Scores in the Cubs' sweep of the Dodgers at Wrigley this week: 3-1, 3-1, 2-1. This is only the second time this season the Cubs went more than two games in a row scoring fewer than four runs in each, but the only other time (a five-game stretch from May 4-9 that went 3, 3, 3, 0, 3 for the Cubs), they were just 2-3 in the span. Even though the bullpen was a bit shaky and had to constantly extract itself from jams, you have to like three games of one-run ball from the staff. Dempster was solid if unspectacular on Monday, Gallagher was great on Tuesday - could he please give us seven innings of four-hit ball on a regular basis? - and Zambrano deserved better than a no-decision tonight, although he threw a lot of pitches (130, to be precise - his most since throwing 136 [!!] in a 2-1 complete game win over the Phillies on May 8, 2005). His command wasn't great, although the strike zone from the home plate umpire also seemed a bit inconsistent.
The reason I like this sweep as much or more than any other series the Cubs have won is it demonstrated an ability to win some close games, and some low-scoring games, and some games where they trailed late. Monday's game the Cubs went up 2-0 in the first and hung on, but on Tuesday they went down 1-0 in the fourth and looked to be doing nothing against Hiroki Kuroda, but in the seventh they scratched out three runs by putting runners at the corners with one away, then getting an error, a single and a double. Then they held on for dear life as Marmol had one of his worst innings of the year, walking two and loading the bases with one out before getting out of it. Is he starting to feel those 33 innings in 53 games?
And then tonight, one of the worst games of the year for eight innings. The Cubs don't usually hit Derek Lowe terribly well - remember his one-hitter in 2005? - and today was not an exception, as he went seven allowing just four hits and just one guy to get past second (and this was Soriano in the first inning). Then Broxton - who helped blow it last night - came on and mowed down Johnson, Hoffpauir and Soriano in the 8th. Fortunately Saito couldn't find the plate in the 9th, although the Cubs should have won it in regulation but only got a sac fly out of a bases-loaded, one-out situation. Fortunately the Dodgers dug up Chan Ho Park recently, and he came on for the tenth, giving up a double to the suddenly very sparingly used Mike Fontenot. Up came Soriano, and as Bob Brenly predicted that they wouldn't pitch to him with first base open, they did in in fact pitch to him, and Soriano watched a tailor-made 2-1 inside fastball go past for a strike... only to flare the 2-2 breaking ball down the left-field line, scoring Fontenot and winning the game.
So, which Cubs team do you like better? The team that scores in bunches but can have inconsistent pitching, or the team capable of winning every game 3-1? Certainly you have to like the ability to win tight games in a playoff-like atmosphere (night game, chilly, good team, crowd pumping), but I would love it if baseball's highest-scoring offense could be a bit more consistent. Would you believe that even at 32-21, the Cubs are three games under their Pythagorean projection? It's because they score a bunch in one game and then much less in the next two, and suddenly they've lost the series despite outscoring their opponents. In fact, the Cubs have only been outscored by the opponent in four series all year (going 0-3-1 in those series), but they've lost five series in which they've outscored the opponent (going 9-5 in those series). In other words, the Cubs are barely above .500 in series wins despite outscoring their opposition by 84 runs this season. The most recent example, of course, was the weekend series in Pittsburgh, started with a 12-3 thumping and ended with two games frittered away and lost in extra innings by a run apiece, meaning the Cubs were +7 run differential for the series but lost a game in the standings. That's gotta stop happening. And if it means winning every game 3-1... that's fine by me.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Hate McLouth
I am quickly becoming as sick of Nate McLouth as I am of any opposing player - as much as Rickie Weeks, as much as Rick Ankiel, Ryan Ludwick and Skip Schumaker, as much as any one of that coveted group of Players Who Have No Right to Beat You, a group far more annoying than all the Albert Pujols, Carlos Lees and Adam Dunns of the world. McLouth in particular is starting to make me wonder what they put in the Winstrol water over there in Pittsburgh. After his game-winning home run off Carlos Marmol today, McLouth now has 12 home runs in 42 games; this is almost half as many as he hit in his first 284 career games (25). His OPS is over 1.000 this season, for crap's sake. This is a guy who before this year looked like a decent fourth outfielder - acceptable defense, good baserunning (22/1 SB/CS last year), a little pop, but not all that good. Suddenly he's top five in the league in doubles, homers, total bases, runs scored, and RBIs? I don't think so. You know who I'm reminded of? Chris Shelton, who had 11 home runs and an OPS of over 1.000 as late as May 22 in 2006 (his age 26 season, as this is for McLouth). He hit just five home runs the entire rest of the year and ended up with an OPS barely above .800. McLouth may not have a Shelton-level collapse in him, but I don't buy for a second that he's the second coming of Willie Mays out there in center. Anyone can get hot for a couple months.
Speaking of which, Alfonso Soriano. My dad sent me an e-mail on May 2 - during a 5-3 loss to the Cardinals in which Soriano looked absolutely lost in left field before mostly redeeming himself with a game-tying homer in the ninth - with a subject of "Soriano," and a body that simply read, "They need to cut him."
Since the end of that game, Soriano has raised his average by 131 points, the last 30 of which was done by his 5-for-5 showing today. He now has seven home runs in the last six games. And lest you think he's only a homer machine, he has at least two hits in eight of his last nine starts, including 4-for-5 last Saturday and, again, 5-for-5 today. With seven straight starts with at least two hits, Soriano has set a career high (in 2003 with the Yankees, he had two or more hits in six straight); he's 19-for-33 in the seven games (.576), with 43 total bases.
