There is NO excuse for this train wreck.

[dew1679666265]

 

I think the word "lots" in his post is the key. Some small ball elements in an offense is fine, but basing your entire offensive philosophy on small ball (like Dusty did and, it appears, Brenly did as well) is detrimental to scoring runs consistently.

 

The Cubs last season didn't do much small ball stuff and yet scored 5 runs a game. Their offense was based off of patience with a focus on OBP and being able to slug the ball. This year, the offense is not struggling because they're not doing enough small ball or because they're "stupid, lazy" or bad fundamentally. The offense is bad because the cornerstone guys (Bradley, Soriano, Soto for the first couple months, etc) are not hitting or getting on base. If they start getting patient, drawing walks and hitting for power again the offense will improve.

 

Regardless of if our offense returns to form or not, I still have major issues with the offensive philosophy of this team. It starts with Soriano, continues with the total lack of speed/aggression/intelligence on the basepaths, and ends with moronic plays like Soto getting thrown out by a mile at 3B the other day.

 

This year's philosophy is no different than last year's. And last year's scored 5 runs a game and was the best offense in the league. When guys aren't performing at all any offensive philosophy is going to look bad.

 

Over the course of a 162 game season, most players are going to do dumb things. It happens. These same exactly players (Soto, Soriano, etc) were not called dumb players or stupid or lazy last year when they were producing, but I'm sure they made some mistakes last year as well.

 

I know it's no different than last year. I had problems with it last year too, we just had a lot of amazing single seasons from players (Soto, Edmonds, etc). It's no surprise to me that when that offensive prowess regressed, it would do so in a major way.

 

I'd be surprised if anybody predicted a .730 OPS from Bradley, a .722 OPS from Soto or a .718 OPS for Soriano this year. Those numbers are all down hundreds of points from where they were last year or their career numbers. A dropoff could have been expected, but not to this degree.

 

But I don't agree with the statement that "when guys aren't performing, any philosophy looks bad". That's simply not true. You can see promise, intelligence, signs that the offense "gets it" but for one reason or another isn't executing at the given time. No..this team is just completely lost offensively. There's no plans for single AB's, once we actually manage to get people on base, there's no advancement of the runners, no stolen bases, no pressure on the defense. Too many K's. Not enough walks. Too many attempted 3R blasts, not enough opposite field singles.

 

Who do you want stealing bases? There aren't very many players in the league who are a net positive in SB% anyway and the Cubs don't have any of them.

 

And players shouldn't drastically change their approach from at bat to at bat. If your normal approach is to work the count, find a pitch to hit hard or take a walk, then you should keep that approach. Shortening swings and trying to bloop balls around will likely only result in weakly hit outs for most players. I'd much rather a hitter wait for a pitch he can drive and drive it than to try to force a bloop single somewhere.

 

The players right now are not hitting - in any situation. The worst thing they could do is to start giving away more outs by sac bunting, hitting the ball weakly somewhere or having guys who are not great basestealers try to steal a bunch of bases.

[dew1679666265]

oh wait...going the other way? you think this is bad philosophy? really?

 

Going the other way is not a bad philosophy, but you have to take what the pitcher gives you. You shouldn't slap a pitch weakly somewhere just to go the other way. Hitting a pitch with authority will generally get you better results, if the pitch is in a spot where you can go the other way - all the better.

[Soul]

Again, the argument that a manger didnt "earn" a championship because he had schilling and unit or whatever is the stupidest argument ever. I mean just think about the logic of it. OF COURSE winning teams have all-stars, jeez.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but for my part, the point is that we DON'T have that on the Cubs, so expecting some grand result just because we switch to Brenly is highly unrealistic.

 

Give me the equivalent of Schill/Johnson in the rotation, and Gonzo OPSing in the stratosphere? Take your pick of managers, we're going to win, unless the rest of the roster is completely laughable.

[ChiCubsfan0502]

The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate.

 

He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff.

 

Edit: I should say his teams: "Cash in" when they have a chance to score. The Cubs have had so many 1st and 2nd no out situations this year that have turned into zero runs that it's laughable.

