There is NO excuse for this train wreck.

[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.

 

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.

 

Yes, he would. This Cubs team is not going to be looking drastically different next season. Besides, how do you know that Hendry, or whoever if he were replaced, would be able to get the players that best compliment Brenly's preferred style? Maybe those player simply aren't available. It's not smart to build a team around a manager since their positive impact is arguably negligible and in this town they tend to not be around too long in the first place. Trying to tailor a team to "small ball" is up there with the myopic quests to "catch the ball better," "get more speed" or "get more left handed."

[Guest]

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.

Nicely put.

[ChiCubsfan0502]

 

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?

 

Because in Basball, you fail far more then you succeed. If you at least have productive outs, where you are hitting the ball to the right side to move the runner to third with a man on second and no outs, you're chances of scoring have increased by giving an out for a base. All the next guy has to do is out the ball in play, rather to HAVE TO get a hit to score that run.

 

The Cubs have been so bad in this area and it's costs them a lot of wins because of the inibility to play fundamental baseball.

 

Brenly is all about fundamental baseball, which, IMO, translates to winning baseball.

[A-Cal]

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.

 

right, and i feel like many of players don't take what the pitchers give them...hence sometimes going the other way...it is just good fundamentals that seem to be lacking

[Sammy Sofa]

This guy LOVES him some Brenly.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

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?

 

Because in Basball, you fail far more then you succeed. If you at least have productive outs, where you are hitting the ball to the right side to move the runner to third with a man on second and no outs, you're chances of scoring have increased by giving an out for a base. All the next guy has to do is out the ball in play, rather to HAVE TO get a hit to score that run.

 

The Cubs have been so bad in this area and it's costs them a lot of wins because of the inibility to play fundamental baseball.

 

Brenly is all about fundamental baseball, which, IMO, translates to winning baseball.

 

Actually no, the guy doesn't just have to put the ball in a play. A pop up on the infield is worthless. A shallow fly is worthless. A line drive out is worthlees, a hard hit grounder is worthless. And of course there is no guarantee that guy will even put the ball in play. People talking about moving runners over and putting the ball in play like once you decide to do that it's a guaranteed success. It's not. It fails, a lot, and in the meantime, you've taken the bat out of one guy's hands and made the pitchers job easier by allowing him to get an out with just one pitch thrown.

[Sammy Sofa]

What manager isn't "about findamental baseball?" Where are these radical non-fundamental managers?

[SouthSideRyan]

Ok, you just picked some of the worst (And dumbest) players the Cubs have had in the last decade. I think Brenly would get the type of players he'd want, not the stiffs you just mentioned.

 

And you just assume the players Brenly would want (which aren't necessarily anyone they could get) would be good?

 

Not hard to best the group of bums he just mentioned. I think Brenly is very baseball smart and he certainly knows what the expectations are here. After the ownership issue is settled, I'd can Lou and give Bob a chance.

 

Well, you clearly just have an old school way of looking at things that favors giving away outs.

 

For years the Cubs have been built to slug the ball at the expense of being a smart and fundamentally sound team. I want a smart team that can move a runner from second to third with no one out

 

Oh, I want a team that scores runs.

 

rather then a slugger who swings for the fences and pops up or grounds to short in that situation.

 

 

Or ya know, gets on base.

[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.

 

right, and i feel like many of players don't take what the pitchers give them...hence sometimes going the other way...it is just good fundamentals that seem to be lacking

 

I don't think that's the fault of Lou though. The players went the other way plenty of times last year. When players get into big time slumps (like many are in now) fundamentals sometimes go out the window. That's not good, but it doesn't mean they can't play fundamental baseball.

[rocket]

 

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?

 

Because in Basball, you fail far more then you succeed. If you at least have productive outs, where you are hitting the ball to the right side to move the runner to third with a man on second and no outs, you're chances of scoring have increased by giving an out for a base. All the next guy has to do is out the ball in play, rather to HAVE TO get a hit to score that run.

 

The Cubs have been so bad in this area and it's costs them a lot of wins because of the inibility to play fundamental baseball.

 

Brenly is all about fundamental baseball, which, IMO, translates to winning baseball.

 

Having good players translates to winning baseball. Brenly had a pretty good offensive roster anchored by one of the best 1-2 starting pitchers in baseball history. Dusty Baker could have lead that team to the championship.

[Soul]

Because in Basball, you fail far more then you succeed.

 

Some players fail lots more than others.

[ChiCubsfan0502]

 

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?

 

Because in Basball, you fail far more then you succeed. If you at least have productive outs, where you are hitting the ball to the right side to move the runner to third with a man on second and no outs, you're chances of scoring have increased by giving an out for a base. All the next guy has to do is out the ball in play, rather to HAVE TO get a hit to score that run.

 

The Cubs have been so bad in this area and it's costs them a lot of wins because of the inibility to play fundamental baseball.

 

Brenly is all about fundamental baseball, which, IMO, translates to winning baseball.

 

Having good players translates to winning baseball. Brenly had a pretty good offensive roster anchored by one of the best 1-2 starting pitchers in baseball history. Dusty Baker could have lead that team to the championship.

 

No way Baker could have.

[ChiCubsfan0502]

http://www.straitpinkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lenbob.jpg

 

Len: "Bob, many of the posters on NSBB don't like your managing style".

 

Bob: "Well, they don't know what they're talking about, so lets move on".

[rocket]

 

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?

