Let's make a case for Bob Brenly
by zam on Sep 5, 2009 1:19 PM CDT
Email
PrintAnyone who can stand to listen to Len Kasper call Cub's games on WGN or Comcast certainly has had the pleasure of listening to Bob Brenly as well. Brenly comes across as a straight-shooter, and he tells it like it is. He has shown his extreme knowledge of the game, but from the wrong place.
I feel he deserves to be in the dugout, not in the broadcast booth. He often comments about players not hustling, dogging it, etc. To be fair, he does have a lot of opportunities with this team... I feel if he were given the chance to manage, he wouldn't be one to put up with much. Veterans would not play simply because they were veterans. Bradley would not have gotten as much leway as he did early in the year, which could have led to avoiding the most recent incidents.
Not to mention, he did win a World Series with the Diamondbacks, 4 years into the life of the organization. He did have Johnson and Schilling, and a juicing Gonzalez, but he still beat Joe Torre that year.
He clearly knows what he's talking about when it comes to the game, and I don't think I'm the only one fed up with Lou's passive, "I don't know what else I can do" style.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
162 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I say yes
but even better is he could manage next yr or in 2011 and he can still call the game from the dugout!! We could have the best of both worlds
"Women...you can't live without them, and they can't pee standing up." Rube Baker
there is no case to be made
everyone knows he is able to manage a team, and has won a WS (so did our current manager, dont forget that). The only questions to worry about are
- does Lou want to return
- does BB want to manage the Cubs if there is an opening
- who else wants to manage here that is available (including Ryno)
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
ryno will need to be (or should be) a bench coach for a season or two before he takes over the cubs
people who swing at the first pitch should get punched in the face
by jesus christos on Sep 5, 2009 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions
which is why I am not sure BB would want to manage the Cubs
knowing he would be there to train his replacement
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
You make a good argument
But can you be a little more mature than taking a shot at Len Kasper in your first sentence of this post?
I’ll actually take what you write seriously and contribute when you are capable of doing that.
by ak123 on Sep 5, 2009 2:36 PM CDT reply actions 14 recs
Agreed.
Thumbs down on the Kasper hate.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
by daver on Sep 5, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Absolutely.
Would the poster please explain why they dislike Len Kasper? I can only assume the writer doesn’t watch any other games but Cubs games. With so many barely-average pbp men in the MLB……..this opinion needs to be fleshed out. ( You only have to go to the South Side to hear the worst in MLB.)
Alan Trammel is sitting right there in the Cubs dugout. He’s a great option. Sandberg should be promoted to AAA, to see if he can handle that. You want to throw Ryno into this pressure cooker with only minimal experience?
Brenly would be foolish to leave the booth. Good money, good times. He has his ring.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Sep 5, 2009 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Try listening to the upcoming Pirates series home announcers
They might be some of the worse. Marlins are pretty bad too.
Mets surprisingly kept me entertained today.
Kasper
has kind of grown on me over the years. I’m fine with him and certainly prefer him by a wide margin over Chip Caray.
Why not give Brenly a shot? I think Lou seems just about burned out to me.
You're missing a poll option
Brenly would be a worse manager than Lou
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
by berselius on Sep 5, 2009 3:20 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
He clearly would be.
I love him as an announcer, and he deserves respect (as much as Lou) for winning a WS in his last job. But he was also fired from that job when his team was 22-59 in the first half of 2004.
The grass isn’t always greener on the other side folks.
by Orval Overall on Sep 8, 2009 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions
That record wasn't Brenly's fault.
First of all, his record wasn’t 22-59, it was 29-50.
His replacement, Al Pedrique, had a worse record: 22-61. That team was just a horrendous team.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
If you blame him for the bad start in 2004
then you have to give him credit for the team winning the Series, too.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 9, 2009 8:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Maybe it came down to this:
…in 2001 he had good players who performed and in 04 he had shitty players who didn’t perform.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
a likely explanation
Eitherw ay it is does not prove anything about Brenly’s abilities to manage
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 11, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree...
…just look at Torre’s managerial record before he got to the Yankees. That is just one example of how dependent the managers record is on having a nice balanced roster.
Torre is considered one of the best managers of the last 30-40 years, but if he never would have managed the Yankees, I highly doubt he has that reputation.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
though I think Brenly is very knowledgeable and could help a team as a bench coach or a
- guy, I think he can not manage. I think Brenly is too tough for today’s high priced players. these guys don’t tend to listen to anyone, especially a manager who has an “old school/tough love” attitude. I think too many of the current day stars will just tune him out.
So again, as much as I love BB and think he is right, I am not sure he is right to manage a high payroll and veteran team like the Cubs.
"Truth hurts. Maybe not as much as jumping on a bicycle with the seat missing, but it hurts." - Leslie Nielson
One other thing to keep in mind
It’s a lot easier for Brenly to call out these guys from the broadcast booth than it is in the clubhouse
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
There is some truth...
…to what you say, but it is still doable for a manager to take control (unless he has guys who are not managable).
It just so happens, the Cubs do have a few guys who simply do things the way they choose, and I don’t think there are any managers that could transform guys like Soriano, Zambrano or Bradley. In fact, guys like Cox or LaRussa would probably raise hell to get them off the team.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Because Lou's done such a terrific job
at dealing with these “high-priced players”, right?
I don’t care how much they make, the manager is their boss. He makes the lineup, he calls in relievers, he calls in pinch-hitters, he calls the plays.
The players need to listen to him, not the other way around. If they don’t want to listen, then I guess they don’t want to play that bad.
