury Telemaco and Jim Bullinger. [Hey! Don't forget Frank Castillo.--I've tried.]

Before jumping out the window, though, we should at least wait a week to see if there is quick progress. But like you, I have no patience for another spring-long Prior watch. Chuck at Ivy Chat makes much of a "window of opportunity" for the Cubs--win now when we have Prior, Wood, and Zambrano. But if Prior and Wood aren't able to pitch complete seasons, there's no opportunity at all--just another forgetable season.

2005-03-01T17:31:00.000-08:00

Leave A Message

As I start this up again, please leave a message if I don't have your link up or if your link has changed.

2005-02-28T19:45:00.000-08:00

Silent Spring

To date, spring training hasn't produced anything of interest. I, like you, am tired of anything Sammy. I can't say that I've always hated him. It's impossible to deny that he put on one of the greatest five year runs in the history of baseball. But honestly, I've never understood why it is so important for some people to lord their success over others. Fine, you're a stud, now turn off the damn music. It's a symbol of power I guess, like a dog pissing on a tree.

But at this point, anyone who harbors good will for the guy just isn't paying attention. Which was why I found it absurd last weekend to drive down Randall Road in Geneva, and see a 10' by 8' poster saluting Sammy and crying about the trade. Think about that, taking the time to make a poster and hang it on your back fence for all the world to see, honoring a guy who forced his way out of town by being an ass.

We all waste time. Semi-annually updating a Cubs blog seems like a waste of time. But all I could think of when I saw that piece of hagiography was "good Lord, what's wrong with these folks."

2005-02-18T10:08:00.000-08:00

Brand New Day

For the last few folks who have dribbled in here, thanks for your patience. I didn't write because, quite honestly, I haven't had much to say. I didn't want to play along with the daily "is Sammy gone?" game that was the off-season. I wanted to hold my tongue, wait to see what the end result was going to be, and only then vent or applaud the Cubs off-season moves. But at this point, we obviously know that Sosa is gone to Baltimore for Jerry Hairston Jr and two fairly middling prospects. The Cubs appear not to have saved much money on this deal (eating 12 million from this year's salary, plus an additional 3.5 million for a severance, plus 2 million for Hairston). The Cubs signed Jeromy Burnitz to a deal at about 5.5 million. With the possible exception of a deal for a closer, we now know what we are looking at.

We're looking at a team that, with the exception of a full-season of Nomar Garciaparra and a healthy Mark Prior, is not as good as last season's team. Granted, those two exceptions may swallow the statement whole, but it would have been nice to go into the season confident that the team made the moves necessary to win. It didn't happen because other teams opened their wallets with much less care than in the previous two years. For example, I had hoped the Cubs could swing a deal for J.D. Drew, but the Dodgers gave him a five year, $55 million contract. Drew had an outstanding year with the Braves, and has always been a stand-out lefthanded hitter when healthy but it was the first year he'd played more than 135 games. A pretty risky scenario.

Once Drew was gone, I'd hoped that the Cubs would get Beltran. But it was clear that after his performance in last years NLCS, he was going to be expensive. The Mets' 7 year deal seems over the top to me.

Magglio Ordonez was the final hope. Everyone has questions about his ability to play after last season's injury. Everyone, that is, except the Tigers who gave him a bigger contract than Drew. I'd hoped that he'd go for a Nomar type contract, but with the NHL closed for the season, Little Ceasar had money to burn. Burn it he did.

So the Cubs settled for Burnitz. The trade for Sosa was simply a dump. Sosa's tiresome at this point, but the Cubs are going to lose his and Alou's production. It's not fair to expect that Burnitz, Hollandsworth, Dubois and Hairston will make it up. Thus, the Cubs need extra production from Patterson and Garciaparra and better pitching from Wood and Prior. More later.

2005-01-12T21:26:00.000-08:00

Anything Dumber Than Royalty?

Seriously, suppose your tax dollars went to support a bunch of half-wit idiots like the British Royal family. I've always hated the idea of royalty and have never heard an explantion for why a nation like the UK can support it. Dressing up as a Nazi? "Poor taste." In America, you make a comment like Notre Dame isn't getting the "black athlete," and you're a pariah.

As to the Cubs, I have nothing interesting to say. Congratulations to Ryno. You've heard that, though. The off-season isn't over. The Cubs outfield is sickly at this point. I'm in a wait and see mode until further notice.

2004-12-31T10:19:00.000-08:00

Good Ol' Joe

Joe at the View from the Bleachers is having his annual best Cubs blog contest, and he was kind enough to nominate this site. If you like this site, I'd appreciate it if you'd go over an vote for it. Again, here it is.

2004-12-21T15:19:00.000-08:00

Patience, My Brothers

The winter solstice is upon us, and the days are too damn short. For baseball fans, this is a long, boring time. It's not worth chasing down every rumor about where Sammy's going, for what, and what Hendry will do with the money saved. So you're left with...not much really. That leads to impatience and a desire to trade just for the hell of trading.

Patience is key. The Cubs need to be players in the market, but can't blindly trade just to give us something to read and talk about. We're not privy to the inner-workings and machinations going on in the Tower. But suffice it to say, the Cubs starting outfield will not be Sosa, Patterson, and DuBois/Hollandsworth. Panic prior to the New Year makes no sense. The Cubs have in place the best infield in baseball; before the market shakes out, the Cubs will have a nice outfield as well.

2004-12-14T20:37:00.000-08:00

The Clean and the Clear

Will Carroll got his name in lights. Well, in the New York Times Op-Ed Page. Good for him. I don't know him other than his writings on
all-baseball.com (I don't pay for BP), and for decorum sake, I'll keep my mouth shut on what I thought of his political writing.

But his piece in the Times was extremely unconvincing, perhaps because he was not able fully to articulate his argument due to the Times' word limit. But as I understand his argument, Carroll claims that criticizing Bonds and his phenomenal performance over the past five years is simply uninformed finger-pointing because we do not know whether or to what extent steroids help performance. Carroll seems to retreat from this position at the end, but, in any event, the lack of definitive scientific proof regarding the effects of steroids should not excuse Bonds' cheating.

A common argument made against those who deny steroids' performance-enhancing effects is that the athlete must think it improves his performance, or he would not risk the medical effects that accompany use. Of course, that does not prove that steroids have the performance-enhancing effect, but I think it should shift the burden to those who believe that use does not have those effects. Further, all
professional sports leagues, the Olympics, cycling, and track and field organizations ban the substances because of the unfair advantage that cheaters receive and the accompanying risks to health. Again, for those wishing to argue against the enhancing effects of steroids, why should we doubt the conclusions of the organizations and athletes with the most to gain/lose, financially and otherwise?

Carroll concedes that steroids do in fact make the user stronger. But he then states

we have little or no idea what these drugs accomplish. Do stronger players hit the ball farther, swing the bat quicker or throw the ball harder?

The appeal is that because no tests have compared the clean from "the clear," we can make no conclusions. Bob Dylan might respond "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Of course, stronger men will swing a bat faster and generate more power. The distance a ball travels depends on the force with which it is hit (and its trajectory off the bat). Force comes from bat speed (and the mass of the bat). Strong men are able to fell a tree more quickly because they generate more force with their axe--i.e. they swing an axe of a given weight faster than a weaker man. Why wouldn't the same be true for bat speed? (Honestly, if you have a compelling reason why this analogy is wrong, please leave a comment.) In any event, strength seems to be pretty closely tied to bat speed.

Carroll continues:

[T]here are no credible studies that connect drug use
to improved performance, nor any that determine what cost these athletes
may be paying. In 2004, Major League Baseball financed its first research grants with the pathetic sum of $100,000. The league values science about as much as one-third of the salary of the last player on the bench.

What I don't understand is what such a study would look like. Animal controls wouldn't work because the question is not whether steroids improve strength, but whether the improved strength corresponds to better baseball skills. Computer models? Perhaps, strength can be shown to generate greater bat speed, but as I mentioned above, that
seems pretty much beyond argument.

Obviously, the best studies would compare athletes using steroids, comparing their juiced performance to past performance, and comparing on-going performance to those with the closest age and statistical correlation. Such a study has the obvious disavantage of being illegal, immoral, and violative of the relevant collective bargaining agreement. Indeed, such studies have probably been done by criminal firms like BALCO. These studies would undoubtedly confirm the performance enhancement effect of steroids.

Carroll then engages on the topic those with a sense of history care most about--Barry Bonds and his freaky five year performance.

It is true that Bonds's performance over what many would expect to be the twilight of his career has been incredible. Instead of a slow decline as he approached 40, Bonds has done what can only now be described as superhuman. One popular statistic notes that Bonds has hit more 450-foot homers over the past five seasons than he had over the previous 14 seasons of his career. The raw numbers, however, only reflect his increased home-run production; they do not say whether he hits more homers that fly significantly farther.

Yes, the raw numbers don't give homerun distance. But as Carroll notes, someone did the actual work behind the raw numbers and found reported distances of the homeruns Bonds hit. That's not something to be dismissed but praised. Indeed, the entire sabermetric revolution was based on going beyond "the raw numbers." If it is true that Bonds' homeruns have traveled greater distances since 2000 (and anyone who has watched Bonds the last five years really doesn't doubt that), this seems like strong evidence that the steroid use contributed to his ability to hit homeruns. Carroll simply dismisses this point and moves on to the most problematic aspect of his article:

What of this late-career surge? Certainly we can point to that with an accusing finger, sure that Bonds's numbers in the record books have been written with some "cream" or "clear" substance. It's much easier to point than to find facts.

According to Clay Davenport, a researcher at Baseball Prospectus, Hank Aaron's best year for home runs - when he had the most homers per at bat - was 1973, when he was 39. His second best was in 1971, at age 37. Willie Stargell had his best seasons after age 37. Carlton Fisk put his best rate in the books when he was 40. Even Ty Cobb had his best home run rate at age 38, though the end of the dead-ball era helped that. It is not uncommon, according to Mr. Davenport, for a slugger to change his mechanics as he ages, swinging for the fences as his ability to run the bases declines.

The first and most obvious problem is the inclusion of Cobb in that it actually suggests the opposite point: that generally, only a fundamental change in the game (i.e. the live ball or steroids) can cause dramatic late career homerun rate changes. Obviously, Carroll recognizes that Cobb was a poor example and quickly discards him.

But what about Aaron? In 1973, when Aaron was 39, his home run to at bat ratio was .102. His career ratio was .061. Thus, there is seemingly solid evidence that Aaron was successful into the late part of his career. But looking at Aaron's numbers, you see that his home run numbers picked up again after 1968--after baseball's expansion and the lowering of the pitchers mound. Additionally, Aaron's home park changed with the Braves move from Milwaukee to Atlanta, going from a pitcher's park to a hitter's park beginning in 1969.

Further, Aaron had seasons with homerun ratios of .076 and .080 earlier in his carrer. That is, while his homerun ratio was highest at age 39, his earlier performance demonstrates that his late career homerun ratio was not such an anomoly.

Carroll's Willie Stargell example is even more misplaced. Stargell was born in 1940. His two best years, home run ratio and by every other measure, were 1971 and 1973, when he was in his early 30's. Granted, Stargell had good years in 1978 and 1979 (while missing substantial time), but to say he had his best years after the age of 37 is simply wrong.

Similarly, Carroll's Carlton Fisk example is extremely weak. While it is true that Fisk put up his best HR rate when he was 40, he only played in 76 games that year. Further, Fisk hit over 30 homeruns only once in his career (when he was 37 years old), thus making changes in his homerun rate less dramatic.

So what about Bonds? We know Bonds began using steroids sometime in 2000. Is his post 2000 run really analogous to Aaron, Stargell, or Fisk? Of course not. Prior to 2000, Bond's homerun rate was .0637. From 2000 through the present, age 36-40, Bonds' homerun rate was .121, 91% higher than his career rate. Bonds' rate in 2001 was a ridiculous .153, at age 37. By contrast, his best rate prior to using steroids was (an impressive) .096 in 1999.

So we have a spike in his homerun rate at or around the time he started using steroids. His rate is absurdly out of line with his past performance. The four players (presumably the best available) alleged to show a similar pattern show nothing close to Bonds' late career production.

To believe that steroids had nothing to do with Bonds' homerun rate you have to believe that 1) increased strength and homeruns are not correlated; 2) Bonds is sui generis in that he had five years past his prime unlike every other player; and 3) that Bonds foolishly used steroids without any compelling evidence to himself that it would improve his performance (or you could believe his "I did it for my arthritis" pap).

Carroll's closing statement seems a cop-out to me.

Perhaps Hank Aaron said it best: "I know that you can't put something in your body to make you hit a fastball, changeup or curveball." Baseball faces the same challenges as every other sport: the pressure to perform forces some to seek any advantage, legal or illegal. There is no reason to expect more from baseball than we do from society.

No, you can't take a drug to instantly make you able to hit a baseball, but you can to make you hit it further. Aaron also said, "anyway you look at it, it's wrong." Moreover, when we see something obviously wrong in society we punish those who committed the wrong-doing, and we reform the law if necessary. We don't simply say there's no reason to expect more from the wrong-doers.

Finally, I don't understand the analogy to speed or coke. They're banned and illegal as well. Speek and coke probably do help performance in the short run but I would guess in a less dramatic way. Further, Carroll's suggestion that last year's "clean" results are somehow exonerating adds little. First, Victor Conte wrote that the movement for better, undetectable steroids has continued with a new generation of steroids. Further, there is no year round testing, meaning players could pump up and taper off in time for testing. Carroll's statement, "[w]ithout more scientific studies on the effects that steroids and other drugs have on the game, we're left with appeals to emotion, finger-pointing or worse" is simply wrong. We can look at the statistical evidence of the cheaters and judge for ourselves.

I appologize for the length of this piece, and if you got to this point, congratulations. No, you can't have the last ten minutes of your life back. As a baseball fan, I recognized that Sammy and Barry have been cheating for some time and it doesn't affect my ability to enjoy the game. However, to argue that questioning Bonds' performance is uninformed "fingerpointing" ("or worse"--whatever that's supposed to mean) is insulting to me as a baseball fan who can recognize that Bonds' performance is such a statistical anomoly which happened to conincide with his cheating. No, I don't have metaphysical proof that his bizarre five year performance is due to his steroids, but use of Ockham's razor seems pretty appropriate here.

2004-12-07T14:27:00.000-08:00

Nomar!!

