Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Hairyducked Idiot

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    39,504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

 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 Hairyducked Idiot

  1. The spread offense wouldn't work in the pros for the same reason the option doesn't work. The defenses are too fast. The spread is about exploiting the fact that the defense isn't fast enough to cover sideline to sideline, they must leave gaps. That's not true at the NFL level.
  2. The fairest way would be to change the laws to allow the Cubs to sell the tickets free-market auction style.
  3. As always, the solution to this is to get rid of the ridiculous concept and implementation of the error.
  4. But my point is, it's not. The 2008 Cubs are not a completely independent scenario. They are shaped by the management staff of previous years' Cubs, as well as Cubs players who were on previous teams. Perhaps there is something about the types of players Hendry prefers that causes them to be so unsuccessful in late-season sitautions? I'm not saying it's certain, but I'm saying pretending that every single season's edition of the Cubs is an independent run is wrong.
  5. This is still the same management team that put together 2004's collapse, 2003's 3-game collapse and 2007's sweep. Why is it unassailable truth that those were all coincidences?
  6. 6-28, what is this, tennis? :D) Maybe the Bears should go to a spread offense since they have had so many problems with finding a QB, I'd like to see how it would work in the pros. First order of business there would be to fire Turner, because he wouldn't run it. That would be a good start no matter what offense you would want to run. I can't say I'd be upset. I'm trying to keep expectations low on this one. If we lose but keep it close I will focus on the positives from the game, because I feel like there will be positives to talk about if we are competitive. You'd rather go 6-10 than 2-14? Given the cost/benefit of top picks, I'd say that's a defensible position.
  7. So because Alex Gonzalez booted a ground ball and the same people who picked Alex Gonzalez also picked the players on this team...by God you're right! We didn't lose the 2003 NLCS because Alex Gonzalez booted a ground ball. We lost the 2003 NLCS because the Marlins won four games out of seven. You are intentionally obfuscating the point when you focus on a single play. The Cubs haven't failed to win a pennant in 63 years because of a single play, they've failed to win because of a large number of events that make up a sample size large enough to draw the conclusion that it may not have been a coincidence.
  8. +1 Given the difference our home and road records this season, pretending the two have no connection seems odd to me.
  9. He's been the third-best pitcher, but our best hope for the postseason was that we had three great pitchers. Not our only hope, to be sure, but our best.
  10. Yea, that really means nothing in terms of the 2008 Cubs. Hell, the 2005 White Sox have nothing to do with the 2008 Cubs either, for that matter, but people need to find comfort in different ways. That's cool. I'm still not convinced that empirically means nothing. The 2008 Cubs are not a completely independent event. They have connections to past teams. 2003 and 2004 Cubs, for example, were chosen by the same men who chose the 2008 Cubs.
  11. I honestly can't believe how many of you people are taking this guy seriously. He seems like the classic jerk who would make a scene, then come back with a completely different version of events that paint him as the victim. He's the guy who gets a DUI and then swears the cops illegally followed him out of the bar, verbally abused him, fudged with the breathalyzer and did all kinds of other mean things. He may even be narcissistic and self-deluding enough to believe his own story at this point, but I don't believe a word of it.
  12. Run differential. End of discussion.
  13. They can't possibly lose six pennant-clinching games in a row. Good thing 1984 and 2003's inferior teams don't effect this year's standings. I know. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
  14. They can't possibly lose six pennant-clinching games in a row.
  15. That's the beauty of the NFL. You can add 2-4 wins just through lucky bounces (*cough*2001 Bears*cough), and you can add another 2-4 just from staying healthy if everyone else gets hurt. So if the Bears are lucky, I don't see why they can't win 10+ games. They could easily lose 13+ as well.
  16. :banghead:
  17. Utterly impossible. I have on good authority that he's a horse.
  18. "Really? I mean I expect it to obviously be a huge losing record, but only 2 wins all year seems low." Nope, pretty standard. Intuition vastly overestimates how easy it is to come back late.
  19. It's unbelievable in the sense that I don't believe the guy's story.
  20. By my quick, depressing math, 100-win teams are 8-8 in playoff series since 2000. This includes just 1-3 vs. teams with 89 wins or fewer.
  21. They hate us because we are an opposing team, no more no less. The rest is just rationalization.
  22. Yes, Zambrano to No. 3. I want Dempster with a home game, and Harden is our No. 1 if healthy without a doubt.
  23. I'm sure Dempster would be an A. It's more about playing time than performance.
  24. Although gymnastics is an extreme example, many women's sports don't have quite the same age curve as men. It's uncanny how often, around here, the local fans will get whipped up over some freshman softball or track-and-field star and dream of domination when she gets older, only to find out she peaked at 15.
×
×
  • Create New...