Edited July 1, 2009 by ChiCubsfan0502

[DiamondMind]

Again, the argument that a manger didnt "earn" a championship because he had schilling and unit or whatever is the stupidest argument ever. I mean just think about the logic of it. OF COURSE winning teams have all-stars, jeez.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but for my part, the point is that we DON'T have that on the Cubs, so expecting some grand result just because we switch to Brenly is highly unrealistic.

 

Give me the equivalent of Schill/Johnson in the rotation, and Gonzo OPSing in the stratosphere? Take your pick of managers, we're going to win, unless the rest of the roster is completely laughable.

 

So why didn't we win in 2003 with Sosa and Prior/Wood? Sorry, but that's just a really easy question to ask given your logic here.

[Keener98]

The Dodgers have Hudson, Pierre, Furcal, Martin and others. Tampa Bay last year had Upton, Crawford, and others. Those teams are made up with good baserunners who can steal bases, the Cubs are not. If Brenley were to take over this team right now, we would run into a crap load of outs as we really have nobody on this team worth a crap at stealing, going the other way, etc... This team is made up to hit their way to score runs

 

 

but you would think that a manager would understand the strengths and weaknesses of his ballclub...if he doesn't have a bunch of fleas on his roster, he probably isn't going to want them to run wild on the base paths

 

oh wait...going the other way? you think this is bad philosophy? really?

 

 

Where did I say going the other way is a bad philosophy? Im saying the guys we have on this team are more pull type hitters outside of Theriot(until his recent power surge).

 

Brenley has made alot of comments about bunting and running with this team we have right now, so no I dont think he would care what his roster makeup would be. Old school managers will bunt with almost anyone(see Dusty having Adam Dunn try bunting last year) and will hit and run with almost anyone.

[DiamondMind]

The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate.

 

He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff.

 

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy".

[jersey cubs fan]

Again, the argument that a manger didnt "earn" a championship because he had schilling and unit or whatever is the stupidest argument ever. I mean just think about the logic of it. OF COURSE winning teams have all-stars, jeez.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but for my part, the point is that we DON'T have that on the Cubs, so expecting some grand result just because we switch to Brenly is highly unrealistic.

 

Give me the equivalent of Schill/Johnson in the rotation, and Gonzo OPSing in the stratosphere? Take your pick of managers, we're going to win, unless the rest of the roster is completely laughable.

 

So why didn't we win in 2003 with Sosa and Prior/Wood? Sorry, but that's just a really easy question to ask given your logic here.

 

Because the AZ guys stayed healthy all year and were better.

[Exile on Waveland]

Again, the argument that a manger didnt "earn" a championship because he had schilling and unit or whatever is the stupidest argument ever. I mean just think about the logic of it. OF COURSE winning teams have all-stars, jeez.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but for my part, the point is that we DON'T have that on the Cubs, so expecting some grand result just because we switch to Brenly is highly unrealistic.

 

Give me the equivalent of Schill/Johnson in the rotation, and Gonzo OPSing in the stratosphere? Take your pick of managers, we're going to win, unless the rest of the roster is completely laughable.

 

So why didn't we win in 2003 with Sosa and Prior/Wood? Sorry, but that's just a really easy question to ask given your logic here.

 

Because the AZ guys stayed healthy all year and were better.

 

That and the Cubs did win in 2003. They didn't win the World Series, but they certainly won.

[jersey cubs fan]

The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate.

 

He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff.

 

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy".

 

Maximizing scoring chances is just meaningless words. What the heck does it even mean? It's called "making things happen" which is what managers do to make themselves look involved and important. Conventional wisdom does not criticize a manager for making things happen, if a sac bunt attempt fail, he's still congratulated for trying it.

[ChiCubsfan0502]

The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate.

 

He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff.

 

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy".

 

I edited my original post there and changed it to his teams: "Cash in" scoring chances. The Cubs haven't done that this year, which is why we suck right now.

[Exile on Waveland]

The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate.

