So far we've looked at catchers, 1st basemen and 2nd basemen. 1st and 2nd base appear to be very weak for the 2012 Cubs and I can tell you before you read further that 3rd base is no different. The Cubs lost Aramis Ramirez to free agency who had been at 3rd since midway through the 2003 season. Before we move on to the projections for next year, let's take a look at what the Cubs won't be replacing.
With the exception of 2010, Ramirez was a very good performer for the Cubs. He was also remarkably consistent. In his half season with the Cubs in 2003 he had a .342 wOBA. He followed that with wOBA's of .396, .390, .381, .385, .384, .392, .321, and .373. With the exception of 2010, Ramirez consistently had a wOBA of about .380. Cubs fans like to think that Ramirez missed a lot of playing time, but that's not true. He averaged 136 games per season from 2003 through 2011. Take away 2009 when he dislocated his shoulder and he average more than 140 games per season. He'd probably have played more if the Cubs had considered moving him to 1st base. He hasn't been a good defender for a long time and I'm surprised the Brewers are even going to play Ramirez at 3rd.
Replacing the big shoes of Ramirez is Ian Stewart who was acquired by the Cubs for DJ LeMahieu and Tyler Colvin. Things didn't look as bad for Stewart as they do now when he first came up. He was a top prospect and reached the big leagues at the age of 22. From 2008 through 2010 he was roughly league average at the plate over 1236 plate appearances. It got real ugly last year when he managed an OPS+ of just 21.
Despite his numbers being average from 2008 through 2010, about 78% of his plate appearances have been vs righties. If he's going to play every day those numbers will be somewhat higher than that and as a result, his numbers will suffer. That's not a good thing because he's not expected to be very good in the first place.
| Projection | PA | H | HR | BB | SO | avg | obp | slg | wOBA |
| CAIRO | 338 | 67 | 12 | 36 | 87 | .225 | .314 | .401 | .316 |
| Guru | 271 | 55 | 9 | 26 | 64 | .229 | .308 | .403 | .312 |
| PECOTA | 527 | 113 | 20 | 52 | 143 | .238 | .319 | .424 | .322 |
| Oliver | 589 | 116 | 23 | 57 | 157 | .224 | .305 | .407 | .312 |
| Bill James | 265 | 59 | 10 | 26 | 65 | .247 | .328 | .444 | .332 |
| RotoChamp | 533 | 107 | 16 | 58 | 141 | .225 | .315 | .383 | .305 |
| Average | 420 | 86 | 15 | 42 | 109 | .231 | .315 | .410 | .317 |
I've used Jeff Baker as a back-up at 1st base because of how well he hits lefties and I've also used him for a few more PA at 2nd base. Baker can't play everywhere and he's another platoon option here. He can't platoon at both positions, but I don't really see anyone else on the roster other than him and Adrian Cardenas who would be a back-up. So until we learn more about who is backing up what position, I'm going to leave the back-up here blank. Stewart's projected batting WAR over 450 plate appearances would be 0.9 WAR. You can increase or decrease that based on your thoughts of his defensive skills.
I think 3B is where we’ll see most of Baker this year. There’s no other good candidate to back up 1b unless they try to put Soriano or Reed Johnson there, so they might as well have LaHair play but hit farther down the lineup. He’ll struggle against LHP but not as much as Stewart would.
Cardenas may not be a lock to make the team, but the reality is if he’s gonna be a useful big league player, he’s gonna have to figure out second base. He doesn’t have the glove for SS, or the bat for 3B/LF, so if he ever manages to get consistent ABs in the big leagues, it’s gonna be at 2B. The nice thing is, he’s a left-handed hitter who’s shown the ability to control the strike zone, which makes him perfectly suitable to take some of the ABs that would otherwise go to Darwin Barney.
I think it’s entirely possible that Baker will play a little bit of both 2B and 3B, but this much is for sure– regardless of where he plays, he absolutely must be in the lineup vs. LHP. As alarming as this is, when there’s a lefty on the mound, Baker is one of the only bright spots in the entire lineup.
Vs lefties the Cubs are pretty good. The CAIRO split projections have Soto best at .359 followed by Castro at .351 and Reed Johnson at .348. Soriano is at .341. Baker is at .337. They’re above average up and down the lineup vs lefties with the exception of 1st and 3rd base (two lefties).
Mercurial Outfielder wrote:
That image doesn’t display on an iPad, you probably haven’t got one.
