goonys evil twin

The game itself has not been changed. It's ridiculous to suggest it has. They don't require 7 outs or 11 strikes. The game is the same, the start time changed. Big deal. Why does there have to be a benefit to fans to justify any change? It's not like it's harmful in any way.

Doesn't it really just find players who are evaluated similiary by fans of other teams?

"Japan has more 7-Eleven locations than anywhere else in the world, where they often bear the title "7&iHoldings". Of the 28,123 stores around the globe, 10,868 (39%) of them are located in Japan. 1,396 are in Tokyo alone. "

This ranks right up there with putting the Spider-Man movie decals on the bases. Ridiculous. :roll: I think it's actually quite different, and not the least bit ridiculous. It's clever. Movie decals on the bases is in your face obnoxious. This is subtle and unique. I tend to despise most corporate sponsership . . . but I agree with goony here. It's clever without impeding the aesthetic (i.e. movie decals) or outlying (i.e. stadium names) appeal of the game. Seriously, how many times have you said, read, written or thought, 1:20, 3:05, 7:20, etc? And how many times have you saw the time 7:11 and didn't think of the store? I'm just glad there are no games in the Atlantic Time Zone.

This ranks right up there with putting the Spider-Man movie decals on the bases. Ridiculous. :roll: I think it's actually quite different, and not the least bit ridiculous. It's clever. Movie decals on the bases is in your face obnoxious. This is subtle and unique.

The offense has been the biggest longterm problem. The pitching staff has only recently become a problem. Pitching is more inconsistent though, so that's not a surprise. i don't know how you can back up the idea that pitching is more inconsistent. show me and i'll believe you. as far as i can see, it's just a phrase, devoid of meaning, that you just invented to combat the notion that pitching is more important, an easily visible one. I believe it's been shown that hitters are more stable longterm producers and pitchers are much more prone to wild swings, due, most likely, to the frequency of injuries to pitchers. The Cubs original plan was to pattern themselves after the Braves, relying on a strong pitching staff to make them consistent winners. They made two fatal errors. One, they forgot that Atlanta actually produced really good hitters during their period of dominance. And two, what the Braves did was unprecedented and not something you could duplicate. Nobody is going to have 3 great starters lead a team to dominance for a decade. Many have tried, only the Braves have done it. There was far too little attention paid to the offense from the get go, and it's shown, with repeated low rankings in the runs scored department (due to very low walk rates). They also put far too great a burden on young arms, and burnt most of them out. Being one dimensional is stupid. Concentrating solely on pitching is a mistake. Ignoring the offense will doom this team to continued failure.

How in the world do you get the idea that the offense was better? They were worse across the board. They scored a couple more runs, but in relation to the league, got worse. I didn't say I thought they were better. I just said they were better in terms of runs scored. I was just attempting to show that our pitching staff fell off far more than our offense did this year and that pitching is the biggest problem. I am not an advocate of spending 15 million dollars on another bat for the lineup because it would still leaves holes in the lineup. So, you went in with a pitching bias, and backed it up with dubious stats. The hitting started out bad. But as ranked against the rest of the league, got even worse. It doesn't matter how many raw runs they score, it matters how many more or less they score than the competition. They plummeted in the rankings for hitting. You aren't showing that pitching is the biggest problem. You are showing that the Cubs have two huge problems, hitting and pitching.

If you read the project: http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/ You would know I said this: So, it's only fans of the Cubs that would evaluate the Cub players. If you don't mind, please stop insinuating I did not read the project. You act as if anybody who questions the project either is not smart enough to understand, or didn't actually read it. So were people not allowed to rank an opposing player? If not, then there's no control over whether or not people followed your directions. Again, what is the fascinating part about Pierre? What would you have wanted to know about him before 2006 that we didn't know before seeing something like this? This is an opinion poll. You seem to take offense and dismiss as amateurs those who think so. I read through the project. I did when I first saw it, and I did when I saw it again. Yet you insist on acting as though anybody who questions the point of such a poll must not have even taken a look.

