Jump to content
North Side Baseball

ChiCubsfan0502

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,025

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by ChiCubsfan0502

  1. ChiCubsfan0502
    Because in Basball, you fail far more then you succeed. If you at least have productive outs, where you are hitting the ball to the right side to move the runner to third with a man on second and no outs, you're chances of scoring have increased by giving an out for a base. All the next guy has to do is out the ball in play, rather to HAVE TO get a hit to score that run. The Cubs have been so bad in this area and it's costs them a lot of wins because of the inibility to play fundamental baseball. Brenly is all about fundamental baseball, which, IMO, translates to winning baseball.
  2. ChiCubsfan0502
    I never said he was one-dimensional. I said he was too reliant on small ball, something this team is nowhere near being equipped to pull off. The Cubs have had their most success over the last decade when they kept the "small ball" to a minimum. The "small ball" teams that win it all seem to never actually be about the small ball and actually win it due to power, timely hitting and great pitching. Well, Brenly would not be managing this team, so it really doesn't make any sense to say what he would do with this bunch.
  3. ChiCubsfan0502
    No need to be flippant. I thought this was a pretty tame and decent discussion going on. And it was an excellent way to point out the fallacy of assuming that small ball was responsible for the Diamondbacks' WS or their offensive output that year. No, an excellent way would be to tell me in detail why you hold your opinion. The moustache comment was flippant. It's an analogy. Why don't you and ChiCubsFan start detailing how small ball won the WS for the Diamondbacks? Didn't say it WON them the WS. I SAID that the offense was well balanced and efficient, thus shooting down the majority of the posters comments about Brenly being a one dimensional manager. How's that?
  4. ChiCubsfan0502
    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/photos/Bob-Brenly.jpg
  5. ChiCubsfan0502
    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. Well, if winning World Series isn't enough to convince you that something's being done right in a mangerial sense, what WOULD convince you? I think you're arguing just to argue at this point. A world series and factual statistics isn't enough for him.
  6. ChiCubsfan0502
    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. Yes, they most certainly do prove you wrong. Sorry, you don't score that many runs being a small ball team and if they scored that many using that tactic, it must work, no?
  7. ChiCubsfan0502
    Funny how the 01 D-Backs scored 818 runs (5.05 a game) with all that small ball. Sorry, the stats prove you wrong.
  8. ChiCubsfan0502
    That's 100% wrong.
  9. ChiCubsfan0502
    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?
  10. ChiCubsfan0502
    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.
  11. ChiCubsfan0502
    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.
  12. ChiCubsfan0502
    The 2001 D-Backs had 71 stolen bases, with 71 sac bunts. They also had a good mix of power. To say Brenly would just sac bunt and hit and run just to do it is not accurate. He picks his spots and maximizes scoring chances, which is all you need to do with a good pitching staff. Edit: I should say his teams: "Cash in" when they have a chance to score. The Cubs have had so many 1st and 2nd no out situations this year that have turned into zero runs that it's laughable.
  13. ChiCubsfan0502
    Here is the 2001 D-Back roster by most starts: They had guys like Counsel and Durazo off the bench. They basically had a two man rotation and yet Brenly got them to the playoffs with a team that had a perfect balance of speed and power. So, what's wrong with Brenly? How about nothing at all. C Damian Miller (121) 1B Mark Grace (135) 2B Jay Bell (80) 3B Matt Williams (102) SS Tony Womack (118) LF Luis Gonzalez (161) CF Steve Finley (131) RF Reggie Sanders (119) SP Brian Anderson SP Miguel Batista SP Robert Ellis SP Randy Johnson SP Curt Schilling RP Troy Brohawn RP Mike Morgan RP Bret Prinz RP Erik Sabel RP Greg Swindell CL Byung-Hyun Kim
  14. ChiCubsfan0502
    http://www.nozze-in.com/album/sport/immagini/TN_Bob_Brenly.JPG "Time for the hit and run". I like Brenly and I hope they give him a shot after Lou resigns after this year.
  15. ChiCubsfan0502