I don’t look any older than Jamie Moyer.
@ mb21:
I meant to include a link: http://www.obstructedview.net/projections/platoon-splits-projections.html
http://vegaswatch.net/2012/02/2012-mlb-wins-overunders.html
McNutt thinks he could be compensation: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120220&content_id=26768372&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc&partnerId=rss_chc
I think this comment by McNutt just got him traded. Thoyer has mentioned several times they want guys who want to be Cubs and don’t want ones who don’t.
See ya later, McNutt.
@ mb21:
73.5 eh…I’ll take the under but I still think they hit 70 wins.
Rice Cube wrote:
I’ll be pleasantly surprised if they don’t lose 100.
I don’t think there was a player in baseball that had more deceiving hitting stats last season than Ramirez.
You can also add the first 2 months of 2011 as underperforming numbers for Ramirez. In April and May his wOBA was .333 .316 respectively. His ISO numbers for each month was .105 and .109. WOW, that’s horrible.
His RC+ was hovering around the league average for the 1st 2 months of the season as well.
His 6th HR of the season came on June 25th. The Cubs record by that point 31 – 46. Once the Cubs were well out of playoff contention, Ramirez went on a tear during the second half of the season and brought his numbers up.
Add that to his 2010 stats and I won’t even get into his 2007 and 2008 playoff numbers. Your middle of the order hitters (especially the well compensated ones) are expected to produce when the team needs them. I won’t miss his lack of production when needed and stats first attitude.
I’m glad that Ramirez has moved on.
Alex wrote:
Excuse me? I really don’t know how you deduce his attitude from any of that. And I find the idea that Ramirez was sitting there counting his stats silly beyond belief. I assume you don’t think that he has any idea when he’s going to hit and when he isn’t, and he just decides to start hitting after the team is out of contention. So, you’re saying that he’s “lazy” and isn’t really trying hard until the team’s out of contention? And this would make sense because why? Because it wouldn’t do his own career any good to be on a championship team? Because he’s so lazy he’d rather have that extra month off?
He hit well in some important situations, he hit poorly in some important situations. He hit well in some unimportant situations and he hit poorly in some unimportant ones. If you think this has more to do with attitude than physics then I think you’re dumber than a box of rocks.
Alex wrote:
Actually, I think they’re expected to be trying to produce all the time. If you have some kind of evidence that he wasn’t trying to produce when I counted, I’d love to see it. If you have any kind of proof that he or any other hitter just decides when to “go on a tear” I’d love to see that too.
@ Aisle424:
Funsucker.
@ Urk:
@ Urk:
I can’t argue with you today.
Alex wrote:
A few years of the likes of Ian Stewart, Josh Vitters, et al will make you remember the 5000 3b between Santo and Ramirez and you might change your tune. Letting Ramirez go was the right move but I’m more than happy with his years with the team.
Berselius wrote:
This. How quickly we forget.
Alex wrote:
A “stats-first attitude” happens to translate into a wonderful strategy in baseball.
@ Berselius:
Yeah, I totally agree that it was time for him to go. But I really enjoyed watching him play. And more than that, I just find that kind of after-the-fact deduction about his attitude deplorable. I mean, I’m the farthest thing from a math guy you will find on this blog, but I know that those stats aren’t telling us anything about his attitude. Seriously, if you could turn that shit on and off at will, why would you not turn it on when things are on the line? And, how would it benefit a “stats first” attitude to hit worse when the team is in contention? Those stats get counted too.
I think situations are different, hence why they do leverage splits to try to quantify “clutchiness,”
Ramirez’s OPS by situation:
Last year
High: .883
Medium: 871
Low: .864
Career
High: .897
Medium: .825
Low: .829
So that seems to refute the idea that Ramirez performed worse “when it counted.”
Aisle424 wrote:
I think you can’t really argue with the folks who think Ramirez performed worse “when they bothered to pay attention.”
Aisle424 wrote:
He had 25 bad postseason PAs. Done deal sealed.
Also, I direct you to this from last September
http://www.obstructedview.net/news-and-rumors/aramis-ramirez-and-performing-when-it-counts.html
@ GW:
Yep. Give me 25 stats first guys and I’ll show you a team a with the best record in baseball.
