Jump to content
North Side Baseball

bukie

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,385

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

 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 bukie

  1. bukie
    ugh, i hate this line of reasoning. it's innings that matter, not days. This is true. A starter will always affect more innings than a reliever if they are starting every 5 days and giving an average of 5 innings a start. Not even Marmol is on a 162 inning pace.
  2. bukie
    According to Will Carroll, the Braves are holding a press conference today to announce that John Smoltz is done for the season due to soreness and swelling after his last relief outing.
  3. bukie
    It was somewhat explainable for the world series cause the teams played a different set of opponents all year. That's the same scenario in every sport, though. Record-based HFA makes a lot more sense than "winner of the All-Star game" HFA. Only the NFL does things differently, because it's a single game at a neutral site. Now, if baseball decided on a seven-game series all at a neutral site, then maybe it'd be acceptable.
  4. bukie
    As I mentioned earlier the West had HFA in '85 as well. '85 was an oddball year for some reason. That was the first year the CS was 7 games, so perhaps it had something to do with that.
  5. bukie
    and your point is....? his point is that Wood is terrible in the narrow range of made up situations he has invented to prove his point You know, on days where Wood blows saves, his stats look terrible. He's even 0 for 4 on save opportunities in those situations.
  6. bukie
    The lights thing is a myth. HFA alternated between West and East back then. I wanna say 85 was the first year they switched to best record. Not true. '84 was the East's year for HFA, but they didn't let the Cubs have it because they couldn't have any night games. '89 was still alternating, and that year was the West's turn (The Cubs finished 93-69, while the Giants finished 92-70, but the Giants got HFA). Wrong on both accounts. '82's NLCS went 2 in St. Louis, then 1 in Atlanta(setup was 2-3). '83's went 2 in LA, then 2 in Philly(again 2-3). '89 went 2 in Chicago, 3 in San Francisco(set up was 2-3-2) I can't really figure out how HFA was determine after '84 as the West had it in '85 and '86, both years with inferior overall records. Head to head maybe? It was still alternating up until the wildcard was added (switch to three divisions) in '95 (well, '94, but '94 didn't have playoffs). I forgot about the 2-3-2 format, I just remembered the clincher was in SF, and apparently am just too familiar with the NBA style 7-game format. Even years gave the West HFA, odd years gave the East HFA.
  7. bukie
    That does not compute. .500 the rest of the way and the team gets 89-90 wins. Maintain their season pace, and the team gets 104 wins, which is an absurd sounding number to me.
  8. bukie
    The lights thing is a myth. HFA alternated between West and East back then. I wanna say 85 was the first year they switched to best record. Not true. '84 was the East's year for HFA, but they didn't let the Cubs have it because they couldn't have any night games. '89 was still alternating, and that year was the West's turn (The Cubs finished 93-69, while the Giants finished 92-70, but the Giants got HFA).
  9. bukie
    The '89 team didn't really kick it into gear until August, and even then they were never really the best team in the league (The A's were completely unstoppable wire-to-wire that year). The '84 team was unbelievable after the Sutcliffe trade, and were the best team in the NL by a decent bit, but got robbed of HFA because Wrigley didn't have lights. However, the Tigers were completely unstoppable that year. So, this is probably the first time in about 40 years where the Cubs were arguably the best team in the league this late in the year.
  10. bukie
    Heh, Brewers have won 8 of 9 and lost a game in the standings. That's got to be a little disheartening.
  11. bukie
    El Presidente (Dennis Martinez) pitched for a long time, didn't he?
  12. bukie
    Not that it matters much, but the Cards play the Nats at 6:10 tonight (not the Pirates) . . . but I still agree with your plan! It's June 3rd. You don't make in game decisions based on what is happening in another game. wait . . . what? What does this (clearly sarcastic idea) have to do with the date? Can I make in-game decisions based on what is happening in another game on a date other than June 3rd??? I'd say if it were, for example, October 3rd, and a Cardinals loss clinches the division for the Cubs, then I'd be willing to let that game's result determine whether to leave Marquis out there for 9 innings.
  13. bukie
    How about "Cubs can't count on Carlos closing consistently, 'cause Marmol makes me mad"
  14. bukie
    Good news is that the Padres scored more than half their runs for the week tonight and the Cubs still won.
  15. bukie
    Heh, I haven't even started a game thread since then. I'm the Mark Prior of NSBB.
  16. bukie
    I can safely say yes. If the Cubs were 52-5, I'd be saying they were the luckiest team ever.
  17. bukie
    above .500 (4/7) on this west coast trip should be considered success. with the Cubs 14-2 against the western division, and the roll they're on, I expect nothing less that 6 of 7. I expect nothing less than 3-4 this road trip. They may be 14-2 against the western division, but 14 of those 16 games were at home. 4-3 would be considered mild success, anything beyond that would be really nice.
  18. bukie
    I think that if the Cubs had held on to win all 6 of these games for a 42-15 record, I'm not sure I'd be able to handle that. I don't think I'd be able to handle the fact that the Cubs had a 23 game winning streak! What's more, check the games before that. The Cubs have really played 5 games all year that they lost by more than 3 runs. And in two of those, it was still within 3 runs by the 7th inning. There have been few times that the Cubs really never had a shot.
  19. bukie
    I think that if the Cubs had held on to win all 6 of these games for a 42-15 record, I'm not sure I'd be able to handle that.
  20. bukie
    Good news: Tying run up with 2 out in the 9th in St. Louis. Bad news: It's Doug Mientkiewicz.
  21. bukie
    Ump is calling the low strike, not the high strike.
  22. bukie
    Soto looks to be pulling off everything. He's going to have to go the other way at some point or teams are never going to give him anything middle-in.
  23. bukie
    Fukudome hit that one right on the sweet spot, but right at Spilborghs.
  24. bukie
    After Friday's stretch with Hull and company butchering it, and the resulting 6-run rally, I'm thinking the worse, the better.
  25. bukie
    Nice when you have the lead, but pity the poor rockies fans after this weekend I hope the Rockies go on a 20 game tear...after today.
×
×
  • Create New...