CubsWin

14 innings, 74 pages and counting. What are the odds this thread reaches triple digits?

:lol: :lol: :lol: I see where you are going with this...

Do you have an open window on standby just so you can type in the play and submit it as fast as possible? Fred's just that good. Let's leave it at that.

Good call. :wink:

What does that mean?

he's about the best option we have left. Dusty's saving Demp for when we take the lead ( in other words...forever) No kidding, the next 5 batters for the Cubs have a combined OBP around .260. Have fun stormin' the castle...

Then you're par for the course on a Cub's board. :wink: Yeah, I was going to say careful, Wolf, you are starting to sound like a Cubs fan. :lol:

Not quite...

TWalk, Ramirez and then the pitcher. Git 'er done.

Man, the Cubs have had Pujols number the last couple of games. You know what that means... Look out tomorrow. :cry:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Tomorrow against Mulder. :shock: :?Why the :shock: and the :? ? Isn't playing him against the lefty the right time to start him?

Tomorrow against Mulder.

That all depends on if the Cubs win or not. :wink: I don't think you can play for extras when you are two runs down. If you are tied, then yes, but first he had to get his team to tie it or take the lead, so...

Rolen who? Good job ARam. Let's...get...some...runs!

I kind of doubt it. I'd say he was more in the 96-98 range on his fastball, with the 102 pry being a glitch I'll take 96-98 though... So will I. Especially since he couldn't get out of the low 90s all of last year He has definitely bounced back from the whatever he had at SF in '04 that made them get rid of him. I like his chances regardless of what happens tonight.

I kind of doubt it. I'd say he was more in the 96-98 range on his fastball, with the 102 pry being a glitch I'll take 96-98 though...

abit late there bud yeah, Gameday...

Aaaand there went that...

Well, looking on the extreme bright side, the Cubs can at least now attempt a steal with Bynum on instead of Mabry. If they get a man with decent speed in scoring position, all it would take is a Pierre base hit to have a chance at scoring.

Yeah, that sucked. Not much coming up. Bynum, Pierre and Perez. Yikes.

Greenberg? I heard already... :( Wow, can anyone say Moonlight Graham?

No, only to provide the evidence that supports that he is those things. Saying that someone is stupid and irrational is a pretty difficult one to support. Wouldn't you agree? Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. Its difficult to know. And you might be right. But then again, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary as well. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he makes moves you disagree with and fail to understand and that you think he is a bad manager? Or don't you think that there is any evidence on the other side of your position? This is just another attempt to tell people to stop criticizing the Cubs. Who cares if I say he's an idiot, or that I think he's an idiot but am not completely positive since I don't have all the details? Your request is completely irrational and unwarrented. This is a message board. We are fans. There's nothing wrong with fans calling their manager an idiot when they see him make the same mistakes over and over. I'm going to call Dusty an idiot for doing all the same stupid stuff over and over. I know he's a bad manager. I understand the moves he makes, and I know they are the wrong ones and that he uses the wrong methodology to make those moves. I, nor anybody else, don't need to support my claims that he is stupid and irrational by listing all the reasons why I think he is everytime I make the claim. Dusty Baker is exactly the wrong manager for the Cubs, he has been all along. The sooner people just wake up and admit that fact the better. Okay, don't consider all the evidence. I don't care. It only weakens your argument, not mine. And clearly, you don't understand what my argument is. My post was an attempt to tell people to stop criticizing the Cubs?!? Did you even read it? What a joke. For like the 4th time this thread, I'm saying criticize away, or for that matter praise away, but if you want people to consider it valid, then it should at least hold up under scrutiny. Under scrutiny, I believe there is a very good argument for Baker being a poor manager. I believe there is also a lot evidence supporting the contrary. I don't believe there is a good argument for Baker being stupid and irrational as a person. Some of his moves may accurately be called that. Does it sound like I'm trying to get people to stop criticizing the Cubs? Is that the best retort you got, Goony?

No, only to provide the evidence that supports that he is those things. Saying that someone is stupid and irrational is a pretty difficult one to support. Wouldn't you agree? Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. Its difficult to know. And you might be right. But then again, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary as well. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he makes moves you disagree with and fail to understand and that you think he is a bad manager? Or don't you think that there is any evidence on the other side of your position? When his decisions are consistently contrary to common sense and statistical probablilities, you have to look further than decision to decision analysis. The man makes the same mistakes over and over again, and the fallibility of those decisions is obvious to even the casual observer. Since these decisions have negative results the VAST majority of the time, yet are repeated ad nauseum, how long can you avoid questioning his thought processes and ability to properly analyze what he is seeing on the field? Honestly, when many of the moves he makes fly in the face of incontravertible logic, how can you insinuate that it is just a disagreement based on perception? When he puts low OBP guys at the top of the order, or consistenly plays guys who statistical production is abysmal over guys who are more productive, you can't say we just "don't agree" with his methodology. It's piss poor methodology, and that is NOT debatable. To the bolded part... If the guy consistently is making different decisions than that of the casual fan, we must first consider that it is because he is considering different factors than we are or weighting those factors differently. I bet he has some reasons for considering those different factors. So those reasons could be faulty or he could just be considering and seeing more factors than we are. If he is seeing and considering more things than we are, then what appears obvious to us, the casual observer, might not be so obvious to the guy making the decision. I'm not questioning that you have done due diligence and looked at the evidence before coming to your conclusion that Baker is simply a bad manager and that that point is beyond debate. But I am questioning the filters through which you have been experiencing that evidence. Many people read a quote of Baker's and see evidence for him being a poor manager while other read the same quote and see it as a benign statement that may have been poorly worded. Many people see him start a low OBP guy at the top of the order and not consider the other options that Baker has had to choose from. About the only other high OBP choices he has had to put at the top of the order have been Walker and Murton. I could create an argument for not playing them there. Can you? If you can, then we can't conclude that Baker's logic or methodology is "piss poor". So we must first understand and then compensate for that we often experience life through filters that color our experience of what is evidence for or against something. Don't we?

No, only to provide the evidence that supports that he is those things. Saying that someone is stupid and irrational is a pretty difficult one to support. Wouldn't you agree? Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. Its difficult to know. And you might be right. But then again, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary as well. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he makes moves you disagree with and fail to understand and that you think he is a bad manager? Or don't you think that there is any evidence on the other side of your position?