ESPN 1000 reports that the Cubs have agreed to a one year deal with Nomar. The deal reportedly is incentive heavy, with Nomar getting up to $11 Million. No option for either Nomar or the Cubs.

Update: 1 year, eight million base with incentives to 11. Cubs also sign Todd Walker--per ComCast Chicago. I am reporting a two year, $14 million deal with Jim Sundberg to replace Paul Bako as Greg Maddux's personal caddy, but what do I know.

2004-11-30T21:56:00.000-08:00

Badger B-Ball

Got to watch the Big Red for the first time this year, and it makes me wistful for what could have been. Had Alondo Tucker been healthy last season, with Devin Harris leading the way, Wisconsin would have been an easy top ten team (though they were ranked as such for most of the year, they got screwed by the committee). In any event, they would have been tough to knock out of the tournament.

Wisconsin, alone among Big Ten teams, beat their ACC counterpart, Maryland, tonight. Michigan State looked good, losing to Duke on the road. I haven't seen the Illini play this year, but remember that Tucker was Freshman of the Year over both Deron Williams and Dee Brown two years ago. I think Williams is over-rated. I remember the way Devin Harris schooled the Illini guards at Madison last season. While the Illini crushed Gonzaga (while my Badgers got smoked at Pepperdine), I'll reserve judgment on the legitimacy of the Illini until they get smoked tomorrow by Wake Forest.

2004-11-28T21:39:00.000-08:00

Me before Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS. Ah, my smile would be gone in about 3 hours.

2004-11-28T21:09:00.000-08:00

Long, Cold Four Months

It's times like these that I remember how much baseball means to me. The first snow has fallen in Chicago (though it was gone within two days), and the snow reminds me that we have to endure four more months without baseball. If you are reading this in the Chicago area, I don't have to tell you that these are the four worst months of the year. Long, cold nights with short grey, sunless days jammed in between.

My happiness depends on me being able to direct attention onto something external. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing much going on right now that interests me. The hot stove league is not heating up so far (at least for the Cubs, although I'd be happy if I were an A's fan). The election is over, and my Badgers folded like a tent. They also lost to Pepperdine in hoops last night. So, to the folks who have stopped by, I ask the question: what is a good way to get through these grey days until opening day? What keeps you happy in late January?

2004-11-10T20:57:00.000-08:00

Twisting Slowly, Slowly...

No watches Keith Olbermann. I don't either because, outside of his ESPN career, he's been an embarassment. But I think he gives a good illustration of the difference between blogging and journalism.

Olbermann has gone on for three days about alleged voting irregularities. Each day, he's pretty much given up the ghost on what he reported the last night. He goes on TV and says there are irregularities with Cuyahoga county and that there are counties in Florida which are overwhelmingly Democratic but voted for Bush. Well, within a day or two, those alleged controversies are shot down (Cuyahoga county's "irregularities"--i.e. more votes in certain precincts than voters--are show to be due to the election commission's strange (though not fruadulent) decision to assign absentee votes across precincts and the Florida counties acted exactly as they did in 2000). He later is forced to admit as much.

Keith has made a stupendous ass of himself. He's embarassing on TV, but would be marginally acceptable if he were simply writing a blog. In a blog, you can note something strange, ask for comments, check the comments against facts, and say "oh yeah. My fault." On TV, you're stuck. Journalists are supposed to have the loose ends of a story tied up before you go on a rant and question the democratic legitimacy of an election. Keith ignored that, and it's not legitimate to make others try to clean up the mess he made on TV (though, on a blog, that's legitimate!).

I have to say, as a Bush supporter, this burns me up. Bush won. It was a relatively clean election. Remember that it was Joe Lockhart who was trying to stop any questions about irregularities on the day of the election (because he thought Kerry won at the time!). Keith should be pounded and hounded for his irresponsible reporting.

Keith then posts on his blog that the election is like the blow-up weeble wobbles (you knock one argument down, and another pops up). Well, yes, things in a big country are strange. But if you look at them, examine them, and discover the truth, most often there's not much fraud there. That doesn't mean that once your bullshit gets knocked down, you get to go on to another bullshit story. It means you nail your story before you broadcast it. Olbermann has made a fool of himself and his show should go the way of "Allen Keyes is making sense."

P.S. I'll be guest blogging for Bill at The Rooftop Report. Bill apologized to me for his small readership. Hah! The 30 sets of eyes who look at this on a daily basis can read my blabberings over there along with his regulars. Also check out the new Cubs blog at 1060 West. That's Addison. Home of Jake and Elwood.

2004-11-09T15:38:00.000-08:00

Stick to Sports

No, not me. Keith. Keith Olbermann, in his second go around as a self-important
non-sports talking-head, is becoming ridiculous and making a fool of himself. Keith thought he was really going to blow the lid off the election results by demonstrating that there was voter fraud. You can see the white specks of spittle as he continues his uninformed ravings tonight on "Countdown" (which is running ever more asymptotically towards a zero Nielson rating).

A little background. Keith thinks he has some startling evidence that that one county in Ohio closed its vote-counting from public view. The county's explanation of a terror threat seems weird. Okay. But the actual results of this count are consistent with the 2000 results, with a modest gain for Bush. The increase in turnout in the county is consistent with voting patterns in Ohio as a whole and population growth in the county. Moral of the story, some county official screwed up, but nothing much more to see here.

Oh but Keith's not done. He just can't believe the results of several counties in Florida where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by as much as seven to one. See, he says, in these counties, Bush won overwhelming majorities. Inexplicable, he says in his breathless tone. Why, even the fair-minded John Conyers is upset! Where's the outrage? Where are the other mainstream media? Keith notes dryly that he got all of this right of the state's voting results. Others could do the same.

Well, others have done the same, Keith. They just knew enough to shut up. Don't think Daily Kos might have liked to run with this? Josh Marshall? The New York Times? Slate looked at the issue and discovered Keith was a wind-bag (though that's been pretty obvious since 1998). See this guy, too.

Those Florida counties he spoke of went overwhelmingly for Bush in 2000 as well, despite the fact that the entire election was closer and his opponent was a southerner. These counties are populated by white southerners. They still may have a nominal connection to the Democratic party, but don't vote for Democratic presidential candidates, particularly ones from the north.

It's funny that basic research skills like looking at past results and other controls would have prevented Keith from making an ass of himself.

2004-11-08T21:48:00.000-08:00

More Fun

Spend an hour reading and reflecting on this. Now, do you think these folks have, in their rage, have added anything that might change the results of a future election? Folks, the losers are clueless. Just as you can't put lipstick on a pig and call her beautiful, you can't dress up a liberal welfare state and call it "values."

2004-11-07T20:24:00.000-08:00

David Brooks, the Cubs, and Other Musings

David Brooks, the New York Times resident conservative (or at least, the conservative that troubles liberals least) has his thoughts on the the election and what "values voters" mean. He makes a plausible, but not entirely convincing, case that the answer is "not much." He says that the answer to why Bush won is that the majority of voters believe that they're safer with Bush as president than with Kerry.

I think that it is true that the United States is safer with Bush than with Kerry. That belief, however, requires some argument. That is, it's not self-evidently true. A certain amount of that belief is based on the fact that Bush's insistence on the US's right to act unilaterally is better than Kerry's die-hard insistence on a multilateral solution. It seems complex to me but intuitive to a lot of people. Brooks also ignores the resentment that millions have of coastal elites telling them what is right and how dumb they are for disagreeing.

But one of the things that interests me is the relationship this has to baseball and the Cubs. I've gotten comments and e-mails (unfortunatley, not the number that I'd like) saying that I should drop all political talk and stick to baseball. The thing that interests me is that saber-geeks should appreciate the degree that the election results proves the power of statistical analysis. Bush won because he increased his turnout in counties, towns, and precincts he needed to. Karl Rove is a Billy Beene in disguise. Ignore certain obvious and superficial points, concentrate on certain overlooked and valuable points, and this thing is winnable. Get voters in certain counties fired up, and this or that fact that everyone is going on about will be washed away.

For me, when it comes to sabermetrics, the only thing I can tell that is important is: draw more walks, hit more extra-base hits, strikeout a lot of opposing batters, and don't walk 'em. That seems to be the approach that the Republicans took in this election (under the radar-screen, get your voters jazzed about the fact that your candidate is with them on certain issues, don't make major errors, hit them where they're weak, direct market your voters, etc.). Democrats need to learn this lesson: don't nominate a guy who has no ability to relate to most people and seems to disdain them.

The Cubs need to look at 2004 in the whole. What were they missing? They didn't draw walks. Baker disdains walks ("this ain't little league"). Look at what went wrong; study the situation in real depth. Make the necessary changes, both personnel and approach. And turn 2005 around.

2004-11-05T11:04:00.000-08:00

Even Better

Notorious Man of the People, Hero of the Workingclass, and Michigan State Spartan fan Michael Moore sent me his seventeen reasons not to slit my wrists! Mr. Moore lists reason # 7 as: "Once again we are reminded that the buckeye is a nut, and not just any old nut -- a poisonous nut. A great nation was felled by a poisonous nut.
May Ohio State pay dearly this Saturday when it faces Michigan."

One problem there Mike. Ohio State isn't playing my Michigan Wolverines this Saturday. They're playing your Spartans! Please take off your green S hat now. Go Blue!

PS: I'll be happy to forward you this e-mail, as I'm sure he'll have it corrected and deny that such an e-mail ever went out.

2004-11-05T10:38:00.000-08:00

Special Schadenfreude Edition

Since I began reading his columns on the New York Times Op-Ed page, I've always belived that Paul Krugman was the least fair and most reactionary writer in large circulation. However, he has given me joy today, the sublime joy of schadenfreude. Here is Krugman's article from Tuesday:

"I always get a little choked up when I go to the local school to cast my vote. The humbleness of the surroundings only emphasizes the majesty of the process: this is democracy, America’s great gift to the world, in action. But over the last few days I’ve been seeing pictures from Florida that are even more majestic. They show long lines of voters, snaking through buildings and on down the sidewalk: citizens patiently waiting to do their civic duty. Those people still believe in American democracy; and because they do, so do I"

Ah, those majestic citizens, so civic minded, so American, so patriotic. Today, Krugman's view of a majority of those majestic citizens has changed. They are "intolerant," ignorant radicals and extremists.

Well, Paul needs a nap. He's taking some time to himself. Hopefully, he'll be writing his textbook in a padded room. When "the people," those brave masses waiting in line, let you down, it's time for a break.

Oh, the joy! The sweet, sweet joy!

2004-11-04T20:53:00.000-08:00

First Thoughts

Something profound has happened. With war, terrorism, a struggling economy, and forty million people without health insurance, I don't understand how cultural issues could have been the largest concern of the electorate. It never was on the front-burner of the election. I haven't culled the exit polls sufficiently to understand this. I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but it's something that those who consider themselves part of the "cultural elite" need to think a lot about.

I live in Chicago. I work with hyper-educated professionals. My friends, my wife, and much of my family are as well. Out of respect to my friends, I don't talk about the election with them. On the other hand, I've talked with my brother about it. He is an english professor at a university in my home town. It's hard to describe the anger he is feeling right now. He thinks that the country has been taken over by evangelical "water-heads" too ignorant to see what is really important in their lives. He sees no need to compromise with the winner and no need to grapple with the fact that there is a profound cultural gap.

But if it is true that the plurality of people voted based on moral values, those in urban areas, academia, and other cultural institutions need to examine what that means. First and foremost, I think it means that gay marriage needs time before it is accepted. Do not attempt to impose it on the country through the courts. People are coming around to total equality for gays, but they want to think about it and decide upon it themselves.

The president's cousin, John Ellis, makes some interesting points. People are mad about the sexualizing of children and the increasing mainstreaming of pornography. The cultural sewer needs to be reexamined. John Kerry never disassociated himself from it and openly embraced an entertainment industry which seemed hostile to tens of millions of its consumers. On the other hand, George Bush openly embraced traditionalism.

You can complain about the people who decided the election, but the foot knows best where the shoe squeezes. Political power depends on governing majorities. Disdain and disgust feel good for a short time, but it's not a solution. I can't tell you what happened. I haven't heard a good explanation, but it's extremely important.

2004-11-04T17:07:00.000-08:00

Urban Elites And "Moral Values"

The map posted below is misleading. President Bush won comfortably by 3,500,000 popular votes and a solid majority of the electoral college. But he didn't win 90% of the country.

Still, the map shows that outside of urban areas, the Democratic party is in sad shape. If you get the Tribune, look at the back page. But for Cook County, Bush would have won Illinois. The majority of Kerry's votes came from urban areas, but that wasn't enough. The vast numbers of rural, suburban, and exurban voters gave Bush the win. Why?

I thought the most important issues were the GWOT and Iraq. Democrats may have thought the economy would be the key. Well, the plurality of voters cited moral values as their chief concern. I'm going to study the exit polls and post something on this in the coming days. This seems incredibly important to me--urban vs. non-urban and the values voter. There are screechy voices out there. Give them a few weeks to calm down. But let's take a careful look at what happened, and consider what it means for the future.

2004-11-03T20:10:00.000-08:00

Thoughts Later

I have my thoughts.

2004-11-03T15:19:00.000-08:00

Full Story

What is the full story on the exit polls? How was South Carolina ever rated "too close?" North Carolina? Virginia?

Exit polls seem to be susceptible to a self-selection problem. Most people vote and go to work, or vote and go home for dinner. If you're angry and fired up about voting, you're probably more likely to talk to a pollster and complete a survey. But, boy, were the polls wrong. I thought the race was over as I rode the train home. The National Review Online was getting input from Republican insiders that the polls were wrong. I thought it was spin. But they did a wonderful job of getting accurate information.

2004-11-03T14:55:00.000-08:00

So Now What?

An election is a huge production, and sometimes can seem like the end of the story. In some sense, it is the end. We have settled who will lead the United States for the next four years. However, this is just the beginning of the story. The country obviously has really difficult problems. Can Iraq be salvaged? Can we prevent another 9/11? Can Iran's nuclear program be stopped? These are the challenges we face, and there may be no end in sight.

2004-11-03T04:58:00.000-08:00

They Just Don't Want to Admit It.

cBS: Nevada, but no Ohio.

NBC: Ohio, but no Nevada.

Why deny the obvious folks? Your man lost. Deal with it.

Update: They cave.

2004-11-03T03:28:00.000-08:00

I Fell Asleep After They Called Ohio

We won. Unbelievable. Please just admit it's over. Bush won Ohio by 136,000 votes; Iowa by 15,000+, Nevada by 10,000+, and New Mexico by 11,000+. This isn't 2000. Bush won the popular vote. I don't know what happened. I hate exit polls. They brought me down and probably brought false hope to some people. Tell me when the lefties will admit they lost.