Alex wrote:
I can show you a list of dozens of well compensated middle of the order hitters who had a few a couple bad months in a season, a bad year or failed to get it done in the playoffs. Your argument is similar to those who think an ace gives his team a chance to win every game. No, they most certainly do not. An ace will have 5 or 6 pretty bad starts throughout a season. We like to think that the ace gives the team a chance. In fact, we believe it because most of the time they do. We believe the middle of the order hitters perform when it matters because we aren’t watching other teams. We aren’t paying attention to the middle of the order hitters who are in a 1-23 slump. We only read about the middle of the order hitter having a terrible June or 2nd half. We don’t watch it every day.
I could care less whether a player provides his value in April and May or June and July. Take a pitcher for example and let’s use wins and losses to keep things simple. If the pitcher is 0-6 after May and then goes 17-2 the rest of the way, he’s a combined 17-8. It’s the same thing as the pitcher who goes 6-0 in April and May and 11-8 after.
The stats clearly show that Ramirez produced in high leverage situations. That isn’t even refutable. It’s a matter of record that cannot be denied. You can choose to ignore it, but that doesn’t change the facts.
Alex wrote:
Clearly he was the problem with the 2011 Cubs. (dying laughing)
@ mb21:
I think you took the quote out of context. I read it as he said that since theo told him he might be on the move. I hope he stays.
I also might be incorrect in my reading.
@ Rice Cube:
No, you can’t refute it because the information disproving it so readily available that you can already be assured it has been ignored. If this was 1975 and we didn’t have access to stats I could understand it, but there are a dozen sites with stats. Every baseball fan who comments on a blog has used some or all of these databases.
@ bubblesdachimp:
Maybe, but it does appear that McNutt couldn’t care less where he plays, which I suspect is true of most ballplayers. This front office has made it clear they don’t want those guys. I expect McNutt will have to backtrack on his comments.
@ GBTS:
And you know what? Even if he was THE problem, why does nobody remember when he was THE answer? Sports fans are weird. So what if Ramirez struggled at some point? What about all the times he carried this team? Why are all of those times, which are far more numerous than the times he struggled, being ignored? That’s what pisses me off about it. What about the times he carried this team for months? What about the 2003 and 2007 Cubs who don’t make the playoffs without him? What about the 2008 Cubs who make it much closer without him?
@ mb21:
Yeah, it’s almost not worth it to argue with those kinds of people, but since I’m bored… (dying laughing)
@ Aisle424:
Isn’t that kind of a tackle illegal? I couldn’t tell in that jumble of legs but one set of them seemed to bend weird.
WOW!! I didn’t realize that this was a Aramis Ramirez fansite.
You guys have fun keeping up with him in Milwaukee. I hope it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy at night.
Alex wrote:
.
Alex wrote:
Alex wrote:
We tend to like the players that are good. We’re weird.
Rice Cube wrote:
It was the closest thing to a pile-on gang tackle that I could find.
@ Aisle424:
There’s a prominent screen in that gif…was this an arena football game?
@ Aisle424:
Ah…well done.
Alex wrote:
@ mb21:
Yeah.. A site full of minions that agree with everything you write.
I’m having so much fun I’m going to cut it to short. Later.
Alex wrote:
This is funny.
@ Alex:
If you actually think people here agree then you haven’t read anything. At all.
GBTS wrote:
I just saw this and I kind of wonder how his teammates did while he was “on” and “off” in 2011. I know for sure in 2009 that him being missing was a bad thing. He was hitting something ridiculous like .364/.420/ALOT before he hurt his shoulder. Then it was basically Derrek Lee carrying the offense most of the season. That’s another guy that is unappreciated…
edit: I should probably Google this (dying laughing)
mb21 wrote:
False.
Rice Cube wrote:
And Zambrano. And Sosa. It’s almost like Cubs fans don’t like good players. To them, we need more winners. MORE ECKSTEINS!
mb21 wrote:
Everyone is going to love the 2012 Cubs. An entire team built on scrap, hustle, and a bare minimum of actual talent.
Sveum is progressively unveiling MO’s levels of hell
@ GW:
I hope Tony Campana wins this competition because he will gain the skills he needs to actually be awesome.
Alex wrote:
Well, you could either assume that, or you could assume that what you said made little enough sense that a bunch of different people were capable of poking holes in it.
