Jump to content
North Side Baseball

RynoRules

Verified Member
  • Posts

    9,453
  • 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 RynoRules

  1. I would suggest that those guys were able to throw fastballs consistently because they weren't afraid to back guys off the plate. For whatever reason, modern-day pitchers with certain exceptions (Clemens and Martinez, to name two) fear asserting themselves. I don't see how that makes them better pitchers than Jenkins, Gibson, and Drysdale, who owned the plate because they weren't afraid to pitch inside. I also disagree that those guys didn't have the stuff that modern pitchers do. Spahn's stuff was nasty, as was Feller's, Koufax's, etc. Your other points have validity, but I still think the differences are glaring and unexplained.
  2. Rick had a belly that he could pull some reserve out of when he needed the extra power. I think it's a combination of things. The small strike zone, can't throw inside, batters are more patient now, and the fact that if something hurts now players see that their future money may go away so the slightest ache they are more careful than before. I'm curious on how many pitches Rick threw a game because if memory serves me he had pretty good control or the very least didn't have to throw as many pitches per game with that sinker of his. I thought about the pitch-per-game issue as well, so I added several other picthers as examples. These are just afew I thought of off-hand. There are dozens more out there to be examined.
  3. Someone please explain this to me b/c I can't figure it out: How come, in days past, teams were using four-man rotations and had several "horse" pitchers who started over 30 games a year and made it through well over 200 innings? Why is this such a rare commodity over the last 15 years or so? How come our strong, young pitchers seem incapable of maintaining such a pace without significant injury (excepting Z, of course)? Take Rick Reuschel, for example: Reuschel's career stats Not an HOFer, but a guy pitching in the 70's and 80's who started well over 30 games per season and went over 200 innings well into his early forties. By contrast, it would seem that Wood and Prior are at least as talented as Reuschel (at least), yet they cannot keep themseleves together. Pitchers seem to have greater advantages in several aspects as compared to their fellows who pitched in preceeding eras, including, but not limited to, technology associated with analyzing technique and stats, advanced medicine, better conditioning, etc. How do we explan this? I thought of a few more guys we can use as examples of the durable pitcher from bygone eras (I am purposefully excluding knuckleballers, BTW): Warren Spahn Bob Welch Don Sutton Burt Hooton (he's on the lower end of this scale, but had 10 straight years over 200 innings) EDIT: Actually, it was 9 of 10 years, I think.
  4. hehe..sorry..I'm a little new around to these boards...lifelong cub fan though. Still..these issues with Hendry need to remain fresh. I plan on confronting Hendry about this at the next cubs convention. He demands all Cub fans an apology for his incompetence. Agreed. Just more interested in people's new ideas these days.
  5. I don't think we have been over this issue enough yet.
  6. Wells: Link to stats He's entering his prime. If you are going to do it, now is the time.
  7. Re Fredi (a Vance fave, I know): Atlanta Braves.com
  8. chicagosports.com Looks like exit visa is imminent. =D>
  9. What if he gets hurt again in ST under a new manager and pitching coach?
  10. Dusty Baker = Admiral Stockdale? Nice reference. Extra points. http://www.skyhawk.org/3E/va163/stockdale.jpg
  11. That's a pretty good comparison. If you object to going after him b/c he has been one of the main parias (sp?) on the rival team for a bunch of years, then there isn't much to say. Its a dumb reason not to want him. If you don't want him b/c you think his production is likely to continue to decline, that's a different matter. The Cubs are not the Bulls. I believe the Bulls picked up Rodman after already winning 3 WC's. Getting a guy in the winter of his career from a rival only spells doom = we depend on him being healthy (which he won't - see history) and if he is healthy, he's not a fit w/ the Cubs. Its not happening. You just made my point for me. If you think he won't help this team b/c he can't play anymore or will experience a decline that will make him a bad risk, fine, I get that. But to argue that we shouldn't sign merely b/c some people don't like him is dumb. I don't understand the "he's not a good fit" argument; what does that even mean?
  12. No kidding. In fact, I could live with an OF of Pie, Wells and Jones (assuming Pie produces like Wells does).
