Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Rob

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    15,251

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

 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 Rob

  1. Rob
    In the words of Slappy the Squirrel, now that's comedy! :D Actually, that's true. Think about it, are you going to be able to walk much without working deep counts? Dunn's MLB rank in P/PA: 2001 - did not qualify, but his 4.12 P/PA would have been #7 2002 - 2 2003 - did not qualify, but his 4.33 P/PA would have been #2 2004 - 5 2005 - 5 2006 - 11 2007 - 14 You work that many deep counts, odds are very good you're gonna strike out a lot. You're not gonna go ahead 3-0 before the walk each time.
  2. Rob
    Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no. Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games? Cutting a complicated question down to a simple yes or no doesn't help the conversation much. Case in point, yes or no, are you still beating your wife? What's complicated? It's incontrovertable fact that a) teams commonly go and scout the players they're interested in acquiring; b) the scouting spans only a handful of games; and c) the final go/no-go decision is influenced by the scouting report. Is this practice "beyond idiotic?" Yes or no? It's complicated because it's all a matter of degree. Would it be beyond idiotic to allow the scouting reports to be 100% of your decision? No doubt. What about 50%? Still, almost certainly. 5%? Most likely not. The question isn't really whether or not scouting can be a valuable tool. Nobody is debating that. The question is whether you are able to place the scouting report in the proper context. A scout sent to see Dunn in the 12 games before the last three would have a radically different report than one based on the last three. Without having other thing drastically influencing your decisions, scouting reports aren't going to help you much, if at all.
  3. Rob
    Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no. Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games? Cutting a complicated question down to a simple yes or no doesn't help the conversation much. Case in point, yes or no, are you still beating your wife?
  4. Rob
    Did he do anything positive during his 12 game hitting streak heading into the series with the Cubs?
  5. Rob
    I think whether Griffey passes through waivers or not probably depends on the rules regarding deferred money. If picking up Griffey off waivers made somebody liable for all that giant sum of deferred cash left on his contract, he'd almost certainly make it through. Edit: Just looked it up. Griffey has 57.5 mil in deferred money on his contract, getting 4% interest, and being paid from 2009 to 2024. I can't find the rule on whether or not a team would be on the hook for that if they made a waiver claim, though.
  6. Rob
    Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm). What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games? You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain." Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too? If you can't realize for yourself that basing a player acquisition decision on what is done over 3 games is beyond idiotic, I don't know what else to say. You're evading the question (perhaps wisely). What I'm asking is, what is your explanation for why MLB teams base player acquisition decisions upon what scouts observe over 3 games? Is it your position that the MLB teams that engage in this activity (which seems to be all 30) are "beyond idiotic?" What scouts see in a three game series should be weighted appropriately with all the information known about a player already. Otherwise, you do beyond idiotic things like acquiring Jason Kendall because Gary Hughes thinks he can still hit. Improper weighting of the information gained is beyond idiotic, yes.
  7. Rob
    I'd entertain the thought of Wuertz for Dye... but definately no to giving up Marmol.
  8. Rob
    I've heard a few people here mention of the possibility of a 3-way deal, but who would the Braves actually be going after/giving up in this? Just curious. Rumor has it that the Braves are interested in Arroyo. I'm sure they probably wouldn't do Renteria for Arroyo straight up, but I'm not sure what else it would take.
  9. Rob
    I figured that would be the case.
  10. Rob
    For heaven's sake... Dunn had a 12 game hitting streak going into the series with the Cubs. No, he didn't look good during the series with the Cubs, but I think a 12 game hitting streak overrides 3 bad games.
  11. Rob
    Five million more in salary for 08?
  12. Rob
    You can't be serious. This post doesn't really even deserve a response. What a joke. Fanboys, LOL. LOL @ you thinking I'm a Dunn fanboy. Right. I was actually calling the fact that you'd base your decision on whether or not the Cubs should get one of them (I'd prefer Griffey, FWIW), on what they did this weekend a joke. The mere suggestion that anyone should no longer discuss or consider (or hope for) the possibility of one of them coming to the Cubs based on what they did in this series is completely and utterly laughable. Thanks for playing. Don't hate the playa, hate the game. Why fight about who we want more? Why not just get both. Play Dunn in RF and Griffey in CF. Sure our outfield defense would be absolutely horrible, and we'd have to gut our farm system to get them both, but boy it would be worth it. :D You tell it, sister! (I've decided to speak in cliches today)
