Interesting Stat

[jmajew]

I just thought this was an interesting comparison between the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

 

2006: We were ranked 28th in runs with 716. Had an OBP of 319, SLG of 422, and OPS of 741.

 

2005: We were ranked 20th in runs with 703. Had an OBP of 324, SLG of 440, and OPS of 764.

 

2006: Our pitching staff allowed the 5th most runs with 834. Had the 4th best BAA at 255. WE allowed the most walks with 687.

 

2005: Our pitching staff allowed the 18th most runs with 714. Had the 5th best BAA at 250. WE allowed the 7th most walks with 576.

 

I dont' really know what to make of this but I just found it interesting that our offense was better this year in terms of runs scored but our pitching staff was just that much worse.

 

I'm not going to lie that it leaves me questioning the idea that our offense was our biggest problem this year.

[Magnetic Curses]

I just thought this was an interesting comparison between the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

 

2006: We were ranked 28th in runs with 716. Had an OBP of 319, SLG of 422, and OPS of 741.

 

2005: We were ranked 20th in runs with 703. Had an OBP of 324, SLG of 440, and OPS of 764.

 

2006: Our pitching staff allowed the 5th most runs with 834. Had the 4th best BAA at 255. WE allowed the most walks with 687.

 

2005: Our pitching staff allowed the 18th most runs with 714. Had the 5th best BAA at 250. WE allowed the 7th most walks with 576.

 

I dont' really know what to make of this but I just found it interesting that our offense was better this year in terms of runs scored but our pitching staff was just that much worse.

 

I'm not going to lie that it leaves me questioning the idea that our offense was our biggest problem this year.

 

it's because our offense wasn't our biggest problem.

[goonys evil twin]

it's because our offense wasn't our biggest problem.

 

The offense has been the biggest longterm problem. The pitching staff has only recently become a problem. Pitching is more inconsistent though, so that's not a surprise.

[goonys evil twin]

I just thought this was an interesting comparison between the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

 

2006: We were ranked 28th in runs with 716. Had an OBP of 319, SLG of 422, and OPS of 741.

 

2005: We were ranked 20th in runs with 703. Had an OBP of 324, SLG of 440, and OPS of 764.

 

I dont' really know what to make of this but I just found it interesting that our offense was better this year in terms of runs scored but our pitching staff was just that much worse.

 

How in the world do you get the idea that the offense was better? They were worse across the board. They scored a couple more runs, but in relation to the league, got worse.

[wastra]

Of course, this was the worst National League I can ever remember, so they scored a few more runs against markedly worse competition.

[Magnetic Curses]

it's because our offense wasn't our biggest problem.

 

The offense has been the biggest longterm problem. The pitching staff has only recently become a problem. Pitching is more inconsistent though, so that's not a surprise.

 

i don't know how you can back up the idea that pitching is more inconsistent. show me and i'll believe you. as far as i can see, it's just a phrase, devoid of meaning, that you just invented to combat the notion that pitching is more important, an easily visible one.

[jmajew]

I just thought this was an interesting comparison between the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

 

2006: We were ranked 28th in runs with 716. Had an OBP of 319, SLG of 422, and OPS of 741.

 

2005: We were ranked 20th in runs with 703. Had an OBP of 324, SLG of 440, and OPS of 764.

 

I dont' really know what to make of this but I just found it interesting that our offense was better this year in terms of runs scored but our pitching staff was just that much worse.

 

How in the world do you get the idea that the offense was better? They were worse across the board. They scored a couple more runs, but in relation to the league, got worse.

 

I didn't say I thought they were better. I just said they were better in terms of runs scored. I was just attempting to show that our pitching staff fell off far more than our offense did this year and that pitching is the biggest problem.

 

I am not an advocate of spending 15 million dollars on another bat for the lineup because it would still leaves holes in the lineup. I'd like to see us sign Mike Cameron and Julio Lugo for a combine 10-15 mil a year and then spend the rest of the money we have available on starting pitching, about 12-17 mil. I think our offense has more potential to improve without a big free agent splash than our pitching staff has of improving without one. Lugo, Theriot, DLee, Ramirez, Murton, Jones, Cameron, Barrett looks really good. However, unlikely cuz we all know Izturis will probably start next year.

[Magnetic Curses]

I just thought this was an interesting comparison between the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

 

2006: We were ranked 28th in runs with 716. Had an OBP of 319, SLG of 422, and OPS of 741.

 

2005: We were ranked 20th in runs with 703. Had an OBP of 324, SLG of 440, and OPS of 764.

 

I dont' really know what to make of this but I just found it interesting that our offense was better this year in terms of runs scored but our pitching staff was just that much worse.

 

How in the world do you get the idea that the offense was better? They were worse across the board. They scored a couple more runs, but in relation to the league, got worse.

 

whatever the outcome, that offense was not 13 games worse than last season.

[jmajew]

I just thought this was an interesting comparison between the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

 

2006: We were ranked 28th in runs with 716. Had an OBP of 319, SLG of 422, and OPS of 741.

 

2005: We were ranked 20th in runs with 703. Had an OBP of 324, SLG of 440, and OPS of 764.

 

I dont' really know what to make of this but I just found it interesting that our offense was better this year in terms of runs scored but our pitching staff was just that much worse.

 

How in the world do you get the idea that the offense was better? They were worse across the board. They scored a couple more runs, but in relation to the league, got worse.

