What a game for Zambrano. 4 RBI - including one of the most impressive home runs you'll ever see a pitcher hit, I think - and a no-hitter into the eighth (only to have it broken up by a guy who once struck out 187 times in a season and who had struck out earlier in the game). And then after giving up the hit and suddenly having two men on and just one out, he strikes out the next two guys.
Also good games: well, everyone. Womack was the only starter who didn't get a hit. Jones continued his torrid pace, going 2-for-4 with his 11th home run and 2 RBI. Cedeno was 2-for-4 and scored twice; ditto for Walker. Ramirez had a run-scoring double. Pierre got on base three times out of five and stole two bases, though he didn't cross the plate. Ohman pitched a perfect ninth. And would you believe that this Cubs lineup suddenly has four everyday players hitting over .300? Walker .312, Jones .310, Cedeno .307, Barrett .301. If you include Womack (though considering his limited sample size, you really can't), it's five.
The downside, if there has to be one: even though Len and Bob talked all night about how economical Zambrano was being with his pitches, he still ended up throwing 126 in 8 innings. Then again, it's hard to be a strikeout pitcher and not throw fairly high pitch counts, and you can't really complain after a game like that - but it's hard to watch Zambrano and not feel like if he could just find another level of control he would be unstoppable. Not that he hasn't pitched great over the last month or so, but I'm talking transcedentally good. Best-Cubs-pitcher-since-Three-Finger-Brown good. Because you see some of his stuff and it is just nasty, and you know no one can hope to hit it. And then he has a little breakdown and starts throwing balls like crazy. Pitchers with tempers have succeeded, but he could stand a more even keel. And I know he probably won't ever have that and I should stop thinking about it... but damn, he could be amazing if he could just settle down a bit.
Wood and Marshall the next two games. It may be overconfident to say it, but the way these two teams are playing right now, there's very little excuse for the Cubs not to get their first sweep since games 3, 4, and 5 of the season, over the Cardinals at Wrigley. These games are, it should not even need to be said, the most important of all - games against division rivals, and ones currently ahead of you at that. The Cubs aren't going to leapfrog three to four teams without beating them head-to-head, and with Houston down as they've been and still pre-Clemens, the Cubs must, must, must take advantage.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Sunday, June 04, 2006
I'll take two
Phil Nevin's first Cub home run. An Aramis grand slam. Five solid innings from Rusch. Novoa throwing three scoreless and hitting an RBI double (!). And a series won in St. Louis (a place the Cubs struggled mightily over much of the last decade). Even if they don't win the third game - we'll see how Maddux looks and if he's rebounded from May, and it'll help if Pujols continues to be out - you have to consider this series a success. Although it's worth noting that the Cubs needed a lot of help to win these games. They had a ton of hits in both games, but the real breakthroughs in both came thanks to errors. Sure, you need some luck along the way too, but if Gold Glover Rolen doesn't make one each day, we could conceivably be staring at a three-game losing sweep tomorrow. A bit too close for comfort, don't you think?
I love that Jones is over .300 now. The right-field bleachers should make a big "Sorry we booed you like crazy" sign for the next home game. And why has Jones been so much the object of derision with leadoff savior Pierre hitting around 40 points worse than Corey Patterson? Pierre does have 17 stolen bases - putting him on pace for more than 50. He'd be the first Cub since Eric Young stole 54 in 2000 to even top 40, and in fact just the second in 20 years to do so - Ryne Sandberg stole 54 in 1985 (and a 40-year-old Davey Lopes stole 47 in just 99 games that same year - Pierre would be the first Cubs OF since Lopes to top 40). History indicates that Baker teams don't do much running, but it may just be that he hasn't really had the personnel for it. On the other hand, the current team has a pretty decent amount of speed and yet only Pierre has as many as ten attempts (and only two other guys have more than four).
Really, I'd be happy if they just keep winning. Rebound a little bit before Lee and Prior come back, then hopefully rebound a lot at that point. There's no way this team shouldn't be better than last year's sub-.500 squad. Two out of every three games the rest of the way would get them to around 93 wins, which would be good enough for the playoffs, I would expect. Of course, that's probably a little unrealistic ("a little"). Even Houston only got to 89 last year from the 20-32 spot. But you know what they say - you gotta believe.
I love that Jones is over .300 now. The right-field bleachers should make a big "Sorry we booed you like crazy" sign for the next home game. And why has Jones been so much the object of derision with leadoff savior Pierre hitting around 40 points worse than Corey Patterson? Pierre does have 17 stolen bases - putting him on pace for more than 50. He'd be the first Cub since Eric Young stole 54 in 2000 to even top 40, and in fact just the second in 20 years to do so - Ryne Sandberg stole 54 in 1985 (and a 40-year-old Davey Lopes stole 47 in just 99 games that same year - Pierre would be the first Cubs OF since Lopes to top 40). History indicates that Baker teams don't do much running, but it may just be that he hasn't really had the personnel for it. On the other hand, the current team has a pretty decent amount of speed and yet only Pierre has as many as ten attempts (and only two other guys have more than four).
