Exile on Waveland

As long as past performance is the calculus, I propose the Cubs hire a proven winner as manager. Someone who, like Brenly, has won a World Series. However, this person has won even more games (1,737-303), more games in a single season (116-98), and managed a team in a superior run producing way (927-819). Therefore, it's obvious this manager is preferable to Brenly.

you certainly showed us No, the stats did. But hey, keep preaching. No, they didn't.

I had a longer, more florid post prepared. However, I think simply quoting this one is more concise, efficient and pithy. I would of preferred the "florid post". I was interested in reading why you had your opinion. If I didn't care what you had to say, why would I respond to you? :) It's disappointing and annoying when people reply with those one liners like abuck did. That elitism is really tiresome. I responded that way because snarking that Brenly won the World Series or the Diamondbacks scored 818 runs therefore proving his genius and absolving small-ball is pointless and specious. I've attempted to be consistent in saying that I think or believe Brenly to be overly reliant on small-ball (I also gave him credit for winning the World Series with his style in my initial post). I'm certainly open to persuasion that either (i) Brenly isn't an overtly small-ball manager and my circumstantial evidence is just that; or (ii) Brenly's use of small-ball was tactically pinpointed in a way conducive to maximum run production. I suppose I'm also open to convincing that small ball is an optimal strategy for scoring runs, but I've seen some quite damning evidence posted on that front. Honestly, small ball is rather counter-intuitive in most circumstances -- why willingly give up outs when so precious few exist?

Actually, Pittsburgh is pretty damn nice. It's pleasantly surprising. I would agree with jersey that the ballpark does glorify the downtown/skyline some, but it's surprisingly nice for a true rust belt city. The ballpark is unquestionably outstanding.

I had a longer, more florid post prepared. However, I think simply quoting this one is more concise, efficient and pithy.

Funny how the 01 D-Backs scored 818 runs (5.05 a game) with all that small ball. Sorry, the stats proove you wrong. No, they don't. The question isn't whether or not they scored runs, but if small ball maximized their run scoring ability.

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy". I edited my original post there and changed it to his teams: "Cash in" scoring chances. The Cubs haven't done that this year, which is why we suck right now. So bunting and thereby reducing outs (i.e., at-bats with the potential for productivity) will help "cash in" scoring chances? So bunting and moving the runners into scoring position, thereby reducing the chance of hitting into a DP or popping up doesn't inflate the scoring chances that inning? No, bunting is generally tactically adverse. I'm not the baseball numbers guy that many on here are, but the numerical data exist. Also, I'm not sure how popping up is terribly disadvantageous to other outs.

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy". How do you know those 71 sac bunts "maximized scoring chances"? That's simply a boilerplate cliche. How many times did the sac bunts fail, and, therefore, were not counted as sac bunts? How many times were the bunts executed with power hitters? How many times did someone fail to get a bunt down twice, resulting in an pitcher's 0-2 count and a likely out? How many would-be basestealers were thrown out? Seventy-one and 71 sound nice and reasonable, but there is no context there. There is an opportunity cost to every sac bunt -- sometimes it's worth it, most of the time it's not. They're offense was a pretty well oiled machine is the point here. They didn't JUST play small ball and hit and run, they put pressure on the opposition by stealing bases and didn't just sit around waiting for the 3 run blast. It shoots down the majority of the posters arguments that Brenly is one dimensional. It really does nothing of the sort. No one is arguing Brenly eschews homers for bunts, or that he sacrifices every inning. The argument is that he bunts more than the situation calls for it, thereby reducing his team's likelihood of scoring runs. We think he is overly reliant on small ball. Secondly, well-oiled machine? This is baseball not basketball/football/soccer/hockey/etc. A well-oiled baseball offense is a Chimera.

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy". I edited my original post there and changed it to his teams: "Cash in" scoring chances. The Cubs haven't done that this year, which is why we suck right now. So bunting and thereby reducing outs (i.e., at-bats with the potential for productivity) will help "cash in" scoring chances?

Yup, exactly. The key here is "maximizing scoring chances", not just bunting and playing small ball because it's your "philosophy". How do you know those 71 sac bunts "maximized scoring chances"? That's simply a boilerplate cliche. How many times did the sac bunts fail, and, therefore, were not counted as sac bunts? How many times were the bunts executed with power hitters? How many times did someone fail to get a bunt down twice, resulting in an pitcher's 0-2 count and a likely out? How many would-be basestealers were thrown out? Seventy-one and 71 sound nice and reasonable, but there is no context there. There is an opportunity cost to every sac bunt -- sometimes it's worth it, most of the time it's not.

I haven't read the whole thread, but for my part, the point is that we DON'T have that on the Cubs, so expecting some grand result just because we switch to Brenly is highly unrealistic. Give me the equivalent of Schill/Johnson in the rotation, and Gonzo OPSing in the stratosphere? Take your pick of managers, we're going to win, unless the rest of the roster is completely laughable. So why didn't we win in 2003 with Sosa and Prior/Wood? Sorry, but that's just a really easy question to ask given your logic here. Because the AZ guys stayed healthy all year and were better. That and the Cubs did win in 2003. They didn't win the World Series, but they certainly won.

Superior players/performance is irrelevant? That's certainly a novel concept.

During the playoffs -- when his team won the World Series, it should be noted -- Brenly took small ball to the extreme. I'm nearly certain he even sacrificed twice in the same inning on multiple occasions. I'm not sure I have ever witnessed a more small ball centric approach, and that's despite following a team managed by both Don Baylor and Dusty Baker over a seven-year stretch. Unless something has changed, or the playoffs were truly an outlier, I think you'd see an excessive amount of bunting/small ball from Brenly.

Like 1:30 CDT Like? Thanks. :D What channel is carrying the game? ESPN, I think. You think? My what dedicated footballers we have here today. :good: Yeah, so start time is 1:30-ish (well, 2:30 here)? ESPN keeps saying 2, but I'm assuming that's 30 minutes of pregame stuff I don't care about.

Is she serious? In what world will Shaq not start over Z?

what, was he holding out for the clippers or grizzlies? bad franchises draft early, sorry pal. Haha. Perhaps he wanted to live in Sacramentucky? Seriously what does he expect at the top of the draft?

WHAT!?!?!?!

Yeah, they should just cut Al Jefferson.

There's no question. Minnesota got two good players.

Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. boo yah I hate you. I hate Hansbrough. I hate the Pacers. I hate everyone.

That's a lot of tweener crap for Amare. Biedrins is pretty legit, and Azubuke will play well in that system As will Curry if that's the deal. I think it's a pretty solid package all things considered. Biedrins is good, Wright has a ton of potential, Curry has value and the other two guys can be rotation players. Plus Stoudamire has health/attitude concerns. And he's going to leave in free agency anyway.

Shut up. Shut up. Shut up.

I'm very bearish on Jordan Hill.

Oh, I would agree Thabeet's downside is bad. He could be horrible. I'm probably more bullish on him than most on here, mainly because I think he's a great kid. I'm hoping he succeeds.

I really cannot wait for next season to start, our roster is leagues better than it was last year at this time. I love the Harden pick for OKC. He's a unique player (old school is probably too trite) but I think perfect for them with the current roster. I am so confused by Minnesota taking two point guards. Both players I like -- not that I am expert on Rubio -- but I don't really see that. I'm not sure if we can assume trade or not.