  13. That's a pretty good comparison. If you object to going after him b/c he has been one of the main parias (sp?) on the rival team for a bunch of years, then there isn't much to say. Its a dumb reason not to want him. If you don't want him b/c you think his production is likely to continue to decline, that's a different matter.
  14. If you want to blame Dusty and Roth for this, you can, and you may have a point. But I don't think it can be ignored that this guy is looking dinged up in general and has had several unexplained recurring maladies. Looks like a pattern. Lets just hope its not "Wood Redux".
  15. The fact that Lane is better? Ok Palmerio then. Bats: Left? I am thinking Wilson could bat left and do as much damage to the Astros as Orlando. Plus explain the fact that they never ever have a black guy on the roster. Are you serious about this? So they hate black people, but are okay with Latinos/Hispanics? Why did they sign him in the first place?
  16. If Lee, Prior and Wood had been healthy and relatively productive we'd be in the WC race. That doesn't say much about this team, of course, b/c several of the teams that are within 4 games of the lead are are several games under .500. EDIT: And I think that those of you who are killing Len for using the word "horses" are over doing it a bit. Its just a term, but some of us are treating it like a four letter word.
  17. Yeah, I am not sure why the guy has to be experienced in order to be succesful. In fact, that sounds contradictory to what may on this bd. have argued in the past (calls for Fredi Gonzalez for Atl, for example). He spent years around Torre and Stottlemeyer in NY. That's good enough for me. If his philosophies are sound - and I believe they are - he'd be a great manager. Fire Dusty. Hire Girardi. The guy doesn't have to be experienced to be successful. However, as pseudo-evidence in this thread has suggested, Joe supposedly was against inserting Johnson and Nolasco into the rotation well into the '06 season. He supposedly had to be overruled by high ranking representatives of the Marlin's front office. As I stated earlier, I don't necessarily believe this is true. However, Girardi's managing style is still largely an unknown. Do we want replace Dusty with someone that is equally inept? I don't watch a lot of Marlin's baseball, so I'm not one that can provide expert analysis on his everyday managing ability. If you do watch a lot of Florida ball, then please chime in with why we should hire Girardi. Edit - I'm not sure that "being around Torre and Stottlemeyer" is good enough for me. Dusty was "around" Hank Aarron, yet he is unable to produce a team with much of an offensive prowess. Huh? I am not sure how you can logically compare being around another player (as Dusty was with Aaron) to being around the most succesful manager-pitching coach combo in a generation (as Girardi was as a player and coach with the Torre-Stottlemeyer regime). That's like saying you know as much about counterterrorism technique as a CIA specialist b/c you read Tom Clancy books.
  18. If you're talking payroll, the Cubs are much closer to the Yankees than the Marlins are. As for Girardi, all he's done is guide a team that started a ton of rookies and had a $15 million dollar payroll to third place in the NL East and a 54-61 record. I understand that the record doesn't sound like anything special but that team was expected to have one of the worst records in the major leagues this year. I would take Girardi. Talent wins managers do not. All a manger can do is place his team in the best postion to win. From what I've seen Joe likes to waste outs. He's criticized his best every-day player on multiple occasions for "not hustling" even though this player is putting up spactacular numbers. The Cubs are much closer to the Yankees for sure. But that's is like saying that the bag boy at Krogers is much closer to being a millionare than the guy who is cashing in cans to buy a bottle of Thunderbird. Then its really the GMs fault when a team stinks, no?
  19. I don't normally care about this sort of thing, but the only thing more disgusting than the Cubs' record is some of the spelling in this thread.
  20. Yeah, I am not sure why the guy has to be experienced in order to be succesful. In fact, that sounds contradictory to what may on this bd. have argued in the past (calls for Fredi Gonzalez for Atl, for example). He spent years around Torre and Stottlemeyer in NY. That's good enough for me. If his philosophies are sound - and I believe they are - he'd be a great manager. Fire Dusty. Hire Girardi.
  21. Nice chuck to Moose by Rex.
  22. Dan-yell!!! EDIT: Vash had the wind knocked out of him. \:D/
  23. I'd rather he have a mild concussion than a sprained knee.
×
×
  • Create New...