Would the Cubs be that much worse if Soriano came off the bench all year, honestly?
by zam on Sep 6, 2009 2:39 AM CDT up reply actions
You've been hearing Brenly for 3 years in the booth now for a reason
Nobody wants him to manage their team
I can't find a link...
but I thought he passed on an interview 1-2 years ago. I think he wanted more time off to follow his son’s career a bit more. Not positive about all this, but I think he planned on being in the booth from the beginning for a few years.
Milton Bradley: My New Favorite Cub
I can't believe I just read this...
Anyone who can stand to listen to Len Kasper call Cub’s games on WGN or Comcast certainly has had the pleasure of listening to Bob Brenly as well. Brenly comes across as a straight-shooter, and he tells it like it is. He has shown his extreme knowledge of the game, but from the wrong place.
It’s the opposite. Len is the better, more proessional broadcaster.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 5, 2009 3:44 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Also.
Alan Trammell should get the next shot at the managerial position.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 5, 2009 3:48 PM CDT reply actions
Shawn...
… can you say why? I disagree, but maybe you could persuade me.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Because I think he's done an excellent job as the bench coach...
also, I think it would provide more continuity. I should have qualified my statement. I’m speaking of “internal” candidates. I don’t know how Trammell would compare to unknown external candidates, but I’d definitely prefer him to the Cubs-related names bandied about: Steve Stone, Bob Brenly, and Ryne Sandberg.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 5, 2009 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions
trammell was not a good manager with the tigers
people who swing at the first pitch should get punched in the face
by jesus christos on Sep 5, 2009 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions
he had no talent to speak of
cannot fault him for coaching shit into shit place
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
What are you basing that on?
That was years ago, and he had nothing to work with.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 6, 2009 2:24 AM CDT up reply actions
The young talent that Trammel was working with
2003 through 2005 matured and became winners the next year under Jim Leyland. Trammel had to suffer through the lean years, and the usual growing pains…and was not allowed to enjoy the success of an now-experienced team. (That continues to perform quite well)
Jim Leyland didn’t wave a magic wand over the 2006 Tigers. He was lucky enough to benefit from the groundwork Trammel set. Trammel took the hit, and deserved a better fate.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Sep 6, 2009 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Who would have done better with that team?
Trammell would be high on my list of guys to replace Lou. He had little to work with in his stint as mgr of the Tigers, so to say he was not a good mgr is baseless IMO.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 7, 2009 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions
That's reasonable.
However, if the Cubs are going to make a change, maybe continuity isn’t the way to go.
Sandberg has gotten high marks for his hard work in the minor leagues.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
By the umps?
I don’t what this team needs is a guy with his temper. Maybe it would help to have a change of pace… but I don’t think a lack of motivation is this team’s problem.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Sep 7, 2009 3:40 AM CDT up reply actions
No, that's not what I meant.
The organization is impressed with Sandberg’s work ethic.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
No.
First of all, he doesn’t want to manage any more. He’s said so. Second, I don’t think he was that good a manager with Arizona.
Let him stay in the booth.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I want to agree
But I really just dont want to watch Lou make bad calls left and right anymore, and Brenly calls him out on each one. Honestly I think i would rather have Sandberg though, anyone but “what can I say” Lou
Tweeting about the Cubs most of the time from @jmkobus
I agree with half of that.
I do think BB did a great job with the Diamondbacks, but as much as I love the guy, I try to put my personal feelings aside and look at what’s best for the team. At this point, if Lou didn’t return, I share Shawn’s sentiments above and would like to see Trammell as the new manager. Besides, on a selfish note, i like having the guy in the booth. Definitely calls an entertaining game.
"Yes, dear. You're right. I'm sorry." -Bob Brenly
by ambrosiadreams on Sep 5, 2009 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions
The 'change of pace.'
Brenly took over for Buck Showalter in Phoenix. Basically, the players pretty much hated Showalter and his ‘control freak’ ways by then.
Brenly let’em play, and he deserves a lot of credit for their WS title over the mighty N. Y. Yankees. Yeah, he had Shilling, one of the best big games pitchers of all time.
But Randy Johnson wasn’t. Prior to that 2001 WS, Johnson was 2-6 in the playoffs and had a reputation for underperforming in the playoffs.
Long time Rockie manager Clint Hurdle was fired less than a year and a half after taking his team to the WS.
Hurdle was replaced by Jim Tracy:
“He (Tracy) came in with an attitude of ‘You guys are going to be held accountable for the way you play and the way you act on and off the field, and if you’re not doing your job, you’re not going to play,’” said pitcher Jason Marquis. “There were a lot of guys who had a lot of security with Clint being around. Now with Tracy, it’s about winning. It’s not about developing.”
Hurdle was charismatic in a Tommy Lee Jones sort of way, with his big personality, booming voice and assortment of inspirational homilies. The Colorado players liked him personally, and several admitted to a sense of guilt over costing him his job. But when Hurdle’s message stopped resonating and the atmosphere grew stale, a change was inevitable.
Not long after the change, the Rockies went on a 17-1 run.
When words like ‘disinterested’ are used to describe the manager like that word has been used by some to describe Lou, it’s time to make a change.
That 2001 World Series
had the potential for disaster. There aren’t many managers that could get a team to relax enough after Kim’s disasters.
Makes me wonder what would have happened had a guy like Brenly been sitting in the dugout after Bartman…
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
Was it relaxation or...
… was it the presence of Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling in their primes?
I’m thinking those two had more to do with it than Brenly.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Oh that helps
But baseball is littered with very good and even great teams falling apart for less things than the same closer giving up walk-offs in two straight games.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
OK, I'm not drunk
Having said that… I don’t know if I want Brenly.
Trammel is probably the best choice. I’m not sure if Sandberg is ready.
Very indecisive I am today. Unlike me. Need more coffee.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
Enjoy your coffee.
