Piniella: I'm retiring at the end of the season

[Wheelimus]

It's going to be strange if Ryno is the next manager. He was my idol growing up and why I'm a Cub fan. Really hope I don't wind up despising my idol...

[Old Style]

It's .536. Still a far cry from Weaver.

But they still each have won 1 World Series title. Quite honestly, that's all that really matters.

[Ballgame64]

When I hear "playing the game right" I think about playing smart.

 

When I hear it, I think about all those poor morons who walk up to the plate with scuba gear on, hit the ball with their kayak paddles and then run into center field before collapsing to the ground. I wish they'd stop playing the game wrong.

Is that supposed to be funny? Don't quit your day job friend.

[Tyrant]

When I hear "playing the game right" I think about playing smart.

 

When I hear it, I think about all those poor morons who walk up to the plate with scuba gear on, hit the ball with their kayak paddles and then run into center field before collapsing to the ground. I wish they'd stop playing the game wrong.

Is that supposed to be funny?

 

No.

[Old Style]

When I hear "playing the game right" I think about playing smart.

 

When I hear it, I think about all those poor morons who walk up to the plate with scuba gear on, hit the ball with their kayak paddles and then run into center field before collapsing to the ground. I wish they'd stop playing the game wrong.

Is that supposed to be funny?

 

No.

Mission accomplished

[Ballgame64]

He has had success at each level. There are a lot of people here who will not give him much credit for what he has done and think he will be a horrible manager because he doesn't spew stats constantly, talks about playing the game the right way or they simply say the teams have been successful inspite of Sandberg. But at the end of the day, the team is judged on Wins/Losses and ultimately on championships, not how many times a manager calls fo sacrifice bunt during the seaon.

 

Ok let's judge Sandberg on his win-loss records

 

71-68

60-78 (QUICK!! PROMOTE HIM!!)

71-69 (OVER 500?? PROMOTE HIM AGAIN!!)

51-44

 

That is a stellar 6 games under 500 for his managerial career. Surely, no other minor league managers are out there with that kind of track record.

So why did they promote him? You may not agree with how the front office judges such things, but obviously someone felt he has done a good job. My comment about wins/losses is at the major league level since we all know kids are moved off minor league teams as they prove worthy of promotion, which can impact the final record.

[grassbass]

It's .536. Still a far cry from Weaver.

But they still each have won 1 World Series title. Quite honestly, that's all that really matters.

 

Anything can happen in the playoffs. Weaver's 1971 team was a good all-around team that hit well (1st in OPS), pitched well (1st in ERA), and played good defense. In the World Series, they pitched well, hit horribly, and committed nine errors in seven games. It happens.

[javy knows my name]

Wow, this thread really brought out the morons. I didn't know there were so many left still

[Guest]

An overlooked aspect of Sandberg the manager(at least in this thread) is that he's pretty much a crazy person on the field. He gets thrown out like every 10 games or so. That's probably an exaggeration, but it wasn't much of one as recently as last year.

[Old Style]

It's .536. Still a far cry from Weaver.

But they still each have won 1 World Series title. Quite honestly, that's all that really matters.

 

Anything can happen in the playoffs. Weaver's 1971 team was a good all-around team that hit well (1st in OPS), pitched well (1st in ERA), and played good defense. In the World Series, they pitched well, hit horribly, and committed nine errors in seven games. It happens.

They should have given his team ribbons for that.

 

:good:

[daske17]

It's .536. Still a far cry from Weaver.

But they still each have won 1 World Series title. Quite honestly, that's all that really matters.

 

Anything can happen in the playoffs. Weaver's 1971 team was a good all-around team that hit well (1st in OPS), pitched well (1st in ERA), and played good defense. In the World Series, they pitched well, hit horribly, and committed nine errors in seven games. It happens.

 

Similarly, the 2001 Mariners won 116 games and were bounced out of the ALCS 4-1 while being managed by a Senor Lou Piniella.

[Banedon]

An overlooked aspect of Sandberg the manager(at least in this thread) is that he's pretty much a crazy person on the field. He gets thrown out like every 10 games or so. That's probably an exaggeration, but it wasn't much of one as recently as last year.

 

There was a guy calling into the Score this morning that was saying what he really wanted when Piniella was hired was someone too go all ballistic on the players and umps and get everyone fired up, and that he hasn't done that, so now he's worried the Cubs are going to hire Sandberg, and that Sandberg was so docile/mild mannered during his playing career.

[Old Style]

Wow, this thread really brought out the morons. I didn't know there were so many left still

So glad you added your wit & wisdom to the topic, my good man.

[grassbass]

It's .536. Still a far cry from Weaver.

But they still each have won 1 World Series title. Quite honestly, that's all that really matters.

 

Anything can happen in the playoffs. Weaver's 1971 team was a good all-around team that hit well (1st in OPS), pitched well (1st in ERA), and played good defense. In the World Series, they pitched well, hit horribly, and committed nine errors in seven games. It happens.

They should have given his team ribbons for that.

 

:good:

 

So it's his fault that some of his players that hit very well in the regular season and in the ALCS had a poor seven games in the World Series? It's his fault that his defense that was good all season kicked the ball around like a soccer team in the World Series? He managed a very good team to 101 wins that year, but you're right, it's crap because his offense and defense slumped in a seven-game series.

[grassbass]

It's .536. Still a far cry from Weaver.

But they still each have won 1 World Series title. Quite honestly, that's all that really matters.

 

Anything can happen in the playoffs. Weaver's 1971 team was a good all-around team that hit well (1st in OPS), pitched well (1st in ERA), and played good defense. In the World Series, they pitched well, hit horribly, and committed nine errors in seven games. It happens.

 

Similarly, the 2001 Mariners won 116 games and were bounced out of the ALCS 4-1 while being managed by a Senor Lou Piniella.

 

Correct. Piniella has had a good career as a manager. I just don't agree that he was as good as Weaver.

[Old Style]

It's .536. Still a far cry from Weaver.

But they still each have won 1 World Series title. Quite honestly, that's all that really matters.

 

Anything can happen in the playoffs. Weaver's 1971 team was a good all-around team that hit well (1st in OPS), pitched well (1st in ERA), and played good defense. In the World Series, they pitched well, hit horribly, and committed nine errors in seven games. It happens.

They should have given his team ribbons for that.

 

:good:

 

So it's his fault that some of his players that hit very well in the regular season and in the ALCS had a poor seven games in the World Series? It's his fault that his defense that was good all season kicked the ball around like a soccer team in the World Series? He managed a very good team to 101 wins that year, but you're right, it's crap because his offense and defense slumped in a seven-game series.

What is the difference between the '71 Orioles or the '07 or '08 Cubs?

[Ballgame64]

cutting down on your swing with two strikes because making the defense make a play is better than striking out (unless of course you hit into a double play).

 

That's playing smart baseball at the little league level, not the majors.

If the object of the exercise as a hitter is to not make an out, isn't it better to put the ball in play than to swing and miss assuming the pitch is a strike?

[Guest]

cutting down on your swing with two strikes because making the defense make a play is better than striking out (unless of course you hit into a double play).

 

That's playing smart baseball at the little league level, not the majors.

If the object of the exercise as a hitter is to not make an out, isn't it better to put the ball in play than to swing and miss assuming the pitch is a strike?

 

I'll take a strikeout and a home run over a groundout and a single.

 

That's a simplistic analogy, but the point is the same. Cutting down on your swing hurts you on the macro level more than it helps.

[Ballgame64]

Wow, this thread really brought out the morons. I didn't know there were so many left still

This from a person using the term Cubbie.

 

Who would you like to see as GM and Manager of the Cubs?

[grassbass]

What is the difference between the '71 Orioles or the '07 or '08 Cubs?

 

The '07 Cubs? Seriously? You want to compare a 101-win team that pretty much dominated all aspects of the game to an 85-win team? About the only similarity between those two teams is that they were both two wins under their Pythagorean W-L.

 

Regardless, I was simply pointing to the 1971 team as an example that just about anything can happen in the playoffs. You really think Weaver somehow did something to his position players to make them play like crap in the World Series?

[daske17]

Ryno's hard-on for this job probably is visible under his uniform

[Guest]

cutting down on your swing with two strikes because making the defense make a play is better than striking out (unless of course you hit into a double play).

 

That's playing smart baseball at the little league level, not the majors.

If the object of the exercise as a hitter is to not make an out, isn't it better to put the ball in play than to swing and miss assuming the pitch is a strike?

However, a batter who shortens his swing still strikes out, as well. And he's much less likely to get a hit - major league defenses are really, really good. Simply putting the ball into play weakly is extremely unlikely to get you on base.

 

On the other hand, taking a good solid swing at the ball optimizes your chances of having a positive result.

[Guest]

But they still each have won 1 World Series title. Quite honestly, that's all that really matters.

 

Anything can happen in the playoffs. Weaver's 1971 team was a good all-around team that hit well (1st in OPS), pitched well (1st in ERA), and played good defense. In the World Series, they pitched well, hit horribly, and committed nine errors in seven games. It happens.

They should have given his team ribbons for that.

 

:good:

 

So it's his fault that some of his players that hit very well in the regular season and in the ALCS had a poor seven games in the World Series? It's his fault that his defense that was good all season kicked the ball around like a soccer team in the World Series? He managed a very good team to 101 wins that year, but you're right, it's crap because his offense and defense slumped in a seven-game series.

What is the difference between the '71 Orioles or the '07 or '08 Cubs?

 

The 07 Cubs won 85 games. The 71 Orioles won 101. The 71 Orioles won 7 more playoff games. The 07 Cubs were nowhere as good as the 08 Cubs, let alone a 100-win team.

[Ballgame64]

cutting down on your swing with two strikes because making the defense make a play is better than striking out (unless of course you hit into a double play).

 

That's playing smart baseball at the little league level, not the majors.

If the object of the exercise as a hitter is to not make an out, isn't it better to put the ball in play than to swing and miss assuming the pitch is a strike?

 

I'll take a strikeout and a home run over a groundout and a single.

 

That's a simplistic analogy, but the point is the same. Cutting down on your swing hurts you on the macro level more than it helps.

I understand that, but I guess I look at each individual game and the approach hitters take. Plus, you can't say you'll take a strikout and home run since the chances of certain players hitting a home run is so low.

 

While I do understand some of the advanced stats used today and actually argue for them to some of my friends, I still have trouble with the macro level. I'm stuck in the here and now aspect of each game. However, I enjoy the explanations from those who take the time to do so.

[javy knows my name]

Wow, this thread really brought out the morons. I didn't know there were so many left still

So glad you added your wit & wisdom to the topic, my good man.

I'll stop adding mine if you stop adding yours