hawkeyecub
-
Posts
7,102 -
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 hawkeyecub
-
Anyways, back to the original topic. SportsCenter has been doing this simulated season thing for the last week and a half which was a pretty cool idea. For those who didn't see it, they started with their pre-season rankings and then went through and picked out which games teams would lose and update the rankings each time. At the end of the year the top 10 went into a 10-team playoff with the bottom four teams playing their way into the quarterfinals. ND beat West Virginia and Louisville beat Miami. The quarterfinals were Texas vs. ND, Ohio State vs. FSU, Auburn vs. Iowa, Louisville vs. USC. They had Texas, OSU, Iowa and USC winning and advancing to the final four. Tonight they do the semifinals and tomorrow is the championship. Mark May has been big on Iowa the whole time and picked them to go 12-0, but Davis and Blackledge had them losing close games to OSU and Michigan.
-
Because those numbers don't mean much, especially in predicting the future. Where's the track record? What kind of history do most of those programs have? Pitt and Syracuse have arguably the best, but they're led by incompetent head coaches. What history do Cincy and UCONN have? Rutgers? South Florida? Nothing. People go with tradition in college football, because that's the way it is for the most part. Teams in power conferences can turn things around, but for multiple teams with no tradition or history to become a power isn't likely. You say recruiting will get better without a doubt. Why? I don't see any reason for that. It won't get better unless the teams win. They've already had that "We're moving to the hot, new Big East" angle to sell for the last 2-3 years. That stuff always works at first (see most new college basketball and football coaches) but wears off if you don't win.
-
People used to say that about the Big 10 with just Michigan and Ohio State. Once they added Penn State the dynamic changed. That's not entirely true. Michigan and OSU were the cream of the crop, several more were consistently solid. Northwestern just plain sucked. Who? Michigan St and Purdue were just 500 type teams and once in blue moon one of the other teams would have a good year. Northwestern was always horrible. I don't think the BE is that great of a conference but they only have 8 teams not 11 or 12 like every other power conference. If we actually got out of the basketball thing and added 4 teams I think it would be just as good or better than any in the country. Purdue wasn't up there during that time, but Iowa was while Illinois and MSU had some strong teams. Since Hayden arrived, Iowa has the 3rd best record in the Big Ten. Iowa went to 3 Rose Bowls from '82-'91. Illinois and Michigan State also got there once in that stretch, so for that decade, OSU and UM only made it half the time. Obviously they were and always have been the strength, but it wasn't like the '70's where it was one of those two every year. Then in the '90's you had Wisconsin making it 3 times, Northwestern once, Iowa once and Purdue in 2000. Then Wisconsin made it two years after Iowa's last appearance, the same season PSU joined the Big Ten. There was more balance in the league during the 80's and early '90's, even before PSU joined. Incidentally Hayden Fry is often credited with changing things in the Big Ten. In the 80's one of the big two made it half the time and it was the same in the '90's. The Big East won't be "as good as any conference" for a long, long time.
-
Jeter: .338/.415/.478 (.893 OPS) A-Rod: .285/.385/.503 (.889 OPS) Who saw that coming? Jeter is also 26/29 in stolen bases.
-
i hope he was joking. Wow, if he wasn't kidding, that reaches whole new levels of pathetic. Come on, you can't see the setting in which that was said? It was a feel-good moment, the family was elated and Rothschild walked by and said some kind words with a joke. I'm sure they all smiled and laughed.
-
How awesome is this. The kid just seems in awe. -
Mateo Bandwagon, plus Baker says something good for once...
hawkeyecub replied to Jehrico's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Mateo last started Aug 3, he was shifted to the BP and had a short outing Aug 10. Pulling him was the responsible thing to do, given his usage pattern leading up to this start. You can't have guys throwing 90-100 pitches on inconsistent basis. Exactly, it was the right move by Dusty. 78 pitches through 5 was the right time to pull him based on how he's been worked in the last two weeks and the fact that he was obviously going to get plunked. Plus it lets the kid feel good about himself and got a lot of respect in the clubhouse. All things considered, I thought Dusty did a pretty good job last night. -
That was the right move by Dusty. However I gave Novoa about a 10% chance of actually getting us out of it.
-
Yesterday Z hit someone and it seemed intentional. Clemens got Jones back today for that. Jones hits the home run in retaliation, then Mateo later hits Clemens in retaliation for Jones getting hit. Mateo then gets taken out after the inning, probably to avoid getting hit, and Clemens hits Theriot when he pinch hits. Both benches warned. Thanks. Right after I posted that they had the recap on the telecast.
