On May 1, the Cubs beat the Pirates 2-1 to move to 14-10 on the season, and 5-5 in ten games without the injured Derrek Lee. Greg Maddux was 5-0; Ryan Dempster had just recorded his seventh save in as many chances and his team record 26th straight since 2005.
On June 1, the Cubs could potentially be as many as 16 games under .500. They have played 22 games in the past 23 days and have put up a record of 4-18 - and of the team's four wins, the resurgent Carlos Zambrano has three. Maddux is 0-4 in his last five starts, suddenly looking every day of 40. Dempster's save chances have been few and far between, but he has still blown two of his last three, including in a 5-4 loss to Florida on Tuesday. In the 22 games, the anemic Cubs offense has managed more than four runs just four times, while absorbing five shutouts.
There's a school of thought that says when a team doesn't have all its players healthy, it simply isn't fair to blame the manager for the team's poor performance. But Lee is the only player who started the season with the Cubs who isn't there now, and despite his Triple Crown-worthy stats last year, it defies logic to think that one player's absence can turn a team from division contenders into one of the two or three worst clubs in the entire league. (At present, three teams have worse records than the Cubs - Kansas City, Florida, and Pittsburgh - but as one of those three just swept the Cubs, it hardly seems unfair to suggest that the Cubs are worse, at least as of right now.) And what changed from those first ten games after Lee's injury, when the Cubs managed to play .500 ball even with Lee on the sidelines?
Sure, many of the players seem to be having bad seasons all at the same time. Juan Pierre, brought in to be the leadoff hitter the Cubs didn't have with Corey "Swing first, ask questions later" Patterson, is hitting .235, and his OBP is lower than Glendon Rusch's. (He's also got more than twice as many strikeouts as walks, and even though he wasn't brought in for power, 2 RBI is pretty sad.) Aramis Ramirez has 9 home runs and is tied for the team lead with 21 RBI, but he's still hitting just .232. Michael Barrett, whose .879 OPS leads the non-Lee contingent of the team by nearly 100 points, certainly faces at least a week's suspension sometime soon, and his backup Henry Blanco is hitting .051 - worse than almost every pitcher on the roster.
Either because or in spite of all this, reports run wild that Dusty Baker is on the hot seat, and they're probably not going to go away while the Cubs are losing like this, even as Jim Hendry - clearly a Baker guy - insists that Dusty is not in trouble and may even be extended as soon as the ship is righted. (Attach a big "if" on the front of that, though.)
Baker and Hendry have seemingly resigned themselves to the losing, however. I can appreciate that they avoided mortgaging the farm system further for a two-month first base rental, especially when the options were all mediocre, but the starting pitching has been a pretty consistent problem, with only Sean Marshall displaying any real chops among the rookies who have been tasked to start in lieu of attempting to pick up a veteran. Management continues to find every excuse in the book for why the team is failing except to look Baker's way.
Perhaps the key skirmish in this campaign came at NotComiskey on Saturday. Following Michael Barrett's admittedly ill-chosen punch of A.J. Pierzynski, it appears that not a single Cub was willing to defend Barrett in the press (with most of them simply explaining that they ran onto the field because everyone else did, as though Barrett's right hook had escaped their vision completely) with the exception of Rich Hill, who was promptly lambasted not just by tactless-as-ever Ozzie Guillen but by Baker and Hendry as well, and subsequently sent back to AAA. (To be fair, his pitching likely merited that move on its own, but no amount of insistence to the contrary can convince me that Hill's comments had nothing to do with the timing.)
Baker not only took Hill down, but he failed to come to Barrett's defense as well. I don't mean to suggest that Barrett should have punched Pierzynski - although if you think about it, it's kind of hard to blame him considering how obnoxious Pierzynski is - but how do you not back your guy up even a little bit if you're the manager? Even if it was a totally clean play (and regardless of whether it was or not, I can't help but feel that if Barrett had bowled over Pierzynski, Guillen would be backing up his guy and killing Barrett), it seems like it's Baker's responsibility to at least try and stand behind Barrett, something he could do without condoning his actions. Instead, Baker basically threw Barrett under the bus.
And sure enough, following an emotional win in the series finale, the Cubs promptly lost three in Florida. Maybe these were just "come-down losses" - but a sweep at the hands of the worst team in the NL? 9 runs allowed in two of the three games, and a ninth-inning blown save in the third?
