Hairyducked Idiot
-
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
-
Well, that *is* fun, but things are pretty great right now so I have to pursue other avenues.
-
Jake Arrieta, Addison Russell, Kris Bryant, Joe Maddon's player usage, the organizational philosophy of elite hitting and pitching from every possible source.
-
I'm not enjoying this last week of baseball though. Bored now, playoffs please.
-
I've always been more negative than the average fan, yes. That's a good thing. Edit: If you go back to like 2002 I went by IvyEmpire and was convinced that we were going to be awesome forever thanks to Jim Hendry's farm system. OK. Cool. It just seems like nothing is ever good in your eyes and you can't enjoy or have fun. But I'm a scaredy cat when it comes to my team, so I have issues as well. Well, that's just silly. Of course I have fun. And I'm positive on plenty of things. They just tend to provoke less discussion than the negative ones.
-
I've always been more negative than the average fan, yes. That's a good thing. Edit: If you go back to like 2002 I went by IvyEmpire and was convinced that we were going to be awesome forever thanks to Jim Hendry's farm system.
-
No, it's because they were aggressively, stupidly wrong. Not because they disagreed with whoever you autistic lifeless goon I'm just mad none of my tweets ended up on the site.
-
Sure. But the only reason it's fun to laugh at *them* and not the millions of other idiots is because they disagreed with you on a specific subject. Just like the only reason it's fun to post stats stripped of context is because they vaguely allude to a real point I like to argue.
-
a little view into how you actually work Sure. But I'm not that different from anyone else in that regard. Sometimes we like nuanced, interesting discussion. Sometimes we like to take cheap shots, like for example finding a bunch of idiotic tweets and posting them even though it doesn't really mean anything or pointing out factual but only partially relevant statements.
-
If they lose the play-in game, I'm still totally going to bring up the "haven't won a playoff game in X" stat even though it doesn't mean anything.
-
Even if we're playing the stupid "they chose not to try so it doesn't count" game for 2012, they spent a crap-ton of money going into 2013 and were trying to win baseball games.
-
And I knew that when I saw the Front Office thread bumped, it would be somebody crowing over how could we have ever doubted the man who has led the Cubs to one playoff appearance in four tries.
-
-
Why shouldn't Pirates hitters be worried about Arrieta getting more looks at them?
-
k, my bad
-
I think there's a bit of survivorship bias. You remember the Rizzos a lot more than you do the Brett Jacksons. Most 22-year-olds who suck continue to suck.
-
Fair point. I'll withdraw the Soler comparison until he stops BABIPing .370.
-
Which again leads us to the question: Is Javier Baez having a high bated-ball velocity in the short-term indicative of him having one in the long term? The problem with treating it like other peripherals is that we *know* the other ones stabilize quickly. We don't know that about velocity, but some fans want to act like we do. We had this *exact* argument about Jorge Soler in April, and he turned into a total pumpkin.
-
Some of them are going to turn into fly balls, some of them are going to turn into ground balls. The *only* peripheral that isn't bad is velocity, afaict. I don't completely dismiss velocity. I just don't think the evidence is there yet to use it the way people want to use it. I need to see that it's highly predictive of itself in the future before I care about it as much as many.
-
Yes, I know. I'm simply saying his high BABIP right now is a function of that astronomical line drive%. He's probably going to hit more fly balls and fewer line drives, which will lead to more power. That means: lower BABIP, but more balls leaving the park. I'm just saying that it's hard to fault him for the high BABIP, when a high BABIP is likely with his current batted-ball profile. I find it very easy to fault him. The line drives are not staying. They are positive variance, or if you prefer, luck. Like I said: You had to reference against his completely awful 2014 in order to make it encouraging. His peripherals are bad and he's being propped up by luck. Sure, it's better than his historically awful 2014, but he's still playing like a bad player.
-
LD% and BABIP are frequently measuring the same kind of variance. There's basically a huge amount of luck that goes into quality of contact. I'm fine with too small to judge, but I don't think you can call what he's done encouraging, outside of the extremely low standards set up by his extremely awful 2014.
-
I think you have to give Baez time to fine tune the new approach. It's clearly something new for him this year, and he had less than 400 PA combined with all the other stuff he went through. The good news is the current version of Baez with a .310ish wOBA and average or better defense is basically Kolten Wong, so giving him that opportunity isn't exactly creating a black hole in the lineup either. He's needed a .395 BABIP to get that .307 wOBA. (cue the arguments that he's a high-BABIP player or whatever is said every single time a player we like has a high BABIP).
-
The 2016 pitching looks thin regardless of what the problem has been this week, though Hammel sucking yet again doesn't help.
-
I have no direct explanation for it, and maybe it's just a coincidence, but he's done it four times now. 120ish innings he looks amazing, then he's poop for awhile. Yeah, it's odd. If anything though, the silver lining hopefully winds up seeing us grab 2 SP's this offseason and not just 1. I want something like 2012, where we grabbed a bunch of swing guys too, only with a top guy better than Edwin Jackson.
-
I have no direct explanation for it, and maybe it's just a coincidence, but he's done it four times now. 120ish innings he looks amazing, then he's poop for awhile.
-
I don't remember this discussion at all honestly. I just glanced at ERA's for him by month over his career(may be lazy of me, but I doubt the periphs are THAT much off). It doesn't seem like outside of last year(which was just a pathetic July that brought down his good August and September) and 2011, this is a true statement. He was also awesome for 118 innings in 2012 and then pretty bad in 2013 for the Orioles.