I hesitate to put Zito on such a list, but he has had issues with declining performance. Look at Schmidt's history. He's got a limited history of sustained greatness and innings pitched, plus he's got arm problems every year. I've put together several rosters with between a $100-105m payroll that improves both the pitching and offense. Your insistence on saying it's impossible just holds no water. Padilla is as good as anybody on the 2005 White Sox outside of Buerhle. They just had career years. Zito is actually much more similar to Padilla than you might want to think. He's an above average innings eater. But because he's a lefty and won the Cy Young, he's going to get a lot more. The biggest difference is that Padilla got hurt after his 2 years of big inning pitching that followed his relief performance. I'd really like Zito, but I don't want to put all my eggs in that basket. Teams don't win the World Series by signinig big money free agent pitchers. The only team that has is the Arizona Diamondbacks, an expansion team that greatly increased payroll from a clean slate, and nearly bankrupted the franchise. Chasing after the big money free agent pitchers is a recipe for disaster more often than not. And that is especially true with the old ones like Mussina. The Cubs can and should improve both offense and pitching.

I'm assuming this is the part of the post that was actually yours. Baker had Maddux. He also had the chance to treat Prior and Wood better when they were healthy. He also had the chance to let Hill battle through his problems last year, which may have quickened his eventual, and some would say inevitable, improvement. He had a chance to not rely on Rusch when he sucked and let Hendry know he wasn't worth bringing back. He also had the chance to not make Neifi and Bynum such prominent members of the roster. Excusing him for Barrett missing time is absurd. The team was lost long before that happened, and besides, catchers get hurt and miss time. It's a fact of baseball.

How in the world do you get the idea that the offense was better? They were worse across the board. They scored a couple more runs, but in relation to the league, got worse.

The offense has been the biggest longterm problem. The pitching staff has only recently become a problem. Pitching is more inconsistent though, so that's not a surprise.

What does he do best? It's certainly not field a great pitching staff, because he took what was a great pitching staff before he got the job, and ruined it. His lack of attention to walks has been as big a problem on the pitching side as it has on the hitting side. In fact, the best players he's acquired at the big league level have all been hitters. I completely disagree about it being more expensive to significantly upgrade the 2006 lineup. Your solution to fixing the rotatin is signing 2 very expensive starting pitchers, all of whom have stability questions. I want a top five run scoring team and a top 5 run preventing team. That's not asking too much. Limiting ourselves because certain teams got away with it for one year (and then got worse) doesn't make sense to me. This isn't a team that has to limit itself becasue of payroll. This should not be an either/or team.

What makes you think people haven't clicked on this already? Please explain the fascinating part to me on Pierre. What do you mean it "wasn't aimed at you"? Who is "you" in that sentance and who was it aimed at? I'm not dismissing anything. I just said I don't understand the point. Seems to me like instead of explaining things you decided that anybody who didn't openly applaud your effort was simply too much of a simpleton to understand or appreciate the site. I believe the results tell you what a limited number of fans think about a certain player. I don't think it's all that interesting to read the hyperbolic lovefest by certain bloggers about their favorite player. It would be interesting to see how many people voted for players on every team, how many people voted for just one team, etc.

We'll see. It's not like they're going to kill his market value by declaring he sucks and they want to dump him because his clutch factor is below 1.21 gigawatts or something. . Yankees don't put guys with value on the block. They do accept calls though. And Cashman did not say he would not take calls on ARod.

Plus, he's inactive. :D I was fearing that Hendry would fill the rotation with mediocre innings eaters, but I'm beginning to think that's not a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have lock down guys. But as long as they are not blocking the path of young guns coming up, there's nothing wrong with having a 200 IP decent pitcher. This is not in support of somebody like Trachsel, with his 87 ERA+. Rather, it's in support of a guy like Padilla, who is a good bet to give you an above average season and significant innings, and still has some upside for having a very good year. It's not in support of somebody like Kris Benson, who struggles to go many innings and is usually below average. But, the only way you can do this, is if you significantly upgrade the offense. If you settle for a mediocre offense, you need a great pitching staff. And it's much more difficult to guarantee a great pitching staff than a great lineup.

