jjgman21

not sure if this point has been covered but... anyone ever thought of how good Alex Rodriguez would be if facing a three man rotation and no bullpen? the fact that pitchers used to rack up massive amounts of starts and innings tells me that they didn't throw nearly as hard back then. the human animal simply could not withstand throwing 350 innings of 90+ fastballs. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SOp9_career.shtml the first contemporary of Ty Cobb on the all time K/9 list is Rube Waddell at 64th. nearly every single one of the pitchers on this list played after the 1960's. old timey's can bring up Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson all they want, but pitching has gotten infinitely better in the past 40 years.

I think he'd be right up there, actually. Babe Ruth hit 714 career home runs in some of those ballparks of yesteryear. He'd hit 800 without breaking a sweat in some of the bandboxes today, hitting against some of the pitchers of today. while the old timey stadiums were often deep to center, there were places to hit homeruns. some of the places Ruth played and the right field dimensions back then with some modern parks for comparison, rfline/rightcenter Polo Grounds - 258/4350ish League Park - 290/415ish Yankee Stadium - 295/429 (with a four foot wall. more like the House Built for Ruth) PacBell - 307/420 Fenway - 314/402 Griffith Stadium - 320/380ish Minutemaid Park - 325/375 Turner Field - 330/390 Sportsman's Park - 335/390ish Shibe Park - 360/393 Comiskey - 363/382 Tiger Stadium - 370/400ish that's alot of hooking line drives and pop ups down the line that turned into homeruns instead of outs and foulballs.

are you referring to his 20 games at low A, or his 50 games in AAA? his full season at AA he slugged a robust .407. (I acknowledge league may be a factor). there simply isn't enough of a track record to make a judgment about Weeks power with any certainty (nor does one mosterous homerun hit on July 18 satisfy the burden of proof). as for strikeouts, I see a trend. at AA he K'd about once every 5.25 PA, at AAA it dropped to 4.8, in the majors it's less than 4.3. The guy has over 900 minor league PA's, with an IsoP over .200. That's plenty good for a second baseman. His minor league K rate is one every 5.3 PA's. I don't know if he's the best in the NL Central right now, but he's certainly shown an ability to hit for power and not strike out a TON, that people could be optimistic about his abilities. the only reason I brought up his shortcoming is because this thread is about who is the best in the NL Central right now, so I have no idea why you are arguing with me when you agree with me.

are you referring to his 20 games at low A, or his 50 games in AAA? his full season at AA he slugged a robust .407. (I acknowledge league may be a factor). there simply isn't enough of a track record to make a judgment about Weeks power with any certainty (nor does one mosterous homerun hit on July 18 satisfy the burden of proof). as for strikeouts, I see a trend. at AA he K'd about once every 5.25 PA, at AAA it dropped to 4.8, in the majors it's less than 4.3. Weeks minor league career certainly doesn't evidence that he is better than a couple of guys who have OPS over .800 year after year. all the potential in the world is there for Weeks, but until he actually performs, it's a litte premature to annoint him the best of anything. plus, the issue with him has always been defense, and again, 21 errors in 95 games. over a whole year, that's 36 errors. unacceptable out of a secondbaseman.

I have an inside scoop that a labor dispute is slowly erupting between minor league baseball and its umpires. the umps haven't received a raise in ten years. they are being offered an extra hundred bucks per month, about equal to how much their insurance is going up. the umps said not good enough, and MiBL are bringing it before a judge saying 'we've negotiated all we're gonna negotiate.' these umps are getting screwed. MiLB has essentially admitted they could pay more, they just don't want to. the local, part-time umps who do spring games in AZ and FL get paid more than the regular minor league umps. when the major league umps were fired a few years back, it wasn't seen as much of a problem, just reach into minor league ball for replacements. where will the replacements for all of minor league baseball come from? this could have serious implications for the upcoming season.

I suppose I can understand the Weeks love, even though his BA was .239 last year and he had a sub-.400 SLG. But Hardy??? The guy that carried a BA under .200 into July? I can't understand the Weeks love. isn't the list who is the best right now? while I realize many drool over his ability to take a walk, he doesn't hit for alot of power, strikes out at an alarming rate, and he made 21 errors in a little over half of a season. the pick has to go to one of the "good hitting for the position," poor range/high fielding % secondbaseman: either Biggio or Walker. considering age and assuming Walker takes his rightful place as the Cubs everyday second baseman, I gotta go with Walker.