Unfortunately, this has corresponded with a major slowdown period for Derrek Lee, whose average has dropped all the way to .294 after an 0-for-5 showing today, including flying out to end the game with Ryan Theriot on as the tying run. He's not getting on base either, going ten straight games without drawing a walk, his longest single-season streak with no walk (in games where he had at least two at-bats) since 2001, when he had 13 and 15-game streaks with Florida. That year, Lee had an OBP of just .346; since then, his lowest full-season OBP has been .356. At the moment, it's a mere .360; his batting average wasn't lower than .307 at any point in 2007, and excluding his post-wrist-injury 2006 stats and his first four games of this season, he hasn't had a batting average lower than .300 at any time since ending 2004 with a .278 mark. It's not looking so good right now for him.
There's also Zambrano, but I think he'll be okay. Still, in spite of Soriano's heroics, today was not the most enjoyable. Stupid Pirates.
Speaking of which, Alfonso Soriano. My dad sent me an e-mail on May 2 - during a 5-3 loss to the Cardinals in which Soriano looked absolutely lost in left field before mostly redeeming himself with a game-tying homer in the ninth - with a subject of "Soriano," and a body that simply read, "They need to cut him."
Since the end of that game, Soriano has raised his average by 131 points, the last 30 of which was done by his 5-for-5 showing today. He now has seven home runs in the last six games. And lest you think he's only a homer machine, he has at least two hits in eight of his last nine starts, including 4-for-5 last Saturday and, again, 5-for-5 today. With seven straight starts with at least two hits, Soriano has set a career high (in 2003 with the Yankees, he had two or more hits in six straight); he's 19-for-33 in the seven games (.576), with 43 total bases.
Unfortunately, this has corresponded with a major slowdown period for Derrek Lee, whose average has dropped all the way to .294 after an 0-for-5 showing today, including flying out to end the game with Ryan Theriot on as the tying run. He's not getting on base either, going ten straight games without drawing a walk, his longest single-season streak with no walk (in games where he had at least two at-bats) since 2001, when he had 13 and 15-game streaks with Florida. That year, Lee had an OBP of just .346; since then, his lowest full-season OBP has been .356. At the moment, it's a mere .360; his batting average wasn't lower than .307 at any point in 2007, and excluding his post-wrist-injury 2006 stats and his first four games of this season, he hasn't had a batting average lower than .300 at any time since ending 2004 with a .278 mark. It's not looking so good right now for him.
There's also Zambrano, but I think he'll be okay. Still, in spite of Soriano's heroics, today was not the most enjoyable. Stupid Pirates.
Friday, May 16, 2008
You can't spell Hendry without "Why?"
So, this Jim Edmonds thing. I didn't have the negative reaction about Edmonds himself that some people did, but I just don't understand the deal, really.
I mean, it seems to me that the defense of the Edmonds deal goes a little something like this:
"Well, we're talking about a guy who's had a great career defensively and an excellent career offensively. He hasn't looked good to start the year, but he played in Petco, and he's looked a lot better in the last couple weeks. Worst-case scenario, you don't get a ton of center-field production for a few weeks, then just release him. Might as well see if he can do it."
Which, okay, fine. But here's the thing: isn't that pretty similar to the reason why Felix Pie should just be given a shot at the everyday job?
"Well, we're talking about a guy who's great defensively and who has hit well at every level except the majors so far. He hasn't looked good to start the year, but he still only has 240 major league at-bats and is in the process of fixing the holes in his swing, and he's looked a lot better in the last couple weeks. Worst-case scenario, you don't get a ton of production out of the eight-hole for a couple months, or you start to platoon Johnson more again. Might as well genuinely see if Pie can do it."
Well, let's see if I can justify this:
Pie's only 23, so maybe one more year in the minors to fix these holes in the swing won't kill him. At 38 in June, Edmonds is clearly no long-term solution even if he does pull a Gary Gaetti and hit for us. (He singled in his first at-bat yesterday and also hit a ball well to center, though it was caught. On the other hand, in his other two at-bats he grounded into a DP and struck out with the bases loaded. So, not the strongest debut anyone's ever had, anyway.) And with Johnson's batting average and on-base percentage slowly circling the bowl, I guess you could call this a fairly low-risk, calculated maneuver to see if there was any way to wring more production from pretty much the only spot on the field that hasn't hit for the Cubs this season. Edmonds will strike out, but he can also take some walks and he can certainly hit home runs; if he can hit .260-.270 with 15-20 home runs, and play solid enough defense, is that much different from (if not a bit better than) what you'd get out of a Johnson/Pie platoon unless Pie suddenly exploded to his minor league numbers? With that in mind, the main reason to hate this deal is that Edmonds is first and foremost a Cardinal in everyone's minds. I can only speak for me, but I don't really care that much. I care about whether he can still play. I feel bad for Pie, but ultimately, if Edmonds can help us win the World Series, that works for me.
I mean, it seems to me that the defense of the Edmonds deal goes a little something like this:
"Well, we're talking about a guy who's had a great career defensively and an excellent career offensively. He hasn't looked good to start the year, but he played in Petco, and he's looked a lot better in the last couple weeks. Worst-case scenario, you don't get a ton of center-field production for a few weeks, then just release him. Might as well see if he can do it."
Which, okay, fine. But here's the thing: isn't that pretty similar to the reason why Felix Pie should just be given a shot at the everyday job?
"Well, we're talking about a guy who's great defensively and who has hit well at every level except the majors so far. He hasn't looked good to start the year, but he still only has 240 major league at-bats and is in the process of fixing the holes in his swing, and he's looked a lot better in the last couple weeks. Worst-case scenario, you don't get a ton of production out of the eight-hole for a couple months, or you start to platoon Johnson more again. Might as well genuinely see if Pie can do it."
