There is NO excuse for this train wreck.

[DiamondMind]

[

 

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.

 

Yea, Exile, you're gonna have to explain to me just how and why Brenly is "overly reliant" on small ball, because at a quick glance it's easily arguable that you're just flat wrong. Yea maybe he's more reliant on it than other managers, but even if so, why is that by definition a bad thing?

[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 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.

 

Yes, they most certainly do prove you wrong. Sorry, you don't score that many runs being a small ball team and if they scored that many using that tactic, it must work, no?

[DiamondMind]

[

 

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.

 

Well, if winning World Series isn't enough to convince you that something's being done right in a mangerial sense, what WOULD convince you? I think you're arguing just to argue at this point.

[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 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.

 

Well, if winning World Series isn't enough to convince you that something's being done right in a mangerial sense, what WOULD convince you? I think you're arguing just to argue at this point.

 

A world series and factual statistics isn't enough for him.

[abuck1220]

bob brenly had a moustache thereby proving empirically that moustaches win championships.

[Banedon]

bob brenly had a moustache thereby proving empirically that moustaches win championships.

 

Can you prove that his moustache DIDN'T win a championship?

[sonicdethmonkey0]

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.

 

a player either gets on base or he doesn't. last year the cubs had a group of above-average to great offensive players up and down the order who, individually, were extremely apt at getting on base one way or another. last year those individual performances, collectively, resulted in the best offense in the NL.

 

i really don't see how there's any other way to look at it. besides the hit & run or squeeze play (which are only marginally beneficial to an offense at best, and can drastically hinder an offense at worst), what other offesnive play in baseball is, in any way, reliant on more than one individual at a time?

[ChiCubsfan0502]

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/photos/Bob-Brenly.jpg

[DiamondMind]

bob brenly had a moustache thereby proving empirically that moustaches win championships.

 

No need to be flippant. I thought this was a pretty tame and decent discussion going on.

[Exile on Waveland]

bob brenly had a moustache thereby proving empirically that moustaches win championships.

 

I had a longer, more florid post prepared. However, I think simply quoting this one is more concise, efficient and pithy.

[Tarver]

You only have 27 outs. That's it. Why piss them away with sac bunts?

 

And hit & runs are probably the worst thing in baseball. All it usually results in is a strike 'em out-throw 'em out, because you're forcing the batter to swing at a pitch that might not be ideal and assuming he'll hit it.

 

Hit & runs need to go the way of the spitball.

[nick23]

You only have 27 outs. That's it. Why piss them away with sac bunts?

 

And hit & runs are probably the worst thing in baseball. All it usually results in is a strike 'em out-throw 'em out, because you're forcing the batter to swing at a pitch that might not be ideal and assuming he'll hit it.

 

Hit & runs need to go the way of the spitball.

A hit & run with a full count is actually ok with me. It doesn't force the batter to swing at anything he normally wouldn't.

[DiamondMind]

bob brenly had a moustache thereby proving empirically that moustaches win championships.

 

I had a longer, more florid post prepared. However, I think simply quoting this one is more concise, efficient and pithy.

 

I would of preferred the "florid post". I was interested in reading why you had your opinion. If I didn't care what you had to say, why would I respond to you? :)

 

It's disappointing and annoying when people reply with those one liners like abuck did. That elitism is really tiresome.

[DiamondMind]

You only have 27 outs. That's it. Why piss them away with sac bunts?

 

And hit & runs are probably the worst thing in baseball. All it usually results in is a strike 'em out-throw 'em out, because you're forcing the batter to swing at a pitch that might not be ideal and assuming he'll hit it.

 

Hit & runs need to go the way of the spitball.

 

We'd have to look up the % of times runners scored when a hit and run took place in an inning compared to when it didn't to really form any sort of truth here. Saying they're "one of the worst things" in baseball is obviously not factual at all, and is just your personal opinion, which I think is wrong.

 

Also, I don't think bunts are wasting outs. That is certainly debatable.

Edited July 1, 2009 by DiamondMind

[Sammy Sofa]

bob brenly had a moustache thereby proving empirically that moustaches win championships.

 

No need to be flippant. I thought this was a pretty tame and decent discussion going on.

 

And it was an excellent way to point out the fallacy of assuming that small ball was responsible for the Diamondbacks' WS or their offensive output that year.

[DiamondMind]

bob brenly had a moustache thereby proving empirically that moustaches win championships.

 

No need to be flippant. I thought this was a pretty tame and decent discussion going on.

 

And it was an excellent way to point out the fallacy of assuming that small ball was responsible for the Diamondbacks' WS or their offensive output that year.

 

No, an excellent way would be to tell me in detail why you hold your opinion. The moustache comment was flippant.

[Sammy Sofa]

bob brenly had a moustache thereby proving empirically that moustaches win championships.

 

No need to be flippant. I thought this was a pretty tame and decent discussion going on.

 

And it was an excellent way to point out the fallacy of assuming that small ball was responsible for the Diamondbacks' WS or their offensive output that year.

 

No, an excellent way would be to tell me in detail why you hold your opinion. The moustache comment was flippant.