 

He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff.

 

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy".

 

How do you know those 71 sac bunts "maximized scoring chances"? That's simply a boilerplate cliche.

 

How many times did the sac bunts fail, and, therefore, were not counted as sac bunts? How many times were the bunts executed with power hitters? How many times did someone fail to get a bunt down twice, resulting in an pitcher's 0-2 count and a likely out? How many would-be basestealers were thrown out?

 

Seventy-one and 71 sound nice and reasonable, but there is no context there. There is an opportunity cost to every sac bunt -- sometimes it's worth it, most of the time it's not.

[Exile on Waveland]

The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate.

 

He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff.

 

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy".

 

I edited my original post there and changed it to his teams: "Cash in" scoring chances. The Cubs haven't done that this year, which is why we suck right now.

 

So bunting and thereby reducing outs (i.e., at-bats with the potential for productivity) will help "cash in" scoring chances?

[ChiCubsfan0502]

The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate.

 

He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff.

 

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy".

 

 

 

 

How do you know those 71 sac bunts "maximized scoring chances"? That's simply a boilerplate cliche.

 

How many times did the sac bunts fail, and, therefore, were not counted as sac bunts? How many times were the bunts executed with power hitters? How many times did someone fail to get a bunt down twice, resulting in an pitcher's 0-2 count and a likely out? How many would-be basestealers were thrown out?

 

Seventy-one and 71 sound nice and reasonable, but there is no context there. There is an opportunity cost to every sac bunt -- sometimes it's worth it, most of the time it's not.

 

 

They're offense was a pretty well oiled machine is the point here. They didn't JUST play small ball and hit and run, they put pressure on the opposition by stealing bases and didn't just sit around waiting for the 3 run blast.

 

It shoots down the majority of the posters arguments that Brenly is one dimensional.

Edited July 1, 2009 by ChiCubsfan0502

[Soul]

Again, the argument that a manger didnt "earn" a championship because he had schilling and unit or whatever is the stupidest argument ever. I mean just think about the logic of it. OF COURSE winning teams have all-stars, jeez.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but for my part, the point is that we DON'T have that on the Cubs, so expecting some grand result just because we switch to Brenly is highly unrealistic.

 

Give me the equivalent of Schill/Johnson in the rotation, and Gonzo OPSing in the stratosphere? Take your pick of managers, we're going to win, unless the rest of the roster is completely laughable.

 

So why didn't we win in 2003 with Sosa and Prior/Wood? Sorry, but that's just a really easy question to ask given your logic here.

 

It shouldn't be, given that the '03 team did win.

[ChiCubsfan0502]

The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate.

 

He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff.

 

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy".

 

I edited my original post there and changed it to his teams: "Cash in" scoring chances. The Cubs haven't done that this year, which is why we suck right now.

 

So bunting and thereby reducing outs (i.e., at-bats with the potential for productivity) will help "cash in" scoring chances?

 

So bunting and moving the runners into scoring position, thereby reducing the chance of hitting into a DP or popping up doesn't inflate the scoring chances that inning?

[jersey cubs fan]

Baseball offenses are not well oiled machines. They are a collection of individuals putting up individual performances that turn into a range of bad, mediocre decent and good team totals. A manager does not make that happen.

[ChiCubsfan0502]

Baseball offenses are not well oiled machines. They are a collection of individuals putting up individual performances that turn into a range of bad, mediocre decent and good team totals. A manager does not make that happen.

 

That's 100% wrong.

[Exile on Waveland]

The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate.

 

He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff.

 

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy".

 

 

 

 

How do you know those 71 sac bunts "maximized scoring chances"? That's simply a boilerplate cliche.

 

How many times did the sac bunts fail, and, therefore, were not counted as sac bunts? How many times were the bunts executed with power hitters? How many times did someone fail to get a bunt down twice, resulting in an pitcher's 0-2 count and a likely out? How many would-be basestealers were thrown out?

 

Seventy-one and 71 sound nice and reasonable, but there is no context there. There is an opportunity cost to every sac bunt -- sometimes it's worth it, most of the time it's not.