I’m still on the “If Lou Is Fired Or Leaves, Let’s Hire LaRussa And Duncan” bandwagon.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I could really jump on that...
except for one thing. LaRussa sometimes makes Milton Bradley look like Curt Schilling when dealing with the media.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
I was on that
when it was a radio flyer
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
would BB
have done better in 2003 with the Cubs after the “Alou crying over a foul ball” than Dusty? I can only wonder what difference that could have been
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I am reasonably sure
he goes out to the mound to say something to Prior.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
One of the biggest managerial blunders in the history of Earth
Sitting in the dugout on your fat A++, chewing your toothpick, while all Hell is breaking loose out on the field.
Would it have killed ya, Dusty, to take a slow walk out there and let everybody calm down for a minute or two?
by GeoMak on Sep 6, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Absolutely
Getting crushed twice in Yankee Stadium would seal the fate of most teams.
You gotta give Brenly credit there, IMO
Didn't Brenly interview for the Brewers job?
I don’t think I ‘ve ever hear him swear off a return to the booth. That being said, I don’t always want someone with too close of ties coming in. A fresh start might be good. Assuming no big trades you need someone that helps Soriano and Bradley return to form. You need someone to help Soto recover. Maybe an outsider is what is needed.
As far as the big ego thing? Well, who? This team has high priced players with big ego’s. They’d better have a manager that can handle them, because it isn’t going to be easy to get rid of the players. Z and Bradley foremost. With some of these guys I don’t even think getting criticism privately from a HOF player turned manager like Ryno. would soak in between the ears.
yes
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Yes, I believe he did.....
interview for the Brewers job last winter.
I agree that it is a lot easier to manage from the broadcast booth. Just as it is easier to manage from the comfort of our homes.
With the set up of this team I’m not sure if anyone coud have done much better with this team this year. I have written on other posts here that the set up of the 25 man roster (Hendry’s fault there and to some degree Piniella’s as he went along with Hendry either 100% or passively)has been the problem. Somehow this roster needs a make over…either in attitude, actual players or a combination.
Then they need a manager who can manage the team on a daily basis to give the team the best chance to win. If the team is hitting…let ‘em rip. If they’re not…..play some small ball, do some running, do some hit and running….whatever it takes to push some runs across the plate. I address the hitting/offense as I think the pitching next year will be fairly solid, similar to this year as most of the pitching will return barring trades. The manager could just as easily be Lou as anyone else providing he can manage that way.
I look at Maddon in Tampa…..here is a guy who could be most of the players grandpa. Age, playing experience/success, good guy, tough guy doesn’t play into be a good manager IMO as much as being able to adapt and get the guys to buy into what you are trying to accomplish as a team. That’s what the Cubs need…and again it can be Lou just as much as BB, Ryno or Trammell. Just needs to be that guy who can get everyone playing for the same thing….winning….with no regard to their stats, playing time or anything beyond flying that “W” flag everyday.
Maddon's only 55. If anything, a Dad, but not Grandad
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
I love Len & Bob
in the booth and that is where both of them should stay.
Recipe for Disaster;
C'mon Cubs, hurry up and blow this so I can relax.
by Bluekoolaide on July22, 2009 3:08 PM CDT
The Cubs job
is going to be a great job until they win it all. Even the guys who “have their ring” are going to be enticed at getting to be the guy who got the Cubs their championship. That will be much more memorable than the Diamonbacks or Cardinals (hint hint).
"I'm petrified of nipple chafing. Once it starts, it's a vicious circle." Andy Bernard
Lou has a ring
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
When Pinella was young, he won a championship.
But that’s it, really — and he built a career off that one title with the Reds.
Perhaps Jim Hendry didn’t give that much thought. Maybe he decided to overlook Pinella helmed a really great Mariners team in 2001, but it failed terribly in the post-season. He won a number of division titles with the M’s…but nothing else. Did he not get enough out of those teams? Was that a warning sign for future GM’s?
Lou really retired with Tampa Bay, and those in MLB probably thought he was done, after he went to Fox TV. But, Pinella probably thought the Cubs, looking like winners, could put a better end to his legacy. (And, the money was damn good.) But, the game probably passed him by.
Pinella won a lot of games….but…
I’m beginning to think the Cubs won in spite of Lou, not because he was in the dugout.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Sep 6, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions
I am not in disagreement at all
and you happened to state me main reason for not liking the unbalanced schduling
Maybe he decided to overlook Pinella helmed a really great Mariners team in 2001
that has as much to do with the lesser teams they played that season as it did the team itself. Its like the 2008 Cubs, kicked ass in regular season, why? Look at their fellow NL Central teams for the answer
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I don't care who the Cubs played in the regular season
Going 0-6 in the 2007/2008 playoffs is inexcusable.
ty for missing the point of my post
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Bad timing.
Lou had great teams with seattle, unfortunately he ran into a juggrnaut of Yankee teams during thier run. It happens in sports, just think how different the bears history would be if it wasnt for Montana/Walsh. or knicks history if it wasnt for MJ, its part of the game.
Hendry has a habit...
…of overlooking a lot of things, but he could have done much worse than Piniella. In 07, the team never makes the playoffs without Piniella and I don’t think he did anything negative that made the 08 team fall on it’s face.
Has the game passed him by? He may not be what he was 10 years ago, but he is far from the main issue here.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
If they're going to replace Lou
I’d rather it be someone who hasn’t had his hands with the organization on a MLB level for the last few years.
Trammel or Brenly I think would be bad fits for two different reasons:
1) Trammel might be a clone of Lou. He knows the players just as well as him and I don’t think he would do anything radically different.
2) Brenly is too outspoken about how he feels about certain players. I could be wrong but it might cause too much drama on the team. That being said, I could look at the opposite spectrum and say he might light a fire under some players who didn’t perform this year.