Its not about everybody agreeing, and its not about anyone’s undying love for Aramis Ramirez. Its about the fallacy of determining someone’s attitude based on when they hit baseballs and when they don’t. I apologize for saying you were dumber than a box of rocks-that’s uncivil and I shouldn’t have done that. But I just don’t see how you get from point A (the stats you cited) to point B (Ramirez has a bad attitude). Especially when there are statistics that show that overall he’s been better in important situations than unimportant ones. Its physics, not attitude. You try to hit the ball. No matter how good you are, sometimes it goes here, sometimes it goes there. Anyone who had the ability to control it the way you suggest would be wildly more famous and successful than Ramirez.
@ Alex:
Come by again next week and let us know how the windows on the short bus taste.
@ GW:
I’m going to pretend this is an article from The Onion and refrain from further comment.
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
No wonder Theo hated Moneyball. The scene about bunting was epic.
A bunting tournament? They must be really bored in AZ.
I wonder if MLB2K12 is going to have a bunting tournament.
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
Unfortunately, The Hobbit is not that clever.
@ Urk:
No problem @Urk.
I should have done a better job in articulating my thoughts on his attitude. I was referring to Ramirez’s retort to Todd Hollandsworth’s criticism of his effort last season. I wasn’t trying to imply that his attitude was bad overall. I should have made that clearer.
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
I’m assuming you already know the tastes and smells of a short bus. Have fun at school tomorrow.
@ Alex:
Sometime soon you’ve got to teach me how you type while you’re fucking yourself.
@ GW:
He obviously thought they said “runt contest,” and thought he was thereby assured of the win.
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
I’m not into that at all. But if you’re eager to learn, I’m sure there are plenty of websites that will show you how to do that. DIY.
Google it and have fun cupcake.
@ mb21:
I still haven’t figured out how to steal bases in 2k11…which I guess is a good thing because I haven’t actually TOOTBLANed yet.
Wish I had a PS3 so I could play The Show.
@ Alex:
But why consider his attitude based on what some hack said? The Cubs, for years, have said Ramirez has been a positive player in the clubhouse. Some hack says otherwise and all of a sudden it invalidates everything else? Isn’t it true that you want to believe that about him and that you’re more than willing to accept a minority opinion on him simply because it supports your own opinions?
I don’t know Ramirez. I don’t know his work ethic. I don’t know if he’s funny. I don’t know if he’s a piece of crap. I have no idea if he’s someone the rest of the team can’t stand. I don’t know if he smells. I don’t know any of that stuff. I could listen to 100 people who know Ramirez give their opinions on that stuff and you know what? Some will think he doesn’t try. Some will think he tries hard. Some will think he’s hilarious and some will think he’s not. Some will probably think he’s a piece of crap and some won’t. Some might think he smells. Who cares about that stuff? I can’t possibly know that information and I sure as hell am not going to trust Todd freaking Hollandsoworth.
You know what I do know? I know that he was a damn good player for the Cubs for nearly a decade. I know that he hit well in clutch situations. I know he was the best offensive player the team had over the last 9 years. I know every single year you could count on him to give you well above average offensive production. I know this because there is detailed information about it. I know exactly how well Ramirez hit each year. I know how well he hit in various situations. I can state many things about his performance as fact. I cannot state a single thing about his character and attitude as anything other than opinion.
Do I want the Cubs front office basing decisions on opinions or facts? Well, obviously I want them to do so largely based on fact. Why? Because they’re going to make better decisions.
@ mb21:
I’m referring to Ramirez’s response to Hollandsworth’s criticism. Hollandsworth’s opinion doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Ramirez could have let it go, but chose to minimize Hollandsworth’s career. Everyone knows Ramirez had better career numbers.
We can both pull out stats that will show Ramirez in a positive AND negative light. I know he’s hit well in some situations, but he laid an egg when it counted in 2007 and 2008. You can say other players played just as poorly in the playoffs those years, but we’re not talking about other players.
Theo and Jed looked at all the facts and numbers. The fact is that Ramirez wasn’t worth making the effort to keep. Your opinion is that he should still be around. Thankfully Theo and Jed don’t base their decisions on your opinion.
@ Alex:
I don’t think Ramirez’s postseason production mattered at all to the decision to let him go. One stat was more important than all others, and it was his age.
@ Berselius:
No doubt. I’m sure the projections show a decline in his numbers.
Alex wrote:
I’m not sure that anyone here thinks that, given his cost and the putrid lineup that would be surrounding him. Speaking for myself, I think:
a) it’s the right decision, given the org’s direction
b) letting him go does not mean what you think it means
c) the cubs are going to be horrible to watch, due in no small part to his absence
@ GW:
a) Agreed
b) I think the Cubs didn’t want to pay $16 Million next season for declining production.
c) The Cubs were horrible with Ramirez on the team last season. His presence wouldn’t have made that big a difference in 2012.