2004-11-02T20:18:00.000-08:00

Wow

I was pretty sure that this was over come 5 tonight. Florida looks in the bag. Ohio! Ohio! Ohio! (or lesser upper mid-west).

2004-11-02T18:56:00.000-08:00

Bush Has Florida, How About Ohio?

Wow. Feeling marginally better. Ain't over yet!!

2004-11-02T15:57:00.000-08:00

Looks Bad

Just listened to the Fox "All Stars." Rarely, do you hear pundits so negative before official numbers come out. Needless to say, I will be disappointed if Bush loses, but I'd like to see some actual votes counted before I throw in the towel.

If Bush loses, well, there's little I can do about it. I voted, I encouraged others to vote for Bush, and I gave Bush some money. Hope Bush doesn't lose, but from what I've been reading, it does not look good.

2004-11-01T20:55:00.000-08:00

Vote Bush

I'm voting tomorrow at 6:00 AM. My vote will be cancelled out by my wife. Illinois is going for Kerry. But we're both voting anyway.

I've been writing about the election since the Cubs collapse. I'm not a Pollyanna about Iraq, and I have misgivings about Bush. I've explained my problems with Kerry. But more than anything, a Kerry victory would bother me because of the people who would be happy. Want to hear cheers from a guy who was happy about people dying trying to rebuild Iraq? Or Michael Moore? Or mindless celebrities who know nothing but like to bloviate anyway? Or the corrupt kleptocrats at the UN? Or...well, you get the point.

There are thoughtful people who make thoughtful arguments about why they favor Kerry, without a primary argument being "I hate Bush." Mickey Kaus's arguments are strong. Kerry would ease tensions with European "allies." Kerry might not piss off terrorists as much (the basis for Kaus's argument distilled into 8 words). But, in the words of Osama Bin Laden, terrorists respect the "strong horse." There is no doubt, despite the protestations of Andrew Sullivan, the Economist, and others, a defeat for Bush will be seen as a defeat of an expansive war on terror. Kerry, if he won, would win on the shoulders of "peace voters." It's whom he will placate.

So vote and vote Bush.

2004-11-01T19:12:00.000-08:00

No Break

I believed that there would be an obvious break for one candidate or the
other over the last week or so. Didn't happen, no matter what some wish to see. Bush maintains a slight lead in national polls, with the states being unclear. It would be the
ultimate irony if Bush won the popular vote but lost the electoral.
There seems to be a decent chance of that happening. It would at
least shut people up about the 2000 "stolen" election.

There's no shortage of prognostication going on out there. But with
polling ranges in states from +8 to -7 in Wisconsin, they all seem to be
semi-educated guesses. So here are mine. Bush will win Florida, Ohio,
Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wisconsin. Kerry will win Minnesota,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Bush 296, Kerry 242.
Popular vote--Bush 50.5, Kerry 48.5, Nader 1. No litigation, no
recounts.

Update: Over the last week, the Zogby poll has been the most pro-Kerry of all major polls. But look at what's happening even at Zogby. Remember that it is a tracking poll (which means you drop one day and add the new day). Ohio is trending Bush, big time. Going from Bush +2 two days ago to Bush +6 today. Florida, too, is trending Bush, from Kerry +2 two days ago, then +1 yesterday, and now tied. Given that there was a good Kerry day two days ago, expect Zogby to have Bush up in Florida tomorrow. That would be in line with Survey USA, Mason Dixon, Quinnipiac and Strategic Vision (but surprisingly, against Fox). There is no conceivable combination in which Kerry wins the election while losing Florida and Ohio.

Also, for those who have heard that early voters are going heavily for Kerry, well, no, they're not. The Harris poll combined results from phone calls and internet surveys, totalling over 5,000 voters. Of those voters, 24% have already voted (or about 1,250 voters, a statistically meaningful sample), and they voted for Bush 50-44.

Look, I'm not saying it's not close, but the noise from MSNBC tonight that this is breaking for Kerry isn't supported by the polls.

2004-10-31T19:29:00.000-08:00

Polls, polls, polls

Realclearpolitics.com has a run-down of the polls. There's something for everybody. I think the polls show a slight Bush lead nationally. Of course, national polls don't determine the presidency. Rather, it is now pretty clear that the election comes down to the following states: Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Whose ahead in these states? Take a look for yourselves and see if you can tell. Do you believe the Mason-Dixon polls? They show a pretty decisive win for Bush. Like Zogby? Kerry's your man. Probably, which poll you like is determined by which candidate you like. Zogby was the most accurate in 2000, but Mason-Dixon was the most accurate in the 2002 Senate races. Gallup, despite criticism on the left, gives a mixed bag.

I've heard from Republican friends, that Republican candidates poll poorly over the weekends. Who knows if this is true. Charlie Cook, on Meet the Press today, predicted a Bush win. Cook is probably the top political analyst when it comes to horse-races, but really, I feel there's no way to say who's going to win tonight.

2004-10-29T21:19:00.000-07:00

John Kerry On The Bin Laden Tape

"I, for one, welcome our new Arab overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted leader of the United States, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground oil wells. Remember to vote Democrat on November Second."

2004-10-29T11:17:00.000-07:00

WWKD?

What would Kerry do? What would Kerry have done? I've been arguing with my brother about the election. He's voting for Kerry. His answers to those two question is: It doesn't matter. We know what Bush did. He didn't plan for post-war Iraq adequately. That's his position, and while I think he's wrong, it has its advantages.

But don't you think it would behoove a candidate to be able to explain what he would have done in Iraq? I missed Kerry's interview last night, but here's an excerpt:

TOM BROKAW: The fact is, Senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there. Who might have gotten away with them. Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?

JOHN KERRY: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know, from the commanders on the
ground, is that they went there, as they marched to Baghdad. We even read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there. There were materials. And they left.

TOM BROKAW: The flip side of that is that if you had been President, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you--

JOHN KERRY: Not necessarily at all.

TOM BROKAW: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him?

JOHN KERRY: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.

TOM BROKAW: But he wasn't destroying them.

JOHN KERRY: And we would--but that's what you--have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden and the entire world understood why we were doing it. [emphasis added]

Now, I'm not getting into the Al-Qaqaa.** But put that aside, Kerry gives you no idea whether we would be in Iraq had he been in charge. "Maybe, might, not necessarily." Kerry gives no evidence that Saddam wouldn't have been in power. He's playing it both ways.

Truth be told, Saddam would be in power. Inspections wouldn't have destroyed these weapons. Sanctions would have broken down. The UN was hopeless and France and Russia were making billions off the status quo. So instead of an unaccounted for 380 tons, you'd have about a million tons in the hands of an unshackled Saddam.

**My take is that there were probably less than 380 tons of the high-level explosives there, and some of it may have been destroyed by the U.S. Some of it may have been moved by Saddam. Some of it may have been looted. But there's no way that 380 tons could have been looted. That's too much for unorganized looters to have taken.

2004-10-28T19:38:00.000-07:00

Steve Stone Quits

Yep. My wife heard it on SportsCentral on 720. 2004 has to go down as one of the worst years for the Cubs. The whining, choking bastards ran the best color man in baseball out of town. My guess, he was frustrated and knew that he would not get cooperation from Dusty.

I don't care about Chip leaving. Chip was mediocre at best, but Steve Stone brought an insight to the game you don't get from color broadcasters. This will simply piss off Cubs fans more than they already are.

Want to make it better, Tribsters? Get Beltran, now!!

UPDATE: The Rooftopreport took time off from spouting his left-wing agit-prop to post Steve Stone's good-bye letter:

"Dear Cubs fans:

Since I put on a Cubs uniform in 1974, I've seen lots of Cubs history. There has been heartache and joy, agony and ecstasy, not to mention 21 managers and 10 general managers.

Through all of these years and more than a few broadcast partners, I have always felt a strong connection to the greatest, most loyal fans in baseball, Cubs fans.

My love for the city of Chicago and the people who came to beautiful Wrigley Field has been a constant. Over three million of you Cubs fans came to the ball park in 2004 and the TV ratings showed you watched the Cubs broadcasts in staggering numbers.

Unfortunately, the 2004 season did not end as we had hoped. It was devastating for all of us who invested our hearts, our time and in many cases our lives, in the hopes and dreams of the Cubs winning a world championship.

I am sure you have read many things about this past season and my involvement in one or two controversies. However, you have never heard my story or my perspective of the events that have brought us to this point in time.

As has always been my personal policy, it is not my intention to divulge the content of private conversations I've had with others. Likewise, I do not want to be forced into sharing my side of the story.

I came to Chicago on the high road with my credibility and integrity. Thirty years later, I choose to leave the same way.

The phrase I used that angered certain people was "I regret nothing." Well folks, I was wrong about that and want to set the record straight. I regret I won't be calling another Cubs game on WGN-TV for the greatest fans in baseball…the fans of the Chicago Cubs.

It's been a great ride. I will never forget you. Most importantly, I thank you all for every minute of happiness, you, the fans have given me.

Best regards,

Steve Stone"

Hurray for the us against them mentality brought to this team by Dusty Baker!

2004-10-28T19:16:00.000-07:00

Does this look real to you?

We see this every damn election. Bogus "voter suppression" flyers created by Democrats hoping to hype voter suppression claims, and keep the focus off of their widespread voter fraud program. Look at this:

Nice.

Hat tip: To Daily "I don't care if the guys risking their neck to rebuild Iraq die or not

2004-10-28T16:23:00.000-07:00

Five Points

That's what Newsweek's Evan Thomas (no conservative by any means) says
the MSM's support for Kerry is worth

KURTZ: You've said on the program "Inside Washington" that
because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as young and dynamic and
optimistic, that's worth maybe 15 points. That would suggest...
THOMAS: Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. But I do
think that -- I do think that the mainstream press, I'm not talking
about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors
Kerry. I don't think it's worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing
to say.
KURTZ: Is it worth 5 points?
THOMAS: Maybe, maybe.

Now, there is no doubt that the anchors, most reporters, and most
talking heads want Kerry to win. We know that CBS used forged documents
to try to nail the President. We know that CBS was planning on
releasing the Al-Qa-Qaa story the Sunday before the election, at a time
in which there would be no chance to refute or explain what happened.

Bush is maintaining a slim lead, at least on the national level. I have
no idea what the press will do between tonight and Monday, but expect
something. They will do what they can to hand this to Kerry.

2004-10-27T22:19:00.000-07:00

Don't Know

what the truth is about the Al-QaQaa weapons issue. Want to know a secret? Neither does Josh Marshall. Drudge links to the Washington Times' Bill Guertz on a possible Russian conspiracy. I don't have the energy to slog through it.

Again, what I do know is the horse race, at least on the national level. As I mentioned before, there are four tracking polls going right now. You can keep track on a daily basis, but I'm not sure that they tell you that much. One thing I've noticed is that day to day obsessing doesn't tell you the full story. For instance, Kerry picked up 2 points today in Zogby. What does that tell you? Well, Zogby says Kerry had a good night of polling. But Zogby announced that Bush was +6 on the Saturday survey. That dropped off from his three day rolling average today. Daily Kos reported that Sunday's results were +2 for Kerry. Yesterday, Zogby had Bush up + 3 in the rolling report. That tells you that Monday's poll was probably Bush + 5 (6-2+5)/3=3. Today's 3 day report had Bush +1. That would suggest that the three days were (-2+5+0)/3. Tomorrow, Kerry's +2 result will drop off. If Bush is even with Kerry tonight, you'll see Bush at +2 on the three day average. Does that mean Bush has momentum? No, it just means that a good Kerry day dropped off. The next day Bush will be defending a +5 result. So, keep that in mind when you're watching these tracking polls. (The same thing is true of the Rassmussen Reports which show Bush up. Good Kerry days have been dropped in the last two days.).

It seems to me these rolling averages, in the absence of a true trend, mislead about what's really going on.

2004-10-27T21:54:00.000-07:00

Really, though...

Just how bad were the Cardinals in this World Series? This bad: .239/.316/.373/.690 . And that's before game 4, where the Cards went 4 for 30 with 2 walks and only one extra base hit, a double (ESPN has yet to update the series stats. Those lazy bastards.)

How bad? Scott Rolen, who was one of the top 4 or 5 players in the NL, went 0 for 15. Jim Edmonds, he of 42 HR and a 1.061 OPS fame? 1 for 15 (a bunt single). Albert Pujols, no RBI (I know. We're not supposed to care about RBI anymore).

Red Sox commit four errors in each of the first two games? Still not enough. Cardinals pitching totaled 15 strikeouts in the series. That versus 20 walks.

Add in boneheaded baserunning, and it was the worst World Series performance I remember.

2004-10-27T21:26:00.000-07:00

Curses

As a Cubs fan, I'm supposed to hate the Cardinals. I've never really gotten into that. I don't hate the White Sox, either. But I was rooting for the Cardinals during the World Series. Now, with the Red Sox winning the World Series, the city of Chicago is alone in its futility.

As I said, I lost interest in baseball when the Cubs folded. I still remember that Saturday, with the Cubs in New York against the Mets one strike away from pretty much burying the Astros for the Wild Card. I remember the Tuesday when Maddux got rocked by the Reds. What an awful week of baseball that was. I won't rehash it.

The hope that began with the Cubs offseason moves last winter breathed life into me when I needed it most. Watching Red Sox fans tonight in the streets of Boston, all I can think of is that should have been us.

*Sigh*

The hot stove league will be smoldering in the days to come. I want Nomar, Beltran, and the best available closer (probably, Percival). Sign Walker. Give Barrett and Zambrano a raise. Sign Aramis long term. Trade Sammy for a bucket of spit. Have a DuBois/Hollandsworth rightfield platoon. Or sign Mags or J.D. Drew.

I want that feeling. Make it happen, Mr. Hendry.

2004-10-27T07:57:00.000-07:00

Offense

For the second straight newscycle, Bush has been on defense on the Al-Qaa-Qaa (well-named) weapons depot issue. In a tight election cycle, you don't want to be on defense. Ya gotta move the ball on the other side of the fifty.

As Bill Kristol noted, the Kerry quote noted below is "the mother of all flip-flops." The second Kerry quotation noted below (also linked by Kaus, a KerryhaterforKerry) is even more damning.