I read the article as both Grissom and Baker implicitly acknowledging that the Cubs have a full time left fielder, and the writier trying to stir some crap up by suggesting Grissom is a fallback as a leftfielder.

does the same guy create talking points for all Texans? that's downright Orwellian.

If I'm not mistaken, and I am not, Stone was the consumate professional and always diplomatic throughout his analyst career, until 2004. suddenly his sarcasm is biting, his tone sharp, and his opinions expressed in manor that does not merely state his opinion, but takes swipes at one organization in particular. the differencec is obvious.

I think it's about god hating me

I don't mean to detract from your main point, but there were three reasons the Cubs made a run in 2001, Leiber/Wood, Sammy Sosa, and the bullpen. your assessment here is unfair and does not due justice to the job that Farns, Fassero and Flash did that year turning most games into 6 inning affairs. Van Poppel was awesome as well, and Weathers gave some good innings after Baylor wore most of these guys out by the end of July. Also, Juan Cruz did not pitch any relief in 2001.

Garvey is the only man that could give Robin Williams any serious competition in the "Hairiest Arms" contest. couple of sasquatches.

My love for stoney usually colors my bias in these types of discussions, but I fail to see how this is a snide comment. Do you really think these additions (particularly the almost universally criticized acquisition of jones) improve the Cubs enough to surpass the Cardinals? I sure don't. a comment need not be false to be snide, and Stone's comment was snide, as was the additional "pigs fly" comment about Prior/Wood starts. there's a way to convey these thoughts without the the sarcasm and without the taint of vindictiveness that have laced most of his comments since leaving the Cubs. as for whether the Cubs surpassed the Cards with the moves they made, I don't think they do in and of themselves. but with the downgrades the Cards will probably see ... right and left (worse players), center (he's getting old), shortstop (career year), second (worse players), the starting staff (Suppan's career year, Carpenters 2005 workload on surgically repaired arm, replace Morris with Ponson/rookie, Marquis back to mediocrity), and a completely revamped bullpen.... the difference isn't as great as Stone implies. maybe the Cards aren't shaking in their boots, but I guaranty they don't have the confidence they had going into last year. but Stone and his vindictiveness just isn't capable of making such analysis anymore when speaking about the Cubs.

yeah, it looks like he was a bigger part of the offense. concluding how valuable a player was to a team by watching the games is not the most popular notion around here, but anyone who watched the Cubs in 89 would not hesitate in saying that Jerome was the more valuable player, despite what the state sheet may say. Dwight was a strict platoon player that year. I doubt if he got more than 20 ABs against lefties all year. Walton's downfall was his quirky wide open stance. pitchers learned to get in on him and he never made the adjustment. the future sure looked bright in 89. almost everyone on the team was 27 or younger and Sandberg and Sutcliffe seemed to have a few good years left in them. 90-91 sure was disappointing. not 2004-05 disappointing, but disappointing nonetheless.

you mean the Cardinals had a player come up with an uncharacteristically good performance at a position and time in which they were desperate and had no real viable options, and the good performance can only be explained by luck? that's unfathomable.

As who promised? Some NSBB folks? Rhodes is a respectable arm that Philly needs. Michaels is a spare bench player. Rhodes, like all relievers, is inconsistant. Michaels is a spare bench player with a .380 career OBP. If the Cubs had a lineup full of "spare bench players," they'd have one of the better offenses in the league. The fact that the Phillies are settling on Arthor Rhodes for Michaels, tells you the value Jason Michaels has around baseball. He couldn't beat out the likes of Glanville, Ledee, and Bryd, for goodness sakes. And that decision making got the Phillies what? the second best offense in the NL in 2005, the third best offense in the NL in 2004, and the fifth best offense in the NL in 2003.

As who promised? Some NSBB folks? Rhodes is a respectable arm that Philly needs. Michaels is a spare bench player. Rhodes, like all relievers, is inconsistant. Michaels is a spare bench player with a .380 career OBP. If the Cubs had a lineup full of "spare bench players," they'd have one of the better offenses in the league. if he was all that great of a player, one would think he would manage to accumulate more than a year and a half's worth of big league ABs before he reached 30. we are talking about the guy who could't win a position over Doug Glanville and Marlon Byrd here.

circa early October 1990, my brother and I at a Reno sportsbook: Me: look at that, Reds 4000-1 to sweep the world series. we should put five bucks on it. brother: nah, never gonna happen. just put an extra five on the Bears to beat Denver. Me: duuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhooooookay

I think alot of the criticism is perfectly justified, but I know that most of the criticism is supported by unrealistic expectations based on incomplete information, disingenuous arguments, skewering of the facts and flat out lies (or at a minimum a reckless disregard for the truth).