I refuse to believe that this team can't win. Even with Lee out, even with Pierre and Ramirez not hitting very well, this team went 5-5 in their first ten games without him. They can win. I'm really starting to think, though, that they don't want to. Baker's tenure is starting to look more like Maury Wills' in Seattle in 1980-81 - 26-56 over parts of two seasons, unpopularity, and player hatred to the point where after a win one Mariner was heard to comment, "Hell, we screwed up - we won."
Do the Cubs players really want Baker fired? I don't know. He is a "player's manager," supposedly, although it bears noting that a lot of guys with that distinction never win crap because they can't ever be tough on their players. And as long as Hendry seems to be in his corner, nothing is going to change. But maybe something should change. We're in Year Four of the Baker Era now, and it's starting to become pretty clear that things peaked in Year One. If the Cubs finish the season in their current spot in the division, it'll be a worse finish every year under Baker - from 1 to 3 to 4 to 5. And we're going to talk contract extension?
Sure, in 2003 Baker took the Cubs as far as any manager since Charlie Grimm. In 1945, Grimm, too, was in his first full season as Cubs manager. The next year, the Cubs finished third. In 1947, sixth. In 1948, eighth. In 1949, they were on their way to another eighth place finish when Grimm was relieved of his duties.
That was Year Five of the Grimm Era. If Dusty Baker's tenure as Cubs manager is going to take a similar path, and especially if the players really have quit on him, there's no way he should be allowed to make it past Year Four.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Sweepless wonders
On Sunday, the White Sox wore 1906 throwback uniforms. Knowing the White Sox's general attitude towards the Cubs, I can only assume that this was an attempt to stick it to the North Siders by reminding us of a time when not only were the Sox the World Champions (for the first of three total times) but they had gone through what was supposed to be a greatly superior Cubs team to do it. The '06 Cubs, in the first season of one of the most dominant five-year runs in the history of the game, went 116-36; the White Sox had won just 93 games (for a winning percentage nearly 150 points lower) and were dubbed the "Hitless Wonders" for batting .230 as a team during the regular season. The Cubs had Tinker, Evers, Chance, and Mordecai Brown's 26 wins and 1.04 ERA. In fact, the Cubs' team ERA was 1.75. On paper it was a mismatch.
But in the World Series, the teams were pretty much even - particularly in the batting column, where the Sox hit .198 and the Cubs a mere .196. Oddly, the Sox had just 11 hits in the first four games, yet won two of them; they proceeded to suddenly explode for 8 runs in each of the last two games on 26 total hits to win the Series in six. Then, of course, the Cubs won the next two World Series, the Sox won in 1917, and until 2005, the teams were tied at two titles each.
The funny thing about this weekend's series is that the Sox - despite being the much better hitting team so far this season, with three regulars over .300 to the Cubs' none - sort of turned back into the Hitless Wonders, and yet, as in '06, they were able to get it done. But this time it wasn't necessarily because the Cubs didn't hit, just that they didn't score.
Consider the following:
Game One: Cubs - 1 run on 2 hits; White Sox - 6 runs on 10 hits
Game Two: Cubs - 0 runs on 9 hits; White Sox - 7 runs on 6 hits
Game Three: Cubs - 7 runs on 10 hits; White Sox - 4 runs on 5 hits
All right, so the first game makes sense. But look at the next two! The White Sox put up just 11 hits over the two games, yet 11 runs crossed the plate; meanwhile, the Cubs got 20 hits - more than one per inning - and plated just seven runs, all in Game Two.
Of course, Hill did walk five guys, and Zambrano enjoyed giving up solo home runs today, so I guess that sort of thing will happen. It continues to be annoying how mediocre, and generally inconsistent, the Cubs' offense is, however. Even today, they had just four hits through the first seven innings - and were trailing 4-2 before suddenly showing up in the eighth.
But that's this team lately, isn't it? And it's not even the lack of hits so much as the lack of runs. Through May 1, Michael Barrett and Matt Murton had 34 RBI between them; since then, they've had a total of three, and that includes Barrett finally getting his 20th today. Heck, Jacque Jones is up to 19 now (and he's suddenly hitting .273!).
I've said it before and I'll say it again - how can one guy make that big a difference? Sure, Barrett hit right behind Lee, and Lee was on base a lot - a .448 OBP in the 14 games he played. But other guys have been on base, even if not as much. Todd Walker, who has filled the 3 hole, is second on the team in OBP, after all.