Well, let's see if I can justify this:
Pie's only 23, so maybe one more year in the minors to fix these holes in the swing won't kill him. At 38 in June, Edmonds is clearly no long-term solution even if he does pull a Gary Gaetti and hit for us. (He singled in his first at-bat yesterday and also hit a ball well to center, though it was caught. On the other hand, in his other two at-bats he grounded into a DP and struck out with the bases loaded. So, not the strongest debut anyone's ever had, anyway.) And with Johnson's batting average and on-base percentage slowly circling the bowl, I guess you could call this a fairly low-risk, calculated maneuver to see if there was any way to wring more production from pretty much the only spot on the field that hasn't hit for the Cubs this season. Edmonds will strike out, but he can also take some walks and he can certainly hit home runs; if he can hit .260-.270 with 15-20 home runs, and play solid enough defense, is that much different from (if not a bit better than) what you'd get out of a Johnson/Pie platoon unless Pie suddenly exploded to his minor league numbers? With that in mind, the main reason to hate this deal is that Edmonds is first and foremost a Cardinal in everyone's minds. I can only speak for me, but I don't really care that much. I care about whether he can still play. I feel bad for Pie, but ultimately, if Edmonds can help us win the World Series, that works for me.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Send 'em diamondback from whence they diamondcame
If I had to choose between beating the Diamondbacks in the 2007 NLDS and sweeping them in a three-game series at Wrigley in early May 2008, I'd choose the former. But knowing that that already didn't happen, I've gotta say I'm pretty pleased with how this series turned out, especially since I got to watch the entirety of both weekend games and listened to the entirety of Friday's game, which was made even better by the fact that Ron Santo had the day off due to illness. (I don't wish for the guy to get sick, obviously, and yeah, he's a Cubs legend and that's awesome. But he can be really, really grating to listen to on-air. Mike & Mike did something a few weeks ago where they played a clip of Harry Caray spelling someone's name backwards on the air while, in the background, you could hear a pitch being taken, and Greenberg thought it was ridiculous that Caray would just talk right over a pitch like that. But Santo does this all the time, and he'll talk over three or four straight pitches if none are put into play, and he doesn't have the mitigating factor of calling the game on television like Caray did, where the viewer can see for themselves what happened with the pitch. But I digress.)
As obnoxious as their not-really-that-good hitters were in the NLDS last year, and even though they led the majors in runs coming into this series, the place where the Diamondbacks scare me is on the mound. Their top two pitchers are Brandon Webb and Dan Haren. Micah Owings is decent. Their bullpen has an ERA+ of like 150. Chad Qualls, coming into the series, had an 0.93 ERA in 19.1 IP and only just gave up his first ER on May 4. They just called up a guy who had 38 K in 23 IP at AAA this year.
And yet, for the series, the Cubs kind of outpitched the Diamondbacks, certainly in the bullpen. Here are the lines:
Cubs Starters (Lilly, Dempster, Gallagher): 17.1 IP, 11 H, 8 BB, 23 K, 7 ER, 1.10 WHIP, 3.63 ERA.
Diamondbacks Starters (Haren, Scherzer, Gonzalez): 18 IP, 15 H, 5 BB, 14 K, 4 ER, 1.11 WHIP, 2.00 ERA.
The Diamondbacks clearly win on ERA, thanks mostly to Scherzer's 0 ER on Saturday and Gallagher's 4 ER on Sunday in just 4.1 IP (no thanks to Chad Fox walking in two inherited runners with the bases loaded). But Lilly pretty clearly outpitched Haren on Friday (an extremely good sign, along with the fact that the D-Backs did nothing off him beyond Chris Young's first-inning solo homer), and Dempster and Scherzer were basically as good (same 1.00 WHIP and Dempster had one more K). Gonzalez outpitched Gallagher, although they were even for four innings until Gallagher struggled in the fifth (possibly because this was the most innings he'd ever been asked to throw at the big-league level).
Cubs Bullpen (Marmol, Wood, Eyre, Howry, Fox, Wuertz): 9.2 IP, 2 H, 4 BB, 7 K, 0 ER, 0.62 WHIP, 0.00 ERA.
Diamondbacks Bullpen (Cruz, Qualls, Medders, Slaten, Pena): 6 IP, 13 H, 6 BB, 7 K, 11 ER, 3.17 WHIP, 16.50 ERA.
Small sample size alert, of course, but the point is basically that both rotations were good enough to get the game to the bullpens while it was close, at which point the Cubs' hitters pretty much obliterated the Diamondbacks' relievers. I can remember a time not too long ago where if the Cubs were not looking great against a starting pitcher, they'd usually continue that through the relief corps, leading to games where they'd get like combined three-hit. That still happens sometimes, of course, but I have a lot more confidence in this team to come back over the last couple years than I did at any point in my lifetime prior to 2007, especially at Wrigley. In all three games the Cubs trailed at least as late as the fifth inning; on Saturday they hung around while Scherzer was allowing just one unearned run, then exploded for six as soon as he left the game.
Perhaps even more encouragingly, the Cubs bullpen looked just great - and not only that, but efficient. Chad Fox threw 45 pitches in 1.2 IP on Sunday, but aside from that no Cubs reliever threw more than 17 at any point in the series. Wood threw a total of 18 pitches in getting saves on Friday and Sunday; Marmol threw an inning in all three games but threw just 43 total pitches. Wuertz completed an inning with four pitches in Sunday's game.
