cubbieinexile

They won the tight ballgames because they were not scoring 5 runs they were scoring 2 or 3. Fortunately for them their pitcihng allowed them to win 3-2 instead of losing 5-3.

Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it. There are owners that are better then the Tribune, that is true. But there are lots and lots of owners that are a lot worse then the Tribune

$32.00 for a book isn't too outrageous. Especially since a brand new book would cost you around 25.00

The player who have done the best in RBI opps: Name RBI ERBI RPRO ParkF ER/P RP/P RPRW Barry Bonds 1843 1053.0 790.0 .974 1025.8 817.2 90.4 Hank Aaron 1594 937.0 657.0 1.012 948.1 645.9 79.5 Willie Stargell 1492 902.6 589.4 1.002 904.4 587.6 72.6 Willie McCovey 1518 952.7 565.3 .993 946.4 571.6 70.8 Mark McGwire 1414 809.4 604.6 .966 782.2 631.8 66.5 Reggie Jackson 1702 1189.5 512.5 .966 1149.1 552.9 65.7 Harmon Killebrew 1448 891.7 556.3 1.038 925.8 522.2 64.4 Mike Schmidt 1595 1029.2 565.8 1.036 1065.8 529.2 64.1 Frank Robinson 1444 950.7 493.3 1.000 951.2 492.8 60.3 Eddie Murray 1917 1459.6 457.4 .978 1427.1 489.9 55.5 Willie Mays 1194 744.0 450.0 .994 739.3 454.7 55.2 Sammy Sosa 1530 1037.6 492.4 1.003 1040.6 489.4 52.1 Billy Williams 1465 986.4 478.6 1.065 1050.4 414.6 51.7 Dick Allen 1119 708.3 410.7 1.008 713.7 405.3 51.7 Jeff Bagwell 1510 1045.3 464.7 .987 1032.2 477.8 51.6 Frank Howard 1111 724.6 386.4 .982 711.3 399.7 50.0 Dave Winfield 1833 1445.0 388.0 .969 1399.8 433.2 49.9 Boog Powell 1187 806.6 380.4 .987 795.8 391.2 49.5 Ken Griffey 1444 955.8 488.2 1.015 970.6 473.4 48.0 Frank Thomas 1439 972.3 466.7 .998 970.3 468.7 47.2

yes, look on retrosheet

Take the book on the book and throw it away. The biggest disapointment for me since Rob Neyers lineup book. Is research on sac bunts is shoddy and too simplistic. He completely ignores the possibility of a third or fourth event happening in a Sac bunt. Merely looking at it from the angle of moving a runner over and an out or not moving the runner over and an out. Nor does he really look into from the view of different hitters and their style he simply looks at the averages. Which is a horrible horrible way to look at strategic decisions. It was an outdated book before it ever hit the printing machine.

Tom Tippett did some research on it. Generall speaking most people looked at from the MOB/out situation. Meaning whats the average amount runs scored with a man on first vs. a man on second with an additional out. So forth and so forth. Most people would add the other risks but in only in a suggestion form. Tippett looked into and found that the X factors like both the runner and hitter safe happened enough to skew the results making the issue less black and white then previously thought by some.

Get the encyclopedias. Look into Baseball Prospectus Baseball Think Factory TangoTiger Read Bill James AS for the Hidden Game its a good book but it is old so pretty much everything in that book can be found online nowadays in one form or another. The big gun of that book was linear weights which is everywhere online nowadays.

Well if small ball is getting on base they did a piss-poor job of it. They ranked 11th in the 14 team AL in OBP and 11th in batting average. Their small ball amounted to Scott Podsednik. When and if he got on he would either steal second or get moved to second through some kind of event, and then the 3-4-5 hitter would hit a homer or some kind of hit to knock him in. The rest of the team is not small ball.

The Sox outscored the Cubs because of the DH. Secondly the Cubs were shutout 8 times, the Sox with their DH were shutout 7 times. The Sox scored 2 runs or less 49 times, the Cubs did that 46 times. The sox didn't win because of small ball, hell most of the time they didn't even play small ball. They won because of their pitching and they lost most of the time because of their anemic hitting.

SID BREAM!

What change in philosphy? Getting players like Prior, Zambrano, ARam, and barrett is a bad philsophy? The Cubs way of doing thing isn't broke, its hurt but it isn't dead. It needs to be tweaked not a system wide change. They have the youth and they need to play it more. That isn't a change in philosphy but a tweak. Signing Furcal or Giles would not be a system wide philosphy change.

