Chicago Tribune Live reports Hendry/Kenney to remain.

[SouthSideRyan]

What did the Braves do differently in 1995? What did the Yankees decide to stop doing after 2000? How did roughly the same Red Sox team go from sweeping the world series to getting swept in the ALDS the next year? Etc. Etc.

[CubColtPacer]

 

And what do you propose they do differently?

 

I've already proposed some things earlier in the thread:

 

1. Better advance scouting

 

Let's take these 1 at a time. I'd always love better advance scouting. But does advance scouting really play a huge role in the internet world? By the time the playoffs roll around, everyone has seen everyone in person most likely and definitely on video. There were no surprises that the Dodgers rolled out last year, and I'm not sure how better advance scouting would have helped the cause.

 

2. Better management of the starting pitcher roll out (we're saving Z for game 4, etc)

 

This one is always an interesting one and goes down to series management. Do you focus on winning 1 game or 3? If you do the former, you have a better chance of not getting embarrassed but you have a smaller chance of winning the series. If the latter, you could win the series or you might get swept. Sacrificing 1 inning of Z for the right to not have to use Jason Marquis in the 07 playoffs was the right move especially when you consider that they were putting a pitcher on the mound who had been dominant most of the season. But it was a series oriented move, and it gave a higher chance of getting swept. It's the move a smart manager has to make, but he's going to get laughed at and criticized if it doesn't work out, and unfortunately in that postseason it didn't work.

 

3. Remove Soriano from the leadoff spot where he is dominated by RH playoff pitching to the point where he contributes nothing(sub .300 OPS, .125 OBP).

 

I sort of agree with you on this..sort of. I do think Soriano has certain pitchers he really struggles against, and in an ideal world we'd love to drop him in the order against people he struggles with. Making that big of a change that late rarely works though because players love to stay in their roles.

 

4. Stronger pre-game preperation in terms of plate discipline. The Cubs went away from that in 2007 and 2008.

 

The Cubs actually took a very large number of walks in 07. 14 in 3 games. Last year it was only 6 in 3 games. That partly was due to the pitchers they faced. But I don't mind more emphasis on plate discipline. I will concede that especially last year they might have been trying a bit too hard to make something happen and that helped feed into the problem.

[CUBZ99]

But are you saying that all the Cubs playoff teams over the last 100 years are built the same way? That the formula hasn't changed at all?

 

No. What I am saying is that the Cubs were never built to be good enough to win the world series for the last 100 years.

 

Something is very, very wrong with this organization and how they put together baseball teams. If I could figure it out, I would be a GM. But slapping together a team, pushing them out the door and hoping to make the playoffs every year and then saying "aw shucks, guys, go get 'em next year" hasn't worked. The track record speaks for itself.

 

And continually not being able to get past the NLDS and saying "aw shucks guys, go get 'em next year" may not work either. We will see this year, won't we?

 

I don't see what bringing up what the Cubs of 60 years ago did has anything to with today. Different ownership, different coaches, different players, different philosophy. It's simply not relevant to the issue.

 

It's relevant to team and organization psyche. And if theCubs fail to move past the NLDS again with a top 3 NL payroll, you can bet your tail that there is something deeply wrong with the mental makeup of the Chicago Cubs. It is completely unrealistic to not expect mental blowback from being repeatedly torched in the NLDS. Anyone who argues otherwise never took a psych class.

 

Not sure that I follow your argument? The Cubs haven't had one GM or one philosophy regarding putting together a team for the last 100 years. Instead there have been many different factors at play. There are also many other things at play other than mental makeup.

[Arnold Layne]

Absolutely. I am not saying mental makeup is the only issue, but rather one of the puzzle pieces.

[SouthSideRyan]

The best part about blaming things on mental makeup is you're always right. Those guys lost!! Oh, they had poor mental makeup.

 

Those guys won!! Good mental makeup on those young chaps.

[Andy]

The Cubs haven't 'gone cold' for 101 years. They were a bad team for like 94 of those years, got caught by a white-hot team in 1969, lost to better teams in the playoffs in 1984, 1989 and 1998, lost to a team kind of maybe sort of on their level in 2007, 'went cold' in 2008, and had the 2003 collapse.

 

The Cubs' playoff failures are spectacularly overdramatized because they've been so bad other times.

[Guest]

The Cubs haven't 'gone cold' for 101 years. They were a bad team for like 94 of those years, got caught by a white-hot team in 1969, lost to better teams in the playoffs in 1984, 1989 and 1998, lost to a team kind of maybe sort of on their level in 2007, 'went cold' in 2008, and had the 2003 collapse.

 

The Cubs' playoff failures are spectacularly overdramatized because they've been so bad other times.

I think the Marlins were the better team in 2003. After they brought up Cabrerra in May they had the best record in baseball. They were no fluke.

