Jim Hendry Bust or Great GM?

[poodski]

2007 was better than 2003...you should have to give back that poster of the month award for that terrible "statement".

Hahahahhhahahahahaahahahahaa

This from the guy who said 2003 was his only world series worthy team.

Seriously that was the worst statement I've read on a cubs forum in like 6 years of posting on forums.

I could make plenty of arguments for the 2007 team bein better and well I would be right but those argument aren't useful on people who don't understand math because well math is hard for those who probably didn't graduate high school.

 

[poodski]

2003's lineup wasn't as good as 2008's lineup. 2008 was better everywhere except for RF and arguably CF. The pitching was better in 03, but that 08 team was certainly WS worthy.

Yup. 2003 really wasn't that good when compared to 2008 and 2004. There's a prett big gap between the top two years and any other year. 2003/2007/2009 were all fairly equal though.

 

[FirstTimer]

Hahahahhhahahahahaahahahahaa

This from the guy who said 2003 was his only world series worthy team.

Seriously that was the worst statement I've read on a cubs forum in like 6 years of posting on forums.

I could make plenty of arguments for the 2007 team bein better and well I would be right but those argument aren't useful on people who don't understand math because well math is hard for those who probably didn't graduate high school.

Uhh no there isn't.

Go back to PSD with Capt Obvious

 

[DewsSox79]

the good posters here shouldnt even post an opinion on this.

hendry gone, theo here.

the end

 

[poodski]

Uhh no there isn't.

Go back to PSD with Capt Obvious

Sweet rebuttal

You won't comment on it because you are wrong. The 2003 team wasn't that good. End of story.

 

[FirstTimer]

Sweet rebuttal

You won't comment on it because you are wrong. The 2003 team wasn't that good. End of story.

And you had any good rebuttals anywhere?

:lol: at this. The rest of us have been actually trying to discuss baseball and you come in wearing a bicycle helmet with PSD slapped on the side and try to post. Fail miserably as we await your "reasoning"..none occurs..as you are trying to tell us a team that got swept out of the playoffs was "better" than a team that was 5 outs away from a WS.

 

[Rice Cube]

And you had any good rebuttals anywhere?

:lol: at this. The rest of us have been actually trying to discuss baseball and you come in wearing a bicycle helmet with PSD slapped on the side and try to post. Fail miserably as we await your "reasoning"..none occurs..as you are trying to tell us a team that got swept out of the playoffs was "better" than a team that was 5 outs away from a WS.

I think on merits the 2003 team got the closest and therefore was the best by default. I think poodski is trying to argue that the 2007 regular season team was better than the 2003 team, which I guess is arguable but the 2003 team had a much better rotation (MARK PRIOR and NON-BROKEN WOOD). The 2008 team played out of their minds but didn't technically have a superstar, just a lot of really good players. 2008 was fun to watch though.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think on merits the 2003 team got the closest and therefore was the best by default. I think poodski is trying to argue that the 2007 regular season team was better than the 2003 team, which I guess is arguable but the 2003 team had a much better rotation (MARK PRIOR and NON-BROKEN WOOD). The 2008 team played out of their minds but didn't technically have a superstar, just a lot of really good players. 2008 was fun to watch though.

2007's Cubs team was so "meh" to me. Honestly that rotation doesn't stack up with 2003 at all even after Prior and Wood(who were big advantagess).

2003:
Prior
Wood
Zambrano
Clement
Estes

2007:
Zambrano
Lily
Hill
Marquis
Marshall

BLAH


That 2003 offense doesn't have nearly the sexy names that 2007's and 2008's does but IMO that lineup was better built for the playoffs. They could manufacture runs from the top of the lineup, especially after the Lofton trade. I liked 2003's bench a bit better as well. Outside of Marmol in 2007 I liked the 2003 bullpen better as well.

 

[poodski]

Lol and yet 2007 had a better era+.

Listing names is such an awful argument.

 

[poodski]

Typical CCS...the more awards you have and the more titles you have, the worse poster you are.

LOL at the 2007 team being better than the 2003 team. You could make plenty of arguments, but they'd all be bogus. So its better that you make none.

I gave my reasons for the 2003 team being the only WS worthy team. You've done nothing but troll.

5 outs away means nothing of who is the better team.

Trolling my ass. You've brought nothing to the table. In fact I've never seen you bring any decent argument about anything. Well done though you once again proved nothing. Other than your ignorance on baseball knowledge.

 

[FirstTimer]

Lol and yet 2007 had a better era+.

Listing names is such an awful argument.

Because it's not like those "names" didn't have really good years or anything that season.

LOL at you using ERA +.

Yeah for subjective stats!

GTFO

 

[FirstTimer]

5 outs away means nothing of who is the better team.

Yes it does.

You've brought nothing to the table.

Neither have you. Ever

 

[FirstTimer]

ZOMG The 2003 team has a better OPS+ THEY WER SO MUCH BETETR!

 

[FirstTimer]

ERA+ of each rotation:

2003:
179
139
136
106
76

"Average"= 127


2007:
121
118
118
117
100


"Average"=115


So wait...even by your standard the 2003 rotation was better!

 

[Rice Cube]

ZOMG The 2003 team has a better OPS+ THEY WER SO MUCH BETETR!

The funny thing is that if you put the 2003 and 2007 teams head-to-head and simulated a five- or seven-game series, the winner would be different every time around. But if you simulated it about 1000 times, I think you'd find that the 2003 team had an edge just because of its pitching. ERA+ and OPS+ are supposed to be normalized to league average for that year so I'm not entirely sure you're supposed to compare them across seasons (not an expert) but I'd give the edge to a younger Cubs team with a still slammin' Sammy Sosa. That's probably subjective of me though.

 

[poodski]

Because it's not like those "names" didn't have really good years or anything that season.

LOL at you using ERA +.

Yeah for subjective stats.

GTFO

Lol subjective stats? You get dumber with every post.

2007s pitching overall was better. Pretty much end of story.

But hey look you can use stats!!!! Woohoo!! Though I fear Armageddon may be here since you learned how to look something up for yourself. I'm so proud of you for findin google.

Yes 2003s offense was better. They were very very similar teams. One got hot and won a series in October and almost made the world series. The other got cold and got swept.

Yay for small sample size.

 

[FirstTimer]

OPS+ of each team's "main starters"

2003:
76
103
103
81
105
111
114
133

"Average" 103

Add in Kenny Lofton's 120 to the total and divide by 9 rather than 8 and the average goes to 105.

2007:
84
130
101
71
128
122
86
102

"Average" 103

Wow.

Looks like a dead heat among regulars. A slight advantage to 2003 when Lofton is factored in.

 

[Rice Cube]

Kenny Lofton ----> Hall of very very very good.

 

[poodski]

ERA+ of each rotation:

2003:
179
139
136
106
76

"Average"= 127


2007:
121
118
118
117
100


"Average"=115


So wait...even by your standard the 2003 rotation was better!

A) bahahahaha where did I say anything about rotations? Though to be fair I guess neither bullpen ever pitched as starters throw complete games each time out.

B) yay for weighted averages you fucking moron. Just ignoring the rest of the starts made by other pitchers those years? Each argument from you has more holes. You should just go back to calling people Special person rather than trying to make points. Your making yourself look silly. Which by the way I am quite enjoying.

 

[Rice Cube]

Wow, I'm convinced. I have no counter-argument. That was perfect.

Rory Sparrow ----> James Carville from "Old School"?