Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Electron Blue

Verified Member
  • Posts

    2,226
  • 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 Electron Blue

  1. as someone new to the Minor League subforum (and new to following the minors, in general), I don't understand what the list is. Can I have some help?
  2. I'm not getting in the middle of your Marquis debate, just wanted to point out that since June 3rd, the day after Piniella's eruption and the day his suspension began, the Cubs have averaged 5.02 runs per game. which means they aren't scoring 5+ everyday. yep. and you know what an ERA of 5.00 would mean...? if we're predicting a player's/team's future performance, what else do we have but averages? well, if we're saying he's only going to go 6 innings per start with a 5.00 ERA, that means he'd be giving up 3 1/3 runs per outing, which means 5+ runs scored would win every game (assuming the bullpen holds on) huzzah!! Marquis is gonna own the win column in the second half!!! the point is, you can't say 5 runs and a 5.00 ERA are the same. You also can't say that every game will be what the averages say oh... are we disagreeing? I was being sarcastic in my first post :) I meant that stichface's assumption was flawed: that marquis's 5.00 ERA would be bad since the cubs don't score 5 runs everyday. Both averages feature totals above and below the number. you're right, though. SInce a 5.00 pitcher doesn't throw 9 in. every start, "he" doesn't give up 5 runs. I didn't get into that specific point since, like I said, I was being facetious. ;)
  3. I'm not getting in the middle of your Marquis debate, just wanted to point out that since June 3rd, the day after Piniella's eruption and the day his suspension began, the Cubs have averaged 5.02 runs per game. which means they aren't scoring 5+ everyday. yep. and you know what an ERA of 5.00 would mean...? if we're predicting a player's/team's future performance, what else do we have but averages? well, if we're saying he's only going to go 6 innings per start with a 5.00 ERA, that means he'd be giving up 3 1/3 runs per outing, which means 5+ runs scored would win every game (assuming the bullpen holds on) huzzah!! Marquis is gonna own the win column in the second half!!!
  4. If I can't say something not-nice about Jacque, I shouldn't say anything at all... who'm I kidding, we're in a playoff hunt!? go jacque!
  5. This is actually an age-old debate which will continue as long as baseball is played. It usually is treated as a most outstanding player award, but given that it's called the Most VALUABLE Player, perhaps it shouldn't be. By definition, most VALUABLE means who made the most difference for their team, not who had the most outstanding individual performance. Given how it usually is looked at perhaps it should be re-named Player of the Year instead of Most Valuable Player. hmmm... I don't really think that's true. Why is the "value" of a player dependant on its surroundings (and its surroundings' dependence on it)? Say I have a cherished family heirloom that I decide to sell on eBay. I list it at $500 (because it's very important to me specifically). An appraiser says it's worth half that (for objective, tangible reasons). What's the value of the item? If you replace the word "valuable" with "indespensible" in your post, I think the argument would have a case. as it is, I don't think you're really drawing a line between the two sides of the debate.
  6. I'm not getting in the middle of your Marquis debate, just wanted to point out that since June 3rd, the day after Piniella's eruption and the day his suspension began, the Cubs have averaged 5.02 runs per game. which means they aren't scoring 5+ everyday. yep. and you know what an ERA of 5.00 would mean...? if we're predicting a player's/team's future performance, what else do we have but averages?
  7. Weak Links Catcher (Soto for Hill would help but it's still weak) Bullpen (Wood+Guzman for Eyre+Petrick) 3rd & 5th OF (Murton/Floyd Platoon in RF, Pie or Lofton in CF to replace JJ+Pagan) Bench/SS (Cedeno) Overall: SLG - Dunn or Griffey for Murton, JJ, and spare parts. Fair point. But really, 3 of those aren't "weaknesses" they're just mismanagements, according to you at least . . . we have the players to plug into the roster, we're just not doing it. And that is different from years in the past. Agreed. Which points out the weakest link of all: GM you know who'd be a good GM? Adam Dunn. Hendry + Eyre for Dunn? Randy Bush + Billy Williams for Dunn, is what I was thinking. Of course, we on the board tend to overvalue our assistants to the GM
  8. darn, shoulda given up a couple more runs there, demp. i hate 1-run losses...
  9. ya gotta give 'em some credit -- that was a NICE play...
  10. What? yeah, tomy, be careful. some people get their game info frm this thread . . . kinda confusing. My bad. I'll keep the pessimism of that sort to myself. :lol: :) hehe, we're all thinking it, but saying it can be misleading
  11. What? yeah, tomy, be careful. some people get their game info frm this thread . . . kinda confusing.
  12. his ERA has been going down today (do far...) but Hill really hasn't looked that good... 5 hits plus 3 walks = 8 runners. Add that to 2 errors, and we're lucky to be 2-1
  13. attaboy!! now make it count for something, DeRo
  14. Owings has kind of a wierd release, doesn't he?
  15. excellent :D
  16. Weak Links Catcher (Soto for Hill would help but it's still weak) Bullpen (Wood+Guzman for Eyre+Petrick) 3rd & 5th OF (Murton/Floyd Platoon in RF, Pie or Lofton in CF to replace JJ+Pagan) Bench/SS (Cedeno) Overall: SLG - Dunn or Griffey for Murton, JJ, and spare parts. Fair point. But really, 3 of those aren't "weaknesses" they're just mismanagements, according to you at least . . . we have the players to plug into the roster, we're just not doing it. And that is different from years in the past. Agreed. Which points out the weakest link of all: GM you know who'd be a good GM? Adam Dunn.
  17. Same way, here. In fact, I couldn't even get into the Cesar trade as much as I predicted I would have . . . it's all about winning!
  18. Weak Links Catcher (Soto for Hill would help but it's still weak) Bullpen (Wood+Guzman for Eyre+Petrick) 3rd & 5th OF (Murton/Floyd Platoon in RF, Pie or Lofton in CF to replace JJ+Pagan) Bench/SS (Cedeno) Overall: SLG - Dunn or Griffey for Murton, JJ, and spare parts. Fair point. But really, 3 of those aren't "weaknesses" they're just mismanagements, according to you at least . . . we have the players to plug into the roster, we're just not doing it. And that is different from years in the past.
  19. yep I was certain it was all over after watching BK Kim shut us out. That might've been rock-bottom for this year's club... Then again, there were so many deflating losses early on, it's hard to choose just one... off the top of my head, i'd have to say the "Mets' Forfeit Lineup, 9th inning" game as the lowest loss, as far as single loses go. :( we'll all be laughing at that one come November :D
  20. I'd really like to see Stairs back with the Cubs. I'd be nervous to see what it would take to get him, though. Is Toronto wanting to trade him, or are they just willing? And I assume he's a FA after this year right? would he give us a comp. pick?
  21. I've read the thread a couple times to see a reason that the thread is in Transactions. . . did I miss something?
  22. so is a Ronny call-up the consensus speculation, then?
  23. huh? Doesn't the "probably got a better chance of helping us than did Bowen" line mean it's a good trade? Unless you either a) think we're paying too much of his salary (i.e. enough to overcome the statement above), or b) think the value of the loss of Blevins is enough to overcome the statement above. If either of those are true, then fine. :)
×
×
  • Create New...