    And you just assume the players Brenly would want (which aren't necessarily anyone they could get) would be good? Not hard to best the group of bums he just mentioned. I think Brenly is very baseball smart and he certainly knows what the expectations are here. After the ownership issue is settled, I'd can Lou and give Bob a chance. Well, you clearly just have an old school way of looking at things that favors giving away outs. For years the Cubs have been built to slug the ball at the expense of being a smart and fundamentally sound team. I want a smart team that can move a runner from second to third with no one out, rather then a slugger who swings for the fences and pops up or grounds to short in that situation. Obviously, you need some power in the mix, but this team, like the majority of the teams we've been graced with over the years, doesn't know how to play the game.
  16. ChiCubsfan0502
    And you just assume the players Brenly would want (which aren't necessarily anyone they could get) would be good? Not hard to best the group of bums he just mentioned. I think Brenly is very baseball smart and he certainly knows what the expectations are here. After the ownership issue is settled, I'd can Lou and give Bob a chance.
  17. ChiCubsfan0502
    Oh, you mean a manager who is aggressive and plays smart baseball? That's a problem? :scratch: Lots of sac bunts, steals, and hits and runs is not smart baseball. It's usually dumb baseball. Stealing bases and hit and running is dumb baseball? Hehe. Good one. Yes, I prefer the brand of Baseball we have seen for decades and decades. Bad fundamentals and slow, dumb sluggers. Throughout the Dusty years we had guys like Neifi Perez, Corey Patterson, Jose Macias, Freddie Bynum, Jerry Hairston, etc. playing the kind of baseball you're promoting. Last year was the first year in a while that we've been an OBP-heavy, patient team (maybe 2007 as well, though that was a bit of a transition year). Ok, you just picked some of the worst (And dumbest) players the Cubs have had in the last decade. I think Brenly would get the type of players he'd want, not the stiffs you just mentioned.
  18. ChiCubsfan0502
    Oh, you mean a manager who is aggressive and plays smart baseball? That's a problem? :scratch: It's also argued that all of that is giving away outs and playing for one run instead of the big inning. If we could score 4-5 runs a game on a consistent basis, we'd be in first. I'm sure Brenly could find a way to do just that. Lou is going through the motions out there.
  19. ChiCubsfan0502
    Oh, you mean a manager who is aggressive and plays smart baseball? That's a problem? :scratch: Lots of sac bunts, steals, and hits and runs is not smart baseball. It's usually dumb baseball. Stealing bases and hit and running is dumb baseball? Hehe. Good one. Yes, I prefer the brand of Baseball we have seen for decades and decades. Bad fundamentals and slow, dumb sluggers.
  20. ChiCubsfan0502
    Oh, you mean a manager who is aggressive and plays smart baseball? That's a problem? :scratch:
  21. ChiCubsfan0502
    It's one thing to do a major shakeup (DLing Soriano and playing Hoff instead, etc.) and doing a stupid shakeup (benching Fukudome for Fuld, calling up Taguchi, etc.). Benching Fukudome for Fuld is stupid? LOL! What's stupid is running a player out there who knocked in (Drum roll) THREE RUNS and hit less then .150 for the month. Now THAT'S stupid.
  22. ChiCubsfan0502
    The thing is, on paper, Hendry didnt put together a bad team, not this bad anyway. Granted, he over paid for these players, but they're still good players that should be scoring runs. Theres no point firing Hendry now, not until the off season anyway. Its not like firing him will undo the moves he made. I agree with this completely. Definitely. If Hendry is to be fired the time to do it is in the offseason. And I really hope to God that anyone who wants Lou fired seriously does not want Brenly to replace him. Mojo: Why not Brenly?
  23. ChiCubsfan0502
    http://www.chicagonow.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-static/support/assets_c/2009/05/IMG_1090-thumb-220x220-570.jpg"I'm available".
  24. ChiCubsfan0502
    Yes, the worst. Can you tell me a worse outfield making equal to, or more then 40M a year? Soriano: 18M Fukudome: 12M Bradley: 10M Absolutely the worst OF in MLB. http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/scorecard/01/24/brushback.cubs/hendry.jpg "But we feel that Bradley is the answer to the left side of the plate problems and we obviously feel Fukudome will rebound".
  25. ChiCubsfan0502
    That's really clever. btw, you sure do complain a lot. My bad. It's all sunshine and candy this year. Weeeeeeeeee!! :thumbsup:
×
×
  • Create New...