Jim Hendry Bust or Great GM?

[poodski]

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

Nah just one of the many flaws in your arguments.

 

[FirstTimer]

Lol subjective stats? You get dumber with every post.

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

Actually I've already showed you it wasn't.

The ERA+ totals for each team entire pitching staff are 1 "point" apart. (114-115)


The 2003 rotation by your own standard was easily better.

The 2003 and 2007 lineups were either dead even or 2003 was BARELY better..if at all once Lofton was added in.

The 2007 bullpen was better "on average" by ERA+ but that's mainly held up by Marmol's absurd 325.

2003:
165
159
132
119
75

2007:
325
140
133
98
94

2003 pen was better balanced. Especially in relation to the better staff that 2003 had.

Yes 2003s offense was better.

I guess. I wouldn't consider that slim of an advantage to be anything meaningful. Especially on such a shit house stat like OPS+ can be at times.

I said I liked 2003's offense better because of the way they played the actual games.

LOL at you back tracking now. Coming into this thread with "LULZ ZOMG IT"S STUPID SO SAY 2003>>>2007!!@! UR SO STUPED!. 2003 WASNT THE ONYL WS TEAM!"

Then when your own stats are thrown back in your face....your dick shrinks up and you go back to "well they were similar teams" blah blah blah

Factor in the better rotation, more balanced bullpen, IMO the better bench, the comparable offense, as well as the actual deep playoff run I would say it's a pretty easy conclusion to say 2003>2007.

 

[Rice Cube]

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.

You did mention ERA+ and that's what he was using. I'm pretty sure all arguments have holes and you can make a case for 2007 using stats etc. but the fact is that the 2003 rotation had a healthy Wood and Prior, pre-suck Matt Clemente and a young Carlos Zambrano as well as former All-Star Shawn Estes. The bullpen wasn't terrible either. They also ended up trading for a younger Aramis Ramirez and had Sammy Sosa and Moises Alou. I'm not sure how you could poo-poo that team, to be honest. I'm not saying that D-Lee, 2007 Ramirez and Soriano sucked, but I do think that the 2003 team was better constructed, and they had to deal with a still-good Houston Astros club as well as the perennially good Cardinals. 2007 Cubs basically had to wait for the Brewers to lay down and die before getting to the postseason.

 

[Rice Cube]

I don't remember saying that since the 2003 team was 5 outs away they were WS worthy. I said that they had superior starting pitching compared to those other Cubs postseason teams...and I guess even the 2004 team, which didn't make the postseason but in your opinion was superior to the 2003 team.

The 2003 Cubs matched up well against the other postseason teams that year. They had winning records against the Marlins, Giants, and Yankees. They got past the Braves in the 1st round, and that was arguably their toughest matchup.

Didn't both Prior and Wood get hurt in 2004? I thought that team was derailed more by injuries than anything.

To Wikipedia!

 

[FirstTimer]

Lol and yet 2007 had a better era+.

Listing names is such an awful argument.

A) bahahahaha where did I say anything about rotations?

You're a fucking idiot.

I listed the rotations, showing 2003's was better you "lulzed" at listing names(of whom I only listed the rotation) then posted an ERA+ stat..that conveniently didn't evaluate the rotation alone...which is what my post that you "luld" at was doing. You were responding in direct context of my rotation post. So by responding to that you were in fact talking about rotations.

B) yay for weighted averages you fucking moron. Just ignoring the rest of the starts made by other pitchers those years?

Well come playoff time I would think the "main" starters for the team and overall the team as the whole would be more relevant than evaluating the 8 spot starts by Juan Cruz and Sergio Mitre and 10 starts by Wade Miller, Steve Traschal, and Angel Guzman.

Then again that would take a brain to understand. If part of your argument for the 2007 "rotation"/starter being better is going to center around Guzman being better than Juan Cruz or Sergio Mitre..I think you're up a creek without a paddle.

Each argument from you has more holes

Actually it doesn't.

 

[poodski]

Lol dick shrinking? This gets better and better. I said 2007 PROBABLY so yeah that means definitely? Reading comprehension much?