Maybe Lee will come back and everything will be fine. On the other hand, he doesn't get back for at least another couple weeks - and as much as we miss the guy, I hope he doesn't come back too soon - and the Cubs are already seven games under. Maybe this is just destined to be yet another year in the long Cubs history where they seem to have potential and end up failing to seriously contend. Last year's team was pretty similar and it finished under .500 (it's hard to believe that the Cubs haven't been able to string together a mere three straight winning seasons since a run from '67 to '72, though even then they squandered Jenkins, Santo, and Williams to the tune of three second-place finishes but no division titles); this year's team has a true leadoff guy, but then what's Pierre done since getting here?
We'll see if Lee comes back healthy, and Wood gets in a groove, and Maddux rebounds, and Prior and Miller come back solid. But unless all those things happen... this is probably a .500 team. And I can't help but feel like that's a ridiculous underachievement. How do you fix a team where all the players should be great and most of them are just okay?
But in the World Series, the teams were pretty much even - particularly in the batting column, where the Sox hit .198 and the Cubs a mere .196. Oddly, the Sox had just 11 hits in the first four games, yet won two of them; they proceeded to suddenly explode for 8 runs in each of the last two games on 26 total hits to win the Series in six. Then, of course, the Cubs won the next two World Series, the Sox won in 1917, and until 2005, the teams were tied at two titles each.
The funny thing about this weekend's series is that the Sox - despite being the much better hitting team so far this season, with three regulars over .300 to the Cubs' none - sort of turned back into the Hitless Wonders, and yet, as in '06, they were able to get it done. But this time it wasn't necessarily because the Cubs didn't hit, just that they didn't score.
Consider the following:
Game One: Cubs - 1 run on 2 hits; White Sox - 6 runs on 10 hits
Game Two: Cubs - 0 runs on 9 hits; White Sox - 7 runs on 6 hits
Game Three: Cubs - 7 runs on 10 hits; White Sox - 4 runs on 5 hits
All right, so the first game makes sense. But look at the next two! The White Sox put up just 11 hits over the two games, yet 11 runs crossed the plate; meanwhile, the Cubs got 20 hits - more than one per inning - and plated just seven runs, all in Game Two.
Of course, Hill did walk five guys, and Zambrano enjoyed giving up solo home runs today, so I guess that sort of thing will happen. It continues to be annoying how mediocre, and generally inconsistent, the Cubs' offense is, however. Even today, they had just four hits through the first seven innings - and were trailing 4-2 before suddenly showing up in the eighth.
But that's this team lately, isn't it? And it's not even the lack of hits so much as the lack of runs. Through May 1, Michael Barrett and Matt Murton had 34 RBI between them; since then, they've had a total of three, and that includes Barrett finally getting his 20th today. Heck, Jacque Jones is up to 19 now (and he's suddenly hitting .273!).
I've said it before and I'll say it again - how can one guy make that big a difference? Sure, Barrett hit right behind Lee, and Lee was on base a lot - a .448 OBP in the 14 games he played. But other guys have been on base, even if not as much. Todd Walker, who has filled the 3 hole, is second on the team in OBP, after all.
Maybe Lee will come back and everything will be fine. On the other hand, he doesn't get back for at least another couple weeks - and as much as we miss the guy, I hope he doesn't come back too soon - and the Cubs are already seven games under. Maybe this is just destined to be yet another year in the long Cubs history where they seem to have potential and end up failing to seriously contend. Last year's team was pretty similar and it finished under .500 (it's hard to believe that the Cubs haven't been able to string together a mere three straight winning seasons since a run from '67 to '72, though even then they squandered Jenkins, Santo, and Williams to the tune of three second-place finishes but no division titles); this year's team has a true leadoff guy, but then what's Pierre done since getting here?
We'll see if Lee comes back healthy, and Wood gets in a groove, and Maddux rebounds, and Prior and Miller come back solid. But unless all those things happen... this is probably a .500 team. And I can't help but feel like that's a ridiculous underachievement. How do you fix a team where all the players should be great and most of them are just okay?
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Meet the new Wood, same as the old Wood
As much as I like Kerry Wood, it's quite possible that few guys in the history of baseball have been paid more for doing less. Sure, he was a steal at $170,000 in 1998, but the guy's made 17.5 million dollars over the last two seasons while making just 32 starts and going 11-13. He's never won more than 14 games in a season, he's never had an ERA under 3.20... he's had a couple nice K years (266 in 2003 being his high, which led baseball that year), but he's just on the shelf so much (including missing the entire 1999 season). I can't begrudge him his injuries, I guess, but that's a ton of money.