Better still, the Cubs put an end to their recent struggles and did so against what was the best team in the NL. Okay, you can't say that the Diamondbacks aren't the best team just because the Cubs beat them in three fairly tight games. But the Cubs have more runs scored (in one fewer game played), once again leading the majors in that category; fewer runs allowed; and you have to consider that the Diamondbacks' gaudy 23-15 record is built on a 17-5 record against their own crappy division, the only one in baseball where more than half the teams are below .500 (kind of a cherry-pick, but the fact is the West contains, right now, the worst team in baseball [Padres], a team tied for third-worst [Rockies], and another team that everyone thinks will be the worst in baseball and has scored just 133 runs so far, second-worst in the NL [Giants]). Against everyone else, Arizona is now 6-10. The Cubs have also seized first place back from St. Louis by percentage points and are a half-game behind Arizona and a game behind Florida for best record in the NL. There is little doubt in my mind that the Cubs, as long as they don't have too many more stretches like the 13 games before this current series, will be in contention for best record in the NL all year; right now they're on pace for 96 wins! If the starting pitching continues to be good and the bullpen continues to be great and the hitting continues to be at least timely and at best awesome, well, what can't this team potentially win?
This blog probably looks like it was written by a manic-depressive. But I think the ship's been righted a bit. Four games with the struggling Padres should be interesting, especially since we will have to face Peavy and probably Maddux as well. I think I'll be okay as long as it's no worse than a split, but you really want at least three here, given that right now San Diego is the worst team in baseball (team OBP: .302!!!).
As obnoxious as their not-really-that-good hitters were in the NLDS last year, and even though they led the majors in runs coming into this series, the place where the Diamondbacks scare me is on the mound. Their top two pitchers are Brandon Webb and Dan Haren. Micah Owings is decent. Their bullpen has an ERA+ of like 150. Chad Qualls, coming into the series, had an 0.93 ERA in 19.1 IP and only just gave up his first ER on May 4. They just called up a guy who had 38 K in 23 IP at AAA this year.
And yet, for the series, the Cubs kind of outpitched the Diamondbacks, certainly in the bullpen. Here are the lines:
Cubs Starters (Lilly, Dempster, Gallagher): 17.1 IP, 11 H, 8 BB, 23 K, 7 ER, 1.10 WHIP, 3.63 ERA.
Diamondbacks Starters (Haren, Scherzer, Gonzalez): 18 IP, 15 H, 5 BB, 14 K, 4 ER, 1.11 WHIP, 2.00 ERA.
The Diamondbacks clearly win on ERA, thanks mostly to Scherzer's 0 ER on Saturday and Gallagher's 4 ER on Sunday in just 4.1 IP (no thanks to Chad Fox walking in two inherited runners with the bases loaded). But Lilly pretty clearly outpitched Haren on Friday (an extremely good sign, along with the fact that the D-Backs did nothing off him beyond Chris Young's first-inning solo homer), and Dempster and Scherzer were basically as good (same 1.00 WHIP and Dempster had one more K). Gonzalez outpitched Gallagher, although they were even for four innings until Gallagher struggled in the fifth (possibly because this was the most innings he'd ever been asked to throw at the big-league level).
Cubs Bullpen (Marmol, Wood, Eyre, Howry, Fox, Wuertz): 9.2 IP, 2 H, 4 BB, 7 K, 0 ER, 0.62 WHIP, 0.00 ERA.
Diamondbacks Bullpen (Cruz, Qualls, Medders, Slaten, Pena): 6 IP, 13 H, 6 BB, 7 K, 11 ER, 3.17 WHIP, 16.50 ERA.
Small sample size alert, of course, but the point is basically that both rotations were good enough to get the game to the bullpens while it was close, at which point the Cubs' hitters pretty much obliterated the Diamondbacks' relievers. I can remember a time not too long ago where if the Cubs were not looking great against a starting pitcher, they'd usually continue that through the relief corps, leading to games where they'd get like combined three-hit. That still happens sometimes, of course, but I have a lot more confidence in this team to come back over the last couple years than I did at any point in my lifetime prior to 2007, especially at Wrigley. In all three games the Cubs trailed at least as late as the fifth inning; on Saturday they hung around while Scherzer was allowing just one unearned run, then exploded for six as soon as he left the game.
Perhaps even more encouragingly, the Cubs bullpen looked just great - and not only that, but efficient. Chad Fox threw 45 pitches in 1.2 IP on Sunday, but aside from that no Cubs reliever threw more than 17 at any point in the series. Wood threw a total of 18 pitches in getting saves on Friday and Sunday; Marmol threw an inning in all three games but threw just 43 total pitches. Wuertz completed an inning with four pitches in Sunday's game.
Better still, the Cubs put an end to their recent struggles and did so against what was the best team in the NL. Okay, you can't say that the Diamondbacks aren't the best team just because the Cubs beat them in three fairly tight games. But the Cubs have more runs scored (in one fewer game played), once again leading the majors in that category; fewer runs allowed; and you have to consider that the Diamondbacks' gaudy 23-15 record is built on a 17-5 record against their own crappy division, the only one in baseball where more than half the teams are below .500 (kind of a cherry-pick, but the fact is the West contains, right now, the worst team in baseball [Padres], a team tied for third-worst [Rockies], and another team that everyone thinks will be the worst in baseball and has scored just 133 runs so far, second-worst in the NL [Giants]). Against everyone else, Arizona is now 6-10. The Cubs have also seized first place back from St. Louis by percentage points and are a half-game behind Arizona and a game behind Florida for best record in the NL. There is little doubt in my mind that the Cubs, as long as they don't have too many more stretches like the 13 games before this current series, will be in contention for best record in the NL all year; right now they're on pace for 96 wins! If the starting pitching continues to be good and the bullpen continues to be great and the hitting continues to be at least timely and at best awesome, well, what can't this team potentially win?