I would love to see Sandburg be the next coach whether its in 1 or 3 years. But this isn’t based off of his managerial record in the minors it’s more because he was one of my favorite players growing up. If he were managing a team like the the 2009 Cubs it might have been a slightly less painful season for me oddly enough.
I don't like...
…bringing in a guy like Trammel who has been with the club for a few years now. The reason is this; when you bring in a new manager, one of the hopes is that a fresh approach will provide some spark for your club. Granted, this spark only lasts as long as the new managers message doesn’t start to fall on deaf ears (and with today’s players, it happens with all managers), but I don’t think you get that affect with Trammell.
If they are going to get a new manager, I think you have to start with someone who will be new to the players. It’s human nature for players to try and show a new manager what they are capable of, but you lose some of this with a guy who has been around them already.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I wouldn't mind Bob as a manger if...
…the Cubs couldn’t find anyone else to manage. I don’t think Lou can get the Cubs over the mountain, but you really wonder who can do it.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
brenly
too tough??? i cant see anyone tougher than pinella. remember in 2007 the cubs had a players only meeting to whine about how tough pinella was. brenly seems to really know what he,s talking about. i know lou says he is coming back but ill believe that in january. this has probably been his most stressfull year in chi-town. will he really want to do it again?
IN THE CUBS CASE THE MOUNTAIN
is like Mt Everest so many on field problems and concerns ( That have already been covered ) . It does not appear that Lou has the fire in him to deal with the problems . At times Lou appears semi-retired . Is that what this club needs ? Of course not . A fresh face with new ideas has to appear in Mesa for the 2010 season . Anything less puts the Cubs right where they are now again next year .
There are a lot of potential managers...
…that could win with the Cubs, my concern is with the guy who will be hiring the next manager and the impact he will have on the entire organization.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Sandberg in a year or two
I don’t want to see Lou back next year, and I think he would be a lot more comfortable dozing on his couch instead of in the dugout. I’m not sure if Sandberg is ready to step up to the Cubs yet, but he has the potential to bring some much needed fire and intensity to the team. He seems to have no tolerance for laziness and shoddy play and wouldn’t be afraid to kick some butt and bench a player for not giving his best effort. Judging from the fact that he’s been kicked out of several games this year, he definitely has the passion to get a team fired up when necessary (which is ironic considering how stoic and low key he was as a player). I don’t know who they could get to hold the position until Sandberg’s ready, but I hope it’s not Lou.
by Mike Vails Evil Twin on Sep 6, 2009 3:54 PM CDT reply actions
hard part would be telling a mgr
he is a fill in for a season or two. Kind of like the Bears telling Warner that he would be backing up Grossman
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Judging by his HOF speach...
…I don’t think Sandberg could manage this club without significant changes, or things turning real ugly.
How would he handle Soriano, Bradley or Zambrano? And no, don’t tell me he would have the magic to change their approach to the game because no one does at this point.
Putting Sandberg in as manager would be almost the samething the Hawks did with Savard, they would be setting him up to fail.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
i disagree. with one piece of your statement
Putting Sandberg in as manager would be almost the samething the Hawks did with Savard, they would be setting him up to fail.
Sandberg is learning how to manage, Savard was given the job as a favor by $Bill Wirtz. I coudl see Sandberg being closer to Ozzie Guillen than Savard IMHO. Sandberg has shown some fire and he would demand and command respect, and I beleive he can better relate to todays players.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Sep 6, 2009 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sandberg was a great player
but what has he done as a manager that makes some think he is destined for greatness?
And another thing, you are not going to get anyone worth a darn to be an interim manager, that idea is just goofy.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 7, 2009 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions
you are not going to get anyone worth a darn to be an interim manager
exactly. As i said in this thread, it is like telling Kurt Warner he would be welcome to sign to back up Groosman
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Bench Coach
I like Trammell and agree that he didn’t have too many horses during his managerial days in Detroit. But what exactly does a bench coach do? Isn’t he just the manager’s assistant?
Someone posted earlier that Trammell’s been a good bench coach. How can we know that when little to none of his influence is observable?
I can't believe
that anyone who watched the 2001 World Series would believe that Brenly would make a great manager. He worked for that Diamondbacks team because Showalter had that team tied so tightly that they were afraid to bend over for fear their cap would fall off and they’d get fined. But Brenly entered that series with a far superior team to the Yankees. His team outplayed the Yankees and outscored them 37-14, yet if it weren’t for a Mariano Rivera error in the ninth of Game 7, the Diamondbacks would have lost.
Brenly was completely out-managed by Torre. He left Randy Johnson in Game 6 for seven innings and 104 pitches despite it being 12-0 in the third inning. He managed to use Johnson for an inning the next game, but had the game gone into extra innings, he probably would have had to take Johnson out because he stupidly and unnecessarily threw 104 pitches the previous day.
He stuck with Kim as the closer despite Kim not getting the job done. Tony Womack and his .307 OBP was his leadoff man.
I’m sorry. But being a great color commentator doesn’t make you a good manager. I love Brenly in the booth. He was a bad manager for the Diamondbacks. Once the D-Backs were no longer scared of Buck Showalter, Brenly lost them.
by Josh Timmers on Sep 6, 2009 8:46 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Look at the Pythagorean Records
The Yankees won 95 games that year, but based on their runs scored and allowed, they should have only won 89. Now sometimes that’s luck, and sometimes that’s good managing.
The Diamondbacks won 92 games that year, but they should have won 95. Again, same caveats.