And then he comes back and gives up three home runs to a Nationals team that had scored precisely zero runs off Zambrano and Marshall in the two games prior. The good news is he didn't give up that many hits (five in five innings isn't great, but it's not horrendous) and he didn't walk anyone; he also struck out six. The signs for a possible return to 2003 or 1998 form are there. But can he stay healthy long enough for that to happen? God, I hope so.
At least the Cubs won the series. If they win two of every three for the rest of the way, they should be in good shape. Why don't I just hold my breath for that one?
And then he comes back and gives up three home runs to a Nationals team that had scored precisely zero runs off Zambrano and Marshall in the two games prior. The good news is he didn't give up that many hits (five in five innings isn't great, but it's not horrendous) and he didn't walk anyone; he also struck out six. The signs for a possible return to 2003 or 1998 form are there. But can he stay healthy long enough for that to happen? God, I hope so.
At least the Cubs won the series. If they win two of every three for the rest of the way, they should be in good shape. Why don't I just hold my breath for that one?
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Warming up?
They say every cloud has a silver lining. In this case, the cloud is the Cubs' current losing streak. The silver lining is that Aramis Ramirez may, finally, be starting to get hot. After going 2-for-4 in today's 6-3 loss in San Diego, Ramirez has his average up to .220. His two-hit games yesterday and today were just his third and fourth of the season, and he homered in each game (he now has six). Note: Petco Park is one of the least homer-friendly parks in the league.
Obviously this hardly ends the offensive woes. Even with three runs today (the first time the Cubs have scored even that many since April 28), it's just five over the current six-game losing streak. Even if Ramirez does get hot, almost no one else is hitting.
Reports say that help may be on the way. The Cubs are apparently talking with new favorite trading partners Baltimore about obtaining either Kevin Millar or Jeff Conine. Neither one is hitting very well yet this year (.217 for Millar, .222 for Conine). Conine has had a better career than Millar, but he's also five years older. Either way, neither is going to be anything approaching Lee. It almost barely seems worth it to bother with such a deal (especially since we don't need to mortgage the farm system even further just for a rental).
Yet it would seem like something has to happen. I just don't know what would really help. There's precedent for teams starting poorly and coming back, even just within the division - the Astros seem to do it every year. And I did feel, at the beginning of the year, that this team was resilient. But with the Cardinals in the division, the Reds hacking away, the Brewers improved... it just seems dangerous to fall too far behind. But I know - what are you gonna do?
Obviously this hardly ends the offensive woes. Even with three runs today (the first time the Cubs have scored even that many since April 28), it's just five over the current six-game losing streak. Even if Ramirez does get hot, almost no one else is hitting.
Reports say that help may be on the way. The Cubs are apparently talking with new favorite trading partners Baltimore about obtaining either Kevin Millar or Jeff Conine. Neither one is hitting very well yet this year (.217 for Millar, .222 for Conine). Conine has had a better career than Millar, but he's also five years older. Either way, neither is going to be anything approaching Lee. It almost barely seems worth it to bother with such a deal (especially since we don't need to mortgage the farm system even further just for a rental).
Yet it would seem like something has to happen. I just don't know what would really help. There's precedent for teams starting poorly and coming back, even just within the division - the Astros seem to do it every year. And I did feel, at the beginning of the year, that this team was resilient. But with the Cardinals in the division, the Reds hacking away, the Brewers improved... it just seems dangerous to fall too far behind. But I know - what are you gonna do?
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Let's get some runs
Work has ramped up a bit lately (especially now that I'm on the precipice of being hired full-time), so I haven't gotten much chance to watch the Cubs. Based on the box scores, though, I'm clearly not missing much. Let's recap the seven games since Greg Maddux's last win, the one that took him to 5-0:
Seven games
Six losses
Four shutouts
Five total runs scored
When you're averaging less than a run per game over a seven-game span, the only question is, how on earth is this team not 0-7 in that period? Thank God for Sean Marshall, who against all odds seems rapidly to be turning into the staff ace. Zambrano finally had a good game, so of course the Cubs didn't score a single run for him in a 1-0 eleven-inning loss to San Diego on Friday night. Maddux finally lost, but for reasons that escape me he has a horrid career record against Arizona, so let's not sound the alarm on him just yet.
