Jump to content
North Side Baseball

David

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    32,468

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 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 David

  1. David
    Whoops
  2. David
    I agree. I think 50 is looking somewhat realistic.
  3. David
    I really, really don't want to get my hopes up about having this same team - 1 Izturis & + 1 ARod next year.
  4. David
    So, how many different ways can Keith Olbermann's name be butchered in this thread? :)
  5. David
    Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all. ok, so what is the point? The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know. I love how everything someone says that they think someone will be terrible, someone else shows up to say that they "might not". Really geniuses? You're telling me that there's a chance he might be bad, and also a chance he might be good. Well, gee, that sounds, almost like every other player in baseball. Marquis last year was as bad as Pujols was good. If you start a thread about how Pujols is going to be great this year, I'm not going to come in the thread and say "Yeah, but he might be bad too! You dont know as much as you think you do!" Exactly.
  6. David
    Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all. ok, so what is the point? The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know. That's fine. I'll keep going with the most likely outcome over the most optimistic one. Predictions can't always be spot on. You should only go with the best conclusion you can come to based on the data available. The fact remains that there will be outliers and sometimes, the best prediction doesn't wind up being right. That doesn't make it a bad prediction. Looking at a prediction in hindsight is completely pointless.
  7. David
    :?: Expound.
  8. David
    Mark Mgrace
  9. David
    Sarcasm? Who, me? Never.
  10. David
    Irregardless is not modern English. It's just wrong. It's not slang, it's a mistake. Whoever says irregardless really means to say regardless. Morans.
  11. David
    Did the Braves trade him at the best possible moment or what? I think Javy will probably wind up on an AL team where he can DH. I don't think he's much of a catcher anymore. The Braves didn't trade him. They did let him go at the right time, though.
  12. David
    I get surprised by every picture I see of Marquis pitching. I always swear he's a left handed pitcher, he just seems like a lefty, ya know? Marquis reminds me of Estes, too. But it's got nothing to do with thinking that Marquis seems like a lefty.
  13. David
    Tons of pitchers lose velocity. Is there something I'm not getting here, or is Prior delusional. Yeah, I agree but he says this: I don't recall Prior be as low as 81 mph. That's probably because we didn't see nor hear anything about that. I do recall him being in the mid-80's in his minor league rehab starts, and just barely touching 90 in his first couple starts once he came up. It's encouraging as far as his velocity. Let's just hope he can locate better than he did last year and get his breaking stuff back.
  14. David
    You're right. He's a crappy baseball player who happens to be in the Major Leagues (much like Neifi Perez, Rey Rnez, and many others before them). And there's a reason why those men are playing "slow pitch" softball. Fixed.
  15. David
    Vance, I vehemently disagree. I concur, although, I have to admit, I am a little less worried about Prior because of Gooz's encouraging spring.
  16. David
    Well, either way. If Angel really can pitch the way he's shown he's capable of, it really will make anything from Prior gravy. I know people were saying that Prior's contributions would be gravy before Angel had really shown anything, but it just wasn't the case. We need another big starter to really make noise this year, and Gooz could be that guy.
  17. David
    Please elaborate. Why the guy would say anything that would even insinuate something like this is about a teammate is beyond me.
  18. David
    No, I was thinking that too. Thirded.
  19. David
    Were people expecting (or even hoping for) him to come into this game and dominate at 95 mph? All I wanted to see was improvement, and that first inning he pitched was definitely better than his last outing. His velocity and location both are better than last time. He's still topping off at 88-89, but he's working more consistently in the 87-88 range than the 85 or so we heard last time. Let's see how this next inning goes.
  20. David
    Here comes Mark...
  21. David
    Attack the post and not the poster, please. looool
  22. David
    Yes. That's the whole "feel good story" portion of this. ohh...I'm not really feeling it. To me he is just another idiot who had the world at his figertips but couldn't lay off the nose candy. Can't say I disagree at all. Still, it'd be nice to see if he can actually make the best out of a second chance, since most usually never do.
  23. David
    Yes. That's the whole "feel good story" portion of this.
  24. David
    Looks better without, IMO. Actually, looks really good without. The big text just looks out of place.
  25. David
    http://pressbox.mlb.com/pressbox/statistics/stats_06.jsp?content=chc_st06 Thanks, davhern. So keeping in mind that this isn't anything concrete and only just our first bit of available statistical information on the subject... Last spring the Cubs struckout 166 times and walked 87 through 31 games, about a 2:1 ratio. Through 10 games this spring, they have struckout 50 times and walked 38. So the early indications are good. Meaningless, but good. Although the samples are meaningless, I wouldn't approach the analysis that way. I wouldn't include strikeouts at all. 87 walks in 31 games = 2.81 BB/G 38 walks in 10 games = 3.80 BB/G A somewhat significant improvement, if not a significant sample size. Just for kicks, in 2006 over the regular season, the Cubs had 395 BB in 162 games, which comes out to 2.43 BB/G.. If the Cubs actually were to sustain their spring training walk rate (which I wouldn't count on, at all), they'd walk about 616 times over 162 games, which would've been good for 2nd in the NL last year, just behind Philly's 626 and just ahead of Cincy's 614. Again, though, take ST numbers with less than a grain of salt. I just figured it out for fun.
×
×
  • Create New...