From the first post in that link: It will certainly be interesting to see where the White Sox go from here. Very rarely does one see a successful team have less of a clue as to how they became successful than the White sox of this season. They hit 200 home runs, have a below-average offense and think they're a successful offense that scraps out runs. The top 3 offensive teams barely stole more bases combined than the White Sox yet all got more out of their stolen bases since they got caught so much less.

What I am talking about is this crap comparison people are making because the Sox are in the series. Sox haven't done anything new or different or unusual. Looking back at this team nobody is going to learn anything they didn't already know about building a team. Building a team is about long range success except for certain case of course and we have no idea how well this team will do yet. I have a feeling that this team fluked into a good situation this year. One that will be hard pressed to duplicate year in year out. The Sox won this year with very good pitching and plugging of holes on the offense the Cubs did that in 2003 and won games they did that in 2004 and won games. This year certain restraints and injuries cost them dearly. The author says the Cubs should look to the southside and follow their lead, but looking to the southside their is nothing to follow. What should the Cubs do? Build a good pitching staff? Well gee golly the Cubs are trying to do that, and in terms of arms they have better ones then the Sox. Plug holes in the hitters? Well gee golly that was why Barrett, Lee, ARam, Walker, and Nomar were there. Develop the hitters? Neither the Sox or the Cubs have done that great of a job doing that recently so what exactly is ther for the Cubs to follow. They are doing what the Sox are doing. Should the Cubs really be going out and finding players that are similar to Dye and Everett? Should they trade away Barrett and get lesser catcher like AJ? The Sox built an offense that was more pathetic then the Cubs this year. that should be emulated?

So how are they different then say the 2003 Cubs? Why are they the shining example? The cubs went out and got pitching, they also developed it. They also let unknowns pitch in close games. They were not afraid to go in a different direction. They went out and traded away the young position players of the future for good players right now. The 2003 Cubs were 5 outs away from being a shining example to the White Sox on how to build a team. They were progressive in their building. They went and got Alou for left, tried to let Patterson develop in center (much like Rowand), had Sosa in Right. Tried to let Choi develop, replaced Hundley for Miller who was a better defensive catcher and then got Barrett the next year. Traded for ARam at third. Traded away Hill when they needed holes to fill and then got good production from Grudz and then Walker. Lets see the Sox got a new LF'er. The Cubs did that as well in Alou. The Sox got a new catcher to replace a bad one. The Cubs did that as well. The Sox are developing a CF'er. The Cubs are too. The Sox got a new SS, so did the Cubs one that if healthy is much better then the Sox SS. The Sox got a 2B with a decent glove and some pop. The Cubs did too. The Sox have a slugging first basemen. The Cubs have a much better one. The Sox got an average right fielder to replace a questionable once great. So did the Cubs. The Sox are developing a 3Bman with a good glove but questionable glove. The Cubs have the opposite. So out of the positional players the Cubs and Sox are pretty much thinking along the exact same lines, and for the most part they think alike when it comes to pitching. The difference? Injuries. The Cubs positional players and pitchers cannot stay healthy. Injuries to Sosa, Walker, Nomar, ARam, Choi, Patterson, Prior, Wood, Borowski and others have cost the Cubs wins. How many wins do the Cubs win in 2004 if ARam isn't gimpy, Sosa loses time, Walker loses time, and Wood and Prior. Does it amount to 10 wins? Perhaps it does.

How many SS are acquired not because of their glove? There are a very small handful of SS who can hit the rest can field. Picking up a light hitting SS is not thinking outside the box, its not going in a new direction, or shifting gears. Its doing basically what any other GM would do when trying to fill the SS spot. In terms of luck I am not talking about flipping a coin and having come out heads 99 times. I am talking about luck in taht several player come together at exactly the right time while your opponents fall apart at the right time. Is this a 99 win team if Garland and Contreras don't pitch like they did? No it isn't. Could we put this offense in the NL and put a Cubs jersey on them and have them win 99 games? Nope. The White Sox are a team that if they had to play in the NL and without a DH would have scored less runs then the Cubs did. The Sox DH were worth 14.4 runs per 100 PA while the Cubs #9 hitters (to include the PH as well and not just the pitchers) were worth 6.5 runs per 100. This isn't a team that did something in a new way. They built their team on pitching (which they have done for a very long time, quick name the best slugger before Frank) and hitting home runs. That isn't something new or radically different then what they were doing before. The difference is that this year their pitching was much much better then the last few years.