Rice was a better hitter than Dawson. Dawson was better on defense. I can't see how anyone would vote for Dawson, yet pass on Rice. I wouldn't be so quick to judge Rice the better offensive player. Rice's career OPS was 128, Andre's 119. if Andre hadn't hung on four years too long, he'd be right there with Rice. Rice benefitted greatly from playing at Fenway, whereas most of Hawk's career was spent in Montreal. Rice also spent his years in very good to incredible lineups. the Hawk played with Raines, Carter, Sandberg...and that's about it. finally, not the most beloved metric around here, but Dawson also stole 300+ bases. Rice also has 30 points in OBP on Dawson, which combined with his better overall OPS means that he's the better offensive player. first, let me correct what I wrote above. the 128/119 comparison was OPS+, not just OPS. so again, account for the four years Dawson hung on too long, and they are probably about dead nuts even through 16 years in OPS+. and I forget that OBP is the end all / be all of offensive stats. Andre didn't take walks. this is true. but up until the age of 36 he was equal to or better in just about every other team independant offensive catagory.

time for another post by jjgman that gets mistaken for supporting Hendry, when it is really just an attack on a bs argument used to support someone else's position. on the bolded part above. nonesense. neither the Cardinals or Astros had big injury problems in 2003. the grand sum of their impact injuries were Cardinals - Vina replaced by the two month wonder, Bo Hart. Drew replaced by Eduardo Perez's 122 OPS+, Morris missing about 6 starts. Astros - Kent missed about 25 games, Oswalt missed about 12 starts. certainly not coming close to approaching the injury problems the Cubs went through in 2004-2005. if you want to excuse the Cardinals and Astros performance in 2003 due to injuries, you should bow down to Baker and Hendry for the Cubs doing what they did in 2004-2005. Okay. I should have made my point differently. We made it to the playoffs by winning 89 games in 2003. If we were in the NL East or NL West we wouldn't have made the playoffs. We won the Central division on a down year. I'll give you most of 2004, but down the stretch the team was healthy and choked. We won 79 games last year. Injuries or not, that's pathetic for a team with one of the highest payrolls in baseball. the topic of total salary is another one that irritates me because of the disengenuous arguments it leads to. I by no means believe that Hendry has used his resources in the best way, but a. saying he has always had a top five payroll is simply wrong and b. the Trib probably never would have increased salary the way they did if not for Hendry convincing them to to do so. according to this site http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx (not sure of their methodology) the Cubs rank in payroll and total in millions are as follows 2005 - 9 (87) 2004 - 7 (91) 2003 - 11 (80) 2002 - 12 (75) 2001 - 15 (65) 2000 - 12 (62) 1999 - 10 (55) 1998 - 10 (49)

time for another post by jjgman that gets mistaken for supporting Hendry, when it is really just an attack on a bs argument used to support someone else's position. on the bolded part above. nonesense. neither the Cardinals or Astros had big injury problems in 2003. the grand sum of their impact injuries were Cardinals - Vina replaced by the two month wonder, Bo Hart. Drew replaced by Eduardo Perez's 122 OPS+, Morris missing about 6 starts. Astros - Kent missed about 25 games, Oswalt missed about 12 starts. certainly not coming close to approaching the injury problems the Cubs went through in 2004-2005. if you want to excuse the Cardinals and Astros performance in 2003 due to injuries, you should bow down to Baker and Hendry for the Cubs doing what they did in 2004-2005.

Rice was a better hitter than Dawson. Dawson was better on defense. I can't see how anyone would vote for Dawson, yet pass on Rice. I wouldn't be so quick to judge Rice the better offensive player. Rice's career OPS was 128, Andre's 119. if Andre hadn't hung on four years too long, he'd be right there with Rice. Rice benefitted greatly from playing at Fenway, whereas most of Hawk's career was spent in Montreal. Rice also spent his years in very good to incredible lineups. the Hawk played with Raines, Carter, Sandberg...and that's about it. finally, not the most beloved metric around here, but Dawson also stole 300+ bases.

let the debate begin...as a Cub or as a Card?

I usually pay no attention to college hoops until about the middle of February, but I took a glance this weekend. I will not take a stand and say they will win the conference, but I think Wisconsin stands more of a chance than everyone predicted. they only play Illinois and Indiana once, both at home. that alone should save them a couple of conference losses. They are young, but don't underestimate Bo. really amazing what he has done considering he gets no out of state talent to come to UW.