On top of that, the D-Backs strengths come out in a short series, since their biggest weakness was depth. They had a top-two pitching rotation that hasn’t been seen since the days of Koufax and Drysdale. They were able to start Johnson and Schilling in five out of seven games in that series. If they could have started Johnson and Schilling in 71% of their games in the regular season, they’d have won a hell of a lot more than 92-95 games.
The D-Backs also had the best position player in the series in Luis Gonzalez, who hit 57 HRs that year.
The Yankees had a great team in 98-99. In 2000 and 2001 they got lucky. (Although they were a better team than the even luckier Mets in 2000.) They were very good, but they weren’t anywhere near the best team in baseball. (The Mariners were by far the best team in 2001) The Yankess luck finally ran out when the ball took a bad hop on Rivera and Luis Gonzalez hit a floater that would have been an easy out had the infield not been playing in.
Wow
You suffer from the same problem as the Cubs themselves. Which is this:
Once the playoffs start, what happened in the regular season ceases to matter.
92 wins. 97 wins. 85 wins. None of it matters.
Now, we have an expansion team in their 4th year going against the greatest franchise in sports history. Check please.
There’s NO WAY, that any sober person would take the Dimondback line-up, man for man, over the Yankees. None.
As far as pitching is concerned, yes, the DBacks had Shilling & Johnson. However, by the time the 2001 baseball season started, Johnson was a miserable 2-6 in postseason play. He had a reputation as a pitcher who just couldn’t get it done in the playoffs.
Shilling was 1-1 in the playoffs. Clemens 5-5.
And of course, HUGE, HUGE edge to Mariano Rivera over Kim as the closer.
Your assertion that the 4th year Diamondbacks were ‘Far Superior’ to the NY Yankees in 2001 is absurd.
Just to add more specifics
The Diamondbacks were 53-17 in games started by Johnson and Schilling in 2001—a 76% winning percentage or 123 wins over 162 games. The D-Backs won 28 of Schilling’s 35 starts—80%. Schilling started three times and Johnson twice in the series.
2001 D-backs were far superior???
That doesn’t pass even the laugh test.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 7, 2009 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions
agreed
ultimate facepalm IMO for that statement
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
YES I ALSO WATCHED EVERY....
game of the 2001 World Series . When all was said and done no matter what the Diamondbacks won . End of Story…..
Boy
That really advances the discussion. “I’m not going to address any of your points because I can’t, so I’ll just declare victory and tell you the discussion is over.”
So if Rivera fields that groundball cleanly, Brenly is a moron, by your logic.
Unbelievable.
by Josh Timmers on Sep 7, 2009 12:50 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Brenley wants to manage
He interviewed for both the Cincinatti and Brewer’s jobs. But if you follow the paper trail of his managing years , he was never considered a very good tactical manager.
I didn't follow Brenly close enough...
…to have an opinion on his managerial skills, but I don’t think there is any question he would jump at the right opportunity.
The fire still burns with him, and you can see it coming out in his recent criticism of the Cubs play.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
according to whom?
Can you share some of this “paper trail” that proves Brenly “he was never considered a very good tactical manager” or are you just making stuff up?
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 9, 2009 8:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Don't remember who said what
…since, it was five years ago that he was fired. I just remember reading various accounts that were not very complimentery to his in game skills.
Incidently, he also took a big division winner ( 98 wins ) to 0-3 in first round of playoffs.
Guess it can happen to anyone.
The problem you have
is the same problem many others have.
He took ‘big’ division wiiner (98 wins) to 0-3 in the playoffs.
So what?
He took a 92 win team all the way to a World Series Title.
People put WAY, WAY too much emphasis on ‘how many games a PLAYOFF team has won.’
Yes, you need to win enough to MAKE the playoffs. After that, those wins don’t matter. Not in the least. They don’t in any way carry over to the playoffs.
Baseball is 162 games. Football 16. Basically one football game equals 10 baseball games.
In 2008 the Cubs won 97 games (rounded up, that like a football team going 10-6).
The Dodgers won 85 games (like going 9-7).
To me, if two football teams are in the playoffs, I make no distinction between a 10-6 team and a 9-7 team. Too close to call.
Once the playoffs start, who cares how many games a team won in the regular season?
All that can do is lead to overconfidence (like it did for the Cubs last season).
Overcondfidence is often a fatal disease in sports.
Overcondfidence is often a fatal disease in sports.
so can be a weak regular season schedule. you beat up on the little fish in your pond, then drown when dropped in the ocean
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I don't think I have a problem
I simply implied that 97-98 wins guarantees nothing in the playoffs whether Lou is at the helm or Brenley or anyone else.
Please use the reply
feature. It helps withthe flow of the converstation.
Recipe for Disaster;
C'mon Cubs, hurry up and blow this so I can relax.
by Bluekoolaide on July22, 2009 3:08 PM CDT
Why make the comment
Incidently, he also took a big division winner ( 98 wins ) to 0-3 in first round of playoffs.
Guess it can happen to anyone.
That clearly implies that, having won 98 games, you think that he should’ve won, I guess, at least one game or more.
(It could happen to anyone——-winning a lot of games in the regular season and nothing in the playoffs).
Personally, I would never connect the regular season records with the playoffs . . . yet people do it all the time.
Which is exactly my point.
In the NFL last season, the two teams with the best records (Giants/Titans) lost their first game.
The team with the one of the worst records (Arizona) almost won it all.
Once the playoffs start, everybody is 0-0 and what happened in the regualr season, record wise, means NOTHING.
Which is why the regular season record shouldn’t even be mentioned.
this comment
is much better than below, where you seem to want to take post seasons and add them together in a running tally
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
In most sports...
…and especially in the last 10-15 years, it’s much less who has the best regular season record, as opposed to who has played best the last quarter of the season.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I thought I was making the same point
Doesn’t matter how many wins you have in reg season, you can bomb in the playoffs if you run into a slump or bad luck.