Yeah they improved but one they didn't rethink anything. Did they get Dye for his defense? No. Did they get AJ for his defense? NO Did they get Everett for his defense? No. Did they get Scotty for his defense? Sort of, though he was never considered a great defender in CF, they probably felt his move to LF would make him a better then average LF'er. But they got Scotty because of his lead-off role. Whats that leave? The middle infielders and pretty much everybody tries to put good defensive players there. Its a departure for the Sox in that they had Valentin there who while he got a bad rap wasn't a bad defender. But he got old and his bat declined forcing a move. this team isn't revamped, and if Frank stays healthy from start to finish the team looks even less revamped. The sox got improvement from their pitching staff, and they got it from places most people didn't think they would get it. Contreras and Garland. Well if Wood stays healthy and Maddux has a bounce back year then the Cubs look exactly like the Sox this year. If you want to believe the Cubs need to revamp that is fine but writing an article and using the Sox as evidence is faulty. The Sox got lucky and doing anything based on the Sox decisions means the cubs will have to rely on luck to win season to season.

He says the white sox thought outside the box and how is getting a speedy CF'er (who they move to LF) thinking outside the box? Was he batting 6th, was he not running before they got him? No. They wanted somebody with speed to lead-off. They go and get the stereotypical lead-off hitter to fill that need. They went and got Lou Brock. Oh and has the author forgot about Borowski when making his Bobby Jenks digs?

Its all bull about the White Sox. They didn't completely revamp the team. Its a team full of sluggers with one addition they now have a speedy guy at lead-off who likes to steal. thats it, thats the big change. The Sox have always tried to have a good pitching staff. What they did this year was nothing radical. They did get lucky in that Contreras either lived up to his expectations finally or he had a fluky season. c: Brought over AJ and it had nothing to do with defense. He was supposed to bring his bat to make up for his poor glove. He had neither in 2005 1B: Paul Konerko. No changes, same guy that has been there since 1999. 2nd good year in a row after his horrible slump. 2B: Iguchi. Came over this year. Good bat for a second base, nothing special with the glove. 3B: Joe Crede. Been here since before Guillen, a porous bat with some pop. Is good with the glove. SS: Juan Uribe. His bat went missing this year or I should say his bat was found last year but misplaced again. Was good with the glove, though he still makes an error now and then. RF: Dye, his pop came back this year, around average in the field. LF: Scotty: speedy guy with no pop and doesn't like to walk. Good year with the glove CF: Rowand, the fielder they have been trying to install now in center for years. Bat took a step back this year a good glove. They bring in Dye, Scotty, Uribe, Iguchi, and AJ. Only two of them have any real defensive value. Its all a bunch of hooey, it was lightning in a bottle. This for the most part is the same kind of team that went to the playoffs in 2000, had its run in the early 90's and went to the playoffs in 1983.

My case for Davey Johnson: I like Davey Johnson because he has proven he can take a young team or a veteran team to the playoffs. He has done it for the Orioles, Mets, and Cincinnati, and he probably would have done it for LA if it hadn't been for that nut of a GM Malone. The guy is versatile he can be given a variety of styles and make it work. Dierker because he can handle a pitching staff has shown a willingness to play youth and let them develop at the major league level. Dierker is like LaRussa without the ego.

Oh and before the season if I recall my biggest choices for the Cubs manager were: Davey Johnson Larry Dierker and there were I think one or two more but I forgot who they were now.

Never really thought about Dusty before the World Series. up until that point he was off in SanFran with another division so it really didn't matter. Before the Series I never thought anything like wow that Dusty is great or that Dusty is a terrible manager. During the 2002 splayoffs it became clear to me that I most certainly do not want this guy managing the Cubs. He had a terrible bench and he kept using them! All they did was strikeout pathetically every time it seemed. And of course Dusty became the hot prospect for management of the Cubs so I looked more into him, and the more I saw the less I liked. I was against Dusty's hiring when it happened, I was agaisnt when he was riding high in 2003, I was against when he "improved" the Cubs in 2004, and I am against now.

Pretty much all of those names are of people are soldiers for organizations. And the ones that are not became GM's and another one got cancer.

wrote this a few years back

Little Caesars is cheap and crappy. Giordano's is crappy and more expensive then Caesars.