Still, the starting pitching has been really inconsistent. And I guess we all knew this was going to be the case, but the gambles of calling up Guzman and Hill didn't seem to work (Hill, depressingly, just doesn't seem to cut it in the majors - over two seasons, he's now 0-3 with an ERA over 9, giving up 29 runs in 28.2 innings), and Rusch has not even been serviceable, really, and we can only hope Maddux and Marshall keep it going and Zambrano finally figures it out.
The real problem, though, is the hitting. Obviously. When you score five runs in seven games, the problem is the hitting. The Cubs shouldn't be losing 8-0 to the worst team in the division even if arch-nemesis Zach Duke - by the way, younger than I am - was the pitcher, but Guzman could have tossed a gem and it probably wouldn't have mattered because this team cannot score right now. In the current four-game skid, three of the losses have been shutouts, which is humiliating. Lee is great, but was he seriously so responsible for this team's success that they can't even push a run across without him there?
Well, maybe not. Check out the BAs: Pierre, .259; Jones, .253 (though considering he was barely over .200 ten days ago, it's hard to argue he's been their hottest hitter of late); Ramirez, .198. Even Walker is down to .318, when ten days ago he was still around .380.
Really, all the evidence you need of the Cubs' offensive woes is Chan Ho Park's line from last night: 9 IP, 2 H, 0 R. If Chan Ho Park is throwing a two-hitter on you - a "complete game" two-hitter no less (though of course the game actually went 11 and Park got no decision) - you really need help.
But help doesn't seem to be on the way. On the one hand, it's understandable. You can't exactly go out and get someone at this point in the season, because few teams are looking to deal - in addition to which, you're not replacing Lee regardless. And you don't want to spend too much money on some guy you're going to either bench or cut loose as soon as Lee does return.
On the other hand, if this team doesn't start scoring, they're going to be 15 games out of first by the time Lee returns and the whole argument is going to be pretty well moot.
Sigh. I'm not even sure I can stand to watch this team right now. Maybe if they score more than three runs in consecutive games I'll buy back in.
Seven games
Six losses
Four shutouts
Five total runs scored
When you're averaging less than a run per game over a seven-game span, the only question is, how on earth is this team not 0-7 in that period? Thank God for Sean Marshall, who against all odds seems rapidly to be turning into the staff ace. Zambrano finally had a good game, so of course the Cubs didn't score a single run for him in a 1-0 eleven-inning loss to San Diego on Friday night. Maddux finally lost, but for reasons that escape me he has a horrid career record against Arizona, so let's not sound the alarm on him just yet.
Still, the starting pitching has been really inconsistent. And I guess we all knew this was going to be the case, but the gambles of calling up Guzman and Hill didn't seem to work (Hill, depressingly, just doesn't seem to cut it in the majors - over two seasons, he's now 0-3 with an ERA over 9, giving up 29 runs in 28.2 innings), and Rusch has not even been serviceable, really, and we can only hope Maddux and Marshall keep it going and Zambrano finally figures it out.
The real problem, though, is the hitting. Obviously. When you score five runs in seven games, the problem is the hitting. The Cubs shouldn't be losing 8-0 to the worst team in the division even if arch-nemesis Zach Duke - by the way, younger than I am - was the pitcher, but Guzman could have tossed a gem and it probably wouldn't have mattered because this team cannot score right now. In the current four-game skid, three of the losses have been shutouts, which is humiliating. Lee is great, but was he seriously so responsible for this team's success that they can't even push a run across without him there?
Well, maybe not. Check out the BAs: Pierre, .259; Jones, .253 (though considering he was barely over .200 ten days ago, it's hard to argue he's been their hottest hitter of late); Ramirez, .198. Even Walker is down to .318, when ten days ago he was still around .380.
Really, all the evidence you need of the Cubs' offensive woes is Chan Ho Park's line from last night: 9 IP, 2 H, 0 R. If Chan Ho Park is throwing a two-hitter on you - a "complete game" two-hitter no less (though of course the game actually went 11 and Park got no decision) - you really need help.
But help doesn't seem to be on the way. On the one hand, it's understandable. You can't exactly go out and get someone at this point in the season, because few teams are looking to deal - in addition to which, you're not replacing Lee regardless. And you don't want to spend too much money on some guy you're going to either bench or cut loose as soon as Lee does return.
On the other hand, if this team doesn't start scoring, they're going to be 15 games out of first by the time Lee returns and the whole argument is going to be pretty well moot.
Sigh. I'm not even sure I can stand to watch this team right now. Maybe if they score more than three runs in consecutive games I'll buy back in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)