Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

STEVE STONE
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=88568
Page 1 of 2

Author:  bigfan [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:23 am ]
Post subject:  STEVE STONE

Much better when just talking baseball. Not Sox or cubs, because his comments are skewed on both sides, but when the guy talks baseball, he is awfully good and this visit from Baltimore in town brought out the thought process that made him a Cy Guy!

Author:  RFDC [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

yeah just heard him on the SCORE.

He said that Earl Weaver averaged 98 wins a season as a manager. Is that true? I mean I knew he was good, but that is crazy good.

Author:  JORR [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

RFDC wrote:
yeah just heard him on the SCORE.

He said that Earl Weaver averaged 98 wins a season as a manager. Is that true? I mean I knew he was good, but that is crazy good.



I'm sure it's true. Those teams that won the pennants from '69-'71 were strong. They won 108 games a couple times.

Author:  Frank Coztansa [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

He also called Abreu's HR last night literally 10 seconds before he hit it.

Author:  Douchebag [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Image

Author:  Walt Williams Neck [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

RFDC wrote:
yeah just heard him on the SCORE.

He said that Earl Weaver averaged 98 wins a season as a manager. Is that true? I mean I knew he was good, but that is crazy good.

More like 87 but still that's damn good

Author:  Curious Hair [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

It's actually closer to 94 wins per season, but he took over in the middle of the '68 and '85 seasons and the '81 season was shortened. Take those out and he averaged 95 wins in full seasons.

Author:  Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Walt Williams Neck wrote:
RFDC wrote:
yeah just heard him on the SCORE.

He said that Earl Weaver averaged 98 wins a season as a manager. Is that true? I mean I knew he was good, but that is crazy good.

More like 87 but still that's damn good


96 if you take out the strike year, his first partial year, and those crappy 2 years when he came back.

Author:  Curious Hair [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

The 109-108-101 run of three pennants and a world championship is particularly impressive. Earl Weaver had it all figured out. Pitching, fielding, home runs. I think The Plan has one of the three.

Author:  denisdman [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Curious Hair wrote:
The 109-108-101 run of three pennants and a world championship is particularly impressive. Earl Weaver had it all figured out. Pitching, fielding, home runs. I think The Plan has one of the three.


CH, I respectfully request that you change your avatar due to the low image quality. It is not up to your typical high standards.

Author:  Curious Hair [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

It's a placeholder until the show inspires another good meme. I suppose I could pull Señor Columnist, Monet-ize Everything, or Adam Hog out of retirement if it's bothering you that much.

Author:  denisdman [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Curious Hair wrote:
It's a placeholder until the show inspires another good meme. I suppose I could pull Señor Columnist, Monet-ize Everything, or Adam Hog out of retirement if it's bothering you that much.


When I see a CH post, I expect a funny avatar and an insightful post. It's just that I have high standards for you and often click on threads just because you posted in it. There are a few others I like to follow on the board.

Author:  WestmontMike [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

RFDC wrote:
yeah just heard him on the SCORE.

He said that Earl Weaver averaged 98 wins a season as a manager. Is that true? I mean I knew he was good, but that is crazy good.


I thought the same thing when I heard it. He had a .583 winning percentage. That's 94.446 wins per year. Not 98, but that's pretty amazing.

Author:  good dolphin [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

denisdman wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
The 109-108-101 run of three pennants and a world championship is particularly impressive. Earl Weaver had it all figured out. Pitching, fielding, home runs. I think The Plan has one of the three.


CH, I respectfully request that you change your avatar due to the low image quality. It is not up to your typical high standards.


the low image quality makes it funnier

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Curious Hair wrote:
Earl Weaver had it all figured out. Pitching, fielding, home runs. I think The Plan has one of the three.

Its weird how you listed Home Runs last since he favored that more than anything else

Author:  RFDC [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

rogers park bryan wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Earl Weaver had it all figured out. Pitching, fielding, home runs. I think The Plan has one of the three.

Its weird how you listed Home Runs last since he favored that more than anything else

While he obviously favored homeruns didn't he normally talk of his way in the order CH listed?

Author:  Regular Reader [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

denisdman wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
It's a placeholder until the show inspires another good meme. I suppose I could pull Señor Columnist, Monet-ize Everything, or Adam Hog out of retirement if it's bothering you that much.


When I see a CH post, I expect a funny avatar and an insightful post. It's just that I have high standards for you and often click on threads just because you posted in it. There are a few others I like to follow on the board.


I hate to admit this, but I just took a good look @ your avatar Denis. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Author:  Regular Reader [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

RFDC wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Earl Weaver had it all figured out. Pitching, fielding, home runs. I think The Plan has one of the three.

Its weird how you listed Home Runs last since he favored that more than anything else

While he obviously favored homeruns didn't he normally talk of his way in the order CH listed?


That's what I remember as well. I mean hell, with 20 game winner out the ass, glove men starting with BAs in the low 200s...and then the occasional 3 run HR, how could it be otherwise?

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

RFDC wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Earl Weaver had it all figured out. Pitching, fielding, home runs. I think The Plan has one of the three.

Its weird how you listed Home Runs last since he favored that more than anything else

While he obviously favored homeruns didn't he normally talk of his way in the order CH listed?

If so, then Im wrong. Ive always associated him with the Three run homerun model

Author:  Regular Reader [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

rogers park bryan wrote:
If so, then Im wrong. Ive always associated him with the Three run homerun model


It just dawned on me, you've probably heard the pregame show clip that runs on the Score than you heard/saw Weaver in action. Thinking he was first and foremost the 3r HR guy is therefore completely understandable.

