Derwood
-
Posts
87,657 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
80
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 Derwood
-
That wasn't how he wanted to play baseball. He thought he had a better chance to get on base and thus help his team if he played the way that he knew best, which was slapping the ball to all fields i.e. Ichiro. He was wrong, then. Why is he wrong? It's obviously better to get on base as much as possible so if Cobb thought he could get on base more often by hitting to all fields rather than swinging for the fences, shouldn't that be a good thing? the best result of any at-bat in any situation is a HR also (and I've made this point to OMC before), not only was the talent pool restricted to white players, but there also wasn't the financial reward for the elite athletes to become pro baseball players. If you were really good at baseball but could become a doctor, lawyer or business owner, your best option (financially) would be the latter. Today, there is no question which path you would try, as the financial gains as a pro baseball player are multiple times higher than most other occupations
-
right in the middle of a game thread? NOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
WindyCityFootball was available, but WindyCityHoops & WindyCityBasketball were taken. Second City kind of sounds degrading to the city of Chicago. Second City *is* a nickname for Chicago (though, as Tim says, LA is now technically the second city). no it isn't. doesn't matter if it's bigger population-wise, Chicago will always be Second City
-
the announcers in this game are basically trying and convicting Bonds on the air. so very un-ESPN like
-
Zambrano has lowered his ERA 12 starts in a row since June 1
Derwood replied to Mephistopheles's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Carlos Zambrano is good -
The Most Hilarious Baseball Threads Around-- (NSFW)
Derwood replied to vance_the_cubs_fan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
That would definitely be worth the price of admission. You know I'm there. Adults-only game threads, I might shell out for that. if Tim made an adult-only section available for Premium subscribers I bet a ton more people would sign up -
The Most Hilarious Baseball Threads Around-- (NSFW)
Derwood replied to vance_the_cubs_fan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
this is exactly why we should have an adults only, swearing friendly subsection of this board. it would be legendary -
Mark Prior: http://www.jcph.org/images/hospital_sign.jpg
-
8/5 Mets(Glavine) @ Cubs(Marquis) 7:05 P.M. CT ESPN
Derwood replied to Skyballer's topic in Fred Hornkohl Game Thread Forum
i'm no hitting coach, but hey, Cubs, you might want to look to take some pitches the other way in this one -
That's an asinine, semantic point. Statistical analysis is inherently counterfactual, yes. But all analysis is. if it's inherently counterfactual, then why do you preach it like it's irrefutable fact?
-
my actual point in arguing at all is that statistics tell you what DID happen, and inform what MAY happen in the future or what MIGHT have happened had you switched players around on past teams. Key words: May and Might. Meph talks in absolutes, which is what i'm arguing against. the beauty of baseball, to me, is that it doesn't always fall strictly along the statistically predictable lines. The team that only gets 3 baserunners can beat the one that gets 12. Neifi Perez can hit a grand slam against the Cardinals. whatever. statistics are extremely useful, but to argue them as ironclad absolutes is what drives me crazy
-
this goes on the assumption that the other players would maintain their exact same numbers (w/RISP, for example) with the added number of opportunities afforded by Olerud's higher OBP. You can't assume that. Perhaps Mark Grace goes 0-fer in his additional opportunities. we'll never know. your argument is equivalent to someone saying "had grossman not fumbled the ball in the 3rd quarter, the Bears would have won." untrue. when you change one factor in a game/team, you have to assume that everything else changes
-
Why do you want an answer? It's a stupid, pointless question. You're not arguing but obfuscating at this point. no i'm not. olerud's contributions to the scoreboard were less than Sosa's. The percentages posted on the previous page show that was entirely a matter of opportunities created thanks to his teammates. right, which makes me ask the question again: given the same opportunities as Sosa, would Olerud have driven in as many runs. why won't people answer? no but if Olerud was on the Cubs the OTHER players would have driven in MORE runs than the difference between Sosa and Olerud. really. your proof is what?
-
Why do you want an answer? It's a stupid, pointless question. You're not arguing but obfuscating at this point. no i'm not. olerud's contributions to the scoreboard were less than Sosa's. The percentages posted on the previous page show that was entirely a matter of opportunities created thanks to his teammates. right, which makes me ask the question again: given the same opportunities as Sosa, would Olerud have driven in as many runs. why won't people answer? I did. No. But his presence in the lineup would have caused more runs to be scored through other factors. theoretically. we'll never know, however, as Olerud's numbers would not have been the same.