Similar offenses. Similar pitching. Similar records. Overall I'll still take 2007 due to run differential. Regardless there's a big drop off from these two to the top two. 2003/2007/2009 are remarkably similar.

 

[Rice Cube]

Lol dick shrinking? This gets better and better. I said 2007 PROBABLY so yeah that means definitely? Reading comprehension much?

Similar offenses. Similar pitching. Similar records. Overall I'll still take 2007 due to run differential. Regardless there's a big drop off from these two to the top two. 2003/2007/2009 are remarkably similar.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way (and you probably will anyway) but saying something like that and then acting butthurt about it is sort of a copout. I also disagree with the similarity you are arguing because of the various things we discussed in previous posts that you can read for yourself. Using run differential is fine, but 2003 outperformed their Pythag whereas 2007 underperformed. 2009 had a worse overall and Pythag record than either of the other two teams you listed. 2003 is "probably" the best of those three.

I still say that 2008 was fun to watch and you'd want more of those because that team would almost always get to the playoffs with that kind of performance, but 2003 is going to be the team that people always remember because of the young impact talent and the still-productive veterans like Sosa and Alou.

 

[FirstTimer]

Lol dick shrinking? This gets better and better. I said 2007 PROBABLY so yeah that means definitely

Wrong.

Rory sarcastically responds about 2007>2003. Clearly showing he thinks 2003 was better.


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

So yeah, it's pretty clear you think 2007 was better.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think it's funny that poods acts like an indignant(and ignorant) asshole about the 2007 team when 2003 is brought up then once he's smacked back down by reality he gets all wimpy and starts back pedaling harder than Champ Baily.

It's hilarious.

Poods is back for literally 2days and is back to his same old Special person shit. I though this time away was spent actually learning something about the game.

Also I love how poods a while ago had me on"ignore" but yet is now able to respond and see what I'm saying. Either the posters here don't understand how ignore actually works...or Rush and Zack need to do some repairs to the site.

 

[FirstTimer]

FirstTimes,

You are wrong. The only teams definitely better than the 2003 team were the 2004 and 2008 teams. The 2007 team was only "probably" better. Big difference.

Yay!

OPS+

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.

2004:

108
117
108
69
138
131
95
113

"Average": 110


2008:
118
108
117
92
126
119
134
89

"Average": 113


ERA+ of each rotation:

2003:
179
139
136
106
76

"Average"= 127


2004:
160
110
120
119
110

"Average": 123


2008:
155
113
118
102
260(Harden in 12 starts..take this sample size for what it's worth)

Average: 150


ERA+ of main bullpen arms
2003:
165
159
132
119
75

Average: 130

2004:
168
174
129
96
94

"Average" 132


2008:
142
172
86
128
108


Average:127

 

[Rice Cube]

Hey Rory, did you ever have those farm rankings for the past decade during Hendry's tenure? I'm probably googling wrong but I only found 2010 and 2011's rankings (but I probably was just too lazy to go to page 2)

Just wanted to see how bad the farm really was.

 

[nwfisch]

I think the question is framed wrong.

He's a bust if you expect a GM, like I do to construct a World Series winning team.

Hendry had some great moments and did make the Cubs relevant again winning.

I don't think bust is the right word, but to say he was great is wrong as well.

I would call Hendry's tenure disappointing, not necessarily a bust.

 

[Rice Cube]

I looked at them yesterday for years 2008, 2009, and 2010. IIRC, in 2008 they were like 25th, in 2009 they were 32nd, but then in 2010 they shot up to 18th or something.

But at that point my focus shifted to Poodski, so I lost interest in the "project".

Fair enough. It's pretty bad when the farm system is ranked 32nd out of 30 teams though.

Whenever you have time or are still interested drop a post and we'll look at it, thanks.

 

[FirstTimer]

Take those numbers for what they are worth.

Given poods context of wanting to use OPS+ and ERA+.