 

 

They're offense was a pretty well oiled machine is the point here. They didn't JUST play small ball and hit and run, they put pressure on the opposition by stealing bases and didn't just sit around waiting for the 3 run blast.

 

It shoots down the majority of the posters arguments that Brenly is one dimensional.

 

It really does nothing of the sort. No one is arguing Brenly eschews homers for bunts, or that he sacrifices every inning. The argument is that he bunts more than the situation calls for it, thereby reducing his team's likelihood of scoring runs. We think he is overly reliant on small ball.

 

Secondly, well-oiled machine? This is baseball not basketball/football/soccer/hockey/etc. A well-oiled baseball offense is a Chimera.

[DiamondMind]

The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate.

 

He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff.

 

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy".

 

Maximizing scoring chances is just meaningless words. What the heck does it even mean? It's called "making things happen" which is what managers do to make themselves look involved and important. Conventional wisdom does not criticize a manager for making things happen, if a sac bunt attempt fail, he's still congratulated for trying it.

 

I don't think it's meaningless words at all. There's a massive difference in my eyes between the offensive goals of a team like the Cubs, and say the Dodgers or Rays.

[DiamondMind]

Baseball offenses are not well oiled machines. They are a collection of individuals putting up individual performances that turn into a range of bad, mediocre decent and good team totals. A manager does not make that happen.

 

Yea, I couldn't disagree with this post more. Not saying you're wrong, but we apparently have vastly different opinions on how a ballclub is composed. I know baseball is the most "individual" of the team sports, but to act like players operate in a vacuum certainly isn't accurate imo.

[Exile on Waveland]

The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate.

 

He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff.

 

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy".

 

I edited my original post there and changed it to his teams: "Cash in" scoring chances. The Cubs haven't done that this year, which is why we suck right now.

 

So bunting and thereby reducing outs (i.e., at-bats with the potential for productivity) will help "cash in" scoring chances?

 

So bunting and moving the runners into scoring position, thereby reducing the chance of hitting into a DP or popping up doesn't inflate the scoring chances that inning?

 

No, bunting is generally tactically adverse. I'm not the baseball numbers guy that many on here are, but the numerical data exist. Also, I'm not sure how popping up is terribly disadvantageous to other outs.

[DiamondMind]

 

So bunting and moving the runners into scoring position, thereby reducing the chance of hitting into a DP or popping up doesn't inflate the scoring chances that inning?

 

 

Not only that, but there's the unmeasurable factor of added pressure on the pitcher due to a RISP, therefore maybe he hangs a breaking ball that gets jacked out. That stuff matters.

 

Just because you can't quantify something doesn't make it irrelevant. That's a common issue I have with a lot of posters on here, actually.

Edited July 1, 2009 by DiamondMind

[ChiCubsfan0502]

[

 

It really does nothing of the sort. No one is arguing Brenly eschews homers for bunts, or that he sacrifices every inning. The argument is that he bunts more than the situation calls for it, thereby reducing his team's likelihood of scoring runs. We think he is overly reliant on small ball.

 

Secondly, well-oiled machine? This is baseball not basketball/football/soccer/hockey/etc. A well-oiled baseball offense is a Chimera.

 

Funny how the 01 D-Backs scored 818 runs (5.05 a game) with all that small ball. Sorry, the stats prove you wrong.

[Exile on Waveland]

[

 

It really does nothing of the sort. No one is arguing Brenly eschews homers for bunts, or that he sacrifices every inning. The argument is that he bunts more than the situation calls for it, thereby reducing his team's likelihood of scoring runs. We think he is overly reliant on small ball.

 

Secondly, well-oiled machine? This is baseball not basketball/football/soccer/hockey/etc. A well-oiled baseball offense is a Chimera.

 

Funny how the 01 D-Backs scored 818 runs (5.05 a game) with all that small ball. Sorry, the stats proove you wrong.

 

No, they don't. The question isn't whether or not they scored runs, but if small ball maximized their run scoring ability.