 

whatever the outcome, that offense was not 13 games worse than last season.

 

It may have scored more runs this year but it did not improve as much as the rest of the league. Thus making the offense much worse in comparison.

[goonys evil twin]

I just thought this was an interesting comparison between the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

 

2006: We were ranked 28th in runs with 716. Had an OBP of 319, SLG of 422, and OPS of 741.

 

2005: We were ranked 20th in runs with 703. Had an OBP of 324, SLG of 440, and OPS of 764.

 

I dont' really know what to make of this but I just found it interesting that our offense was better this year in terms of runs scored but our pitching staff was just that much worse.

 

How in the world do you get the idea that the offense was better? They were worse across the board. They scored a couple more runs, but in relation to the league, got worse.

 

I didn't say I thought they were better. I just said they were better in terms of runs scored. I was just attempting to show that our pitching staff fell off far more than our offense did this year and that pitching is the biggest problem.

 

I am not an advocate of spending 15 million dollars on another bat for the lineup because it would still leaves holes in the lineup.

 

So, you went in with a pitching bias, and backed it up with dubious stats. The hitting started out bad. But as ranked against the rest of the league, got even worse. It doesn't matter how many raw runs they score, it matters how many more or less they score than the competition. They plummeted in the rankings for hitting. You aren't showing that pitching is the biggest problem. You are showing that the Cubs have two huge problems, hitting and pitching.

[goonys evil twin]

it's because our offense wasn't our biggest problem.

 

The offense has been the biggest longterm problem. The pitching staff has only recently become a problem. Pitching is more inconsistent though, so that's not a surprise.

 

i don't know how you can back up the idea that pitching is more inconsistent. show me and i'll believe you. as far as i can see, it's just a phrase, devoid of meaning, that you just invented to combat the notion that pitching is more important, an easily visible one.

 

I believe it's been shown that hitters are more stable longterm producers and pitchers are much more prone to wild swings, due, most likely, to the frequency of injuries to pitchers.

 

The Cubs original plan was to pattern themselves after the Braves, relying on a strong pitching staff to make them consistent winners. They made two fatal errors. One, they forgot that Atlanta actually produced really good hitters during their period of dominance. And two, what the Braves did was unprecedented and not something you could duplicate. Nobody is going to have 3 great starters lead a team to dominance for a decade. Many have tried, only the Braves have done it. There was far too little attention paid to the offense from the get go, and it's shown, with repeated low rankings in the runs scored department (due to very low walk rates). They also put far too great a burden on young arms, and burnt most of them out.

 

Being one dimensional is stupid. Concentrating solely on pitching is a mistake. Ignoring the offense will doom this team to continued failure.

[kroth1342]

The whole team sucked.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The whole team sucked.

 

Holy Crap! Shrink the kentdamn avatar!

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The whole team sucked.

 

Holy Crap! Shrink the kentdamn avatar!

 

Almost missed your reply -- I got tired of scrolling to the right.

[Yeti]

The whole team sucked.

 

Holy Crap! Shrink the kentdamn avatar!

no kidding, i thought somehow i had changed some setting without realizing it till i scrolled down a bit

[Geech]

Haha! Hasn't Kroth done this avatar thing before?

[sethuel1]

I'm trying to post. I hope this goes through. I'm stuck under that guy's avatar.

[Omar]

most other forums automatically check the size of the avatar before they get approved.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

most other forums automatically check the size of the avatar before they get approved.

 

Are you saying NSBB is somehow inferior?

[soccer10k]

most other forums automatically check the size of the avatar before they get approved.

 

Are you saying NSBB is somehow inferior?

 

No it's the opposite. NSBB is so superior to other sites that it assumes the posters here are smart enough to make sure the avatar is small enough before uploading it.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

most other forums automatically check the size of the avatar before they get approved.

 

Are you saying NSBB is somehow inferior?

 

No it's the opposite. NSBB is so superior to other sites that it assumes the posters here are smart enough to make sure the avatar is small enough before uploading it.

 

apparently that's an assumption we can no longer make.

[chuckywang]

I just thought this was an interesting comparison between the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

 

2006: We were ranked 28th in runs with 716. Had an OBP of 319, SLG of 422, and OPS of 741.

 

2005: We were ranked 20th in runs with 703. Had an OBP of 324, SLG of 440, and OPS of 764.

 

2006: Our pitching staff allowed the 5th most runs with 834. Had the 4th best BAA at 255. WE allowed the most walks with 687.

 

2005: Our pitching staff allowed the 18th most runs with 714. Had the 5th best BAA at 250. WE allowed the 7th most walks with 576.

 

I dont' really know what to make of this but I just found it interesting that our offense was better this year in terms of runs scored but our pitching staff was just that much worse.

 

I'm not going to lie that it leaves me questioning the idea that our offense was our biggest problem this year.

 

The only "problem" was our 66-96 record. You solve the problem by either getting more hitting or better pitching. Sure our hitting might have been above average, but if it's the easiest and most effective thing to improve, then we have to concentrate on it.

[frostwyrm]

Of course, this was the worst National League I can ever remember, so they scored a few more runs against markedly worse competition.

Yeah, I have to agree. The NL was lousy. In an average year this team would have lost 100 games and scored less too. The NL Central was particularly bad. The Cubs actually finished .500 within the division(42-42), but were 24-54 elsewhere. In a strong division the Cubs could have lost 105.