I really wish they could play that more often :lol: (A pregame show where he was chastising a woman who asked about his failure to use the hit and run more often, f-ing up his beloved 3 run blast opportunities. And then he wondered about how well she was taking care of HER domestic responsibilities with her hubby :lol: :lol: :lol: )

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Regular Reader wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
If so, then Im wrong. Ive always associated him with the Three run homerun model


It just dawned on me, you've probably heard the pregame show clip that runs on the Score than you heard/saw Weaver in action. Thinking he was first and foremost the 3r HR guy is therefore completely understandable.

I really wish they could play that more often :lol: (A pregame show where he was chastising a woman who asked about his failure to use the hit and run more often, f-ing up his beloved 3 run blast opportunities. And then he wondered about how well she was taking care of HER domestic responsibilities with her hubby :lol: :lol: :lol: )

We listen to that, the Lee Elia rant of the Lasorda rant every friday afternoon at work



Alice Sweet Needs to worry where the fuck her next lay is coming from, dumb bitch needs to get out of the fuckin bar and go hustlin at night in the fuckin streets, then maybe she might get a fuckin prick stuck in her.

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Wed Aug 20, 2014 6:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Curious to say The Plan doesnt include pitching is kinda silly.

Theyve drafted a ton of pitchers abd traded for more (Arrieta, Hendricks, Edwards, Johnson)

Author:  Curious Hair [ Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

rogers park bryan wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Earl Weaver had it all figured out. Pitching, fielding, home runs. I think The Plan has one of the three.

Its weird how you listed Home Runs last since he favored that more than anything else


http://sabr.org/research/earl-weaver-st ... -meltdowns
Quote:
Though his laws are sound, Weaver was best known for his succinct managerial philosophy: Pitching, defense, and the three-run homer.


RFDC's got it, yeah.

EDIT: Speaking of Steve Stone, a funny thing Weaver did was write in Stone at DH and then pick his designated hitter later so that he could exploit lefty-righty splits if something happened to the opposing starter. Can't do it anymore because it those first plate appearances count as pinch-hits.

Author:  Brick [ Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

bigfan wrote:
Much better when just talking baseball. Not Sox or cubs, because his comments are skewed on both sides, but when the guy talks baseball, he is awfully good and this visit from Baltimore in town brought out the thought process that made him a Cy Guy!
Great nomination.

Today it was confirmed he was right about Rizzo vs. Abreu.

Author:  Big Chicagoan [ Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
bigfan wrote:
Much better when just talking baseball. Not Sox or cubs, because his comments are skewed on both sides, but when the guy talks baseball, he is awfully good and this visit from Baltimore in town brought out the thought process that made him a Cy Guy!
Great nomination.

Today it was confirmed he was right about Rizzo vs. Abreu.


The funny thing is, he ended up being right for the wrong reasons. Stone argument was based more on how bad he though Rizzo was and not necessarily how awesome Abreu would be. He probably expected Abreu to put up Rizzo's numbers this season and Rizzo to repeat his 2013 season numbers. In reality, Rizzo was great this season. He put up excellent numbers, but Abreu put up other-worldly numbers which still allowed Stone to be "right" with his statement.

Author:  Brick [ Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Big Chicagoan wrote:
The funny thing is, he ended up being right for the wrong reasons. Stone argument was based more on how bad he though Rizzo was and not necessarily how awesome Abreu would be. He probably expected Abreu to put up Rizzo's numbers this season and Rizzo to repeat his 2013 season numbers. In reality, Rizzo was great this season. He put up excellent numbers, but Abreu put up other-worldly numbers which still allowed Stone to be "right" with his statement.
The opposite side of that though is that Steve Stone was so correct that he could overcome Rizzo beating every single expectation.

What needs to be understood here is that it wasn't an insult to say that Abreu would be better than Rizzo. Some took it that way though.

Author:  Big Chicagoan [ Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Big Chicagoan wrote:
The funny thing is, he ended up being right for the wrong reasons. Stone argument was based more on how bad he though Rizzo was and not necessarily how awesome Abreu would be. He probably expected Abreu to put up Rizzo's numbers this season and Rizzo to repeat his 2013 season numbers. In reality, Rizzo was great this season. He put up excellent numbers, but Abreu put up other-worldly numbers which still allowed Stone to be "right" with his statement.
The opposite side of that though is that Steve Stone was so correct that he could overcome Rizzo beating every single expectation.

What needs to be understood here is that it wasn't an insult to say that Abreu would be better than Rizzo. Some took it that way though.


He didn't say he would be better, he said he would be "far superior". Such a statement indicates an insult to the "less superior" entity.

Author:  Brick [ Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Big Chicagoan wrote:
He didn't say he would be better, he said he would be "far superior". Such a statement indicates an insult to the "less superior" entity.
Why? If someone was to say that Mike Trout is far superior to Rizzo would it be an insult?

Author:  Big Chicagoan [ Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Big Chicagoan wrote:
He didn't say he would be better, he said he would be "far superior". Such a statement indicates an insult to the "less superior" entity.
Why? If someone was to say that Mike Trout is far superior to Rizzo would it be an insult?


If Trout had never played an inning in MLB, yes it would be.

Author:  Frank Coztansa [ Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: STEVE STONE

:lol: but Anthony Rizzo was the 'less superior' player compared to Jose Abreu in 2014. That does not mean that Rizzo had a bad year at all.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/