Here's how I would close this election out. A trustworthy Democrat would be winning this race easily. Kerry's not. People don't trust him to be strong, in large part because of his vacilation. If I was Bush's campaign manager, I'd inject this into the bloodstream now. Follow up with Kerry's statement on Face the Nation that it would be irresponsible to vote against funding for the war.

I've gotta believe that this is the issue they'll nail Kerry on soon. It's powerful stuff. Put whether you can trust Kerry to fight the global war front and center. Because the truth is you can't. Everything else is just noise.

2004-10-26T21:47:00.000-07:00

The Heart of Blue America

Chicago, my kind of town, except...

"In predominantly democratic Chicago, it's Kerry by a landslide, 80-to-12 and the margin is 57-39 in the increasingly democratic Cook County suburbs."

2004-10-26T20:20:00.000-07:00

More Kerry MMQBing

If you think that the world is dangerous, if you think that a realistic world-view is a must in this terrible time, consider whether you can trust Kerry to lead the war on terror. Remember, to Kerry circa September-October 2004, Iraq was the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time. Iraq was a distraction to the global war on terror. During the second debate (I believe), Kerry said first that he thought Iraq "was a threat," but five minutes later, he said that Bush has allowed Iran to become more dangerous by focusing on Iraq "which was not a threat." Putting aside that inconsistency, Kerry version 10.2004 does not believe that Iraq was a crucial part of the war on terror.

Consider, however, Kerry's statements in October 2002.

"But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case." (emphasis added).

This is really unbelievable. Kerry blames Bush, not for rushing to war against Iraq, but for taking to long to do so. Kerry now blames Bush for lying about WMD and the case for war in Iraq. What did Kerry say in October 2002?

"I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure.

***********************************************

It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. "

Again, explain to me why you believe Bush was lying when Kerry was saying the same thing. Explain to me how Kerry has been "consistent" on Iraq. Explain how you can have any confidence in a person who will discard his position on the key issue of a generation when times get tough. Kerry will lead this country into paralysis while the killers gather. No number of UN conferences with bloated cleptocrats and dictators will lead to American safety. We can't afford four years of this guy.

2004-10-25T20:25:00.000-07:00

Kerry's Consistency

Mickey Kaus points to a Kerry statement made in a November 2001 interview with John McGluaghlin. Kerry himself pointed to this article to argue that he had contemporaneously argued for more "boots on the ground" during Tora Bora. Mickey nicely destroys Kerry on that point. But, what's more startling about this interview is Kerry's statement:

"I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis? [Emphasis added]"

Mickey's comment is spot on, "Wait--I thought shifting the focus to Saddam was a "diversion" and distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda! Not, apparently, when Kerry saw an opportunity to score political points by advocating it."

Kerry's disingenuousness on Iraq is startling. He simply has not been "consistent" about Iraq "all along." Two months after 9/11, and Kerry's looking to turn his attention to Saddam. Kerry's statement underscores that he saw Saddam Hussein as the next logical and necessary target in the global war on terror. But now that Monday morning quarterbacking can score some cheap points, he's piling on (to mix my football metaphors).

Was Kerry LYYYYINNNG when he made this statement? Was Kerry looking for an excuse to take out Saddam and just using 9/11 as an excuse? If you're a Kerry supporter, I'd really like to hear how you explain this and his claim of being consistent.

2004-10-25T20:07:00.000-07:00

Well, This Changes Things a bit...

My post last night about the weapons being looted after the liberation of Iraq expressed my depression at what seemed to be incompetence on the part of the Bush administration. But NBC news reports that those weapons, some 380 tons, had been moved prior to the invasion.

It's hard to blame Bush for this, but regardless, our troops are facing an enemy armed with 380 tons of explosives that can be used in car bombs. The question remains whether there was planning on how to destroy the weapons during the war or whether the administration considered the possibility that weapons would be preemptively given to terrorists, making the occupation so difficult.

2004-10-25T18:47:00.000-07:00

Interesting Poll Anomoly

I've become obsessed watching polls. I know something about statistics,
but am by no means an expert. I understand that if a poll shows a 50-47
split with a plus/minus 3 margin of error, it means that 95% of the time
the actual vote total would be somewhere between 53-44 and 47-50.

But, of course, if there's garbage in (a disproportionate sample, for
example), there's garbage out. I've been thinking about this because of
the four tracking polls I've been following (again, you can find the
daily results on realclearpolitics.com). As I understand tracking polls, they're three day rolling averages. One of the advantages is
that you should be able to see trends emerging. And looking at the
polls individually over the weekend, you could see these trends. Bush
opening a wide lead in the TIPP poll. Bush inching ahead in the Zogby
poll. Kerry pulling even in the Washington Post poll. And Kerry edging
ahead in the Rasmussen poll.

Of course, taken cumulatively, the four polls tell you nothing.
Probably one of them is right, but since they're all inconsistent,
there's no way to tell which one. My theory is that weekend polls are
garbage in--at night, more people are likely to be gone from their
house, increasing the likelihood of skewed results. This is my approach
to weekend polls--ignore 'em. Too inconsistent to give you an idea of
what's happening. I predict that a trend will be established over the next three days. Something tells me that this won't be a close election one way or the other. We'll see.

2004-10-24T21:46:00.000-07:00

The Politics of Bad Faith

For those of you who screach Bush is a LIIIAAARRR, check out your candidate's approach to Bush's "admission" that there's no way to prevent 100% of terrorist attacks. Sean Hannity asked the President whether the country could prevent all instances of terrorist attacks, and the President said, "Whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up -- you know, is up in the air. I would hope we could make it a lot more safe by staying on the offensive," he said.

That's absolutely correct. Anyone who thinks about terrorism knows it. John Kerry knows it. If a terrorist is willing to die, he can go into a mall and blow himself up. Unless you're willing to forego civil liberties (which the Democrats howl about even in the instance of the Patriot Act), there's no stopping someone committed enough from doing it (and imagine what would be necessary to stop it).

But here's the Senator, never one to miss an opportunity to make a cheap political point: "You make me president of the United States, we're going to win the war on terror," Kerry said at an evening rally in Boca Raton, Fla. "It's not going to be up in the air whether or not we make America safe."

Disgusting...

2004-10-24T20:52:00.000-07:00

Further Mistake

How did this happen? A huge cache of conventional explosives goes disappearing after the liberation of Iraq. These weapons, it appears, are ideal for use in car bombs. Again, people are dying because of this mistake.

"In an interview with The Times and CBS in Baghdad, the minister of science and technology, Rashad M. Omar, confirmed the facts described in the letter. "Yes, they are missing," Dr. Omar said. 'We don't know what happened.'" Why not? "'Should we have gone there? Definitely,' said one senior administration official. 'But there are a lot of things we should have done, and didn't.'"

Because the war was fundamentally about disarming Iraq, wouldn't securing explosives be among the first things you'd do?

Depressing...

2004-10-22T20:11:00.000-07:00

Living in a Cocoon

We all tend to emphasize facts that agree with our view and ignore,
minimize, or attempt to discredit those which do not. However, a
stronger and more accurate view is forged by confronting inconvenient
facts. I attempted to do that in my analysis as to why I support Bush.
A not-so-friendly reader took the fact that I acknowledged that Bush
made mistakes to point to my idiocy. Of course, the mistakes
acknowledged weren't the whole story, as I attempted to explain in my
posts. But it emphasizes to me why Bush was probably right to avoid
admitting any mistakes. It doesn't score you any points politically
(though, it does in the intellectual honesty department). So, I was
criticized for breaking out of a cocoon.

On the other hand, some prominent left-wing commentators can't even
fathom that they might just be wrong about anything. If you're a Kerry
supporter, the polls, especially the national polls, are inconvenient facts right now. But, if you have a column in the New York Times, you can feel free to simply ignore these facts. You can say such nonsense as: "Recent
national poll results range from a three-percentage-point Kerry lead in
the A.P.-Ipsos poll released yesterday to an eight-point Bush lead in
the Gallup poll. But if you line up the polls released this week from
the most to the least favorable to President Bush, the polls in the
middle show a tie at about 47 percent." Hanging your hat on one outlier and then simply making an inaccurate statement tells you something about the person: he can't deal with inconvenient facts.

Of course, he's not alone. Josh Marshall's warmly snug in his cocoon as well. "But on balance
there seems to be at least a mild drift in Kerry's direction over this
last week." He makes that statement by ignoring most of the polls
showing Bush up. Marshall also lovingly lists every alleged GOP "dirty
trick" while ignoring what appears to be an attempt by the Democrats at
systematic voter fraud. Won't hear a word from him about that.
I guess I should make clear that this phenomenon isn't unique to the
left. Hugh Hewitt thought Bush easily won all three debates. What is
so dispiriting is that each of us can choose to read only that which we
agree with. If writers, especially those with as many readers as
Krugman and Marshall, are living in a cocoon, they're not doing anybody
any good. We may become a country divided in two with each side simply
ignoring the other's arguments and inconvenient facts.

For my part, as small as it is, I'll try to face inconvenient facts even
if it gets me derision by some snarky reader.

2004-10-21T16:09:00.000-07:00

Forget the Bluster

And look at a completely disingenuous statement by O'Reilly accuser Andrea Mackris's attorney, Benedict Morelli. Morelli, when asked whether she has audiotapes of her phone calls with O'Reilly, states "Why should we tell what evidence we have?" Morelli said. "They've forced our hand enough. Now they're going on my timetable, and we want this trial to be in court." Now, Morelli knows that he's going to have to turn those tapes over before trial. That's
what the discovery process is all about. It's interesting that O'Reilly wants the tapes out, and Mackris doesn't want them heard by the public. I assume that she has sex talk on them, but O'Reilly doesn't think it will damage him. Interesting. Drudge also has obtained her financial records that Mackris is $100,000 in debt. Now the $61,000 in student loans isn't that bad, but $37,000 in credit card bills? Yikes.

2004-10-20T21:33:00.000-07:00

Vote Bush

I could say vote Bush because of his tax policies (though his spending like a sailor on shore-leave bothers me). Or I could say that his judicial appointments would be better for a consistent, logical, textual view of the constitution (though I don't like his proposed anti-gay marriage amendment). But to me, those issues are pretty secondary this year.

I believe in an expansive war on terror. There is little doubt in my mind that without an aggressive war against the thugs, an attack multiple times as devastating as September 11 will occur in the US. There's still a good chance of it happening despite an aggressive war. But an agressive war is a necessary component of preventing such an attack.

Bush will fight the war. Bush has made mistakes, but they were by and large tactical errors (too few troops, over-reliance on bad intelligence, reliance on Afghan proxies at Tora Bora). Perhaps Bush is incapable of admitting his mistake not because he does not recognize the mistakes. but because of the howling of those who oppose him. He isn't in a position to give an inch to those folks. The only way to ultimately win the terror war is to transform Arab and Islamic countries into modern nation states. It will be a long, hard slog.

John Kerry is a classic Monday morning quarterback. Bush's charge that complaining is not a strategy rings true. Kerry's current charge of "outsourcing" the fight at Tora Bora is belied by his statement at the time. Kerry's statements about Iraq at the time, in the aftermath, and in his fight against Howard Dean demonstrate that he does not have a consistent view.

Most problematically, though, is how Kerry sees America's place in the world. He sees America as subservient to the UN. He would be paralyzed in fighting the terror war because he would give the world a veto over American action. We can't afford that. Our lives are on the line here.

I know Kerry denies the world veto charge. His global test statement wasn't as bad as Bush made it. But you can't trust a man running for office. He'll blur his past positions. Here's what he said about America's ability to unilaterally act: In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

The choice in my view comes down to a candidate who has made serious mistakes in a necessary global war and a candidate who will be unable to act. I don't think that is a real choice. Viva Bush!!

2004-10-20T16:51:00.000-07:00

Failures

I mentioned that I believe that Bush's Iraq failures were born out of
incompetence rather than mendacity. Indeed, I couldn't support a
president who lied his country into war. But an interesting question is
how I (or anyone) can support a president for reelection when he has
made such God-awful mistakes, mistakes that have cost lives.

I believe the President was not sufficiently concerned about terrorism before
9/11. Neither were you and I, nor the media in this country. I don't
remember the issue of terrorism being a major, or even minor, issue in
the 2000 presidential race, despite the USS Cole attack occurring right
before the election. However, the media and general citizens are not
charged with protecting the safety of the homeland. The President was
asleep at the switch. This I think is forgivable, particularly in light
of Bush-critic Richard Clarke's admission that none of his
recommendations would likely have stopped 9/11. There was a failure of
imagination and it was early in the administration. It was a critical
mistake, but one that can be forgiven.

The second major mistake, in my view, was relying on the faulty
intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. I discussed why I believe
Bush was not unreasonable in his belief about WMD and why he did not lie
about them. However, this is a mistake that has severely weakened the
US's position in the world and makes taking preemptive action against
Iran or any other rogue state that much more difficult. Regardless of
the intelligence failure, Bush, as President, has to be held accountable
for such a monumental error.

Finally, the post-war reconstruction/occupation has been a disaster. I
can't believe that anyone would argue otherwise. It started with the
looting after the collapse of the regime and continued as terrorists
came over the border from Iran, Syria, and other neighboring countries.
Then came the violent insurrection and the detaining of Iraqis in Abu
Ghraib prison and the attendant sexual humiliation against many who had
little or no useful intelligence to provide. It is fair to say that
these awful events occurred largely because the coalition force was not
large enough to handle occupying a population that was grateful for the
collapse of Saddam but not happy about being occupied.

These were all major errors, errors which have cost lives. I don't
think they were moral failings on the part of the President, but they definitely deserve to be noted. Why Bush is incapable of admitting to these mistakes or at least acknowledging that things didn't go according to plan is beyond me. It
rubbed me the wrong way when he refused to answer the question about
whether he has made a mistake.

So, why does Bush deserve reelection?

2004-10-19T21:51:00.000-07:00

Obvious Lawyerly Blustering

Check out this story about the Mackris' lawsuit against Bill O'Reilly. Mackris's attorney states: "He has not answered our complaint because they (Fox and O'Reilly) can't deny it."

Now, I don't know New York Civil Procedure Rules, but in federal court you get 20 days to answer a complaint. The suit was filed last week. The fact that the defendants haven't filed an answer says nothing except that Mackris's counsel is being disingenuous.