  13. Rob
    You can't be serious. This post doesn't really even deserve a response. What a joke. Fanboys, LOL. LOL @ you thinking I'm a Dunn fanboy. Right. I was actually calling the fact that you'd base your decision on whether or not the Cubs should get one of them (I'd prefer Griffey, FWIW), on what they did this weekend a joke. The mere suggestion that anyone should no longer discuss or consider (or hope for) the possibility of one of them coming to the Cubs based on what they did in this series is completely and utterly laughable. Thanks for playing. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
  14. Rob
    I assume you mean the Wigginton-Wheeler deal? Yeah. Looks like a normal Murton pull cause Lou is a jackass.
  15. Rob
    It's on the ticker for ESPN News.
  16. Rob
    What is three games going to show the Reds, especially since he's not even starting tonight? mlbtraderumors says Levine mentioned any deal would probably involve Gallagher and Murton. Beats me. I typically don't take what this Bruce says too seriously though I will report it here as a "service" to my non-Chicago friends here; now the other Bruce, friend of NSBB, if he were to say it, it would be as good as gold in my book. i think we all feel the same way on that point. it would be interesting to hear BM's take -- if for no other reason than to hear why Levine believes this, even if it isn't all that credible. :Bruce Signal: I don't know that BM is an appropriate nickname for Bruce, seeing as how most people use it to stand for bowel movement. Now Jay Marrioti on the other hand...
  17. Rob
    He wrote this at 1:15 am, well after the Iowa game was over. That might be my bad. I sent him an email around 11 pm central telling him what was going on, and that there had been no indications of an injury to that point. congratulations on being the source of a bogus story! Pish posh. I clearly outlined that it was only something to keep an eye on or to kick the tires around on... nothing to go to print with.
  18. Rob
    Sunday when I saw him in Iowa, he looked much more relaxed in RF. He was getting good jumps, covering quite a bit of ground and made some tough plays that looked like extra bases of the bat. He should be an upgrade over Floyd defensively. A wooden cutout of Murton wouldnt be that far behind Floyd defensively. With or without the wheelchair? He gets the wheelchair, but one wheel doesn't spin... so all he can do is spin around in circles.
  19. Rob
    It's quite alright. We all had to start somewhere learning about this stuff. I still don't want anybody asking me about the difference between SuperVORP and WARP. can i ask...not trying to be a jerk...but i was curious about those things too... Just don't ask Rob to tell you when to use WARP vs WARP3. I still maintain that comparing Ichiro to other players in the AL this year is more important than comparing him to guys who played during WWII. :D I was just pushing your buttons. Oh yeah? Well, I'll push... your mom. Yeah, I guess that one kinda works. :lol:
  20. Rob
    If his contract for next year is voided if he's traded during this year, how do they trade him in the offseason? It's not that his contract is voided, it's that the club option for 08 is voided. All the Reds have to do in the offseason is exercise the club option during the window its open, and then trade him off... but they can't exercise that option yet.
  21. Rob
    It's quite alright. We all had to start somewhere learning about this stuff. I still don't want anybody asking me about the difference between SuperVORP and WARP. can i ask...not trying to be a jerk...but i was curious about those things too... Just don't ask Rob to tell you when to use WARP vs WARP3. I still maintain that comparing Ichiro to other players in the AL this year is more important than comparing him to guys who played during WWII.
  22. Rob
    OPS+ by age. Pudge: 19 - 75 20 - 88 21 - 98 22 - 117 23 - 102 24 - 104 25 - 114 26 - 120 27 - 125 28 - 152 29 - 130 30 - 123 31 - 124 32 - 135 33 - 94 34 - 98 35 - 93 Posada: 25 - 102 26 - 114 27 - 97 28 - 134 29 - 119 30 - 123 31 - 146 32 - 133 33 - 105 34 - 127 35 - 149 Varitek: 26 - 85 27 - 100 28 - 84 29 - 124 30 - 94 31 - 120 32 - 121 33 - 125 34 - 85 35 - 104 LoDuca: 27 - 68 28 - 75 29 - 144 30 - 100 31 - 92 32 - 99 33 - 92 34 - 105 35 - 82 Kendall: 22 - 102 23 - 115 24 - 131 25 - 137 26 - 125 27 - 80 28 - 83 29 - 115 30 - 110 31 - 77 32 - 89 33 - 45 Posada is the only one of the five who is still hitting much anymore.
  23. Rob
    It's quite alright. We all had to start somewhere learning about this stuff. I still don't want anybody asking me about the difference between SuperVORP and WARP.
  24. Rob
    No on the infield dribblers part. You don't get credited for a sacrifice unless you're attempting to lay down a bunt to move the runner over.
  25. Rob
    Yeah, TB is total bases. SH is sacrifice hits, a.k.a. sac bunts.
×
×
  • Create New...