-
So can anyone give me a quick synopsis of the fireworks earlier? I haven't been able to see or hear much but saw Clemens hit Theriot and heard Brenly say he really liked what Jones did (hitting the home run) and REALLY liked what Mateo did earlier. Anyone?
-
Add that to the pile. Of course, there's no way a GM can know something like that. But it's [expletive] to go after a FA full-bore and then just give up inches before the finish line-------which is how I interpret what happened. Hendry gave up inches before the finish line? No, he decided not to try to top Ned's insane offer. We already offered him more than he was worth. You can't just say that if you really go after a free agent, you have to top the best offer no matter what.
-
You're right, I forgot about Georgia. We were third in both polls, but I was thinking it was just USC that jumped us in the BCS.
-
No problem..yeah, I acutally looked it up about an hour ago. Iowa finished 5th I believe, and WSU was 6th..ND finished 9th that year, but couldn't get invited. You may be right on 1998 though-they finished with 9 wins, but they didn't finish in the top 15 of the BCS-I'm not sure what the eligibility requirements were back then, so I can't be sure if they were eligible or not that year. That was of course the first year of the BCS, so they might have changed some things from then (Wow-that was a while ago-that was the Jarious Jackson year if I'm remembering right when he got hurt on the last play against LSU right before USC). Iowa was 4th that year behind Miami, OSU and USC so they had the automatic bid. Also that year I think Washington State got the automatic bid to the Rose Bowl as Pac-10 champs. They tied with USC but beat them in the head-to-head meeting. So I believe Iowa and USC were locked in as the automatic at-large teams by finishing 3rd and 4th in the BCS. Iowa was 11-1, USC was 10-2 and Notre Dame was 10-2 but got destroyed by USC in the last game (thanks for handing Palmer the Heisman). They didn't have much of a case that year and I can't really remember a year where they were deserving but were left out.
-
Bo is right. Why do you say that? Notre Dame is annually rated the most popular team in the nation. It's not like they have to compete with the Wolverines for fans. Although I despise Michigan and want to see the series continued for rivalry purposes, ND isn't really getting much out of the series other than road money. He's right because of what goony and soccer said. Michigan plays in a conference that is annually one of the top 2-3 in the country. That means they always have a difficult conference schedule (with some very tough games on the road) and usually have one other solid non-conference game. When you play in a conference like the Big Ten, you don't run into a situation like Notre Dame last year where most of their big opponents had down years. Plus they have built in rivalries within the league. It helps them to have Notre Dame in many years, but they really don't need them as much as Notre Dame does.
-
Respectable to me is a very bad goal to set. Respectable reaks of mediocrity, and appreciating respectability is akin to accepting mediocrity. Even if they finish 82-80, what would be a strong finish, this season would be a disaster. You can't just judge a season based on how you play the last two months. Games in April, May and June count, even though the Cubs often downplay the risk of losing lots of them. A "respectable" finish to 2006 is only going to mean sustained mediocrity, which is going to keep this team locked into the cycle of mediocrity that has plagued them for so many years. I don't think anyone set that as a goal until that was the highest goal to set. This season has been a total disaster and will be a major failure unless we pull off an incredible run over the last 50 games. If they get to 81 wins it will have meant that they went 51-30 in the last half of the season. That doesn't mean the season isn't a failure and I agree with you that it shouldn't mean this season is viewed in a positive light or excuses anyone from blame. But it's pretty much the best possible result after an incredibly horrible two months. Most importantly it will mean that a lot of pieces we'll be counting on next year (Ramirez, Murton, Barrett, Zambrano, the young starters, the bullpen) likely played pretty well for about half of the season. That's important heading into next year where this team can win if the right moves are made. Plus I still watch/listen to most all of the games and it's a lot more enjoyable to see them play like they have for the last two weeks than they did in May and June.
-
Look at it this way, there are 50 games remaining. The Cubs would have to go 35-15 to get to 83-79 and have a slim chance. That's playing .700 ball for almost 1/3 of the season. Plus that would have to come on top of the 11 games we've won in our last 15. That means finishing the season 46-19. Possible, yes. But it's incredibly unlikely with this team. When you go 5-26 for a month, even playing .700 baseball for over 40% of the season (in a very down league) won't save you.
-
It was for a defensive superstar who drives in runs with his glove. Point taken...we can go round and round on this but won't. IF we can get a Loretta type at 2B I think this Izturis thing just might work out pretty well. There aren't many ground balls at Wrigley that are routine....see Pagan's double late in the game. There are funny hops out there...he's got the talent and the arm to stick with it and still make an out on a fast runner. I don't deny that he's defensively talented. The point of all of this is that he's not a flawless gem of a defender who makes up for his lack of offense with a great glove. He's more than likely better than most with his glove, but that's not good enough for a guy making what he makes in a lineup as bad as the Cubs. So which is it? Is he better than most or is he nothing more than your typical major league SS. You've said both in this thread. When the transaction was made you said you didn't think he was above average or anything special defensively. I will definitely not say that his defense makes up for his weak bat. But I think he is definitely one of the best defensive shortstops in the game based on his range, arm, footwork and instincts. Maybe that isn't proven in the stats, but I really don't put much stock in defensive statistics. Defense is one aspect of the game where scouting reports are probably the best measure in my opinion.