2004-10-19T21:19:00.000-07:00

Thoughts from the Sidelines

Watching the playoffs this year is a bittersweet experience. I'm rooting for an Astros/Red Sox World Series, but obviously, I lack the fiery intensity of last year. The Red Sox are on the verge of the greatest playoff comeback ever. My thoughts in brief: A-Rod is (or at least was tonight) a dirty player and a cheater. He hit Bronson Aroyon as he was tagging A-Rod out on a grounder down the first base line. He swung and hit his forearm to force the ball out. This is exactly what Robert Fick did last year against the Cubs. Fick was roundly criticized because a hard swing to the forearm can break an arm. The first base umpire originally called him safe, but for the second time in the game, the crew got together and made the right call (the first was Mark "the Horn" Bellhorn's homerun, originally called a double). A-Rod knew he cheated but had the temerity to argue the call. The New York crowd showed the class we expect of Yankee fans by throwing balls and trash on the field. Nice.

I like the fact that umps now huddle to get the call right. Joe Buck, Al Leiter, et al. are right in that I think that's a new phenomenon. They did it twice and got both calls right. Joe Buck, though, was wrong to excuse A-Rod for the dirty play. He said, "well, Rodriguez might as well have done that because he would have been out anyway." That's exactly what Fick said last year. Basically, he was saying you might as well cheat if you can get away with it, even if cheating puts another player in danger of a serious injury.

Finally, if the Series ends up being Sox/Stros, look for Kerry (Mass) vs. Bush (Texas) comparisons within ten seconds after the ninth inning of the ALCS.

2004-10-18T21:18:00.000-07:00

Lies and Those Who Screach LIARRSS!

I don't know about you, but the screaching this election year gets me down. It's tiring and tiresome. Obviously, the loudest screach is that Bush lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. I recommend anyone interested in the issue read the Duelfer report. While the report makes clear that Iraq's WMD program was basically destroyed after the first Gulf War, Saddam made verification of this fact impossible. Saddam was Iraq, and he portrayed Iraq as having WMD throughout the '90's. He refused to comply with the UN mandate that he verify the destruction of WMDs. Fear of Iran mandated that Iraq portray itself as a regional power with the capability to use WMDs. Throughout the post-war period, he focused on ending the sanctions and resuming his WMD program. He collaborated with France and Russia to skim from the oil for food program for his own strategic purposes.

Remember that in '98, the U.S. bombed Iraq for a few days. President Clinton justified the bombing accordingly:

"The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down." Read the whole thing. President Clinton concluded that Saddam had WMD. After the bombings, Iraq did not verify that it had destroyed its WMD. Based on what we knew then, there was no doubt that Iraq maintained WMD.

So, in 2002, to doubt that Saddam had WMD, you would have had to believe that he unilaterally destroyed them in the meantime. The rational position was that he maintained them. In early 2002, Saddam again did not fully comply with inspections and verify his destruction of WMDs.

Now, we know this was wrong. Saddam's program was destroyed in 1991. That we got it wrong is the worst intelligence failure (along with 9/11) since Pearl Harbor. Still, if you were the President of the United States, would you have believed that Saddam didn't have WMD? Even when all major intelligence services said he had them? Even when the Director of Central Intellegence said the case was a "slam dunk?" Even when your predecessor said he had them?

So Bush was wrong. The honest argument against Bush is incompetence, not mendacity. The error is staggering, but the screaching of LIARRRRSSS is disingenuous at best.

2004-10-17T21:44:00.000-07:00

Bleedin' Badger Red

As a graduate of UW, I'm pretty psyched about the Badger football team. Their defense is the best college d I remember. Of course, that's when Erasmus James is playing. Unfortunately, he's out next week. Fortunately, the Badgers are at home against Northwestern. I haven't seen any mock drafts for 2005, but I can't imagine there are many players ahead of James. He's a man among boys.

Purdue knocked him out of the game on Saturday with a chop block on a play called dead. The Badgers prevailed, thanks to a late fumble by the alleged Heisman trophy candidate, Kyle Orton. Wisconsin now plays four games against teams they should beat (Northwestern and Minnesota at home and MSU and Iowa on the road). The Badgers are currently ranked 6 in the AP and 7 in ESPN/USA Today.

If James is able to play after the Northwestern game, I like their chances to go 11-0 and maybe play for the national championship. I've heard criticism of Barry Alvarez as a game-day coach. Maybe. But Wisconsin has gone to 9 bowl games (including 3 Rose Bowl wins) in his 12 years. Prior to the Alvarez era, Wisconsin went to 6 in about 90 years. Wisconsin is now on par with Michigan and Ohio State as a football school. Keep that in mind if you want to dump on Barry, Badger fans.

2004-10-16T14:01:00.000-07:00

That Liberal Media

Check out the reporting about the new Newsweek poll. The Newsweek poll reveals that Bush is ahead by 6 in a three way race among likely voters. Might the headline be "Bush takes lead in race after third debate?" No. That's buried halfway into the story. Rather, the headline reads "Too Close to Call." To justify this headline, MSNBC/Newsweek use the registered voter numbers showing Bush up 2. My guess (without going to past polls), Newsweek, like most news organization, has used likely voters in the past as their touchstone. But instead, they spin it to say that turnout is going to be the key. This may be true, but it's inconsistent with how the MSM has used polls in the past.

Also, note this counterintuitive internal feature from the poll:

"Bush has a clear advantage with women, who prefer him 49 percent to 43 percent. Kerry has a slight edge with men, 50 percent to 46 percent."

There is no way Kerry is leading Bush among men. I don't believe Bush is leading Kerry among women either, though.

2004-10-15T08:58:00.000-07:00

The Budget

An anonymous poster said below "The Defense budget absolutely dwarfs education, social security, and welfare projects COMBINED." Well, that's just not true. Here's a citizen's guide to the federal budget. Look at page 12. Defense spending is 16% of the budget. Social Security is 23% of the total budget. Personally, I consider Medicare and Medicaid to be "welfare projects" (though Medicare is not means-tested). That's an additional 19% of the budget. "Other means tested" entitlements makes up an additional 6%. That's 48% of the budget to Social Security and "welfare projects." Not exactly dwarfed by the meager 16% of the budget made up by defense spending. And we didn't even get into education... Maybe old anonymous should take his own advice and "educate himself"

2004-10-14T21:00:00.000-07:00

Get Your Cubs Gear Here

Quick. Easy. Plus I get a cut.
Wrigleyvillesports has a fine selection of gear. Get your Sammy jersies before he's run out of town on a rail.

Note: They are currently having a 20% clearance sale. One interesting tid-bit is that the jerseys included in the clearance sale are Hee Seop Choi (gone), Alex Gonzales (gone), and Matt Clement (going, going...)

2004-10-14T20:09:00.000-07:00

Voter Fraud, Voter Disenfranchisement

We hear a lot about voter disenfranchisement from the Democrats. There are reports that a firm hired by Republicans may have trashed some voter registration forms filled out by Democrats. If so, I hope the states prosecute those responsible for it. But a bigger and more wide-spread problem is voter fraud. I have no doubt that my vote in Chicago will be swamped by literally thousands of votes by people who have either been paid to vote (in violation of law) or aren't legitimate voters at all.

We know that the Democrats sued in 2000 to keep polls open later in Missouri than the law allowed. It worked and required an emergency appeal to stop the illegal voting. It may very well have cost John Ashcroft his Senate seat.

We hear that Republicans monitor vote sites and how outrageous it is to force voters to show a picture ID. Well, why shouldn't they? Anyone who knows anything about urban voting knows about "walking around" money and phantom voters. It's not a thing of the past. People joke about voter fraud in Chicago. Personally, as a Chicago voter, I don't think it's funny.

But next time you hear Jesse Jackson or the ridiculously partisan Mary Frances Berry (Chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights) talk about voter intimidation, look at what the Dem's are telling their henchmen: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'" In other words, make shit up. Democrat bullshit artists should quote civil rights leaders about voter intimidation despite the lack of any evidence of it happening. Nice.

It all goes to the garbage that Democrats and their creepy minions have been spouting about how Republicans will do anything to win, whereas the Democrats have been too moral to do so. If you're a Bush voter, I recommend you read some left-leaning sites, like Josh Marshall. You will read about Republicans trashing some yard signs. Indeed, trashing campaign yard signs is a common, bipartisan campaign action. It's unfortunate and illegal, but not the end of the world. Certainly, the people that do this aren't Klansmen, despite what Marshall might like to suggest. But you won't hear a peep about AFL-CIO thugs trashing Bush/Chenney headquarters in several cities. We need to win this election just to knock the smugness and self-righteousness out of these people.

2004-10-13T21:34:00.000-07:00

Debate Coverage

As I said, I am a Bush supporter, and I listened to Fox News tonight. The pannelists were giddy about how well Bush did. I don't agree. I thought Bush fumbled the affirmative action question. What is wrong with saying: I don't think anyone should get a preference based on the color of his/her skin? You can go on and say that the key to greater equality is better K-12 education in vulnerable schools. Kerry even said he favored set-asides!! Unlike the talkingheads, most people, including majorities of all races, are against racial preferences.

On support of Roe v. Wade, why not make the same argument he made on gay marriage? I support overturning Roe because it symbolizes judges deciding a contentious issue. You can be in favor of overturning Roe without backing a complete ban on abortion. I'd like to see the issue decided by the legislatures of each state. Let the people decide abortion law, not unaccountable judges.

But maybe the problem with how I watched the debate is that I would like for someone to be able to articulate conservative positions. Bush doesn't do that very well. Partially, it is because he hasn't governed as a conservative. He was rightfully on the defensive when it came to the deficit. He hasn't controlled spending at all.

On the otherhand, Bush's style was a lot better than before. His answers on faith and the women in his life were very good and may have an impact on undecided women. Kerry seems stiff and unlikable, but that may just be me. I don't think there's anyway to tell how this will play out. I don't think that it can be spun as a big Kerry win, and I suspect that the race will stay close to tied.

2004-10-13T16:04:00.000-07:00

O'Reilly

Here is Andrea Mackris' sexual harassment complaint against Fox News talkinghead Bill O'Reilly. Here is O'Reilly's and Fox News' lawsuit against Mackris and her attorneys, which was filed before Mackris filed her suit.

Reading both complaints, I think they both might be true. Obviously, I don't know what happened, but it seems extremely possible that O'Reilly did what he's accused of and Mackris tried to milk him for millions. Fox and O'Reilly seem to indicate that the detailed quotes in Mackris' complaint were from a tape-recording of their conversations. Some of those quotes read that way to me as well.

I'm a labor and employment lawyer, although I now just write about the law rather than litigate claims. I litigated a pretty awful sexual harassment case, and I litigated a lot of bogus employment claims. The complaints with merit generally were more detailed than those that lack merit.

Not knowing New York law, I don't know whether Fox News can defend itself by arguing that the plaintiff failed to complain about harassment despite Fox's having a complaint mechanism. That is an effective tool in federal sexual harassment cases. I also don't know whether New York allows for individual liability. Federal sexual harassment law under Title VII does not.

Putting all that aside, it seems to me that if O'Reilly did what is alleged, then O'Reilly is power-mad. He thought he could do whatever he wanted without accountability. How you can treat another person like this is beyond me.

I look forward to seeing whether he's on tonight and whether he says anything about the cases. Interestingly, O'Reilly has said on his show that those who settle claims did what they were accused of. In his words "otherwise they wouldn't have paid." I think we may witness the collapse of the most popular cable pundit.

On the other hand, I think Mackris is out for money and to make a political statement. We'll see.

UPDATE: I just saw that O'Reilly mentioned his lawsuit but refused (smartly) to get into the details of the lawsuit against him.

2004-10-12T21:43:00.000-07:00

So, Who's Gonna Win?

Seems fair to me to say that nobody knows, and those who say they do are kidding themselves. As everyone knows, the presidency is decided through 51 separate elections (the vote total of the 50 states and Washington, D.C.). It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. I've looked at a lot of poll numbers and different projections. I currently score the election 254 E.V. for Bush, 228 for Kerry, and 56 up for grabs. You can do your own calculation here. Based on the polls I've seen, I'd give Bush Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Colorado, Tenn., Nevada, Virginia, and West Virginia in addition to the base scale in the map. I'd give Kerry Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maine, Michigan, Washington, and Oregon. This leaves Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and New Mexico up for grabs. If the polls are correct to date, Bush would win if he wins Ohio. He'd also win with any two of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

At this point, there's no telling who's winning these states. Look at the various polls out tonight. Iowa has polls going both ways, as does Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Personally, I think Kerry will win Pennsylvania, but we shall see.

2004-10-12T21:04:00.000-07:00

Pivot

As I said, with the end of the Cubs season, I will be turning my attention elsewhere. What interests me most right now is the election. Obviously, it is an extremely difficult time for the country. Talking about the election may be divisive, but I'm pretty easy to ignore.

So, if you hate the President and you've been checking in here from time to time, feel free to stay away. I'll be cataloging the ups and downs of the election, with a pro-Bush slant.

2004-10-06T21:49:00.000-07:00

Learning from Failure

We all fail at times. I won't say there is no shame in failure because sometimes there is. But failure should not be the end of the story. Time keeps on slippin' into the future. And time can do so much. It's the great leveler. (Kids, don't try three cliches in a row without adult supervision).

After the pain of failure subsides, you have to look at how you were responsible for your failure. I've done it. It hurts, but the truism is true: you can learn a lot from failure.

So, the Cubs failed. Dusty Baker needs to take his share of the blame. But what might be learned from the failure? I'd say that the Cubs inconsistent offense was the largest contributing factor. The inconsistent offense was due, in part, to the Cubs failure to work pitchers, draw walks, and put an emphasis on getting on base.

Here's Dusty's take on this: ''Yeah, you need on-base percentage guys to put the pitcher in the stretch,'' he said. ''I don't agree with going up there looking for a walk unless the game situation dictates it. This isn't Little League."

A little disection is in order. First, while putting the pitcher in the stretch is a definite plus, the primary benefits of getting on base are: 1) your guy didn't make an out, thus increasing the likelihood of a big inning; 2) the team's ninety feet closer to scoring; 3) you can try to manufacture a run if the situation so dictates (stolen bases, hit and run, or bunt); and 4) subsequent homeruns won't be solo shots.

I agree that batters should not go up to the plate looking for a walk, per se. However, it should not be sneezed at dismissively. Look at the context of the article. He's talking about Patterson as a leadoff guy. Patterson improved this year in taking walks. He still didn't do it enough. He did not work the count enough. This is a direction Corey should be encouraged to go in, especially if Dusty wants him as a leadoff man.