I mentioned it because Lou has taken a lot of hits over winning 97 games and going 0-3. Both Lou and Brenley have won WS ( both beating excellent teams) and both have gone 0-3 and out with a good team.
It happens and I personally don’t think it’s a reflection on the manager.
so where is your proof that Brenly is a bad tactician?
That was your justification for saying Brenly would be a bad choice to manage the Cubs.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 9, 2009 8:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Lou went 0-3 twice (back-to-back)
with the same team.
Brenly went 0-3 the year after he won the WS.
Big, big difference to me.
not really
since half the luck of the playoffs is who gets hot at the right time.
Prime example: 2005 White Sox and 2006 Cardinals
based on projections, stats on paper, etc there is no way either team should have gone far in the post season, and both were hot at the right time leading to both of them winning the World Series.
in addition, what a team does one post season has nothing to do with the next one, so you cannot keep a running tally of post seasons for any basis.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
since half the luck of the playoffs is who gets hot at the right time
Actually, what happened in 2008 is painfully obvious to anyone that was paying attention.
The Cubs went into their series against LA overconfident, based in large part on their superior regular season record.
Guys like Soriano & DeRosa admitted as much afterwards. They (among many, many others) didn’t quite understand that the regular season doesn’t carry over to the postseason.
I disagree...
…and it was Dempster that said they were over confident.
The Cubs did not play like a team with a lot of confidence in either the 07 or 08 playoffs. Dempster walked 7 freaking guys, and that is not a sign of a guy who is over-confident, but more like a guy who is TIGHT!
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Actually MPH
both Soriano & DeRosa, on Cubs.com, made comments to that effect (we didn’t think LA would be that good). I know what I read there after the series.
So that’s THREE starters saying or implying overconfidence. Not very bright.
Now, let me explain what happened there:
A). The whole CITY was overconfident. This comes from all the BS. (This is the year, the pep rallies BEFORE a game is even played, the 97 wins; best in the NL, etc, etc, etc).
So, they went in overconfident. Comments by at least THREE starters CLEARLY point that out. And of course, it was really stupid in 2008. Why? Cause the Dodgers were a tale of two teams: Before Manny and after Manny. While it’s true that the Cubs had a better record than did LA, the records (and stats) between the two teams, after the arrival of Manny in LA, were almost identical. Plus it was the Dodgers who had the hottest hitter in baseball, not the Cubs.
No reason to be overconfident, not with Manny on the Dodgers. But they were.
And see you’re not understanding ‘Overconfidence.’ I’m saying that they went IN to the series overconfident. I’m not saying that their overconfidence lasted very long. It didn’t. Why?????
B). The ‘CHOKE’ factor. Never has this been more on display than in 2008. The Cubs looked bad in the 2008 playoffs . . . by Little League Standards.
Guys like Dempster acting like he was allergic to home plate. Infielders acting like they forgot how to catch a baseball.
They were so tight you couldn’t have pulled a toothpick out of their A++es with a Mack truck.
In summary: They went in thinking that they were the ‘better team.’ And I guess they were, in the regular season. But the regular season was over. It didn’t matter anymore.
And everyone starts 0-0- in the playoffs.
And once the playoffs started, the Dodgers played ‘Loosey-Goosey’, taking their cue from their wacky left fielder.
And the Cubs played like they were scared to death of making a mistake.
Game, Set & Match. Wait til next year!
The pep rallies are mandated by MLB.
All playoff teams have them.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
He was an
invited guest. All the playoff teams had them before any games were played.
Recipe for Disaster;
C'mon Cubs, hurry up and blow this so I can relax.
by Bluekoolaide on July22, 2009 3:08 PM CDT
Be that as it may
All the ‘BS’ (the ‘This is the Year’ . . . the pep rallies . . . the sprinking of holy water in the dugout,etc) is completely counter-productive for the Cubs.
The whole city acts like they’re going to win it all, before they’ve even won one game. It makes it that much more difficult if/when they crumble under the weight of expectations.
Anything not ‘mandated’ should be completely eliminated.
Last time I checked
Winning 97 games, NL best, going back to back to postseason for first time in 100 years IS a big deal. And considering almost every game was sold out our fans deserved this.
I don’t see why we’re debating this.
I'm confused.
I keep hearing about the 100 year drought.
They only give that trophy out for the team that wins the WS, not the team that wins the most regular season games, or the team that goes to the playoffs the most times, etc.
I thought the idea was to WIN the WS. If it is, then I stand by what I said.
You're an impossible person to have a conversation with
So therefore you’ve lost all privileges of me replying to anything you say on here.
Impossible?
Why’s that?
I was clearly talking about their failures in the postseason.
You’re talking about their success in the regular season..
Maybe that’s why.
Amazing how you seem to be unable to see
how many posters here and on WCG share ak123’s sentiments?
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 12, 2009 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh, I can see
And only the people that don’t know any better say stuff like that.
I can’t help it. That’s their problem, not mine.
See red, your problem is that you think I CARE what people think of me.
I don’t. I’ve come across many intelligent and knowledgable people on these blogs . . . but unfortunately many more of the clueless variety.
Those are the ones who usually have a problem with me.
Speaking of that, I like how you always come out of the woodwork to bash me like you just did.
You amuse me.
unfortunately
the problem is that you suffer under the delusion that disagreeing with you is being clueless
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 14, 2009 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions
No, disagreeing with me in an
INTELLIGENT manner is fine. I respect that.
Disagreeing with utter nonsense isn’t.
Oh I thought I was in the minority
Honestly just didn’t want to get into one of those debates that takes over an entire forum. I quickly saw how this one was going.
I'll repeat for you.
I was talking about the POSTSEASON failures.