This blog probably looks like it was written by a manic-depressive. But I think the ship's been righted a bit. Four games with the struggling Padres should be interesting, especially since we will have to face Peavy and probably Maddux as well. I think I'll be okay as long as it's no worse than a split, but you really want at least three here, given that right now San Diego is the worst team in baseball (team OBP: .302!!!).
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
May day
I've tried not to get too upset about the Cubs' recent form. But remember when they were 15-6 after holding off Colorado? Two games up in the Central? Well, they're now 4-9 since then and three games back, and that's before St. Louis (a team with very little right to play as well as it has so far) plays tonight. They've lost four straight series and haven't won one since that demolition of the Mets on April 21-22, which now seems like it happened three months ago. Frankly, they're doing nothing so much as reminding me of the 2007 Cubs.
That team, of course, hit its nadir at the end of May and the start of June, with a 6-16 stretch beginning on May 10 ending with a series sweep by the Marlins - the third game of which was a 9-0 embarrassment after a players-only meeting - and then losses to the Braves on June 1 and 2 that dropped the Cubs to a season-worst nine games under .500. The June 1 game, of course, featured the infamous Zambrano/Barrett fisticuffs, and Lou intentionally got himself thrown out of the June 2 game (at least, we assume) to draw attention from the players. The Cubs went 17-8 over the next 25 and were back on the path to respectability.
We can only hope that the 2008 Cubs have hit their nadir in Cincinnati on May 7 with, coincidentally, a 9-0 embarrassment in yet another lost rubber game. The Cubs walked six times off Edinson Volquez (and seven total) but managed just four hits (six total), and struck out ten times (eleven total; three each for Reed Johnson and Felix Pie, turning the Cubs' center field "dilemma" into something of a joke). The Cubs also surrendered seven home runs, four by Jon Lieber in the second inning alone, including home runs to noted sluggers Paul Bako (18 career home runs) and Jerry Hairston Jr. (33 career home runs). It's almost comical that Ken Griffey Jr., sitting on 597, did not hit one in the game. Derrek Lee and Kosuke Fukudome continued their recent slumps, each merely squeaking out meaningless singles; Lee's average has dropped from .378 to .324 during the 4-9 stretch, and Fukudome's from .351 to .320. Worse, Fukudome's OBP has dropped 62 points and Lee's SLG has plummeted from .700 to .576. And at the absolute worst, Fukudome swung at either the first or second pitch in six of his 12 at-bats in the Reds series, making one wonder what happened to his already legendary patience at the plate.
It could just be the road - Lee has hit 104 points higher at Wrigley this year and slugged over 300 points more, while Fukudome's home/road splits for BA/OBP/SLG are frankly astonishing: while he hits .448/.543/.638 in Chicago, his road numbers are .217/.304/.317. Unsurprisingly, the recent huge dips in form for Lee and Fukudome line up with playing 11 of 14 away from Wrigley. The upcoming ten-game homestand - including seven games against struggling San Diego and Pittsburgh - will do a lot to test this theory. But if this is true, it's definite reason to be concerned; a Cubs team whose run-scoring prowess is a creation of Wrigley is not going anywhere this season (especially if they can't win enough to get home-field in the NL postseason).
Even when the Cubs haven't necessarily played badly, they've found ways to lose, from giving up a walk-off home run to a career backup catcher who'd never hit one before, to tying the game on a home run in the bottom of the ninth only to lose on another walk-off home run in extras, to watching Kerry Wood come in with a two-run lead and give up three, to the most recent annoyance, Monday's game, in which Ryan Dempster decided to stop walking guys (which was where he'd been getting into trouble all year) and pitch to contact, only to have the defense fail him to the tune of five unearned runs. And then, in the top of the ninth, trailing 5-3, the Cubs loaded the bases with one out, only to have Mike Fontenot get thrown out trying to score from third on a wild pitch, Ryan Theriot walk (would have made it 5-4 if Fontenot had stayed put), and Derrek Lee ground to first (would have made it 5-5). One part of me says that losing games that way isn't so bad because you figure you'll get the breaks sooner or later. The other part of me says that you can't give away games you could, and probably should, have won, and the first part of me knows the second part is right. Especially when you turn around and see games like today's.
Thank God tomorrow is an off day.
That team, of course, hit its nadir at the end of May and the start of June, with a 6-16 stretch beginning on May 10 ending with a series sweep by the Marlins - the third game of which was a 9-0 embarrassment after a players-only meeting - and then losses to the Braves on June 1 and 2 that dropped the Cubs to a season-worst nine games under .500. The June 1 game, of course, featured the infamous Zambrano/Barrett fisticuffs, and Lou intentionally got himself thrown out of the June 2 game (at least, we assume) to draw attention from the players. The Cubs went 17-8 over the next 25 and were back on the path to respectability.