 

The only other thing is, I don't know why you guys continue to argue with this dude. Your arguments and his are like two ships passing in the night unable to communicate because you are on different frequencies.

 

His is the magical world of Disney where heart and determination are the ultimate scale tippers and yours (mine) is the world of numbers and data.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Actually, psych class is exactly where I learned why this is *wrong*.

 

People have trouble accepting randomness, so their minds invent reasons as to why things happen, such as deciding that team that wins had "good mental makeup."

[Guest]

Actually, psych class is exactly where I learned why this is *wrong*.

 

People have trouble accepting randomness, so their minds invent reasons as to why things happen, such as deciding that team that wins had "good mental makeup."

Don't confuse randomness with playing bad baseball for a few games. There is very little that is random about learned behavior. Variability of behavior is extrinsic to the organism, not intrinsic.

 

People also tend to blame luck too much too.

[dew1679666265]

Actually, psych class is exactly where I learned why this is *wrong*.

 

People have trouble accepting randomness, so their minds invent reasons as to why things happen, such as deciding that team that wins had "good mental makeup."

 

I do think there's an element of the players pressing a bit when we got to the 08 playoffs. Given the 100-year thing and the 2007 pitiful performance, I think there likely was something to the idea that the players put too much pressure on themselves and didn't respond well. Was it the reason we lost the series or got swept? No, but I don't think it helped at all.

 

The thing is, I don't think there's anything the players or coaches can do about it. For whatever negative affect that pressure had on the players, I think it'd go away if they just got off to a good start in the playoffs. Either way, drastic changes from what made us successful in the regular season should not be implemented.

[Sammy Sofa]

1. Better advance scouting

 

As it's been pointed out, this is largely redundant given the access to game footage.

 

2. Better management of the starting pitcher roll out (we're saving Z for game 4, etc)

 

Meaning what? Zambrano pitched first in 2007, did well, and the Cubs still lost. Zambrano pitched second in 2008, did well, and the Cubs still lost. By your vague "something needs to change" logic I have no idea what you want from the starting pitching. They did it "consistently" in 2007 and the Cubs lost. The tried something different in 2008 and the Cubs still lost.

 

3. Remove Soriano from the leadoff spot where he is dominated by RH playoff pitching to the point where he contributes nothing(sub .300 OPS, .125 OBP).

 

You simply cannot construct a batting order based on playoff performances.

 

4. Stronger pre-game preperation in terms of plate discipline. The Cubs went away from that in 2007 and 2008.

 

This all sounds well and good, but I seriously doubt the Cubs' coaching staff stopped stressing the obvious patience the team showed that helped them have good regular seasons, or that the players forgot or decided to stop being patient.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Funny story I remember from the first day of my first psych class:

 

The teacher asked us to imagine a coin-flipping contest held in the main quad. Everyone in the school was asked to attend. Every 10 minutes there was a whistle, and you had to flip your coin. Heads, you were still alive, tails you left.

 

After a little more than half a dozen rounds, we were down to the last 64 flippers. These were clearly the most talented flippers in the school.

 

But when they flipped this time, some of them weren't 100% focused, and only 32 remained.

 

Of those 32, it turned out some just weren't as good as we thought, and only 16 remained.

 

In the round of 8, the crowd noise pumped up about half, and only those four remained.

 

The pressure finally became too much for two of them, and we were down to the final two.

 

But one of them just wanted it more, and he was the only one to flip heads, thus proving scientifically that he was the most skilled coin-flipper in the school.

[Arnold Layne]

The only other thing is, I don't know why you guys continue to argue with this dude. Your arguments and his are like two ships passing in the night unable to communicate because you are on different frequencies.

 

His is the magical world of Disney where heart and determination are the ultimate scale tippers and yours (mine) is the world of numbers and data.

 

Numbers and data don't swing the bat in the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs in the world series. A real, thinking emotional human being does.

 

What the numbers and data tell us is the probability of something happening. Human emotion is the variable. To not consider it is foolish at best.

 

Somewhere between the "they got no fire" guys on talk radio and the "mmm...numbers are my life!" guys, there's a happy medium.

[Arnold Layne]

1. Better advance scouting

 

As it's been pointed out, this is largely redundant given the access to game footage.

seasons, or that the players forgot or decided to stop being patient.

 

We already went over this, Mojo. I'm still waiting for your theory on how the Cubs can win the WS for once.

[Sammy Sofa]

1. Better advance scouting

 

As it's been pointed out, this is largely redundant given the access to game footage.

seasons, or that the players forgot or decided to stop being patient.

 

We already went over this, Mojo.

 

No, "we" didn't. It's been pointed out how you seem to be expecting outdated forms of scouting to help the Cubs when game footage works just fine and you haven't addressed that at all.