You then respond about the regular season and GETTING to the postseason.
When I try to explain to you that you are discussing something different than myself, I get this:
“You’re an impossible person to have a conversation with.”
Perhaps it would help if you stayed on topic.
not even close
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 14, 2009 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions
If you can't follow the thread
bow out of the discussion.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 15, 2009 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Pure genius red
Really.
No sense in talking about postseason failures when discussing a possible managerial change.
You (still continue to) amuse me.
Can't follow the thread I see
You can let it go, or continue to embarass yourself. I assume you will do the latter.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 15, 2009 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I can follow YOU jumping in
(as usual) whenever you see me, with your usual nonsense red.
That much is simple to follow.
You NEVER have anything intelligent to say, even in disagreement with me.
Just your usual petty attacks.
You amuse me, my little friend.
Well feel free
to not participate but do not deny those activities for those who do wish to participate.
Recipe for Disaster;
C'mon Cubs, hurry up and blow this so I can relax.
by Bluekoolaide on July22, 2009 3:08 PM CDT
I fail to understand...
…how a veteran team like the Cubs had last year could go into the playoffs over confident. They have all been around long enough to know in a five games series, the team that plays best now, wins. I also remember some thought around Lou making them tight and not allowing them to relax. If that was the case, why would they be over confident?
Your absolutely right, they played about as tight as you possibly can.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
It happens all the time in sports
In 1987 the 49ers were stunned in a playoff loss to the Vikings.
Bill Walsh called it maybe the toughest defeat in his career.
Eventually, he offered up two reasons.
A). He uncharacteristically ‘overworked’ his team in the two weeks leading up to the game.
and
B) OVERCONFIDENCE. That word is an exact quote from Walsh.
You say:
“I fail to understand how a veteran team like the Cubs had last year could go into the playoffs overconfident.”
You’d think they’d be smarter than that.
Yet, when two starters say someting like this:
“We didn’t think the Dodgers were that good” (or words to that effect – I would’ve printed out that post for further reference but I was too busy throwing up) how else can you take that?
I don't know what to say...
…except anyone that has played in the bigs for a while should no better than to be “over confident” in a short playoff series, expecially after those same guys got swept the year before.
Which leads me to my conclusion; it was not over confidence, it was the exact opposite.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Right.
That makes a LOT of sense. They weren’t ‘over condfident’ they were ’under confident."
Hysterical.
Even though players made comments that would lead any reasonable peron to conclude an element of overcnfidence, you beg to differ, Too funny.
You may buy...
…the over confident line from players, but they rarely will ever acknowledge being tight.
7 walks by your best pitcher, errors by the entire infield and virtually no clutch hits looks like a “tight” team to me, not one that was over confident.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Dude, we've been through this before
TRY (please) try to follow.
It’s possible to be BOTH overcondfident AND tight.
You misunderstand the concept of overconfidence.
It exists and it happens, otherwise a great coach like Bill Walsh wouldn’t bring it up and admit to it.
The Cubs (IMO) were somewhat overconfident GOING into the series (basically, before a game was even played).
Once the games started, that’s when the ‘stress and the tightness’ took over.
Believe me, they weren’t ‘overconfident’ for long.
Think of it like this. Let’s say you and I used to fight each other when we were younger. I used to beat you up all the time.
We schedule a boxing match. Leading up to the match, I am very confident (some would say overconfident) in my abilities. I always used to beat you up. I’m not sweating this.
Hundreds of people are watching us as we enter the ring. I feel good. The bell goes off and you knock me right on my A++.
Now, I’m not ‘overconfident.’ Now I’m embarassed. And as the fight goes on, I’m getting real tight and nervous in front of my friends.
The fight ends. You killed me.
I started out overconfident, then got streesed out and got killed.
Something like that.
repeating your "theory"
does not give it more credibility. The Cubs looked like a team that had false confidence the last two playoff series not overconfident as you would have us believe.
Using you fight analogy, only better,
You think you are the toughest guy, but you have never fought this guy before, so you cannot be sure, but you have won more fights than anyone else, so you are pretty sure you’ll be okay. You go into the fight and bam, in the first minute you are knocked down. Now you are not so sure you belong in the ring with this guy, you are not as good as you thought you were and/or he is a lot better than you thought he would be. He sees you for what you really are, not nearly as good as everyone thought, and he sees the fear in your eyes. His confidence soars while yours vanishes.
It was a case of false confidence, not overconfidence.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 16, 2009 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Great
And I’ve asked you before (and of course you NEVER answered):
What’s the difference between (My) overconfidence and (Your) false confidence?
BEFORE the series started, red, tell me what the difference is between the two?
Again (and to be clear) I’ve heard MANY athletes and coaches (like the Bill Walsh example above) talk about OVERCONFIDENCE. Never ‘False Confidence.’
And again, overconfidence happens BEFORE the game is played, not DURING.
Get it? In the days or weeks leading up to the game, some teams become ‘Overconfident’ based on:
A) How superior they perceive their abilities to be.
B) How inferior they perceive their oppopnenets to be.
C) A combination of A & B.
Again please. Finally. Answer the question: What’s the difference between (My) overconfidence and (Your) false confidence?
In simple English red.
asked and answered
you just lack the ability to grasp the difference
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 16, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions
As usual you DIDN'T
answer.
Why? Cause it’s ABSURD. I’ve heard amany coaches and players use the term OVERCONFIDENT.
Not ONE has ever said FALSE CONFIDENCE.
I have heard the term ‘Fase sense of Security’ which is usually a by-product of being OVERCONFIDENT.
You amuse me, my little friend.
BTW: Let me help you out here. Grab a dictionary and see how words are defined.
Give me a DICTIONARY type of fdefinition for your absued word "False Confidence.’