We can only hope that the 2008 Cubs have hit their nadir in Cincinnati on May 7 with, coincidentally, a 9-0 embarrassment in yet another lost rubber game. The Cubs walked six times off Edinson Volquez (and seven total) but managed just four hits (six total), and struck out ten times (eleven total; three each for Reed Johnson and Felix Pie, turning the Cubs' center field "dilemma" into something of a joke). The Cubs also surrendered seven home runs, four by Jon Lieber in the second inning alone, including home runs to noted sluggers Paul Bako (18 career home runs) and Jerry Hairston Jr. (33 career home runs). It's almost comical that Ken Griffey Jr., sitting on 597, did not hit one in the game. Derrek Lee and Kosuke Fukudome continued their recent slumps, each merely squeaking out meaningless singles; Lee's average has dropped from .378 to .324 during the 4-9 stretch, and Fukudome's from .351 to .320. Worse, Fukudome's OBP has dropped 62 points and Lee's SLG has plummeted from .700 to .576. And at the absolute worst, Fukudome swung at either the first or second pitch in six of his 12 at-bats in the Reds series, making one wonder what happened to his already legendary patience at the plate.
It could just be the road - Lee has hit 104 points higher at Wrigley this year and slugged over 300 points more, while Fukudome's home/road splits for BA/OBP/SLG are frankly astonishing: while he hits .448/.543/.638 in Chicago, his road numbers are .217/.304/.317. Unsurprisingly, the recent huge dips in form for Lee and Fukudome line up with playing 11 of 14 away from Wrigley. The upcoming ten-game homestand - including seven games against struggling San Diego and Pittsburgh - will do a lot to test this theory. But if this is true, it's definite reason to be concerned; a Cubs team whose run-scoring prowess is a creation of Wrigley is not going anywhere this season (especially if they can't win enough to get home-field in the NL postseason).
Even when the Cubs haven't necessarily played badly, they've found ways to lose, from giving up a walk-off home run to a career backup catcher who'd never hit one before, to tying the game on a home run in the bottom of the ninth only to lose on another walk-off home run in extras, to watching Kerry Wood come in with a two-run lead and give up three, to the most recent annoyance, Monday's game, in which Ryan Dempster decided to stop walking guys (which was where he'd been getting into trouble all year) and pitch to contact, only to have the defense fail him to the tune of five unearned runs. And then, in the top of the ninth, trailing 5-3, the Cubs loaded the bases with one out, only to have Mike Fontenot get thrown out trying to score from third on a wild pitch, Ryan Theriot walk (would have made it 5-4 if Fontenot had stayed put), and Derrek Lee ground to first (would have made it 5-5). One part of me says that losing games that way isn't so bad because you figure you'll get the breaks sooner or later. The other part of me says that you can't give away games you could, and probably should, have won, and the first part of me knows the second part is right. Especially when you turn around and see games like today's.
Thank God tomorrow is an off day.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Wood you believe... a 57% save percentage?
I'm not going to discuss the nuts and bolts of yesterday's game because it was, as you might guess, completely infuriating. The only thing I'll say is that the Cubs cost themselves the game by running into two outs in the sixth (including Theriot making the first out at third base, a cardinal sin in baseball) when they were set up for a big inning against a clearly tiring Gallardo. Instead, they only got two runs, and you know the rest.
So, let's talk Kerry Wood briefly. Unsurprisingly, Jay Mariotti - who was bearish on Wood from day one - wrote one of his typically smug, I-told-you-so columns today, and touted Carlos Marmol for the role (also unsurprising, since you can't make a decent closer case for anyone else in the Cubs bullpen right now, even if you wanted to).
Rick Telander paints the Cubs' clubhouse after the loss as a time bomb ready to go off, which perhaps it was. It was certainly a brutal loss, and with two series losses at home to the Brewers in the first month of the season, the Cubs have to feel like they're struggling in the wrong areas. It didn't help that Soriano's return to the lineup was, to put it mildly, a disaster, as he went 0-for-4 and misplayed Gabe Kapler's fly ball in the ninth (it turned into a double and Kapler later scored on Braun's double). It was such a disaster, in fact, that Piniella blew up when questioned about whether he had considered moving Reed Johnson to Soriano's spot in left late in the game rather than replacing Johnson with Pie straight up.
After the casual, World-Series-discussing atmosphere of the first month, this was not what anyone wanted to see. I think the media are a bit quick to jump on Soriano after one game - Telander describes him as looking "stiff, old and clueless" - but given his already poor start to the season from a hitting standpoint, and the fact that at no point while in a Cubs uniform has he belonged in the leadoff spot, but you can't hit him anywhere else because he's going to pout about it, it can't be considered totally surprising that they'd do so. Soriano himself seemed a bit quick to downplay his struggles after the game, saying (as quoted in Telander's article) that he "feel[s] very comfortable" and is "fine." He also defended his practice of swinging at everything - suddenly extremely out of place on the newly patient Cubs - with a blithe "That's my game." In four at-bats yesterday, Soriano saw 11 pitches; he swung at five. That actually doesn't seem as bad as people would have you believe; Ryan Theriot saw 12 pitches in four at-bats and swung at five, but of course he went 3-for-4. I'm not worried about Soriano just yet, but he needs to start getting some hits or keeping him in the leadoff spot is going to be untenable. What does it matter if he hates hitting fifth or sixth when he isn't producing no matter where he is? Might as well give him some time to get used to a new spot. Personally, I get the feeling that Piniella is going to start considering this a lot more strongly; Soriano has certainly paid lip service to playing wherever is best for the team, and before now Lou just hasn't been willing to wait more than a handful of games before deeming any move a failure. Maybe now he'll give it a little more of a chance if Soriano is a sinkhole no matter where he's hitting.