<Alex wrote:
It’s nice when not all your players are bad, though.
@ GW:
That’s true.. Hopefully we’ll start seeing improvement in the near future.
Gollum wrote:
Good to hear, Dave. Now we won’t have nightmares about Dahwin leading off. OT: Did the hobbit ask about Castro in particular to get a sound-bite? Does Castro have a designated place in the order on any team?
The entire 2008 season was actually a conspiracy perpetuated by Milton Bradley to convince Cubs fans that we were one left-handed bat away from contention. The way he manipulated players into playing well all season, only to call them right at the end and convince them to play like shit was Machiavellian. Truly masterful. That was all just so he could destroy the team and ruin the organization next year by throwing a ball into the stands with only two outs. Check. Mate.
I loved and hated Rami in turn as much as the next guy. A lot of it was tied up with how the team performed. That’s why looking at the numbers helps. When you follow a team every day, you see a guy come through, and you see him fail to come through so often, it can be difficult to remember how well he did, especially considering that for the best players in the game, they’re going to fail much more often than they succeed. I hated to see their loses in the postseason. To blame it on Ramirez is ludicrous. Certainly the Cubs aren’t the first team to reach the postseason with high expectations and lose. That’s why the best strategy is to get to the postseason as often as possible. Two times might not be enough to outperform random chance. It was unfortunate that the Cubs were built with a win-now attitude in that stretch that netted us a couple of awesome seasons and saddled us with overpriced players now. I wouldn’t trade 2007/08 for anything, but it would have been awesome to have a foundation built a decade ago that could be producing perennial contenders now. That’s never happened with the Cubs. It’s always been short term, win-now (or, more likely, don’t bother trying to win at all, just get one good player to put asses in the seats), going back as far as I can remember.
: Popped my head in last night:
:saw someone say aramis killed team in april:
:decided to come back in morning when bored at work:
Bubbles loved Aramis. The black hole of third basemen between him and Santo was pretty miserable. I remember the horrifying feeling of the likes of Orie, Coomer, Shane Andrews, Gaetti, Bellhorn, etc. Rammy was a damn good player.
Also i am sure i will get some negative faget points for this but I love the bunting game. I have no way to prove this, but I feel like the 2011 Cubs were the worst bunting team ever
Gordon Edes @GordonEdes Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Theo compensation deal ‘close,’ with Sox receiving one quality minor leaguer in return from Cubs, according to MLB source.
I hope it isnt McNutt but it seems that way. I hope it is Dolis and we can move right along
Alex wrote:
No, I have never said that. I am talking about his career with the Cubs. I didn’t want Ramirez to return any more than I wanted Matt Garza to return. It has nothing to do with talent level. And if you think Theo and Hoyer somehow agree with you in any way you are mistaken.
I know no one will probably care here BUT
HHH is fighting the Undertaker in a Hell in a Cell at Wrestlemania this year.. Going to be epic
bubblesdachimp wrote:
Dolis is on the 40-man roster so I’d be surprised at him. If the Cubs didn’t want to send McNutt to Boston they should have added him to the 40-man roster last fall.
@ bubblesdachimp:
(dying laughing) bubbles you truly are an interesting creature.
Loves:
‘cocks
dave matthews
tim tebow
cubs
SEC
various minor leaguers
talking in the 3rd person
and newly added to the list: wrestling
http://deadspin.com/5886723/the-making-of-homer-at-the-bat-the-episode-that-conquered-prime-time-20-years-ago-tonight
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
@ mb21:
Yea but dont we need to kick someone off the 40 for Concepcion anyway?
I could see it being Carpenter or Dolis. I would be cool with that.
I dont want to lose one of the only guys who has a chance to start
@ WaLi:
Grew up in Evanston, went to University of South Carolina and have been to 68 DMB shows (another 13 this year as of right now) while following the Cubs, Cubs minors, Bears, Bulls, WWE, religiously.
Pretty much Bubbles is the best.
@ bubblesdachimp:
bubbles’ favorite interest is Bubbles?
@ bubblesdachimp:
60202 or 60201?
@ Suburban kid:
I think 60201… Not sure though.. I havent lived there in like 4 years so i dont remember…
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
Live in DC now so i also own a Bryce harper jersey shirt…
bubblesdachimp wrote:
I just assumed they’d add Concepcion when they sent Castillo back to whoever they chose him from in the Rule 5.