Speaking of over glorifying the manager. Mike Greenberg went absolutely gaga when he heard that Jim Leyland told his pitcher to throw strikes and not worry about the two guys on base when he was up 5-0. He acted like it was the sage wisdom that only a seasoned veteran manager could possibly give. I yell that crap all the time! With a decent lead, screw the runners! Get the outs! It doesn't take a genius to get that right. Only a moron would suggest trying to be perfect in that situation.

People on NSBB.com are not immune to the subjective opinions of others influencing their interpretation of defensive play.

I would consider a Prior/Eyre for ARod and Wright/Pavano, provided the Yankees pick up some of whichever pitcher's contract. Consider also the fact that Prior likely was offered at one point for Tejada, and it's not out of the question that Hendry wouldn't offer him for ARod. Yeah, I think you have to get back a pitcher that at least has a chance to be average (with an outside shot at good) if you include Prior in a deal. His contract status means you don't just get rid of him for the sake of getting rid of him, nor do you just throw him into a deal.

What if you scored on an error? Outpitch and outhit are pretty useless phrases. An error would be defense, no? I agree they are useless -that was my point. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a manner of speaking. If you shut down the other team's hitting, then they say "see? good pitching stops good hitting." If you got blasted, then they just say your pitching stunk. Still, that never stops the pundits from rolling out that particular catch phrase every playoffs. "Good pitching stops good hitting!" Well yeah----because if the other team gets hits, then your Cy Young pitcher just plain stunk. Exactly. It's easy to say the White Sox great pitching stopped everybody's great hitting, after they've done it. But a year later and those same great pitchers aren't great anymore. It's one thing to analyze a game that's been played, and another to analyze who you should acquire to play future games. Simply saying great pitching beats great hitting does not mean ignore your offense, stock up on pitchers. Pitching is inconsistent. The Mets have gotten a great overall year out of a staff whose only great starter coming into the season has been a huge disappointment. On the surface, without Pedro, it was a mediocre staff at best. But they've actually been very good without getting anything from him. The goal should be to get the best players you can get at every position. Don't settle for mediocrity on offense because you have to concentrate on great pitching. Great pitching is not guaranteed. Get good on both sides and then hope your good pitching turns in a great year.

Preconceived notions change over time. A preconceived notion is an opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence. After a full year of hearing something different about a player, your preconceived notions could easily be different. You aren't born with a set of preconceived notions that never change. It's about forming an opinion based on inadequate evidence. One of those things is the opinion of so-called experts, as well as a specific play or set of plays that burns in your mind. Those aren't adequate for making any sort of objective analysis of a players' defense.

On Mike and Mike they were also talking about whether they would trade Zambrano for ARod. Greeny said yes, Golic said no. Forgive me for not trusting in Golic's baseball knowledge. The Yanks would jump on Zambrano for ARod in a heartbeat... not that I'd want to do that, of course. Golic said he wouldn't as the Cubs, of course the Yankees would take that. Zambrano would immediately become the best player on the Yankees. It would be stupid for the Cubs to make that move. No other team can come close to offering a pitching like Zambrano.

Have you moved out of Gary yet? Only the short-sighted thought of Dusty as a hero in 2003. He had nothing to do with the limited success of that team, other than putting his own limits on how successful they could be down the road.

No, what is important is having a not incompetent manager. You need a guy who won't screw up. Dusty screwed up. The players are much more important than the manager. But like any organization, it doesn't take much for one bad apple to spoil the bunch.

In the wake of the MacPhail resignation, I believe it was a favor done on his part for his guy Hendry. Andy knew he was gone. There has been speculation for years now that he was headed to the big office sooner or later. So, he waits as long as possible because he doesn't want Hendry to then feel obligated to extend Baker. At the first possible moment during the season when things are looking good and it seems like an extension would be accepted by the masses, he gives him one. Then he's out the door, but his boy Hendry, the good son that he is, is financially secure even though his biggest supporter is no longer around. Had Andy left midseason without extending Hendry, he'd basically be giving Jim no chance at all to keep his job.