-
Why do you want an answer? It's a stupid, pointless question. You're not arguing but obfuscating at this point. no i'm not. olerud's contributions to the scoreboard were less than Sosa's. The percentages posted on the previous page show that was entirely a matter of opportunities created thanks to his teammates. right, which makes me ask the question again: given the same opportunities as Sosa, would Olerud have driven in as many runs. why won't people answer?
-
Why do you want an answer? It's a stupid, pointless question. You're not arguing but obfuscating at this point. no i'm not. olerud's contributions to the scoreboard were less than Sosa's.
-
Man, your arguments are awful, Derwood. i want an answer. Olerud, according to him, was better and drove in runs at the same % as Sosa. so, i repeat my question: would Olerud have driven in 158 runs on the 1998 Cubs?
-
for the record, are you saying that Olerud would have driven in 158 runs on the 98 Cubs?
-
sorry for posting all those confusing numbers
-
Olerud was just as efficient at driving in runs with runners on 2nd or 3rd? Sosa: Man on 2nd: .837 OPS Man on 3rd: .525 OPS Man on 2nd & 3rd: 2.269 OPS Olerud: Man on 2nd: .950 OPS Man on 3rd: .377 OPS Man on 2nd & 3rd: 1.283 OPS are you ill? Sosa had 211 guys on 2nd or 3rd when he came up, he knocked in 56. Olerud had 202 guys on 2nd or 3rd when he came up, he knocked in 53. 26.5% Sosa 26.2% Olerud I am right....again. wait, wait. what was that i heard? "runs batted in?" but, but, that's a team stat! OPS is more important. that's what you told me! WHY ARE YOU LYING TO ME?
-
Olerud was just as efficient at driving in runs with runners on 2nd or 3rd? Sosa: Man on 2nd: .837 OPS Man on 3rd: .525 OPS Man on 2nd & 3rd: 2.269 OPS Olerud: Man on 2nd: .950 OPS Man on 3rd: .377 OPS Man on 2nd & 3rd: 1.283 OPS are you ill?
-
and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players. that's a little unfair why? even if it's an exaggeration (and I don't think it is), it makes the point that players are biased, and even ignorant, towards evaluation of players/stats/results. well it wasn't my argument.... either way, Sammy drove in 158 runs on a team with a .335 OBP while Olerud drove in 93 on a team with a .328 OBP. In other words, the frequency with which their teammates got on base was negligible, but Sammy made much better of it This is a stupid way to look at it. 1. You are actually rewarding Sosa for making outs. Sosa's low walk rate would lead to more outs with runners on. Olerud took walks. 2. You are rewarding Sosa and penalizing Olerud for the parks they played in. 3. Sosa had 13.3% more PAs w/ runners on base. 4. Sosa had over 50 more runners on when he came up. 5. Olerud was JUST as efficient as driving in runners from 2B and 3B as Sosa was. Sosa was obviously more efficient with runners on 1B due to the home runs, but one has to remember the walks. Sosa hit a bunch of HRs. Olerud did EVERYTHING else better. and you're penalizing Sosa for hitting with 50 more runners on that Olerud.
-
and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players. that's a little unfair why? even if it's an exaggeration (and I don't think it is), it makes the point that players are biased, and even ignorant, towards evaluation of players/stats/results. well it wasn't my argument.... either way, Sammy drove in 158 runs on a team with a .335 OBP while Olerud drove in 93 on a team with a .328 OBP. In other words, the frequency with which their teammates got on base was negligible, but Sammy made much better of it but "that's a little unfair" was your comment. why was it unfair? because eckstein and pierre didn't win the MVP that year
-
and i bet if you took a poll of major leaguers, they'd say juan pierre and david eckstein are good baseball players. that's a little unfair why? even if it's an exaggeration (and I don't think it is), it makes the point that players are biased, and even ignorant, towards evaluation of players/stats/results. well it wasn't my argument.... either way, Sammy drove in 158 runs on a team with a .335 OBP while Olerud drove in 93 on a team with a .328 OBP. In other words, the frequency with which their teammates got on base was negligible, but Sammy made much better of it
-
8/4 Mets(Maine) @ Cubs(Lilly) 2:55 P.M.(CT) FOX
Derwood replied to Skyballer's topic in Fred Hornkohl Game Thread Forum
flashchat = empty :(