Baseball America just announced four Cubs would make the top 100…
That means i would assume Sczur makes it.
I fucking hate him. I cant spell his fucking name.
56 minutes till baseball Americas top 100 Prospects hits!!!!!
@ bubblesdachimp:
Szczur. Saying it out loud is a lot more difficult than writing it.
The Cardinals system is better than I’ve seen it over the last decade:
6: Athletics, Cardinals, Padres, Rangers
5: Mariners, Royals
4: Blue Jays, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Pirates, Rays, Rockies, Yankees
3: Angels, Astros, Braves, Brewers, Dodgers, Orioles, Red Sox, Reds
2: Mets, Nationals, Tigers, Twins
1: Giants, Indians, Marlins, Phillies, White Sox
Isn’t Szczur said “Ceasar”? I thought I heard a radio guy use that over the weekend.
@ Mish:
Thats what Bubs thought
@ Mish:
Yeah, but the spelling is all fucked up. It’s easy to write once you get used to it, but almost impossible to quickly say out loud.
Apparently former Texas OC Greg Davis is the leading candidate to become Iowa’s OC. The man knows QB talent, but his offenses were awful. There’s a chance Mack was restricting him, but I doubt it.
@ mb21:
(dying laughing), how did the White Sox get someone in the top 100? Is it just their first rounder from last year?
@ Dr. Aneus Taint:
From what I gather, the bar set by Ken O’Keefe is pretty low.
@ Dr. Aneus Taint:
So it would just be more of the same for Iowa? Great.
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/21/matt-moore-will-have-no-innings-limit-this-year/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Matt Moore is not having an innings limit. Kid is going to be awesome
@ Berselius:
Davis is a mirror image of O’Keefe. Both were good with QBs. Texas had better recruiting classes and therefore the most popular names, but Iowa has been pretty strong over the KOK years at that position minus a year or two. Both run pro-style offenses. Both are conservative. Both make questionable in-game decisions. If that’s who Iowa hires I’ll just call him Greg O’Keefe.
@ Berselius:
I assume it’s Addison Reed and it’s a bid odd he’s make the top 100. He’s a reliever. A pretty good one, but still a reliever.
Maybe not. He’s struckout 155 in minor league baseball and walked just 20. Went from Low A to MLB one year after being drafted.
@ Berselius:
@ bubblesdachimp:
You don’t understand. In 2004, we were shut out by OU with Vince Young at QB running the Greg Davis offense. Before the 2005 season, Texas ditched Davis’ offense and let Vince run the zone read. The result was the best offense in Texas history and a MNC.
One of Davis’ favorite plays is the WR screen where he throws to the WR that’s the same size as the CB covering him and gives him no blockers. Then he runs the same play to the other side of the field.
He was let go more than a year ago and this is the first I’ve seen of him being a candidate for a job.
And he’s allowed 60 hits in 108 innings. He’s Carlos Marmol with very good control.
bubblesdachimp wrote:
@ mb21:
I can’t wait for the White Sox to move him to LAAoAoLAoOQoPR for Wells or Hunter (dying laughing)
@ mb21:
Davis has a good eye for QB talent, but he can’t develop it for shit.
Davis had run a pro-style offense, but scrapped it for VY. Then he tried to run the zone-read with Colt McCoy for two years before he somehow figured out that Colt was not a zone-read QB (which must have been difficult given the proliferation of small, white QBs who run the zone read) and went spread. But even then, Texas had more offensive success in the 2-minute offense or on broken plays than in designed ones.
I haven’t seen much of Iowa’s offense, but what I have seen seemed much better than Davis’.
@ mb21:
I remember how to spell his name by thinking that there’s one more C and one more Z than I’d imagine there should be.
Mish wrote:
Look more like “scissor” to me.
@ mb21:
Nah their pitchers are normally brought up the correct way…
@ Suburban kid:
TWSS
@ bubblesdachimp:
Which excepts them from pitcher injuries. Especially pitcher injuries in which the pitcher throws considerably more innings.
Strasburg has a 160 inning limit according to the Nats but he also is coming off surgery. What’s a normal innings limit for each age range?
Reports on twitter that the Theo compensation is a pitcher.
Not only that, a pitcher on the 40-man (not McNutt?)
BA Top 100
32 BJax
47 Rizzo
61 Baez
64 Szczur
Jackson (32) Rizzo (47) Baez (61) Szczur (64!!!!!)