Dusty's made other comments about walks prior to the season. He disparaged them for "clogging up the bases." He said he didn't like walks because they weren't any fun. Little guys in little league are encouraged to walk. He thinks that steals the fun from the game.

Well, Dusty, playing in the playoffs is fun. I'm seeing a lot of guys having fun tonight while we're sitting at home.

The Cubs were 25th out of 30 teams in walks. The Angels are the only playoff team worse than the Cubs. The Cubs were 23rd in OBA, lower than all playoff teams. The Cubs, however, did do better in OBA than the Royals, Pirates, Brewers, Devil Rays, Mets, Expos, and Diamondbacks.

So, Dusty, take some time to reflect on your failure. Take fifteen minutes and consider why the Cubs offense couldn't score three runs against Al Leiter, or scratch across a run against the vaunted Reds bullpen in two extra-inning losses. Failure's an opportunity for growth. It's time (actually, past time) to grow up.

2004-10-06T18:11:00.000-07:00

Hard Losses, Hard Wins

I was reading my archives last night. What struck me was how often I wrote about games that got away. I reasoned that this was not surprising because there seemed to be a lot of them this year, and the Cubs seemed to win a lot of games 10-3, 9-2, etc. In fact, in thinking about the season, the only really inspiring win that comes immediately to mind is the game in which Baker forgot to make the double switch and Ramon Martinez batted out of order. Sosa and Alou hit back to back homeruns in the ninth to win the game, I believe. Thinking more about it, there was a walk-off by Gonzales early in the year, and one by Patterson.

There weren't any in the final 9 games though, and that's what sticks with me about the season. Obviously, there were four games in that stretch that were extremely winnable (enough to make the playoffs). These were the Prior game in New York, the Rusch game against the Reds, the Prior game against the Reds, and the Zambrano game against the Braves.

Maybe it's just the freshness of the melt-down. Or maybe there were more tough loses than inspiring and dramatic wins. Or, just perhaps, as a Cubs fan, I'm so prone to heartbreak that they just stick out in my mind. So let me know. What winning games stick out most in your mind from this season?

2004-10-03T23:22:00.000-07:00

Goodbye to All That

Today, I went to the last Cubs game of the 2004 season, not so much to enjoy a nice day at the park as to say goodbye to a team that failed in a way that no other Cubs team has (In my lifetime, at leat. Older folks have '69, which was much worse).

Just a little background. I had a very difficult time last fall and winter. It's not fair to say that it was because of the Cubs, but the Cubs didn't help any. I went to all of the home Atlanta games last season. I was ecstatic. Kerry Wood and Mark Prior pitched so beautifully during that series that I couldn't believe that they were Cubs.

I went to the first two games against the Marlins. I remember Sammy's homer to tie the game. I remember the disappointment in losing that game, and the joy of winning the next. I remember sitting at John Barrleycorn as Aramis Ramirez hit a grand slam off Dontrelle Willis. On a weekend afternoon, I had a bad cold and watched Carlos Zambrano lose game five against an unhittable Josh Beckett. I figured that it was okay. We had Prior and Wood at home.

I remember the joy of "five outs away." Kissing my fiance (now wife) and high-fiving everyone in sight with every out that got us to that point. I sat in Section 204 and watched a foul ball drift down the line, towards section 4. I remember Moises Alou jumping and screaming. I couldn't see exactly what happened, but 10 seconds later, the crowd behind the polls were screaming (they had a TV showing them a replay). We know what happened next...

The next day, everyone at work was kind to me, knowing that I was a mess. I took a friend to the game, and he said there was no chance that the Cubs would win. Momentum, he said. Fresh off of reading Moneyball, I thought I was taking a rational point of view in thinking the previous night wouldn't matter. Kerry Wood was pitching, for Christ's sake. I remember Kerry's game-tying homerun and the shot of pleasure was like nothing else I'd felt at a sporting event. We remember what happened after...

I walked home. My fiance had left for New York. Home alone, I sat in a chair and watched ESPN. I can't say that I cried, but tears welled up, and I just sat for a couple of hours.

Two weeks later, darkness came over me. The next four months are still very difficult for me to talk about. The details are very banal, but it was painful nonetheless. One of the things that pulled me through was watching the off-season moves of the Cubs. Todd Walker, LaTroy, Hollandsworth, and Derrek Lee all seemed like solid moves, and the Maddux signing brought me some sorely needed joy. I read every morsel of Cubs news I could find.

I did the Prior Watch. Prior's injury forecast kept getting longer and longer. But still the Cubs seemed to be the class of the central.

I watched the preseason games. I saw Andy Pratt explode, and Borowski scuffle. I remember a 45 year old ruin a game in Atlanta. I went to opening day at Wrigley and straggled along with the Cubs early in the year. They never broke open early, but it was only May, and they were hanging in there.

As summer came around, I went to a lot of games while preparing for my wedding. Around the 4th of July, the Cubs went into a funk, and the Cardinals buried them over the next three weeks. I returned from my honeymoon and went to a game with my dad and grandpa. As we walked home, there was a loud cheer from the Dark Horse. We stopped at a bar and learned the Cubs had gotten Nomar.

The Cubs chances improved. They had weathered injuries. They had one more to deal with, as Nomar went down for a week. Neifi Perez, the most maligned player in baseball (at least on stat-centered sites), played out of his mind. The Cubs remained in control. They finished up their tough stretch of the schedule and still looked good.

I was in Geneva, Illinois last Saturday with my in-laws. The Cubs were 87-66 at the time, with a 1.5 game lead (and 2 in the loss column) over their closest competitor. My wife and mother-in-law were shopping, but I snuck into a bar with my father-in-law to watch the ninth inning. I screamed at Dempster to throw strikes. I watched LaTroy give up a crushing two out, two strike home run to a guy who didn't even think he had hit it out. That started the worst week I've had as a Cubs fan.

We know what happened. They choked. The papers are full of stories in which Dusty and his players deny that's what happened. But they choked. Alou watched a low, inside curveball called for a strike, and he whined the next day. Steve Stone called Dusty out on WGN radio, and Dusty cried about it the next day. The Cubs spent more time bitching and moaning over the last 9 days of the season than they did concentrating on winning a playoff spot that was theirs for the taking. I went to the last two games and just let the wasted twelve month since I sat in that chair wash over me.

So where do we go from here? Well, we know that Chip's gone. Hopefully Steve Stone remains. We're pretty sure that Moises, Grudz, and Clement are history. Today, though, WGN reported that Sammy came to the game late and left early without permission. I'm thinking the Cubs will ship him if they can find anyone willing to take him. That would free up a lot of money. I'd expect that the Cubs try to resign Nomar. Give him 4 years at $48 million. That seems fair. They resign Walker. They sign Aramis long term. They have the core of Barrett, Lee, and Patterson, as well as Maddux, Wood, Prior, and big Z. Maybe they let Dempster, Rusch, Mitre and Angel Guzman fight for the fifth starting spot. I'd like to see them get J.D. Drew and/or Magglio Ordonez (if he's healthy). Most importantly, I think the Cubs need to sign a top-line closer. That among all other things would have made the difference this year.

It's sad to write a post-mortem early in October. It's disappointing that a team built to win this year choked away a playoff spot that was right there. Such is life.

I've decided to keep this site alive. I'll be posting updates on the Cubs (when warranted), Wisconsin football and basketball, and the election. Truth be told, though, I'm not in the mood to wait 'til next year. The bitterness will take some time to wear off. But it'll be okay.

Thanks to all who have stopped in at this site. It's been fun, and I hope the Cubs do what needs to be done over the winter to make 2005 a success. Eamus Catuli!

2004-10-02T20:41:00.000-07:00

Premature Wrap Up

I'll do a longer post-season wrap-up. But I went to the game today, and it was pretty depressing. The crowd knew that the season was ending. The Cubs opened up a lead with homers by Sosa, Alou, and Ramirez, and let it slip thanks to a dropped pop up to Jose Macias in center. Carlos pitched pretty well despite his line. He showed some serious guts. He deserved better, but Jose couldn't find a ball in the sun.

One thing that stood out today was Baker's stuborness. After the extra-innings loss that began with Adam Dunn getting a hit off Remlinger and after getting reemed by Steve Stone about Remlinger's lack of success against lefties, you might think that Dusty would look at the numbers. Well, he brought in Remmy to face J.D. Drew with the Cubs up one, first and second and one out. Boom--tripple to right center, sac fly, and the Cubs lose by two.

I'm going to the game tomorrow. I'll say goodbye to the 2004 Cubs. After that, I've got a long, long post on what I think about this season. I hope that you'll read it.

2004-10-02T15:06:00.000-07:00

Stoney--Listen for Yourself

Stoney's radio interview. Really tough. And insightful. Hat tip to Joe at the View

2004-09-29T20:02:00.000-07:00

Don't want to talk about it...

That's how I feel after this 2-4 disaster against the Mets and Reds. I have nothing interesting to say. The Cubs are choking, blowing two games when they were a strike away from winning. Next time some saber-geek tells you that there's nothing special about closing and all you need is a good pitcher to get the final three (actually, just one) out, mention that tall, African-American gentleman on the Cubs who couldn't fail in the eighth.

Note that I don't think there's a better option than Hawkins. Farnsworth would choke as well, and really, Saturday's game falls as much on Dempster for walking two sub-.250 hitters. But just because Rob Neyer or Bill James says that the final three outs are as easy as any other doesn't mean it's true.

2004-09-22T21:56:00.000-07:00

Speaking of Jay...

Jay was all over ESPN tonight saying that the Cubs won't win the Wild Card because they are a disfunctional team. That certainly seemed to be true after losing 2 of 3 to the Expos, but maybe Jay hasn't been watching since then as the cubs have won 11 of their last 14. But I have some sympathy for Jay.

Jay is a columnist, and columnists need a story line. I have tried very hard to write about the Cubs on a daily basis. I failed for a variety of reasons (getting married put a crimp in it). But one of the main reasons is I couldn't get my arms around this team. It's a good team, but a team that has just slogged along winning 5 out of every 9 games for 5 months. They whine and complain. They play like morons at times (especially when running the bases or failing to hit a cutoff man). On the other hand, they can look brilliant for a 5 game stretch. Then, they lose a game they should win (hello? David Weathers?). But now, in crunch time, they seem to be putting it together.

For an illustration of the Cubs year, look at this graph . A pretty straight line up, but at a 56% winning clip. 5-4 does not make for a great story line. The best story line available is "this is a disfunctional team that has wasted a great opportunity provided by Jim Hendry and the Tribune." So Jay runs with it.

I'd like to hear your views on what the story-line of this Cubs team is. If you could describe this team's year to date in 5 sentences or less, how would you do it?

2004-09-22T21:47:00.000-07:00

Feeling Confident

At the risk of being a Jay Mariotti wind sock, I have to say that after tonights win against the Pirates, I'm feeling pretty confident that the Cubs will win the wild card. As I am sure others will point out, the Cubs remain a half game behind the Giants and 2.5 games ahead of the Astros. The Giants should win tomorrow with Schmidt going against Backe and the Cubs should win with Maddux going against some AA rag arm spot starter for the Pirates. That should effectively bury the Astros in the race. The Padres and the Marlins are done.

But, the race is still a three team race, except that 2 of the teams are also fighting for the NL West. Moreover, the Dodgers and Giants play each other 6 times. Let's assume that the Dodgers lose tomorrow. The Cubs are then tied with the Dodgers. Regardless of who does what in the 6 games between the two NL West teams, the Cubs will have the opportunity to gain at least three games on either the Giants or the Dodgers.

All of this is to say that the Cubs have their destiny in their hands. With 11 games left, and eight of them against teams that the Cubs are clearly superior to, I'm pretty convinced the Cubs will win the wild card.

2004-09-20T16:45:00.000-07:00

Unsure What to Think

I've not been updating for some time because I cannot get a grip on this team. This is a good team, a team that will look wonderful at times and than at others will just throw a turd in the punch bowl. Rather than cataloguing these events for you, I've spared you my up and down emotional ride.

But over the last 10 games or so, I thought I got a read on the storyline. This team is going to tough it out at the end and make it to the playoffs. But today's second game has left me more confused. With Prior stepping up big to win the first game against Carl Pavano, I really thought the sweep was in the bag. David Weathers was starting in game two for the Marlins, and that's generally pretty good. The Cubs did nothing in the first, and Matt Clement did what Matt's been doing lately. Pitch like crap for 2+ innings and shrink back to the clubhouse.

A split in this doubleheader was not a disaster; but it was a missed opportunity. A sweep would have put the Cubs up a half game (in the loss column) and put the Astros in a game and a half hole. Now, the Cubs are a half game out (and even in the loss column), and they're only advantage is an easier schedule.

I still believe they can win this, but they just haven't done it in the forceful way you'd have liked. So let's go Cubs, and finish strong.

2004-09-08T20:29:00.000-07:00

One Out Of Three Is Worse

Let's face it; the Cubs were lucky they didn't have to play Florida over last weekend or this would be over. Tonight, game three of the Expos series showed the Cubs at their absolute worst. Scott Downs? 29 batters faced? Bako's inability to field a bunt; Lee's inability to field a hot shot; Bako's inability to throw to second. Guh!! What a sickening feeling I had tonight watching that steaming pile. And what's worse was that Maddux pitched very well.

Oh and I forgot, Sammy freezing on a line drive, leading directly to the first run, and Moises being doubled off on a line drive to the outfield for the 296th time this year.

What makes someone a fan? This team has underperformed all year; the players whine and complain; and they play with their heads up their butts. So why care? I don't know. I guess I'm just a masochist.

2004-09-01T19:42:00.000-07:00

Two Out Of Three Is Bad.

The Cubs took two out of three from the decrepit Expos. I guess that's better than losing a series. But I've never seen a team as listless as this ball club. Watching the three games was painful. Really, a crowd of six thousand takes a lot out of the enjoyment of a game. And watching a team filled with unlikable complainers sucks.

I hope that this team makes the playoffs. I just bought the tickets today. Still, what a disgrace to go 20+ straight innings without scoring against the Expos. Rooting for a team is supposed to be fun. It hasn't been this year.

2004-08-29T21:29:00.000-07:00

Shoulda Kept My Mouth Shut

So, so typical of the 2004 Cubs to get you back into them and then fall apart. Friday's game was awful. Walks, homeruns, and Kerry not able to continue the winning streak. Saturday, again with the wind blowing in, the Cubs lose due to walks, walks, costly errors, and a failure to get the big hit. Corey swang at 3 in the dirt in the midst of a rally. Sunday...walks, walks, hit batsmen and a 5 run 8th.