-
Everyone has turnover and I think you're really overestimating the holes in the defense. Obviously Greenway and Hodge will be tough to replace. But it's easier to break in two new linebackers with your entire d-line rotation returning than it is to break in a brand new 6-7 man d-line rotation with two linebackers returning. Humpal has been getting rave reviews by the coaching staff and I think Miles will benefit from being moved inside. I'm a little concerned about our MLB spot just because of everything Abdul brought to the table as a leader and captain of the defense. I'm glad that Gableman and Klinkenborg will have to compete to earn the job though. Allen and Johnson were 3-4 year starters, but I really don't think they'll be that difficult to replace, especially in our scheme. It's about as vanilla as it gets for a CB. Shada got plenty of time last year and both he and Godfrey are much bigger and more athletic than Antwan and Jovon. That doesn't mean they'll be better right away, but I don't expect much if any dropoff. As far as the DT's, Kroul, King and Bain were monsters in the second half of last year. I don't think I've ever seen any of our lineman on either side regress after another year under Doyle. The biggest thing is that we'll be much better up front on both sides AND the schedule. Getting ISU, OSU, Wisconsin at home is big. The only Big Ten road game I'm concerned about this year is Michigan. Saw this today from Mandel at SI: "∙ A year ago, Michigan began the season ranked fourth, Iowa 10th. Following disappointing 7-5 seasons, the Big Ten pair checks in at a more modest 15th and 17th, respectively. But the ironic thing is, they both have better-looking squads (at least on paper) going into this season than they did last year."
-
I don't think he's saying that they "must" be power guys. But like he said when it's one of the two easiest positions to play, it's a good spot to stash a big bat who isn't great in the field. It's a lot easier to fill that spot with someone of that ilk as opposed to finding a Soriano or Tejada. There just aren't that many SS, 2B, CF, C who have major power to make up for that below-average power in LF. I agree with what you're saying, it's just easier said than done. I'm not a huge Carlos Lee guy either, but he's likely the easiest to acquire out of that group and will add some much needed power. I don't see Soriano wanting to come to Chicago and if he does it won't be at 2B. He's terrible at 2B and that doesn't fit in with Hendry's ideas. Tejada would be great but he's going to cost much more than he's worth especially if he can't stay at SS.
-
He's actually close to the pace I thought was most likely for him in his rookie year. He's maintained a respectable average and OBP, and has struggled with SLG. But people need to remember he only had a .451 SLG in the minors. He is probably on pace to be a solid major league contributor, and at his cost, there's no reason he can't be in a contender's lineup next year. His OBP is going to be well above average, and his SLG is probably going to improve. While he might still be nothing more than a 790-800 OPS guy next season, even with improvement, that will be anchored by the more important OBP. Agreed but I expected a little more SLG out of him this year. Before the year I was hoping to get/predicted .285/.350/.420. Until his 4 doubles yesterday he was below .390 in the SLG department. Both Pierre and Neifi had higher IsoP than he did. It's fine if you're going to be a high-OBP, doubles hitter rather than a pure slugger. But if that's the case you need to have more than 10 doubles through your first 280 AB's.
-
Ohio State and Texas are 1 and 2, Notre Dame and USC are tied for 3rd and OU (presumably before the Bomar suspension) is 5th. In the Big Ten Michigan is 15, Iowa is 17, Penn State 19. All in all not too much to complain about. It's pretty much in line with what you would expect. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-08-03-top-25-capsules_x.htm
-
I don't see it happening but it would be nuts to have catchers with the batting title in both leagues. Has that ever happened in the modern era?
-
I'm a big fan of Murton's also, but I don't see any way he can be in the lineup next year unless he learns to play CF or has a major power surge.
-
Byrnes for CF in '07?
hawkeyecub replied to hawkeyecub's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Even if he's out-produced him in 2/3 years and would likely come at a much cheaper cost and for fewer years? Not saying he's a #1 option, just throwing it out there for discussion. The big wild card is that I have no idea how his defense has been in CF. -
Not to change the topic, but isn't it incredible that his average increased this year 31 and 36 points from his previous two seasons, yet his OBP remained the same as '04 and dropped from last year?