But I'm drifting. Kerry Wood. I don't want to sound like I'm unreasonably defending him here, but while three blown saves in seven chances is kind of miserable (and makes 2008 Eric Gagne look like 2003 Eric Gagne), you sort of have to consider the way he's been used this season. First of all, there's the fact that in 28 games, he's had seven chances. Extrapolate that out for the year and he'd only have 40 save chances for the entire season. That's not a lot. (Dempster only had 31 chances last year, but he missed an entire month.) It doesn't really help that the Cubs have been winning a lot of games by wide margins (of their 17 wins, more than half have been by more than three runs), which means that Wood often either doesn't get into the game or comes into a situation with virtually no pressure. I subscribe to most statistical interpretations of the game, but I always balk when sabermetricians discount mental factors, as I've seen done. I don't get all lyrical and tell you how closers need to be forged in the crucible of Hephaestus to learn the ninth-inning pressure craft, but I do think that there's something to be said for getting used to a situation like that. I know for a fact that if it were me, and I were coming into a game with a one-run lead in the ninth, I would collapse into a withering heap in a way that I would not do in the first inning. As much as we say that the ninth is no more or less important than any other inning, and as statistically true as that is, you still need ice water in your veins to be a closer. You see guys all the time who just. Can't. Do it. Remember when we tried to make Kyle Farnsworth a closer?
I'm not saying that Wood, of all people, can't handle the pressure. What I am saying is that he probably needs a little time to get used to the pressure. When Dempster was handed the job in May 2005, he blew the very first save chance he got. He recovered to save 14 in a row before blowing the next one, and ended the year with 33 saves and just two blown saves. But he was also used regularly. In 2006, in more sporadic duty because the Cubs were awful, Dempster was just 24 of 33. Last year, once again pitching for a Cubs team that was at least decent, he blew just three of 31 chances. Even pitchers who have never been closers before seem to become creatures of habit, and as much as I hate relying on this kind of ephemeral, unquantifiable evidence, it seems like closers need to have that pressure on a consistent basis to be able to deal with it every time out. If they're only getting into tough situations once a week, that might not be good enough.
And so it is that we look at Wood's game logs for this year. His first appearance, obviously, was a dud; coming into a tie game in the top of the ninth on Opening Day, he gave up three runs before being bailed out by Fukudome's homer in the bottom of the inning. But after that he ripped off three saves in three outings over a four-day span from April 3-6, before blowing his first save after two off days on April 9. Since then (and before yesterday) he'd worked just seven times in 21 days, not the most regular work for a closer, and more importantly he'd only worked in two save situations in that entire time, going 1-for-2. Since the Opening Day fiasco, though, he'd given up just two runs (although both came in save situations with one-run leads, leading to his two blown saves); he wasn't giving up runs, or even hits - just five allowed in April, to 11 Ks - but unfortunately he happened to give up his runs in the worst possible spots. This could just be coincidence, or it could be a guy still getting used to the ninth-inning fire and who has rarely gotten a chance to pitch there. Instead, he's coming in with 7-1 leads against the Mets, 9-5 leads against the Reds, trailing 2-0 to the Nationals. In three cases he's been called upon to hold ties or preserve close deficits; he's 2-for-3, with the failure coming (of course) Opening Day.
But closers are judged by what they do in save situations, and so far Wood has not been slamming the door the way you'd want a closer to do. I'd like to see him get more consistent work, and I think that is likely to change; I know it's tempting to treat Wood with kid gloves because of his injury history, but I just don't think you can do that when you want him to be your closer. You need to be able to throw a closer on three straight days; if Wood can't do that, maybe he just shouldn't be closing. Aside from Marmol, he's got the best stuff of anyone in the bullpen; he may be susceptible to the occasional bad inning, something that's easier to hide when you're a starter, but aren't most guys? It's sticking out because he's had two horrible innings so far (and blown two other saves with mediocre innings), but he's still thrown 11 lights-out innings out of 15. Not a good percentage, and it's not like you can create more tight games for him to throw in, but it's likely that there will just be more tight games over the course of the summer, and I really don't see him sucking 25% of the time. Maybe I'm just an optimist.
More importantly, throwing Marmol into the closer's role is a bad idea. I'm sure Wood can handle the job mentally if you just give him more chances at it; Marmol is worth more in his current role, where you can throw him two innings, or 1.2 innings like yesterday. While the ninth obviously sticks out more because it's the last inning, having a guy who can be a shutdown guy in the seventh and eighth is better than trying to pigeonhole that guy into just the ninth. What good is reducing Marmol's workload to one inning if you don't have confidence in guys like Wood to hold leads - how are you going to get to Marmol in the ninth? As ridiculous as it sounds, if you trust Wood less than Marmol, then what you want to be doing is having him throw just one inning, rather than throwing the seventh and eighth wide open by throwing guys out there who can't get outs fast enough. Then you just end up never seeing Marmol, and you don't want to be never seeing a guy who's got 27 Ks to 5 walks in 19 innings this year and hasn't blown a hold or save chance yet in ten combined tries.
Look. I know there's this tendency to freak out. But it's May 2nd and we're 17-11 and a half-game back of a Cardinals team that almost certainly isn't going to be there come September. I don't think it's time to push the panic button because Kerry Wood had one bad inning. Do you? Last year we got our 17th win on May 13 (we already had 18 losses) and then lost 13 of the next 18 games. I really don't see that happening this year. I said on April 20 that I would get a lot more excited if the Cubs went at least 11-8 between April 21 and May 11. So far they've gone 5-5 in the first ten of that stretch, which means they need to win each of the next three series, perhaps a tall order. But they're more talented than St. Louis or Cincinnati, so it's not impossible. May is going to be a big month for this team, with series against every Central team but Milwaukee and every West team but the Giants, and 29 games in 31 days. If they can win 16 of those 29 games (bearing in mind they're starting 0-1 at this point), I'll be happy; anything more than 16 and I'll be thrilled. Let's just see if we can avoid wanting to blow the whole team up because of one inning. Deal?