Pretty sad. We had a chance to get a nice lead and we didn't capitalize. Still, we're tied with the Giants and Padres. Now's the time. Let's do it.

2004-08-25T20:45:00.000-07:00

Corey, Corey

Wow. What an incredible turnaround with Corey Patterson this year. Remember the boo-birds of May? The long, loopy swing striking out at high fastballs and sliders in the dirt? Pop up after pop up to third or short? He took his hits (well-deserved) for his stubborn refusal to lay a bunt down or slap a ball the other way. Look at his game log for the year. Corey bottomed out on June 8, hitting .246 and a .707 OPS. He has raised his batting average .046 points and his OPS .120 points since then.

By the way, hat tip to Steve Stone for his "one more slider and this game's over" call before a slider and Corey's walk off homerun. After the 3-6 run against the Giants, Padres, and Dodgers, I was low. The Cubs didn't look like they had it in them to make the run. They've shut me up. I'm still going along for the fun without believing 100% that we've got the playoffs. But what a nice run they're putting together right now.

2004-08-23T22:02:00.000-07:00

Well...

Radio silence has been golden for the Cubs. As I said, I've been with them, I've just resigned myself to them not making the playoffs. It was for my sanity. You can be too much of a fan. It can take up too much of your time and attention.

But...

I have to say that I give the Cubs a better than 50% chance of making the playoffs, so I'm at a loss. How do you feel about this team? Let me know.

On another note... I went to the game tonight, and it proved something to me. Up until about two years ago, I was the traditional fan. I judged players solely by batting average, home runs, RBIs. I looked at pitchers W-L records as the foremost stat. I came around and appreciate the better statistics.

However, sabermetrics leaves a very dry taste in my mouth. Why? Because it looks at everything in the agregate. I hate the pythagorean standings. What a bunch of crap. Either you won or you didn't. Don't give me that the Cubs should have won five more games than they have. They didn't win them. It's meaningless.

More to the point, though, if you think baseball can be completely understood by statistics, you didn't watch tonight's game. Carlos Zambrano was outstanding. He took a no-hitter into the seventh. He got the first guy out and then gave up a horrific bloop double. It's an awful way to lose a no-no. And then he lost it. It didn't matter. The Cubs were up big (in part because of his stones...pitchers don't get hits on bunts, unless you're crazy Z). Statistics don't capture the magic of emotion. Baseball is more fun to watch if you aren't completely caught up in statistics. They're useful to understand the game, just don't let them take the fun out of it.

2004-08-17T19:54:00.000-07:00

Resigned

I've been spending less and less time thinking about the Cubs lately. Maybe it's because I'm married; maybe because I've been working a lot. But really, it's because this team is too damn frustrating.

I was at the game on Sunday. When the Cubs went up 5-2 on Michael Barrett's homerun, I mentally put the game into the win column. The bullpen fell apart in the eighth. Really, it was like being at Game 6 all over again. I watched as batter after batter would get to 2 strikes, the crowd would try to get them over the edge, and hitter after hitter got on. It felt like the Cubs wouldn't get another out.

Eric Gagne was incredible. The view from my seats is really fun for watching pitches. You can see the changes of speed. Gagne was going from 73 to 96 on pitch after pitch. D. Lee looked absolutely foolish on a third strike swing (not to mention Jose Macias who was completely overmatched in a way I've never seen before). My wife asked on a fluttering changeup to Corey why he didn't kill the pitch. I explained that a 95 MPH fastball and his 73 MPH poofball look the same coming out of his hand. It's really incredible the talent it would take to hit a major league pitcher. But Gagne's incredible, so hats off to him.

But tonight, the Brewers threw up their rag arm Santos, and the Cubs did next to nothing with him. I thought they were going to blow it open when Sammy had the bases loaded and a three-two count. Sammy seemed to have made some adjustments tonight (he was noticeably closer to the plate and homered in the first). That's what was supposed to happen in my fantasy induced heart. It didn't happen and the Cubs limped to a 3-1 loss.

Yeah, Zambrano pitched well and yeah, the Cubs got screwed again by the umps on a play at first after Corey threw a strike on a line drive. But really, none of it mattered. The Cubs just haven't looked good for any extended stretch this season. Investing time, love, and nervous energy day after day has really exhausted me. I didn't want to believe that the Cubs wouldn't make the playoffs this season. But at this point, I'm resigned to that fact. I figure that this gives me a mental break in that if they do make it, it will be a bonus. But at this juncture, the Cubs haven't clicked this season, despite fielding the best team I remember. It's disappointing, but I'm tired of making mental excuses in my mind for this bunch of underachievers. I hope I'm proven wrong, but after spending the evening watching a pretty pathetic effort tonight, that's how I feel.

2004-08-12T20:12:00.000-07:00

Two games, Two Stories

I went to the game last night. Carlos Zambrano pitched incredibly well. He only walked one and the only run was due to a wild pitch. But what I'll remember about this game is that I had a chance at a foul ball and blew it. Well, not blew it, but it hit me in the hands and I didn't catch it. Moises hit a rope in the sixth into deep left, well foul. It was incredible. I heard the crowd's noise getting louder and louder and the ball was coming right at me. I reached out my hand and Boom! right off my hand. I have a bruise, I didn't get the ball, but the Cubs won so I can't complain.

Today's game was a missed opportunity. I've noticed that the umpiring this year has been dreadful. It has benefitted the Cubs and cost the Cubs. Today, it cost the Cubs the game. Old, fat Bruce Froemming blew a call on a force play at second. It wasn't even close. Nomar was on the bag. Terrence Long was out. Irrespective of these facts, Long was called safe and Nomar threw the ball away. It ended up costing the Cubs two runs.

Nomar later homered to give the Cubs the lead, but the bullpen (Mercker, Farnsworth, and Dempster) gave up some big runs, costing the game.

Too bad. The Cubs deserved to win the game. Corey Patterson had a fantastic game. But the bullpen didn't stand up and do what was necessary to win a game that was ours for the taking.

2004-08-10T19:53:00.000-07:00

Awful, Just Awful

The Cubs fought to come back tonight but could not overcome an otherworldly awful night by Mark Prior. Please don't complain about the ball/strike call tonight. The curve did not catch the plate, no matter what Stoney kept saying. It was inside. Anyway, Prior didn't do what was necessary to get out of it.

Just how bad was Prior? Insanely bad. 3 innings pitched, 8 hits, 5 walks and a hit batsmen. Now, when Dusty mercifully pulled the plug, Rusch could have minimized the damage. In fact, he pitched perfectly to do so. A ground ball to second and a 1-2-3 double play. Unfortunately, Rusch failed to cover first on the aforementioned groundball. After the double play (which would have ended the inning), Rusch gave up a three run dong.

Still, the Cubs battled. 5 solo homeruns and a clutch hit by Walker made it 8-6. Unfortunately, Aramis narrowly missed a game tying homerun in the 9th. And Ramon's line-out ended the game.

I really hated the lineup tonight. I understand that Aramis needed a day off. Okay. But if Jose Macias is going to fill in, bat him 8th not 2nd. With Corey leading off, you aren't going to have guys on base for the middle of the order to drive in. Hence, the solo shots. Hence, pinch-hitting Ramon Martinez with the tying run on base in the ninth. By the way, why was it Ramon rather than Grudz hitting in the ninth?

Second guessing the manager is a way of life for baseball fans. But, c'mon. Prior pitched poorly, and the lineup tonight didn't make any sense.

2004-08-10T16:24:00.000-07:00

Greg Maddux, Strikeout Pitcher

Bored at work, I was visiting the comments at the Cub Reporter. Some feller named Chad stated that Greg Maddux had the fewest strikeouts of any 300 game winner. Good point, except that Maddux has more strikeouts than all but eight of the twenty-two. Then, he argued that he had fewer than all the modern day pitchers. Also, not true. Maddux has more K's than Spahn and has a better K/9IP than all but four of the twenty-two.

Chad's comments came from his desire to argue that Kerry Wood needs to learn from Maddux to rely on defense for success. But that's not how Maddux won his 300 games. He located his fastball, didn't walk many and struck out more hitters than all but twelve pitchers in the history of baseball. He's not the prototypical 95 MPH Texas strikeout ace. But, nonetheless, he has a very good chance of ending his career with more K's than Fergy and Bob Gibson.

The more you learn about Maddux's career, the sadder you have to feel about the years 1993-2003. He should have been ours during his prime. So congratulations on 300, Greg. Now, let's get the damn ring.

2004-08-06T15:59:00.000-07:00

Breaking Radio Silence

I've been relatively silent and for those who read this, I appologize. But I have nothing to add right now. The Cubs are playing great. They're pitching well, playing good defense, and scoring runs. I could add my two cents to all the whining coming from Boston, but I'm just ignoring it. I agree with Joe over at The View. He's not as cute as Elizabeth, but he's right.

But I wanted to talk instead about subtle changes in cultural norms. I was thinking about this as I rode the el home from work. I remember, say, 6 or 7 years ago when people gave Cubs fans shit for talking on cell phones at games. Cell phones were considered a yuppy tool at the time. Now, they're ubiquitous. I hate them. I don't own one. I won't get one.

But I'm in the minority, and that's fine. But don't talk on the el when I'm riding home. Or make it 30 seconds or less. Don't spend 20 minutes talking loudly about nothing. It's way too irritating. But I think that more and more people feel there's nothing wrong with talking at any time, in any place.

Case in point, the pathetic woman on the brown line this evening. It was remarkable what this woman was saying. To set the scene, this woman was a rather plain looking woman in her late 20's/early 30's. She looked like the kind of girl other women would say was "sweet" and "so nice." But I learned that she was taking a break from her boyfriend. He told her he didn't love her. She cried that night and ate ice cream. She then said she noticed that the guy who lived in the apartment above her was cute, and though she didn't know his phone number, she knew where he worked. She left him a message, but he hasn't gotten back to her.

This woman has always felt that she was the kind of woman who guys would talk to at parties for a couple minutes but would never think about again. It's depressed her for a long time. She just wants to meet someone nice and settle down with him. She thought that this was the guy, but when he told her that he didn't love her, she knew she'd have to move on.

Now, there were about 20 people in the car as she spoke in a cloying voice, laughing at things we could only guess her friend was saying. It was about as annoying a 20 minutes as I've spent in a long time.

Well, as I said, this seems to becoming the norm. Silence, my friends, is golden. Let's remember that.

2004-08-02T17:34:00.000-07:00

Late to the Party

Well, the Nomar story has come and gone without any comment from me. Everything that needs to be said has been said. It's a great trade. Don't cry about losing any of the prospects lost. When you have a chance to make the playoffs this year, you do it. Hendry made the trade the team needed, and he's proved again that he's the most effective Cubs GM in my life.

Now, on to a separate matter. I'm somewhat skeptical about some of sabermetrics measurements of team success. Take the Pythagorean standings. By this method, the Cubs are the second best team in baseball. But that ignores a team's inconsistency. The Cubs can win 10-1 one day and look absolutely listless the next day. I don't think the Cubs have been unlucky this year (which is the sabermetric explanation). Rather, for some reason that I don't understand, the entire Cubs lineup will go into a funk for a game. I think the Nomar trade should help eleviate this, but if you have any theories about why the Cubs have been so inconsistent this year, please let me know.

2004-07-28T19:18:00.000-07:00

I'm Back...

I'll post more later later about the wedding etc. later, but watching tonight's game spurred me to notice a big failure in common statistics. Reliever's ERA is really an unreliable stat. Kent Mercker has a 2.2 ERA, but he fails so often in his role that it's hard to describe him as a strong reliever. Case in point, he enters with 2 on and 2 out. He walks a guy to load the bases and then throws a wild pitch. He gets out of the inning, and his ERA goes on.

WHIP seems like a better stat for relievers. Inherrited runners stranded would be good, but if the reliever comes in with a guy on third and no one out, you can't really count that against him. Perhaps the best indication would be first batters faced. When you get that guy out as a reliever, you're doing your job. Just my thoughts. More later.

2004-07-06T16:43:00.000-07:00

Going, Going...

Regular readers of this site (all 40 of you) may have noticed a sparsity of posts. Well, I'm getting married next Saturday, and I've been running around on that. I'll be in Michigan until Sunday and then off to Hawaii for two weeks. Postings will be next to non-existent until late July.

So, for my sendoff and at just one game after the half-way mark of the season, here are my takes on your 2004 Chicago Cubs.

First Base--Derrek Lee--.304/.378/.517--Derrek Lee at times looks too non-chalant (slide, Derrek, slide!), but Lee has had a very nice season to date. April and May were fairly mediocre for Derrek, but his June was fantastic and helped the Cubs overcome the injury to Sosa. On defense, Lee is second to no one at first. Others may have compared him to Fred McGriff, but there couldn't be a worse subject to compare Lee to. Lee makes every scoop and shows incredible range at first. Overall, a fine pickup for the Cubs.

Second Base--Todd Walker--.283/.368/.500 Walker has gotten most of the playing time at second with Grud out. Walker's OBP was over .400 for a decent stretch of the season, but his OBP is still very good. More notable, though, has been his surprising power (11HR). Again, a nice addition.

Short Stop--Ramon Martinez/Alex Gonzales--Alex (.244/.261/.411) simply isn't a good hitting shortstop and neither is Ramon (.262/.332/.358). Both have the advantage, however, of not being Rey Ordonez. Shortstop remains the Cubs biggest weakness.

Third Base--Aramis Ramirez--.326/.374/.550--Aramis has been the Cubs most productive player this year. Aramis' defense has greatly improved as well, though a good portion of the credit has to go to Lee at first. Aramis is the sole remaining legacy from the Cubs trades to Pittsburgh, but he has more than made the deal worthwhile.

Catcher--Michael Barrett--.286/.337/.483--Many Cubs fans hoped for a Pudge signing, and in retrospect, that would have been nice. But it could have been a lot worse. The Cubs are getting more production from Barrett than from any catcher in recent memory. Hendry wanted Barrett for a long time. Another quality pick-up.

Left Field--Moises Alou--.335 .522 .858--Moises has cooled off since a red hot May. He's avoided injury and played a passable left field. He can't throw or run, but he played big with Sammy on the bench.

Center Field--Corey Patterson--.277/.334/.456--Corey went through a stretch that frustrated every Cubs fan. He had no command of the strike zone, and he was popping everything up to the left side of the infield. Corey seems to have turned the corner. In fact, Corey has drawn more walks this season than ever in his career. Corey's at his best when he shortens his swing and lines the ball. Let's hope he digests what it takes to be successful.