Really, I'd be happy if they just keep winning. Rebound a little bit before Lee and Prior come back, then hopefully rebound a lot at that point. There's no way this team shouldn't be better than last year's sub-.500 squad. Two out of every three games the rest of the way would get them to around 93 wins, which would be good enough for the playoffs, I would expect. Of course, that's probably a little unrealistic ("a little"). Even Houston only got to 89 last year from the 20-32 spot. But you know what they say - you gotta believe.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Phil 'er up
As you may have heard, the Cubs acquired Phil Nevin from the Rangers for Jerry Hairston. Shame about Hairston, I guess, but he was pretty much a bust in Chicago (which makes him equal to the man he was traded for, Sammy Sosa, in his new digs - at least Hairston is still in baseball). Nevin was slumping in Texas, which was why he was relatively cheap (in fact, Texas is paying the difference between the two players' salaries, meaning Nevin was had by the Cubs for under a million).
You can't help but think this will turn out like last year's Matt Lawton deal, another case of too little, too late. Even if Nevin has an immediate impact, Derrek Lee should be back within a handful more weeks at the most, and first base is Nevin's best position. Third is also filled (even if Ramirez's BA is still in the toilet right now, especially since he historically improves in the summer months), and it would be a shame if Matt Murton, who it seems to me has been an excellent left fielder, had to be sat down half the time for Nevin, who may have power that Murton lacks but assuredly has none of Big Red's speed.
As dumb as it would have been to have traded two or three times as much for Nevin when Lee was first hurt, did it make any more sense to trade for him now that he's a three-week rental instead of a two-month rental? I suppose one might hope that he displays some flashes on the North Side and could possibly be rolled over in a month or two for a piece the Cubs could find more use for. Or maybe he'll be quietly discarded like Lawton effectively was.
Part of the value of this trade really depends on your opinion of the Cubs' chances to get anything resembling back into a race. The Astros have been cited as recent comeback kids, and they were 20-32 on June 1 last year (after taking two of three from the Reds in a home series... spoooooky); they also had no player with more than three total at-bats hit .300 on the season (even the Cubs might do better than that). Yet this team went to the World Series!
Oh yeah, they had three starters with ERAs under 3.00 and three bullpen guys under 3.50, and the aforementioned starters - the Big Three of Clemens, Pettitte and Oswalt - won 50 games total. Meanwhile, only two 2006 Cubs have ERAs under 3 - relievers Scott Eyre and Bobby Howry. The Big Three SPs, innings-wise, are Zambrano, Marshall, and Maddux, who are on pace to win 40 if they're lucky. Wood, Prior, and Miller might add something... but they also might not.
Yes, the comparison to last year's Astros helps keep me from wanting to abandon this team for good. And yes, it's totally superficial and I should know better. But I don't. Last year's Astros were just one game over .500 at the All-Star break. The Cubs can't possibly climb up to that level if they start playing better?
Please?
You can't help but think this will turn out like last year's Matt Lawton deal, another case of too little, too late. Even if Nevin has an immediate impact, Derrek Lee should be back within a handful more weeks at the most, and first base is Nevin's best position. Third is also filled (even if Ramirez's BA is still in the toilet right now, especially since he historically improves in the summer months), and it would be a shame if Matt Murton, who it seems to me has been an excellent left fielder, had to be sat down half the time for Nevin, who may have power that Murton lacks but assuredly has none of Big Red's speed.
As dumb as it would have been to have traded two or three times as much for Nevin when Lee was first hurt, did it make any more sense to trade for him now that he's a three-week rental instead of a two-month rental? I suppose one might hope that he displays some flashes on the North Side and could possibly be rolled over in a month or two for a piece the Cubs could find more use for. Or maybe he'll be quietly discarded like Lawton effectively was.
Part of the value of this trade really depends on your opinion of the Cubs' chances to get anything resembling back into a race. The Astros have been cited as recent comeback kids, and they were 20-32 on June 1 last year (after taking two of three from the Reds in a home series... spoooooky); they also had no player with more than three total at-bats hit .300 on the season (even the Cubs might do better than that). Yet this team went to the World Series!
Oh yeah, they had three starters with ERAs under 3.00 and three bullpen guys under 3.50, and the aforementioned starters - the Big Three of Clemens, Pettitte and Oswalt - won 50 games total. Meanwhile, only two 2006 Cubs have ERAs under 3 - relievers Scott Eyre and Bobby Howry. The Big Three SPs, innings-wise, are Zambrano, Marshall, and Maddux, who are on pace to win 40 if they're lucky. Wood, Prior, and Miller might add something... but they also might not.
Yes, the comparison to last year's Astros helps keep me from wanting to abandon this team for good. And yes, it's totally superficial and I should know better. But I don't. Last year's Astros were just one game over .500 at the All-Star break. The Cubs can't possibly climb up to that level if they start playing better?
Please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)