Good gawd are they higher on Caesar Salad then anyone…
I predicted on twitter it would be Carpenter for Theo. Wouldnt be surprised if it is him or Dolis
i assume Mish saw this already but if not its a great collection of Simpsons quotes from over the years. http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/pick-only-one-favorite-simpsons-quote-thats-unpossible
Suburban kid wrote:
@ dylanj:
Off the top of my head:
“A gime? What’s a gime? Ooooh…a GIME….”
and…
“Stop! You’re wasting thousands of dollars of interferon!”
“Well, you’re INTERFERON with our fun!”
I’ll think of more later. That should’ve been an Unobstructed View.
@ Rice Cube:
Pitching is dangerous. No one should be allowed to pitch.
@ Berselius:
This would explain why the 40-man was full of mediocrity…
@ josh:
I know you were making a joke, but seriously, pitching a baseball overhand is unnatural.
The Grandpa Simpson story about taking the ferry to Shelby ville is pretty good
@ Rice Cube:
Paint My chicken coop!
@ Suburban kid:
Hm, how many people here are from Evanston, anyway? OV should have a convention at Buffalo Joes.
@ Rice Cube:
Especially with all the emphasis on hard throwers in the past few years. Seems like that trend is eating up shoulders. But finding guys who can pitch as smart as Greg Maddox is a lot more difficult than finding guys who can throw a hard slider like Carlos Marmol.
@ Berselius:
Carpenter? He’s like the first person I ever thought would be the comp, so (dying laughing) if I was right all the way back when they were on the 5-yard line in October. (dying laughing)
Also:
@ Berselius:
wat
@ fang2415:
I visited Evanston once.
@ fang2415:
Would fang have called a power run to the 1-yard line before ordering a QB sneak?
@ Berselius:
John Gaub. Just making a wild guess based on those criteria.
@ Rice Cube:
Not everybody from Evanston refers to themselves in the third person you know.
@ josh:
I’d be okay with that.
@ josh:
I’m pulling for Beliveau, since I have no other reason to pull for him.
Srs though, Carpenter seems most likely. All the noise about “a legitimate big-league prospect” doesn’t apply to any other minor-league pitcher on the 40-man (dying laughing).
I threw up in front of Buffalo Joes after Prior out dueled Maddux in 2003.
True story
Shit, reminding myself of Buffalo Joes was a rookie mistake. Now I’m going to have to go fill the hole in my life with my own inferior chicken wings and curse the lack of cheddar chips. Later, fuckfaces.
dylanj wrote:
“That team sure did suck last night. I mean they just plain sucked! They were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked….. oh I gotta go, my damn weiner kids are listening.”
@ bubblesdachimp:
Ahh, reading that has taken the edge off my desire for Joes slightly. Thanks.
bubblesdachimp wrote:
I often had that reaction after Buffalo Joes.
Facepalm.
http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/daily-facepalm-2-21-2012-start-losing-already.html
@ Aisle424:
I forgot, are you the one who prefers the Star Wars prequels to the originals?
/Buffalo Joes chauvinist’d
I’d like to thank you all for convincing me not to eat at Buffalo Joes. Whatever that is.
bubblesdachimp wrote:
This is probably my favorite Cubs game of all time.
Because it was a playoff victory that I attended, not because bubbles vomited. Although that is a nice added bonus.
keithlaw @keithlaw Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
No, sounds like it’s someone good. “@clout1383: @keithlaw your thoughts on Theo compensation? Matt Szczur maybe?”
He hates him
(dying laughing)
Keith Law is such a count.
@ dylanj:
I saw the episodes one but not this. I actually love a bunch of lines that aren’t necessarily the catch phrases we all know and love.
“Armand Tanzarian’s reign of terror is over.”
“Her name is Krabapple!? I’ve been calling her Crandel!!”
And a more long winded one:
“The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. They’re all lies, but they’re entertaining lies, and in the end, isn’t that the real truth? The answer is no.”
Mish wrote:
(dying laughing)
This is one of my favorites too. The fact that it’s Nimoy is icing on the cake.
Hey dumbasses ———————————->>> http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/daily-facepalm-2-21-2012-start-losing-already.html
Watch Sports Live On Your PC And Never Miss Another Game Again. No Contacts,No Hassles Just A One Off Payment For 24/7 Access To Your Favorite Sports. http://bit.ly/watch-sports-live