I find it hilarious that anyone could say that 2004 was better than 2003 given the fact that 2004 didn't even make the playoffs, let alone get close to the WS and that Wood and Prior were injured up over the course of the year.

 

[poodski]

I don't want you to take this the wrong way (and you probably will anyway) but saying something like that and then acting butthurt about it is sort of a copout. I also disagree with the similarity you are arguing because of the various things we discussed in previous posts that you can read for yourself. Using run differential is fine, but 2003 outperformed their Pythag whereas 2007 underperformed. 2009 had a worse overall and Pythag record than either of the other two teams you listed. 2003 is "probably" the best of those three.

I still say that 2008 was fun to watch and you'd want more of those because that team would almost always get to the playoffs with that kind of performance, but 2003 is going to be the team that people always remember because of the young impact talent and the still-productive veterans like Sosa and Alou.

Butthurt? Nah I just find it comical that people just throw statements out there with literally nothing to back up their claims. I stand by 2007 was probably better in terms of overall performance. Still the difference isn't large. Same with 2009. 2004 and 2008 however were clearly superior and someone saying 2003 was the only WS worthy team is just laughable.

Thanks for bringing up pyth I didn't bring it up because I assumed most on here (ie the two making horrible arguments in this thread) wouldnt know what it was. That is IMO the tie breaker between the three teams. Hence the probably.

 

[Rice Cube]

2004 was when the Cardinals went crazy-nuts and won 105 games, and Houston was three games better than the Cubs. The 2004 Cubs won one game more than in 2003 despite those injuries. I think most people who try to argue 2004 was better than 2003 do so because of what might have been had everyone stayed healthy.

 

[MRubio52]

Fair enough. It's pretty bad when the farm system is ranked 32nd out of 30 teams though.

Whenever you have time or are still interested drop a post and we'll look at it, thanks.

Yeah every time I googled the farm system from that time period I got back articles with headlines like "Sorry State of Cubs Farm System," "Cubs lag in farm system dept." and stuff like that.

They were pretty bare in those years. Bobby Hill was a significant prospect in our system, that pretty much sums it up right there.

 

[FirstTimer]

Butthurt? Nah I just find it comical that people just throw statements out there with literally nothing to back up their claims

Umm we obviously did.

The numbers "backed up" all the statements we had been making over the first few pages of the thread before you came in with your "lulz" responses.

There were multiple posts between Rory, Rice myself, maybe some other talking about the rotation being better or worse and the lineup being better or worse in a certain context etc.

You either can't read or are choosing not to.

I stand by 2007 was probably better in terms of overall performance.

And you'd be wrong.

LOL at 2007 being better by "overall performance" when they had (by your standards) either the same or comparable offense(worse when Lofton is factored in as a starter), a worse rotation, less balanced bullpen and got swept out of the playoffs rather than taking the NLCS to 7 games.

Talk about a shit house argument for 2007.

 

[MRubio52]

2004 was when the Cardinals went crazy-nuts and won 105 games, and Houston was three games better than the Cubs. The 2004 Cubs won one game more than in 2003 despite those injuries. I think most people who try to argue 2004 was better than 2003 do so because of what might have been had everyone stayed healthy.

I think the roster was better in 04, but the 03 team had better results, which when you think about it, should be significantly factored in I think. I can see the argument for 2004, I just think it's wrong.

 

[Rice Cube]

Yeah every time I googled the farm system from that time period I got back articles with headlines like "Sorry State of Cubs Farm System," "Cubs lag in farm system dept." and stuff like that.

They were pretty bare in those years. Bobby Hill was a significant prospect in our system, that pretty much sums it up right there.

Yeah, the cream of the crop probably consisted of Wood, Prior, Zambrano and Corey Patterson before he went from "he could be good" to "he sucks", and they all made it up to the big league team. Wasn't Bobby Hill traded for Ramirez?

I also recall that guys like Ricky Nolasco and Dontrelle Willis were traded away, so I think the Cubs system had some good stuff (obviously Dontrelle sucks now but y'know). But my perception that they were a top system was definitely flawed.