 

It's an analogy.

 

Why don't you and ChiCubsFan start detailing how small ball won the WS for the Diamondbacks?

[ChiCubsfan0502]

bob brenly had a moustache thereby proving empirically that moustaches win championships.

 

No need to be flippant. I thought this was a pretty tame and decent discussion going on.

 

And it was an excellent way to point out the fallacy of assuming that small ball was responsible for the Diamondbacks' WS or their offensive output that year.

 

No, an excellent way would be to tell me in detail why you hold your opinion. The moustache comment was flippant.

 

It's an analogy.

 

Why don't you and ChiCubsFan start detailing how small ball won the WS for the Diamondbacks?

 

Didn't say it WON them the WS. I SAID that the offense was well balanced and efficient, thus shooting down the majority of the posters comments about Brenly being a one dimensional manager.

 

How's that?

Edited July 1, 2009 by ChiCubsfan0502

[Guest]

WS Ring, baby! That's all that needs to be said!

 

Brenley's a flipping old-school baseball jerkoff.

[imb]

there are times when im ok with "small ball" or "ozzie ball" or whatever, but those times are few and far between. Looking at one diamondbacks season where they won the world series isn't enough to be all "well small ball works."

 

Three years after the world series win, the DBacks scored just over 600 runs with Brenly managing. I guess small ball doesn't work. Or maybe it's not that simple and "runs scored" is more reliant on the talent on your roster than what kind of strategy you employ.

 

Either way, giving away outs too often just doesn't seem like a good idea at all.

[Sammy Sofa]

Didn't say it WON them the WS. I SAID that the offense was well balanced and efficient, thus shooting down the majority of the posters comments about Brenly being a one dimensional manager.

 

How's that?

 

I never said he was one-dimensional. I said he was too reliant on small ball, something this team is nowhere near being equipped to pull off. The Cubs have had their most success over the last decade when they kept the "small ball" to a minimum. The "small ball" teams that win it all seem to never actually be about the small ball and actually win it due to power, timely hitting and great pitching.

[Exile on Waveland]

bob brenly had a moustache thereby proving empirically that moustaches win championships.

 

I had a longer, more florid post prepared. However, I think simply quoting this one is more concise, efficient and pithy.

 

I would of preferred the "florid post". I was interested in reading why you had your opinion. If I didn't care what you had to say, why would I respond to you? :)

 

It's disappointing and annoying when people reply with those one liners like abuck did. That elitism is really tiresome.

 

I responded that way because snarking that Brenly won the World Series or the Diamondbacks scored 818 runs therefore proving his genius and absolving small-ball is pointless and specious.

 

I've attempted to be consistent in saying that I think or believe Brenly to be overly reliant on small-ball (I also gave him credit for winning the World Series with his style in my initial post). I'm certainly open to persuasion that either (i) Brenly isn't an overtly small-ball manager and my circumstantial evidence is just that; or (ii) Brenly's use of small-ball was tactically pinpointed in a way conducive to maximum run production.

 

I suppose I'm also open to convincing that small ball is an optimal strategy for scoring runs, but I've seen some quite damning evidence posted on that front. Honestly, small ball is rather counter-intuitive in most circumstances -- why willingly give up outs when so precious few exist?

[ChiCubsfan0502]

Didn't say it WON them the WS. I SAID that the offense was well balanced and efficient, thus shooting down the majority of the posters comments about Brenly being a one dimensional manager.

 

How's that?

 

I never said he was one-dimensional. I said he was too reliant on small ball, something this team is nowhere near being equipped to pull off. The Cubs have had their most success over the last decade when they kept the "small ball" to a minimum. The "small ball" teams that win it all seem to never actually be about the small ball and actually win it due to power, timely hitting and great pitching.

 

Well, Brenly would not be managing this team, so it really doesn't make any sense to say what he would do with this bunch.

[Tarver]

You only have 27 outs. That's it. Why piss them away with sac bunts?

 

And hit & runs are probably the worst thing in baseball. All it usually results in is a strike 'em out-throw 'em out, because you're forcing the batter to swing at a pitch that might not be ideal and assuming he'll hit it.

 

Hit & runs need to go the way of the spitball.

 

We'd have to look up the % of times runners scored when a hit and run took place in an inning compared to when it didn't to really form any sort of truth here. Saying they're "one of the worst things" in baseball is obviously not factual at all, and is just your personal opinion, which I think is wrong.

 

Also, I don't think bunts are wasting outs. That is certainly debatable.

 

Of course it's my opinion. Were you expecting me to post someone else's?

 

And I didn't say bunts were wasted outs.

[jersey cubs fan]

Didn't say it WON them the WS. I SAID that the offense was well balanced and efficient, thus shooting down the majority of the posters comments about Brenly being a one dimensional manager.

 

How's that?

 

What the heck is well balanced and efficient? And how many dimensions does a manager have? Does he also dabble in football? These are all just words, and they didn't "shoot down" anything. Why couldn't Brenly's brilliant strategy figure out how not to suck a few years later? Or is that just an efficient way of getting a higher draft pick and all part of the plan?