Jump to content
North Side Baseball

treebird

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    15,758

  • 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

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by treebird

  1. treebird
    neifi perez at -12 in 2002 seems like one of those numbers UZR needs to explain before i can get too excited about it.
  2. treebird
    i would probably have a heart attack if he were able to achieve an ops over 1.000 against lefties this season. it was only 139 pa's. it would be maybe the 15th most shocking thing to happen next year.
  3. treebird
    omg yes this thread is awesome
  4. treebird
    god i hate this
  5. treebird
    this means the payroll goes way up now, right?
  6. treebird
    In actual practice, of course they are, but in the context of the Hall of Fame, nobody has ever been elected because of their rate stats. For batters, voters have always looked at hits, home runs, rbi, runs, stolen bases and those type things. I'm not endorsing that method totally, but that's just the way it always has been. Given the entire history of the Hall of Fame and their criteria, Dawson is clearly AT LEAST a borderline candidate. if we're going to make arguments about "the way it always has been," we should probably stop acting so upset that santo can't make the cut. given the entire history of the hall of fame and their criteria, santo's not a guy who gets in. third baseman have always been underrepresented, guys who don't play in the playoffs don't get in, guys who don't win mvp's don't get in, and power hitters with 342 career home runs don't get in. i support santo's induction because he was a great player, not because of the bogus standards voters have used and continue to use. i'm against dawson because he wasn't a great player, not because he didn't quite meet the bogus standards voters have used and continue to use.
  7. treebird
    rate stats are better than counting stats. dawson is not a HOF. he was mostly just a nice guy to have around outside of his age 25-27 years, so long as you understood what you had in him and didn't try to act like he was a top ten player in the league in any given season. this is true of a lot of players, virtually none of which deserve to be in the hall of fame. i suppose this would be different if you could have that wonderful player that most dawson-for-hof types cite, the guy who didn't mess up his knees and could play great defense in center field. that man never lived, unfortunately, so his relevance to the conversation is limited.
  8. treebird
    what the hell is the joke here supposed to be
  9. treebird
    ibanez is only athletic in the sense that he is a professional athlete.
  10. treebird
    merrrrrrrrrrrge
  11. treebird
    QUOTE QUOTE QUOTE
  12. treebird
    how can you tell from the picture that she's independently wealthy and into lazy men in jean shorts? i'd really like to give this a high score but i just now saw that you're mocking me in your sig. it took you long enough. i was actually going to take it down since it'd been like a week and you'd never said anything.
  13. treebird
    how can you tell from the picture that she's independently wealthy and into lazy men in jean shorts?
  14. treebird
    hows about you just do that anyway ryan
  15. treebird
    It's not much of an upgrade, but it's a better bet going forward(one they'd pay for with the increased salary). hopefully the deal is dead as is sort of reported, but i had a conversation with my cardinal fan friend and said just this. it's a deal you make, because you don't think ludwick is going to have that season again, but it's hardly a huge marginal increase over what you had last season. if this is all you do, you're the same 82 win team you were last year.
  16. treebird
    more like bogus state
  17. treebird
    you "can't shake the feeling" that you're not going to go 16-0? wow, step off that ledge man.
  18. treebird
    i just keep reading this thread and getting more convinced thank you x's 2 to you mr. mb
  19. treebird
    i'm convinced
  20. treebird
    you think you're better than me just can you can use that word right?
  21. treebird
    We never got a final tally on yesterday did we? I'll go figure that out. never finished. the last i checked you were ahead of me by one win/loss but I was way ahead of you in predicting scores. do wins and losses matter in this or not 5.6 the new scale only goes to 6 i forgot to tell you 2.1 i'll leave the math to meph but i think that would actually make it a 3.4 0.0
  22. treebird
    We never got a final tally on yesterday did we? I'll go figure that out. never finished. the last i checked you were ahead of me by one win/loss but I was way ahead of you in predicting scores. do wins and losses matter in this or not 5.6 the new scale only goes to 6 i forgot to tell you 2.1
  23. treebird
    We never got a final tally on yesterday did we? I'll go figure that out. never finished. the last i checked you were ahead of me by one win/loss but I was way ahead of you in predicting scores. do wins and losses matter in this or not 5.6
  24. treebird
    hahahahahahah bollinger may not be the answer
  25. treebird
    this has been a really bad couple minutes
×
×
  • Create New...