 

I'm still waiting for your theory on how the Cubs can win the WS for once.

 

How many times do I have to say "put together a team that will succeed over the regular season" before you acknowledge it?

[Illini Iceman]

Hendry obviously is also very bad at putting together a team this year that can win from May 18-20.

[Larry Horse]

 

I'm still waiting for your theory on how the Cubs can win the WS for once.

 

How many times do I have to say "put together a team that will succeed over the regular season" before you acknowledge it?

 

How does one equal the other? Haven't the Cubs been pretty successful over the last two years....in the regular season?

[Andy]

The Cubs haven't 'gone cold' for 101 years. They were a bad team for like 94 of those years, got caught by a white-hot team in 1969, lost to better teams in the playoffs in 1984, 1989 and 1998, lost to a team kind of maybe sort of on their level in 2007, 'went cold' in 2008, and had the 2003 collapse.

 

The Cubs' playoff failures are spectacularly overdramatized because they've been so bad other times.

I think the Marlins were the better team in 2003. After they brought up Cabrerra in May they had the best record in baseball. They were no fluke.

Yeah, they probably were, although you could also argue that the Cubs were also very, very good from midseason on and had the best pitcher in baseball at the time (certainly the hottest) in Prior.

 

But really, I just look at that as a failure because we were up 3-1 and pretty much dominated the series for 4 7/9 games.

[Arnold Layne]

1. Better advance scouting

 

As it's been pointed out, this is largely redundant given the access to game footage.

seasons, or that the players forgot or decided to stop being patient.

 

We already went over this, Mojo.

 

No, "we" didn't. It's been pointed out how you seem to be expecting outdated forms of scouting to help the Cubs when game footage works just fine and you haven't addressed that at all.

 

 

Mojo, are you under the influence? You completely agreed with my earlier post about this in this exact thread:

 

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=54186&start=50

 

Me:

 

I don't have the answers(and apparently neither does Jim Hendry), but these are some things I would try:

 

First I would make sure our advance scouts are up to par. That didn't seem to be the case the last two post season appearances.

 

You:

 

About the only thing you've said that I agree with. The Cubs' scouting, on all levels, needs to be improved.

 

Did someone hack your account or are you arguing just to argue? I'm guessing the latter. After this absurd contradiction, I really can't take your future posts as sincere.

 

How many times do I have to say "put together a team that will succeed over the regular season" before you acknowledge it?

 

The Cubs have done that numerous times the last 101 years. It hasn't worked.

[Sammy Sofa]

Mojo, are you under the influence? You completely agreed with my earlier post about this in this exact thread:

 

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=54186&start=50

 

Me:

 

I don't have the answers(and apparently neither does Jim Hendry), but these are some things I would try:

 

First I would make sure our advance scouts are up to par. That didn't seem to be the case the last two post season appearances.

 

You:

 

About the only thing you've said that I agree with. The Cubs' scouting, on all levels, needs to be improved.

 

Did someone hack your account or are you arguing just to argue? I'm guessing the latter. After this absurd contradiction, I really can't take your future posts as sincere.

 

I read it wrong and thought you were talking about their player scouting, which does need to be improved. Treating scouting an opposing team like a vital part of beating them is ridiculous with the technology available now to check out opposing pitchers and hitters.

 

How many times do I have to say "put together a team that will succeed over the regular season" before you acknowledge it?

 

The Cubs have done that numerous times the last 101 years. It hasn't worked.

 

No, they really haven't. You might want to look again at how few times the Cubs have assembled a team that could reach the playoffs since the last time they went to the WS. And stop with the "101 years" crap. It's not a century of ineptitude. The Cubs were still very competitive for decades after they won that last WS in 1908. It wasn't until that final WS appearance in 1945 that they fell off the map. Since then they've arguably only put 7 teams on the field that were playoff-worthy (I'm including 2004 in that list). Look how many years the Braves consecutively put competitive teams on the field and still only won one WS in all of that. Dynasty teams are an anamoly. The Cubs need to keep doing what they've only been doing in recent years in consistently putting a competitive team on the field that can make the playoffs. You keep doing that, you increase the odds that you punch through eventually. I'd much rather see the Cubs go and fail year after year until they finally make it than expect them to make it on fluke seasons once every decade or so, which is what you'd get if the front office went by the asinine idea of building a "playoff clutch" team. A team's best bet to win a WS is to keep putting a quality team on the field. There's no way to guarentee that that team will win the WS, or even make it to the WS, or even make the playoffs, but that's the best shot to actually win it all.

[treebird]

jesus christ this is the worst thread in the history of nsbb

[Hawk4Hall]

If the Cubs miss the playoffs Hendry should be gone. Signing Miles alone should have been grounds.