doesn't matter who we get

[BigbadB]

Why do I have some small amount of faith left in Dusty? His 2002 Giants did not hit particularly well, nor did the picth particularly well, yet they came within a few outs of winning the Series that year:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SFG/2002.shtml

 

One other note: that's 8-0-0, baby. If only some of the Cubs' OPS were so high.

 

The Giants had a good offense and good pitching in 2002. Top 3 in AVG, top 3 in HR's, top 3 in OBP, top 3 in walks, top 3 in runs, etc.... Actually, they were better than top 3 in many of those. Did not hit particularly well? Top 3 is a good thing.

 

San Fran was second in the league in ERA. They gave up the least amount of home runs that year. They gave up the third least walks.

 

Why Dusty's Giants teams were able to do all those things, but the philosophy is completely different in Chicago is beyond me.

 

The Cubs once again led the league in HR's that year. All those home runs led to an 11th place finish in runs scored.

[HoopsCubs]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

 

Personnel decisions are part of Jim Hendry's responsibilities last I looked. He could make Dusty a better manager instantly by not bringing back Macias, Perez, Burnitz and Patterson.

[RynoRules]

Why do I have some small amount of faith left in Dusty? His 2002 Giants did not hit particularly well, nor did the picth particularly well, yet they came within a few outs of winning the Series that year:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SFG/2002.shtml

 

One other note: that's 8-0-0, baby. If only some of the Cubs' OPS were so high.

 

The Giants had a good offense and good pitching in 2002. Top 3 in AVG, top 3 in HR's, top 3 in OBP, top 3 in walks, top 3 in runs, etc.... Actually, they were better than top 3 in many of those. Did not hit particularly well? Top 3 is a good thing.

 

San Fran was second in the league in ERA. They gave up the least amount of home runs that year. They gave up the third least walks.

 

Why Dusty's Giants teams were able to do all those things, but the philosophy is completely different in Chicago is beyond me.

 

The Cubs once again led the league in HR's that year. All those home runs led to an 11th place finish in runs scored.

 

I think if you look carefully you'll see that Bonds was the sole reason their team OBP was so high. Only two other guys had OBPs over .333, if memory serves.

 

And the starting pitching was mediocre. The team ERA was based in large part on the 'pen.

[BigbadB]

Well, .333 is not a horrible OBP. And I count 8 guys with over 100 at bats that had a better OBP than .333. Mix in a guy with an OBP that's almost .600 and you can have some .333's in place of some .350's and equal run support.

 

As far as the pitching is concerned, I'd bet just about any team in baseball would be thrilled to have 5 starters all go 185+ innings and average a 3.83 ERA. I'd rate that just a tad bit better than mediocre. Mix that in with a solid bullpen and you have a pretty good pitching staff.