Jump to content
North Side Baseball

snoodmonger

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,846

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by snoodmonger

  1. snoodmonger
    Maybe this is really cutting edge stuff from Dusty. Maybe it's like sabermetrics--mocked initially, but slowly the masses came to see the wisdom in it. Maybe in thirty years all of us will see the genius of the theory that having men on base is really a BAD thing.
  2. snoodmonger
    uhhhhh... we definitely got the worst of that deal, but Garland isn't that good. A 4/5 rotation guy, IMO, who wins games because the Sox score runs by the bucketload.
  3. snoodmonger
    The HR in 1998. The GS against StL is a close second because I was in a room of taunting cards fans at the time. They all started making fun of me when Neifi stepped in the box with the bases juiced. That room got real quiet a few seconds later.
  4. snoodmonger
    And as I pointed out, Dierker calls this a "dubious" stat. In the course of a game it may have value. The team that does this best is likely a team that has the best chance of winning. Unfortunately, it is a stat that has no predictive value. BA with RISP (or commonly called "clutch hitting") isn't a repeatable skill. A player who does well in that area one year isn't likely to do the same in subsequent years. So, while if wanting to determine who assissted the most in an individual game in the past, finding the player who hit with RISP might be telling, but in constructing a team, finding a player who hit with RISP the previous year is asking for disaster. Should you judge a player by one year of stats? No, but to say that being able to produce under pressure situations is not valuable is just as ridiculous. One player who comes to mind is Mark Bellhorn. The guy could get on base at a decent clip, but beyond his ability to get on base he was almost completely worthless. I don't remember how many times he came up to the plate with a runner in scoring position and failed to make contact to score the runner. Looking at his last 3 years splits, it is clear that he is not a "clutch hitter". I didn't say being able to produce under pressure isn't valuable, it's just not predictive in any shape or form. If it were a true ability, surely it would be valuable, but other than anecdotally, it doesn't appear that "clutch hitting" is a real ability. If we want to go out and find a bunch of clutch hitters, we might as well build a team of gnomes, halflings, hobbits, and orges because those are as about as "real" as a clutch hitter. Sam Gamgee can rake. Rake I tell you.
  5. snoodmonger
    But how many times in a game does the #1 hitter actually lead off? The first inning is the only time that's gauranteed. You'll have plenty of times where other players need to get an inning started, and that's why you want guys who can get on throughout the order, if possible. The clutch thing is a whole other can of worms.
  6. snoodmonger
    Not one "stat geek" would honestly say that Neifi Perez is better than Derek Jeter. No one thinks that, on either side of the fence. You're either confused or making it up. Maybe they were saying he's a better defensive player than Jeter????? I just don't believe there's anyone out there who thinks he's a better overall player than Jeter.
  7. snoodmonger
    Nei-free at last!
  8. snoodmonger
    So you're saying there's a chance!
  9. snoodmonger
    C'mon, Detroit. Didn't you see that sweet drag bunt from yesterday? There's more where that came from.
  10. snoodmonger
    Out of curiousity, what is an average BABIP and what is considered unsustainable?
  11. snoodmonger
    Put the statue in the broadcasting booth; it would be infinitely more entertaining than Hawk. If the sox are losing, it might talk more than him, too. I've watched games where he might say one word over a full inning because he's all grouchy about the score.
  12. snoodmonger
    you just provided the most compelling reason I've heard for his promotion.
  13. snoodmonger
    Victor Zambrano Jose Rijo Mariano Rivera Dotel ... and...kerry woodriguez
  14. snoodmonger
    Yeah, this forum and its premiere posters (Craisin, O_O, texascub, craig, kctigers, serena, JonM, Flames, and a few more) are easily the best, most informative part of NSBB. kudos to you folks.
  15. snoodmonger
    I know there had been talk (at least here) of converting him to a pitcher. Is that a real possibility right now or just speculation? If so, how many more seasons of sub-par hitting until they try and make that switch?
  16. snoodmonger
    That #7 on the t-bones looks like a royal a-hole.
  17. snoodmonger
    ugh...triple post
  18. snoodmonger
    nm
  19. snoodmonger
    I do not agree with these statements. I would suggest that the combination of all of them in the same lineup is pretty bad, but any two of them (excluding Neifi, who should only see limited PT, as he has lately) in a better balanced lineup would be fine. For instance, Pierre has been excellent the last 2.5 months with an OBP well over .350 and 25 EBHs, yet has only scored 32 runs in 67 games, due to a variety of factors. Unfortunately things stack up such that the first 4 are likely starters next year. If we could find a way to upgrade 2 of these positions offensively (including Pierre simply maintaing his current and career paces), and see a return of DLee to at least .900 OPS, the Cubs could get back to at least the middle of the pack or better next year in runs scored. A big IF at this point, but just a couple of smart moves and good health away. You say you do not agree, but then you backup the statements with support. Of course it's the fact that all of them are here that is the problem. But we can't just pretend they aren't all here, or won't all be here next year. Just about any combination of two of those guys is tolerable in the lineup if other spots improve dramatically. The problem is improvement in other spots in unlikely to happen. Hendry still ignores OBP, and the lack of walks, which has been a huge problem for years now, is going to remain a problem. Nope. I disagree with statements that "they're ALL pretty bad" and that Pierre and Izturis (specifically) are "huge liabilities". These statements I do not support, I merely put things in a context I do support. Pierre, with his .324 OBP and zero pop IS a huge liability. He's only useful if he's getting on base. This being his second bad year in a row makes me wonder if he's capable of that anymore. Izturis, while young and theoretically capable of improving, hasn't shown he's that much better hitter than Neifi. So basically, I don't see how they're not liabilities on offense.
  20. snoodmonger
    The truth is more severe than this, as we all know. Neyer almost seems to suggest Dusty is merely an enabler and not the guy who said "walks clog bases". Nonetheless, Neyer is absolutely spot on when he implies the Cubs problems will not go away when they get a new manager. Subtract Baker..... and these 4 players Henry Blanco .300 Freddie Bynum .289 Ronny Cedeno .276 Nefi Perez .268 well maybe keep Cedeno and see if he can improve his OBP..and its a start to making the problems go away..IMO You've got the wrogn guys. Guys like Blanco and, to a lesser degree, Bynum, aren't a major part of the problem because they don't play every day. Blanco in particular gives you about what you'd expect from a backup cather, though you could argue at too high a cost. It's Pierre, Izturis, Jones, Cedeno, and Perez that are the problems. These are guys who will see tons of action, and they're all pretty bad. Jones wouldn't be bad we didn't have to rely on him to produce so much, and Cedeno probably deserves a chance to grow, given his age, but Pierre Izturis and Neifi are huge liabilities that severely limit our ability to field a decent offense.
  21. snoodmonger
    haha, good one dusty
  22. snoodmonger
    yep because we should let people who not only break drug laws but also destroy a sport by cheating into a place where greats like ruth, banks and dimaggio are? Refresh my memory as to how he "destroyed the sport." And you're fooling yourself if you think mac would be the only guy in the Hall who broke drug laws. Fact is, I see no way of keeping him out based on the assumption he did steroids. Because without proof, that's all it is. And that would mean every player from this era would be subject to that same "proofless" analysis, which would keep a number of players out of the Hall based on conjecture.
  23. snoodmonger
    I just don't see anyway Matthews Jr. duplicates his #'s. Someone is going to get seriously hosed by signing him.
  24. snoodmonger
    agreed.
  25. snoodmonger
    Now I really want Freel on the cubs.
×
×
  • Create New...