 

Because in Basball, you fail far more then you succeed. If you at least have productive outs, where you are hitting the ball to the right side to move the runner to third with a man on second and no outs, you're chances of scoring have increased by giving an out for a base. All the next guy has to do is out the ball in play, rather to HAVE TO get a hit to score that run.

 

The Cubs have been so bad in this area and it's costs them a lot of wins because of the inibility to play fundamental baseball.

 

Brenly is all about fundamental baseball, which, IMO, translates to winning baseball.

 

Having good players translates to winning baseball. Brenly had a pretty good offensive roster anchored by one of the best 1-2 starting pitchers in baseball history. Dusty Baker could have lead that team to the championship.

 

No way Baker could have.

 

Sure he could have. If his bullpen hadn't blown a 5 run lead late in game 6 of the 2002 World Series, he would have rode the best recent offensive player to a championship. He'd have no problems riding Schilling and Johnson at their best to a championship.

[ChiCubsfan0502]

 

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?

 

Because in Basball, you fail far more then you succeed. If you at least have productive outs, where you are hitting the ball to the right side to move the runner to third with a man on second and no outs, you're chances of scoring have increased by giving an out for a base. All the next guy has to do is out the ball in play, rather to HAVE TO get a hit to score that run.

 

The Cubs have been so bad in this area and it's costs them a lot of wins because of the inibility to play fundamental baseball.

 

Brenly is all about fundamental baseball, which, IMO, translates to winning baseball.

 

Having good players translates to winning baseball. Brenly had a pretty good offensive roster anchored by one of the best 1-2 starting pitchers in baseball history. Dusty Baker could have lead that team to the championship.

 

No way Baker could have.

 

Sure he could have. If his bullpen hadn't blown a 5 run lead late in game 6 of the 2002 World Series, he would have rode the best recent offensive player to a championship. He'd have no problems riding Schilling and Johnson at their best to a championship.

 

Are we talking about the same Dusty Baker who blew the 2002 WS?

[abuck1220]

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.

 

your position is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve a long-winded, well-thought out reply. in fact, it really didn't even deserve my hilarious flippant response.

[rocket]

http://www.straitpinkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lenbob.jpg

 

Len: "Bob, many of the posters on NSBB don't like your managing style".

 

Bob: "Well, they don't know what they're talking about, so lets move on".

 

you certainly showed us

[ChiCubsfan0502]

http://www.straitpinkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lenbob.jpg

 

Len: "Bob, many of the posters on NSBB don't like your managing style".

 

Bob: "Well, they don't know what they're talking about, so lets move on".

 

you certainly showed us

 

No, the stats did. But hey, keep preaching.

[Exile on Waveland]

http://www.straitpinkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lenbob.jpg

 

Len: "Bob, many of the posters on NSBB don't like your managing style".

 

Bob: "Well, they don't know what they're talking about, so lets move on".

 

you certainly showed us

 

No, the stats did. But hey, keep preaching.

 

No, they didn't.

[ChiCubsfan0502]

http://www.straitpinkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lenbob.jpg

 

Len: "Bob, many of the posters on NSBB don't like your managing style".

 

Bob: "Well, they don't know what they're talking about, so lets move on".

 

you certainly showed us

 

No, the stats did. But hey, keep preaching.

 

No, they didn't.

 

Yes, they did. I posted enough stats about the 2001 D-Backs to destroy the myth that Brenly is overly nutty about small ball.

 

He's a good manager and you're inability to see that is rather obvious.

[Guest]

He's a good manager and you're inability to see that is rather obvious.

What about the 2003 and 2004 D-Backs? And why hasn't he gotten a job since then?

 

He's constantly preaching about the virtues of wasting outs and other baseball aphorisims he's learned over the years.

[rocket]

How many runs would the D-Backs have scored without a roided (allegedly) up Luis Gonzalez? I'd say the Diamondbacks being 4th in the league in home runs, 4th in slugging, 4th in OBP, and 3rd in walks is the reason they had a good offense, more than getting the runner over and sac bunting. Edited July 1, 2009 by rocket

[A-Cal]

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.

 

right, and i feel like many of players don't take what the pitchers give them...hence sometimes going the other way...it is just good fundamentals that seem to be lacking

 

I don't think that's the fault of Lou though. The players went the other way plenty of times last year. When players get into big time slumps (like many are in now) fundamentals sometimes go out the window. That's not good, but it doesn't mean they can't play fundamental baseball.

 

oh, i am not blaming lou...just saying that it is a smart way to play the game in certain situations

[jersey cubs fan]

If he's so good, why has he managed one team for four years? He won a WS and was fired 2.5 years later, and hasn't gotten a job sense despite all sorts of turnover. If he is capable of making offenses click at a better rate than other managers, why hasn't anybody seen fit to give him a job in the 5 offseasons since he was canned?

 

 

He's just a guy who held the title. He's not a guru. He will not make an offense better. He will not maximize scoring opportunities or create a well oiled finely tuned machine.

[ChiCubsfan0502]

How many runs would the D-Backs have scored without a roided (allegedly) up Luis Gonzalez? I'd say the Diamondbacks being 4th in the league in home runs, 4th in slugging, 4th in OBP, and 3rd in walks is the reason they had a good offense, more than getting the runner over and sac bunting.

 

Once again, show me ANY team that has won the WS that wasn't talented. This is just a ridiculous stance to take.

 

"Oh, Brenly had a good team, so that's why he won". :roll: