Joe Maddon says things

[StylesClash]

Seriously, just go away. Good lord.

 

That post epitomizes why this website barely gets any new members. I wasn't trying to troll at all. I sincerely am against working a pitcher hard in order to get a no hitter. We saw back in 2003 how working Prior and Wood hard lead to.

 

But you decided to get nasty with your reply. Way to not start a conversation on a legitimate issue.

 

You're not new, and you have a history. A no-hitter is completely different than a shutout, and only everyone that's ever watched baseball should know that.

 

I've seen new posters get slaughtered on here for making points you guys felt were silly. That's not conducive towards increasing forum activity.

 

Also as I said before Arrieta had pitched a no hitter before. And considering how important he is to this team's overall success I don't think pulling Arrieta in a blowout win would be an awful idea. I think it's safe to say a mature player, like Arrieta, would understand the thought process behind the move.

[Sammy Sofa]

It doesn't matter how many no-hitters he's pitched before; it's still a no-hitter. It's still something special that's rightly looked at as a huge achievement. It's not like the usage in that game was indicative of him being regularly sent out to blow out his pitch count or pointlessly stretching him way too long in games where the Cubs have a huge lead; it was an outlier that easily trumps the accomplishment of a complete game, which IS as common and mundane as you're trying to make a second no-hitter seem to be.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

That post epitomizes why this website barely gets any new members. I wasn't trying to troll at all. I sincerely am against working a pitcher hard in order to get a no hitter. We saw back in 2003 how working Prior and Wood hard lead to.

 

But you decided to get nasty with your reply. Way to not start a conversation on a legitimate issue.

 

You're not new, and you have a history. A no-hitter is completely different than a shutout, and only everyone that's ever watched baseball should know that.

 

I've seen new posters get slaughtered on here for making points you guys felt were silly. That's not conducive towards increasing forum activity.

 

It means less of this kind of nonsense. Seems much more pleasant.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Unless the game is close and the pitch count is reasonable I'm not a big fan of going after no hitters. I've read that Johan Santana pitching a no hitter years ago, while having a pitch count of around 130, was speculated as being a factor in his body breaking down.

 

Arrieta threw 119 pitches in his no hitter and entered the 9th with 103 pitches. He threw 92 and 100 pitches the two starts after. Even by your own criteria that wasn't a bad decision, so why bring it up as a devil's advocate point?

 

PS Johan Santana was 33 and had just missed a year due to injury when he threw his no hitter, and had 107 pitches entering the EIGHTH inning before ending with 134 pitches.

[Banedon]

 

That post epitomizes why this website barely gets any new members. I wasn't trying to troll at all. I sincerely am against working a pitcher hard in order to get a no hitter. We saw back in 2003 how working Prior and Wood hard lead to.

 

But you decided to get nasty with your reply. Way to not start a conversation on a legitimate issue.

 

You're not new, and you have a history. A no-hitter is completely different than a shutout, and only everyone that's ever watched baseball should know that.

 

I've seen new posters get slaughtered on here for making points you guys felt were silly. That's not conducive towards increasing forum activity.

 

Ok. The point stands that you are not a new poster, so this is irrelevant to this conversation.

[David]

Seriously, just go away. Good lord.

 

That post epitomizes why this website barely gets any new members. I wasn't trying to troll at all. I sincerely am against working a pitcher hard in order to get a no hitter. We saw back in 2003 how working Prior and Wood hard lead to.

 

But you decided to get nasty with your reply. Way to not start a conversation on a legitimate issue.

 

A - You are nothing resembling new. If you have such a problem with this site, why do you continue to post here? As they'd say on radio, push the horsefeathering button.

 

B - People who have bad opinions and are defiant enough about it to get mad and/or leave when their arguments are challenged are the type of people who wouldn't be wanted here anyway. That was the whole reason this board was started...to weed out the Cubs.com level riff raff. That's why this is the least terrible faction of Cubs fans on the internet.

[David]

It doesn't matter how many no-hitters he's pitched before; it's still a no-hitter. It's still something special that's rightly looked at as a huge achievement. It's not like the usage in that game was indicative of him being regularly sent out to blow out his pitch count or pointlessly stretching him way too long in games where the Cubs have a huge lead; it was an outlier that easily trumps the accomplishment of a complete game, which IS as common and mundane as you're trying to make a second no-hitter seem to be.

 

Right. There's a time and a place to pull guys out of no hitters...being sub 120 pitches in the 9th inning is not one of them. This is exactly what the protocol is for.

[Tim]

I've seen new posters get slaughtered on here for making points you guys felt were silly. That's not conducive towards increasing forum activity.

This cracks me up. Name a website where people don't get slaughtered for making stupid points.

[mul21]

 

That post epitomizes why this website barely gets any new members. I wasn't trying to troll at all. I sincerely am against working a pitcher hard in order to get a no hitter. We saw back in 2003 how working Prior and Wood hard lead to.

 

But you decided to get nasty with your reply. Way to not start a conversation on a legitimate issue.

 

You're not new, and you have a history. A no-hitter is completely different than a shutout, and only everyone that's ever watched baseball should know that.

 

I've seen new posters get slaughtered on here for making points you guys felt were silly. That's not conducive towards increasing forum activity.

 

Also as I said before Arrieta had pitched a no hitter before. And considering how important he is to this team's overall success I don't think pulling Arrieta in a blowout win would be an awful idea. I think it's safe to say a mature player, like Arrieta, would understand the thought process behind the move.

 

HE THREW LESS THAN 120 PITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Then proceeded to throw 92, 99, and 100 in his next 3 starts and hadn't thrown more than 100 in any start previous to that one. Again, you're out looking for anything negative you can find on a team that's on pace to break the ML record for wins. Just stop.

Edited June 8, 2016 by mul21

[David]

I've seen new posters get slaughtered on here for making points you guys felt were silly. That's not conducive towards increasing forum activity.

This cracks me up. Name a website where people don't get slaughtered for making stupid points.

 

Ones populated by stupid people with similar opinions and beliefs.

[UMFan83]

I am perfectly fine with the members we currently have. Not to say that I am not open to new members that can contribute positively, but the discussion is quite sufficient for me with the group we currently have. Once you guys start dying off then I will start actively recruiting new blood.

[David]

I am perfectly fine with the members we currently have. Not to say that I am not open to new members that can contribute positively, but the discussion is quite sufficient for me with the group we currently have. Once you guys start dying off then I will start actively recruiting new blood.

 

We need more new(er) members like Duke. Shocking that he isn't an idiot and he was welcomed here no problem.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

It really seems like there's been a decent enough amount of good new posters over the last couple seasons. Maybe they go unnoticed because, unlike the bad posters, they don't call attention to themselves with a bunch of stupid posts.

[biittner77]

That was the whole reason this board was started...to weed out the Cubs.com level riff raff. That's why this is the least terrible faction of Cubs fans on the internet.

 

This board was started to foster intelligent and respectful discussion. I think it's fair to say that we have often strayed from that path. It's also fair to say that patience has it's limits with regards to what constitutes "intelligent discussion". I think overall that anyone that thinks this place is especially hard on newcomers has never read any other board on the intrawebs and should not in the future. As imperfect as this place is, it's still miles better than other places.

[Sammy Sofa]

This is an admittedly brilliant bit of trolling; the guy got most of us pointlessly talking about being nice to new users instead of his whiny dumbassery about Maddon's pitcher usage. That's some masterful deflection.

[jersey cubs fan]

It doesn't matter how many no-hitters he's pitched before; it's still a no-hitter. It's still something special that's rightly looked at as a huge achievement. It's not like the usage in that game was indicative of him being regularly sent out to blow out his pitch count or pointlessly stretching him way too long in games where the Cubs have a huge lead; it was an outlier that easily trumps the accomplishment of a complete game, which IS as common and mundane as you're trying to make a second no-hitter seem to be.

I think it matters. By the time he's got 9 or 10 under his belt they should start pulling him early.

[David]

That was the whole reason this board was started...to weed out the Cubs.com level riff raff. That's why this is the least terrible faction of Cubs fans on the internet.

 

This board was started to foster intelligent and respectful discussion. I think it's fair to say that we have often strayed from that path. It's also fair to say that patience has it's limits with regards to what constitutes "intelligent discussion". I think overall that anyone that thinks this place is especially hard on newcomers has never read any other board on the intrawebs and should not in the future. As imperfect as this place is, it's still miles better than other places.

 

You say tomato...

[Clem Fandango]

Those 119 pitches was the first of only two starts this season in which Jake has thrown 110 pitches or more. In 2003 Mark Prior threw 19 games in which he had 110 pitches or more. 9 of those 19 games were 120 pitches or more. Even last season Jake only threw 11 games with 110 pitches or more. The 119 mark would be his 4th most pitches in a game since he donned a Cubs uniform back in 2013. He is not being abused.

 

Also, you don't attain the self-proclaimed title of "Least Terrible Faction of Cubs Fans on the Internet" by coddling bad ideas.

[Bull]

 

That post epitomizes why this website barely gets any new members. I wasn't trying to troll at all. I sincerely am against working a pitcher hard in order to get a no hitter. We saw back in 2003 how working Prior and Wood hard lead to.

 

But you decided to get nasty with your reply. Way to not start a conversation on a legitimate issue.

 

You're not new, and you have a history. A no-hitter is completely different than a shutout, and only everyone that's ever watched baseball should know that.

 

I've seen new posters get slaughtered on here for making points you guys felt were silly. That's not conducive towards increasing forum activity.

 

Also as I said before Arrieta had pitched a no hitter before. And considering how important he is to this team's overall success I don't think pulling Arrieta in a blowout win would be an awful idea. I think it's safe to say a mature player, like Arrieta, would understand the thought process behind the move.

 

I, for one, can't keep up with the content that's here and keep up my happy and productive home and work life. To me, there's plenty of content, and I already have to sift through a little garbage content (much less than any other forum)...I wouldn't want more.

 

NSBB 4EVA.

[Vinestal]

 

That post epitomizes why this website barely gets any new members. I wasn't trying to troll at all. I sincerely am against working a pitcher hard in order to get a no hitter. We saw back in 2003 how working Prior and Wood hard lead to.

 

But you decided to get nasty with your reply. Way to not start a conversation on a legitimate issue.

 

You're not new, and you have a history. A no-hitter is completely different than a shutout, and only everyone that's ever watched baseball should know that.

 

I've seen new posters get slaughtered on here for making points you guys felt were silly. That's not conducive towards increasing forum activity.

New or not you couldn't be more right. This is not a forum open to new users, they run most of them off very quickly and when it's pointed out they very quickly show you why/how they have run them off. If your ideas don't completely lineup with the status quo here your very likely to be repeatedly treated "poorly" and openly mocked. I hang around because there are a few posters who's opinions I value and I get a lot of joy out of ruffling the feathers of the rest of the guys here because it's highly entertaining to watch the responses, predictable as they are.

[Clem Fandango]

I just don't see how someone can come to this site, lurk a bit, see what that status quo is, and then say something like "You know what, why can't we get a true lead off man who can steal bases?" and honestly believe that it would be well received by the group of us here.

 

When I showed up a decade ago I was that guy. I jumped off the couch in sheer excitement when the Cubs traded for Juan Pierre. I wanted the Cubs to trade Kerry Wood to Texas for Freddy Guzman because he stole a lot of bases in the minors.

 

Then I got schooled by people smarter than me, and I didn't let some jokes get under my skin because I'm not a petulant child and I learned to recognize advanced statistics and how valuable they can be to evaluating baseball. I still say some boneheaded stuff, and will catch some hell for it. So horsefeathering what, it's a message board full of people I've never met.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

You're not new, and you have a history. A no-hitter is completely different than a shutout, and only everyone that's ever watched baseball should know that.

 

I've seen new posters get slaughtered on here for making points you guys felt were silly. That's not conducive towards increasing forum activity.

New or not you couldn't be more right. This is not a forum open to new users, they run most of them off very quickly and when it's pointed out they very quickly show you why/how they have run them off. If your ideas don't completely lineup with the status quo here your very likely to be repeatedly treated "poorly" and openly mocked. I hang around because there are a few posters who's opinions I value and I get a lot of joy out of ruffling the feathers of the rest of the guys here because it's highly entertaining to watch the responses, predictable as they are.

 

And what, exactly, do you think the "status quo" is here?

 

And the lack of self-awareness in the bold is...kind of amazing.

[David]

 

You're not new, and you have a history. A no-hitter is completely different than a shutout, and only everyone that's ever watched baseball should know that.

 

I've seen new posters get slaughtered on here for making points you guys felt were silly. That's not conducive towards increasing forum activity.

New or not you couldn't be more right. This is not a forum open to new users, they run most of them off very quickly and when it's pointed out they very quickly show you why/how they have run them off. If your ideas don't completely lineup with the status quo here your very likely to be repeatedly treated "poorly" and openly mocked. I hang around because there are a few posters who's opinions I value and I get a lot of joy out of ruffling the feathers of the rest of the guys here because it's highly entertaining to watch the responses, predictable as they are.

 

Is it not obvious that it has nothing to do with new or old but the things that are being posted by said posters?

 

StylesClash isn't new. You are not new. Duke has written more (very good) words for the front page than probably everyone ever combined and has been here less than two years. PetermanRealityTour seems like a swell dude, has an awesome name, and signed up sometime late last season.

 

There are a lot of relatively smart baseball fans here and if someone comes in and says things that are misguided or wrong they will either be open to learning new stuff and find a lot of good information here, or they'll be aggressive, defensive, and argumentative and then they will get horsefeathers on pretty hard. This applies to old and new posters.

[David]

 

I've seen new posters get slaughtered on here for making points you guys felt were silly. That's not conducive towards increasing forum activity.

New or not you couldn't be more right. This is not a forum open to new users, they run most of them off very quickly and when it's pointed out they very quickly show you why/how they have run them off. If your ideas don't completely lineup with the status quo here your very likely to be repeatedly treated "poorly" and openly mocked. I hang around because there are a few posters who's opinions I value and I get a lot of joy out of ruffling the feathers of the rest of the guys here because it's highly entertaining to watch the responses, predictable as they are.

 

And what, exactly, do you think the "status quo" is here?

 

And the lack of self-awareness in the bold is...kind of amazing.

 

Yeah, that's horsefeathering hysterical. This dude has an epic meltdown for every like 5 posts he makes.

[Sammy Sofa]

These dumb humps are basically begging to be blown at some place like bleedcubbieblue, and yet here they are.