Do that or stop with your NONSENSE (false confidence). Too funny!
Let it go, geo, you’re embarassing yourself.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 16, 2009 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions
geo has been floating that theory for a while here
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 16, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions
He's entitled...
…to his opinion, but I just disagree.
If the 2008 club was young and had little experience, I could better understand over confidence after winning 97 games. With that team loaded with veterans (and 100 years of futulity, and being swept the year before), I just don’t see his theory as viable.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
That's funny, I guess
I CLEARLY saw two comments, right after the series, from two vets (DeRosa and Soriano) on Cubs.com suggesting otherwise.
Someone else said Dempster made a similar comment.
Bill Walsh and his ‘87 49ers were a ’veteran team’ and Walsh himself admitted to overconfidence.
With the Cubs winning a NL high 97 games, with them having home field advanatge, with them playing a team that ‘only’ won 85 games, with Vegas and almost every analyst picking the Cubs over the Dodgers, with the city of Chicago in mass hysteria (This is the Year) you don’t think it’s possible? You don’t think it’s even possible that they thought they were headed straight to the World Series?
Anything is possible...
…but considering the circumstances I have pointed out, your theory doesn’t fly with me.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Also...
…when was the last time you heard a player say they didn’t perform because the pressure got to them?
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
That's your thing
You are basically saying that:
No player is going to admit that they didn’t perform well because the pressure got to them . . . so they will then make comments like DeRosa & Soriano made instead.
Makes no sense.
I’ll give you ythis part (players rarely admit they chocked) but all they’d have to say is something like this:
“WE didn’t play very well.” (Notice the word WE).
They wouldn’t have to say something like: “WE didn’t think that THEY were that good or would play that well.” (Notice the word THEY).
That’s the very definition of overconfidence.
Vince Lombardi was always even tougher with his team when they were playing a much weaker team. He didn’t want them to become complacent and overconfident.
Likewise, Mike Ditka had a great record against team the Bears should’ve beat. He too didn’t let them become overconfident.
I’m not saying that the Cubs should’ve beaten LA, but clearly the Cubs were going into that series as a big favorite . . . and got killled.
You made your point...
…just accept the fact that I disagree.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Tell me this though cause I'm curious
what do YOU make of statements like those offered by DeRosa & Soraino after the series (Along the lines of “We didn’t think that they’d play that well, or that they were that good”).
What insight (if any) do you glean from those kinds of comments?
Honestly...
…coming from veteran players who have seen teams with a lessor record win before, these comments are just plain stupid! They are even more stupid considering the same bunch got swept away the year before.
In summary, it was french for; “we choked our asses off”
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
So what you are saying is this:
Veteran players who have seen teams with lessor records win before (actually, EVERYBODY has seen teams with lessor records win before. Veterans, Rookies, fans, media etc).
You deny the existence if overconfidence. That’s your mistake. According to you, no veteran players would do that, cause they have seen lessor teams win before.
So Bill Walsh, according to you, is full of S==T. Right? He clearly admitted thast his team was overconfident in 1987. Not just the ‘rookies.’ But the team.
Yet that’s STUPID, according to you, cause veteran players would NEVER do that cause they’ve seen weaker teams win before.
Makes NO sense. None. It’s called complacency which is usually a precursor to overconfidence.
Your thesis makes no sense.
Oh, you’re right though. Especially with the playoffs in Arizona still in their rearview mirror, they had no business feeling complacent or overconfident at all. To any degree.
But they were, at least to some degree. How do I know? Just by listening to DeRo & Soriano, after the series. It became crystal clear at that point to me.
You are confusing what they
Shouldn’t Have Done" with ‘What They Did.’
What they did...
…was choke, IMO!
I’m done with this!
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
YES, YES, YES
You’re right. I clearly AGREE. That was one of the biggest choke jobs EVER in all of baseball. I never disagreed with that. NEVER. I said it myself a million times.
But you aren’t understanding a SIMPLE concept.
What’s that, GeoMak?
A) BEFORE the game (or series)
B) During the game (or series)
Get it?
They choked (B) DURING the series. Can’t choke before, now can you? You can’t choke before the ball’s in play.
That said, they were (somewhat) overconfident BEFORE the series.
What, you don’t think that teams THINK about things before the series starts? Like they’re mindless?
When Bill Walsh talks about his team being overconfident going into the game, it means just what it sounds like (That they had a greater certainty they would win that was warranted).
You make it sound tlike the Cubs had no ‘thoughts or feelings’ about the series before it started.
They weren’t overconfident (to you) so what was it? Were they feeling inferior to LA going in? Or did they have just the right amount on confidence going in?
Or did they block all such thought from their mind?
Statements like those made by DeRosa & Soriano (among others) strongly suggest that they may have taken LA for granted, at least to a certain degree.
(That may also have happened in Arizona, when they played a team called the ‘BabyBacks’ because there were so many young players on that team)
It’s too bad you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this.
He seems to be the only one who does
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 17, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions
anyone remember byung-hyun kim?
brenly almost blew the world series in 2001 by throwing a sinking closer that kept getting destroyed back out there like clockwork. sometimes you have to make that adjustment. they won the WS in spite of brenly’s managing.
dont get me wrong i like bob, hes a funny guy, so lets keep him in the booth where we can appreciate his humor. Not in the dugout where he can make bad decisions just like anyone else.
by meancubface on Sep 9, 2009 8:41 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Kim lost back-toback games in NY
Here was their closer. What was Brenly supposed to do, sit him the ENTIRE series?
Your comment makes no sense.
Your closer blows a game you bench him the rest of the series?
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 11, 2009 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions
Since your comment is in the form of a question
not sure if you are agreeing with meancubface or not.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
