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. It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance. Thank you. I hope the whole bd. takes notice of that last statement. And I should clarify what I meant by "cannot be measured". I meat that it cannot be measured in the manner that OBP is. Its not that obvious. I am not entirely sure how to define it myself - I have some idea, but its not perfect. Its rather like obsenity - I know it when I see it. :wink:
  2. I think most of the critics have taken the next step in emulating the Sox and asked the question, what part of the Sox strategy was responsible for their success? And for many of us, that analysis indicates that their offensive moves were not very successful, and that their success resulted primarily from improvements in pitching and defense. Therefore, it does not make sense to emulate their offensive strategy. Fair points. Mine only is that is natural to want to "copycat" the team that most recently won it all.
  3. how does the sox winning by having great pitching fly in the face of stats? btw, stats don't say that a team like the sox won't win the series, just that the odds are against it. I am talking about their batting stats, which were mediocre, at best.
  4. "Chemistrty" is an intangible, and therefore, by definition, cannot be measured. Its a philosophy, not a science. Thus, there's no way to measure its true effect. I would submit that it has some effect, though not as great as talent and production.
  5. Not as much as I remember his umpteenth straight season as one of the top 5 most productive OFs in baseball. Agreed. This is what Dusty gets the bucks for, BTW; handling Sheffield-types.
  6. I don't think people on this bd should be faulted for wanting to emulate the Sox simply b/c many of us think their methedology was flawed. The Sox accomplished the goal - they won, and they won huge, nearly sweeping through the postseason. Based on stats alone, that never should have happended. Thus, it is fair to say that stats alone "do not a champion-maketh". The reason people want to emulate the Sox is b/c they won. That's not completely misguided, as some of you seem to be alleging.[/b]
  7. Why is Drew's substantial injury history being ignored in this discussion? And, BTW, it is that injury history that makes me want LA to eat some contract. They over paid for a guy who's played 140-plus games once in seven years (may be twice).
  8. Wow. Why must we compare these situations? They are completely different. How can you possibly compare the cash-happy LA and Bos. organizations, with their meddling ownership and unrealistic expecttaions, with Oak., where Beane is bigger than the organization? If that's not what you intended, then I apologize. But I don't think its fair to make that sweeping statement and comparison.
  9. Excellent guess. Replace the A's with the NY/SF Giants, and you're dead on. I guess I didn't think the Giants sustained that sort of success. I have always been Dodgers-centric b/c my family is (in large part) from Brooklyn and I lived there for some time. I have a great throw-back 1955 Brooklyn hat and a poster with the 1955 team picture, which I love. Had they been in Brooklyn during my childhood (they were long gone by then), I might never have been a Cubs fan. Great question, Fred. Keep em' coming.
  10. I don't think they see Reyes as a leadoff hitter. I think he's closer to being a Soriano-type player in their eyes. Just my opinion having been around the NY media from 2002-March 2005.
  11. But only if they ate a large portion of his contract.
  12. And please do not put anything in what Sullivan writes. His work is full of supisition and utterly baseless, naked conclusions.
  13. Laugh if you must.... but in the whole history of the game, only 4 teams have been able to sustain a winning pct of 56% for 50 years. Can you name them ? edit: Hint. St. Louis isn't one them. Great trivia question. My guesses: Yanks Cubs (late 1800s through first half of 20th century?) Athletics (beginning in Philly) Dodgers?
  14. Not correct - he agreed to the 1.5 mill per year deal, for 3 years, then backed out. Sean McAdam's summary of what went wrong and why is a must read. I find this stuff facsinating: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2209889
  15. Wow. Mid-mkt team with 36 mill tied up in a half-dozen players. They have no choice but to dump salary. I don't see JH taking Griffey's K. I think its more likely he winds up with one of the NY teams. The Mets have more to trade, IMO. Would Griffey accept a move to LF? Mets have an OF of Griff-Beltran-Floyd (if he isn't dealt). Not bad, when healthy.
  16. If so, go w/ Ronny. Though his slugging is far below Nomar's.
  17. It would be hysterical if DePo got the job. May be the Red Sox good luck has come to an end.
  18. Not me. I'd love to have a GM w/ a WS ring, even if the gen. public still thinks that those were Duquette's players who won it.
  19. I agree - I've always thought he was one of the most overrated minds in baseball. My impression is that he's very good at dissecting in game situations, but terrible when it comes to evaluating players and teams as a whole. Yeah, he doesn't do a good job adaping to new methods of evaluating the players. He's far too married to old school methodology. Those are fair points. His in-game instinct are astounding at times. His talent evaluation may be less so.
  20. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2209574 Wow.
  21. Triple B, Not to be pedantic about it, but the quote did say, "He said Cubs priorities include pitching and defense..." The word "includes" could be interpreted to mean that "in addition to other items we've mentioned previously (fundamentals, base running, power, speed), we are also going to focus on pitching and defense." From dictionary.com: include (1) To take in as a part, element, or member. (2) To contain as a secondary or subordinate element Perhaps, I'm looking for a needle in the haystack here, but I would have been really worried if he had said, "Cubs priorities are pitching and defense..." Hoops =D> This jives with the Gammons thread, which notes that the Cubs have been "aggressive" in pursuing Brian Giles (a/k/a, "OBP Superman") thus far. By now we should also be familiar with the fact that Hendry uses the press to deflect attention from the direction he is really headed. I haven't seen him give anything away during his tenure as GM.
  22. Gammons is almost never right about such things, but those two signings would be huge. I'm not so sure about that. If he is commenting that, at this early stage of the game, the Cubs appear to be the most aggressive, there is nothing wrong with that. Gammons is not wrong often about which teams are talking to which players. He only has a bad track record when making final predictions. If Gammons is proven to be correct - that the Cubs are being aggressive with regad to acquiring Brian Giles - can we please stop the "Hendry doesn't even try" stuff? I know that not everyone on the bd. believes this, yours truly included.
  23. Nice. Good for them.
×
×
  • Create New...