Right Field--Sammy Sosa-- .271/.366/.547 Sammy's injury has obviously limited his effectiveness. Like last year, Sammy won't get a full season, but I expect that he'll come back with a 30+HR/100 RBI season. Incomplete at this juncture.

Super Sub--Todd Hollandsworth--.318/.392/.547--Todd is the smartest position player on this team. No one else on the Cubs knows how to run the bases, and no one else can come off the bench and hit like Todd. Hollandsworth, prior to his injury, plugged the whole when Sammy went down, and has pinch hit at about a .500 clip. I'm a big Hollandsworth fan. Another solid offseason pickup.

Okay, I'm tired.

Starting pitching. Carlos Zambrano has been outstanding in the first half of the season. I'm not sure how he's doing it. He's given up more home runs this year and he's not getting as many ground outs as last year. But he guts everything out, and there's no one more fun to watch than Z. Matt Clement shows why win/loss record is a pretty worthless statistic. When you have an ERA of 2.83 and a WHIP of 1.16, you'd expect a nice record. Instead, Clement is 7-7. He's getting no run support at all, and that's just sad. Yesterday, Clement was wild, but he minimized the damage and gave up just one run in seven innings. Get the guy the damn win. Didn't happen. Actually, Kerry Wood has a 2.82 ERA with a 1.01 WHIP and has a 3-3 record. Come on, let's give these guys some run support. Maybe then my Sox fan friends wouldn't have much argument when they argue that Buehrle is better than Matt or Kerry.

Prior's injury has been the big story of the season. The Cubs overcame it, but it's nice to have him back. Again, Prior's 2-3 with a sub-3 ERA. He's getting stronger, but he hasn't been able to get the whipe out pitch that he had in the second half of last season. Greg Maddux has pitched decently, but inconsistently. On occassion, you see the old Greg, but then he comes out with slow fastballs on the inner portion that end up 400 feet away. Greg will get his command in the second half. Glendon Rusch has done everything and more that you could ask of him. He's minimized the injury to Wood, and kept the Cubs in every game. Again, when someone throws up win/loss record as the vital pitching statistic think about his game against the Sox on Sunday. 8 scoreless innings, and Hawkins gets the win after giving up a homer. Glendon sports a respectable 3.84 ERA and a 1.19 WHIP. Better than anyone could have asked.

The bullpen has been inconsistent at best. Put aside the early season disaster of Andy Pratt, Michael Wuertz, and Joe Borowski. Mike Remlinger has been hurt most of the year. Kyle Farnsworth has been at times brilliant and at times dumb as a post. LaTroy Hawkins, too, has looked great, but blown more saves than you'd like. Kent Merker has nice numbers, but you never feel comfortable with him in there. Jon Leicester has been a very pleasant surprise. Francis Beltran walks too many damn hitters and gives up too many dongs, but is a promising pitcher.

I left off my opinion about the rest of the bench because...well, they're not good. Bako, Ordonez, and Macias are marginal players at best and the less said about them the better.

What's been frustrating about this season is the inconsistency of the offense. They can explode for a huge game and then get shut out. The Cubs have been shut out a ridiculous 8 times. The offense is dependant on the home run, and when it's not there, they're in trouble. Still, despite the injuries, the inconsistent offense, and the shaky bullpen, the Cubs remain atop the wild card race (albeit 5 games out of first in the Central). I remain confident about the team's chances to make the playoffs, but the Cubs have to get healthy and discover a way to score when they aren't hitting homeruns. Go Cubs! and see you in August.

2004-07-04T11:46:00.000-07:00

Going For the Sweep

After yesterday's rain-delayed, 5 and a half-innings, shortened game, the Cubs and Glendon Rusch attempt to sweep the White Sox tonight. I was at the game yesterday with my friend and Sox-fan Ron. The crowd ribbed him a little, but there was nothing that crossed over into bad taste. In fact, the crowd was pretty easy-going and good-natured.

Not sure if that'll be the case tonight. I'm taking my fiance out to dinner up by the ballpark and then heading to the game. I'm hoping it stays within bounds of decenty, and expect the security to be very tight. I think we'll get out of the area as soon as the game's over.

But tonight is a big game for the Cubs. The Cardinals have bounced back from getting swept by the Pirates (who have won eight in a row). The Cubs are up two games in the wild card, but there are several teams within striking distance. As such, the only thing the Cubs can do to improve their lot is to keep on winning.

The Cubs are coming to the end of what looked to be a very, very tough stretch of games. They've played over .500 against some very good teams. Now's the time to finish strong.

Go Cubs! and I hope I get home safe tonight.

2004-06-30T18:48:00.000-07:00

Splitsville

The first two games of the Houston series haven't gone as badly as I thought, looking at the Petitte-Rusch and Clemens-Clement matchups. I was at the game last night, but my seats are down the thirdbase line so I couldn't see the two goofy plays. From my angle, it looked like Rusch was getting squeezed. Rusch got rocked in the fourth inning but came back to pitch effectively.

Today's game was winnable, obviously. Clemens got some really generous calls on the strike zone. Clement couldn't find it and pitched 104 pitches in 4.2 innings (why is 4.2 rather than 4.666 innings, by the way?). But the bullpen pitched well overall. Hawkins gave up a homerun to Beltran. Well, that happens. He's a very good player.

But the thing that struck me was how often the Cubs pitchers are behind in the count. Lidge struggled some in the eighth, but in the ninth, he was strike one, strike two. Hawkins didn't go after Beltran, trying to get out up in the zone. I know it's true, but can anyone show me a study on the negative effect a pitcher's count has on a player's offensive production? Thanks for your help.

2004-06-30T18:24:00.001-07:00

Good and Cheap

Joe over at the View from the Bleachers has an interesting post on the all low payroll team. Joe says that it is full of good, young talent. That's not surprising, though, considering the structure of baseball's collective bargaining agreement.

As explained in Moneyball, major league teams have rights to players for the first seven years of minor league ball and the first six years of their major league career. Wonder why Carlos Zambrano is making a half a mill? Because for the first three years of his career, the Cubs can pay him what they want. After the third year, Z can apply for arbitration and will get a healthy, but not market based, raise.

So theoretically, the Brewers, Devilrays, or Expos could afford to pay these guys. But they'd have had to either traded for them or brought them up. It's why KC traded Beltran. It's why a lot of trades that you hear on talk radio are just pipe dreams.

What about an all pay roll team composed of players with 7 or more years of major league experience?

2004-06-27T15:01:00.001-07:00

A Little Perspective

I'm sure if you're reading this, you care enough about the Cubs to be as disappointed about the last 5 days as I am. Losing 4 of 5 to the Cards and Sox is no fun. Falling to five out in the central sucks. Houston getting Beltran (but simultaneously weakening their bullpen) is a shot to the gut, too.

But, the Cubs remain in the lead for the wild card. The Cubs obviously aren't out of anything. Sammy's about to go on a tear (2 homers today). Corey's playing significantly better (though his baserunning cost the Cubs two outs). So, I'm not too down.

But in all honesty, you'd like to see the Cubs get up for games against the Sox as much as they do. Maddux looked terrible today, giving up at least a run every inning.

So let's get after the 'Stros on Tuesday, and keep your chin up. I felt the Cubs turned the corner during that six game win streak. But as Donald Rumsfeld would say, this season's going to be a long, hard slog.

2004-06-26T16:27:00.000-07:00

More Thoughts on Zambrano

This time with a little more researchresearch. Here are Carlos's statistics from this year and last. I noticed some things that are interesting:

First, I was wrong about his home run total, but just bearly. After today, Carlos has given up 8 this year to his otherworldly 9 last season. Second, his strike outs to innings pitched are up this year as well. Third, his walks are down considerably. Finally, he's giving up less extra base hits and less hits overall.

Of course, today was a glaring exception to his stelar '04 career. Most telling were his walks today. He walked 5 guys in just 6 innings and was hit pretty hard as well. He seemed to be consistently behind the batter and always pitching out of trouble (at least the first three innings). The Sox hit a lot of homeruns, and today they got two off of Z.

Zambrano distracted himself by paying WAY too much attention to Timo Perez at first, throwing over there four or five times, even when Timo had just stepped off the base. He then served one up to Joe Crede. You have to accept that Zambrano will do some stupid things out on the mound. His year so far more than justifies a little forgiveness for today.

2004-06-26T15:15:00.000-07:00

Zambrano

Carlos didn't pitch well today, obviously. Equally obvious is that he is an all-star this season. But without having done the research, I'm not quite sure how he's been as effective as he has. Last year, he wasn't giving up homeruns. I think he's given up more this year already than he did in his freakishly good season last season. Not coincedentally, he doesn't seem to be getting as many ground outs this season. I know this is arguing with success, but it does bear watching.

Also, check in and say hi to Marcus at cubsblog.com. Marcus was kind enough to name this site his Cubs blog of the day. It looks like he's just getting started. Good luck, Marcus!

2004-06-24T18:23:00.000-07:00

Cubs Make Trade, Too

Paul Bako and Rey Ordonez for a bucket of warm spit. The Astros got Carlos Beltran in a three way trade with KC and Oakland. But the Cubs trade improved the team even more.

Seriously, Ordonez and Bako are just too bad to play MLB. Ordonez was the problem tonight, squandering two scoring opportunities with infield dribblers (one a two out grounder, the other a 1-2-3 dp). Ordonez followed up his offensive ineptitude by making a costly fourth inning error with the bases loaded, leading to a four run inning.

I'm posting now because that inning ended this game. The Cubs squandered too many opportunities with poor baserunning by Sammy and the aforementioned disasterous play by Rey Ordonez. Only Ordonez and Ramon could make me wistful for the days of Alex Gonzales.

2004-06-24T13:46:00.000-07:00

How Bad Are Some Sportswriters?

Pretty damn bad. The case in point today is Phil Rogers and his expose on the all-city team. Read it and the most startling thing is his listing Mark Buehrle as the best starting pitcher in Chicago (as well as Zambrano fourth). How is that justified? Buehrle has a 7-2 record. That's it. Of course, Zambrano is 8-2, but let's put that aside.

Buehrle is getting ungodly run support this season. Look at his game log. That's about 7.6 runs per game support. What does he contribute? Well, a 4.49 ERA and a 1.39 WHIP. Pretty mediocre, right? How about Z? A 2.25 ERA and 1.08 WHIP. Pretty damn good, eh?

Also note that he lists Hawkins as a set up guy. Umm, not for the last three weeks or so, Phil. Pure Hackery.

2004-06-23T19:40:00.000-07:00

Please, Please, Get a Back-up Catcher

My fiance's not talking to me. I screamed at the television for an hour straight. It pissed her off. But I'm too angry to care right now. The Cubs, after battling back from 3-0 and 5-3 deficits, took a 9-5 lead, and the relievers couldn't hold it. You can talk about how bad Beltran was, or how the ump screwed Mercker, but that's not the worst of it. After giving up the tying run, Mercker started yapping at the ump. Barrett evidently tried to break up the argument but pissed off the ump and got tossed. What a disaster that turns out to be.

Fast forward to the bottom of the eighth, two outs and a runner on third, tie game. The Cubs bring in Farnsworth. He throws a pitch high and inside. Bako, having come in for Barrett, lets it go off his glove and a run scores. That's enough. Bako makes the last out as well.

I don't know what the lineup was at the end. It was too confusing and Baker didn't seem to know what he was doing by double switching Ordonez and Farnsworth. It looked like the ninth was going to be Ordonez, Walker, and Bako. The game was a mess after the fifth, and Baker didn't manage the game very well. He left Mercker in against Pujols, Rolen, and Sanders. Whatever reverse split Mercker might have, it wasn't good enough to get out of that inning.

The Cubs should have won this game. They didn't. Paul Bako needs to go. He's not a major league caliber player and he showed it again tonight. When you could have pounded the Cards two in a row and broken their spirits, you have to close the deal. What a disaster. Let's hope they can pick themselves off the floor for tomorrow night. More importantly, let's hope Jim Hendry realizes that the Cubs need a legitimate player as a back up catcher.

2004-06-22T21:20:00.000-07:00

Big, Big Win

Probably said that 10 times this season, but this was a great win for the Cubs. I said I was taking a break awhile back. It was after a couple of those games when Corey was at the bottom of his funk, Derrek Lee wasn't hitting, and the Borowski was still the closer. My fiance said I was a fair-weather fan. Not true!! I watched the games. I just couldn't bring myself to say anything about the Cubs. It was so discouraging and it affected my mood. I'd go to bed pissed off.

Well, I was getting that way tonight. Not as discouraged, but just really pissed off. The single reason for this reaction was Bako (and Maddux for his insistence on having a personal caddy). When Maddux starts, you've got two outs at the bottom of your lineup. Because of Dusty's style, it also means Ramone is hitting second. I got into a discussion about Bako with Joe over at the view from the bleachers tonight about Bako. He defended starting Bako every fifth game, mainly for his defense and Maddux's preference for him. Well, Bako's "defense" nearly cost the game tonight as he dropped a rare Corey Patterson strike to the plate. It wasn't a hard play. He had plenty of time and just dropped it. I guess you can't credit him with an error under scoring rules, but it was a terrible play.

If Maddux was the Maddux of the mid-90's, I'd say "okay, Greg, you can have your caddy." But he's not. He's a solid starter, but not a stud or a stopper. He needs to do what's best for the team, not what makes him feel the most comfortable. Bako should not be playing every fifth game. His defense is non-existant and he's more or less an automatic out.

This is extremely negative in light of a big win. But it's a win that was won despite the line-up. Aramis, Lee, and Alou lifted the team to the win. For that, I'll go to bed happy.

2004-06-21T07:00:00.000-07:00

Happy to Be Wrong

Not long after my post on Sunday, the Cubs came back with two in the ninth to win the game. As a commentor said, "nice to have had Walker and Hollandsworth for the ninth." Well, I admit that my complaining and second guessing were premature and that it worked out best for the Cubs on Saturday. I still don't get pinch hitting Goodwin on Friday instead of Alou, but, you know what? The Cubs took two of three from the A's, swept the Astros, and won two of three from the Angels. Why complain? The team seems to be gelling very well, and Derrek Lee is just on fire. So, it's all good in Cubs land.

But again, the next 12 games will be big. 6 against the Sox, 3 against both the Cards and the 'Stros. Exciting times ahead.