So, let's talk Kerry Wood briefly. Unsurprisingly, Jay Mariotti - who was bearish on Wood from day one - wrote one of his typically smug, I-told-you-so columns today, and touted Carlos Marmol for the role (also unsurprising, since you can't make a decent closer case for anyone else in the Cubs bullpen right now, even if you wanted to).
Rick Telander paints the Cubs' clubhouse after the loss as a time bomb ready to go off, which perhaps it was. It was certainly a brutal loss, and with two series losses at home to the Brewers in the first month of the season, the Cubs have to feel like they're struggling in the wrong areas. It didn't help that Soriano's return to the lineup was, to put it mildly, a disaster, as he went 0-for-4 and misplayed Gabe Kapler's fly ball in the ninth (it turned into a double and Kapler later scored on Braun's double). It was such a disaster, in fact, that Piniella blew up when questioned about whether he had considered moving Reed Johnson to Soriano's spot in left late in the game rather than replacing Johnson with Pie straight up.
After the casual, World-Series-discussing atmosphere of the first month, this was not what anyone wanted to see. I think the media are a bit quick to jump on Soriano after one game - Telander describes him as looking "stiff, old and clueless" - but given his already poor start to the season from a hitting standpoint, and the fact that at no point while in a Cubs uniform has he belonged in the leadoff spot, but you can't hit him anywhere else because he's going to pout about it, it can't be considered totally surprising that they'd do so. Soriano himself seemed a bit quick to downplay his struggles after the game, saying (as quoted in Telander's article) that he "feel[s] very comfortable" and is "fine." He also defended his practice of swinging at everything - suddenly extremely out of place on the newly patient Cubs - with a blithe "That's my game." In four at-bats yesterday, Soriano saw 11 pitches; he swung at five. That actually doesn't seem as bad as people would have you believe; Ryan Theriot saw 12 pitches in four at-bats and swung at five, but of course he went 3-for-4. I'm not worried about Soriano just yet, but he needs to start getting some hits or keeping him in the leadoff spot is going to be untenable. What does it matter if he hates hitting fifth or sixth when he isn't producing no matter where he is? Might as well give him some time to get used to a new spot. Personally, I get the feeling that Piniella is going to start considering this a lot more strongly; Soriano has certainly paid lip service to playing wherever is best for the team, and before now Lou just hasn't been willing to wait more than a handful of games before deeming any move a failure. Maybe now he'll give it a little more of a chance if Soriano is a sinkhole no matter where he's hitting.
But I'm drifting. Kerry Wood. I don't want to sound like I'm unreasonably defending him here, but while three blown saves in seven chances is kind of miserable (and makes 2008 Eric Gagne look like 2003 Eric Gagne), you sort of have to consider the way he's been used this season. First of all, there's the fact that in 28 games, he's had seven chances. Extrapolate that out for the year and he'd only have 40 save chances for the entire season. That's not a lot. (Dempster only had 31 chances last year, but he missed an entire month.) It doesn't really help that the Cubs have been winning a lot of games by wide margins (of their 17 wins, more than half have been by more than three runs), which means that Wood often either doesn't get into the game or comes into a situation with virtually no pressure. I subscribe to most statistical interpretations of the game, but I always balk when sabermetricians discount mental factors, as I've seen done. I don't get all lyrical and tell you how closers need to be forged in the crucible of Hephaestus to learn the ninth-inning pressure craft, but I do think that there's something to be said for getting used to a situation like that. I know for a fact that if it were me, and I were coming into a game with a one-run lead in the ninth, I would collapse into a withering heap in a way that I would not do in the first inning. As much as we say that the ninth is no more or less important than any other inning, and as statistically true as that is, you still need ice water in your veins to be a closer. You see guys all the time who just. Can't. Do it. Remember when we tried to make Kyle Farnsworth a closer?
I'm not saying that Wood, of all people, can't handle the pressure. What I am saying is that he probably needs a little time to get used to the pressure. When Dempster was handed the job in May 2005, he blew the very first save chance he got. He recovered to save 14 in a row before blowing the next one, and ended the year with 33 saves and just two blown saves. But he was also used regularly. In 2006, in more sporadic duty because the Cubs were awful, Dempster was just 24 of 33. Last year, once again pitching for a Cubs team that was at least decent, he blew just three of 31 chances. Even pitchers who have never been closers before seem to become creatures of habit, and as much as I hate relying on this kind of ephemeral, unquantifiable evidence, it seems like closers need to have that pressure on a consistent basis to be able to deal with it every time out. If they're only getting into tough situations once a week, that might not be good enough.
And so it is that we look at Wood's game logs for this year. His first appearance, obviously, was a dud; coming into a tie game in the top of the ninth on Opening Day, he gave up three runs before being bailed out by Fukudome's homer in the bottom of the inning. But after that he ripped off three saves in three outings over a four-day span from April 3-6, before blowing his first save after two off days on April 9. Since then (and before yesterday) he'd worked just seven times in 21 days, not the most regular work for a closer, and more importantly he'd only worked in two save situations in that entire time, going 1-for-2. Since the Opening Day fiasco, though, he'd given up just two runs (although both came in save situations with one-run leads, leading to his two blown saves); he wasn't giving up runs, or even hits - just five allowed in April, to 11 Ks - but unfortunately he happened to give up his runs in the worst possible spots. This could just be coincidence, or it could be a guy still getting used to the ninth-inning fire and who has rarely gotten a chance to pitch there. Instead, he's coming in with 7-1 leads against the Mets, 9-5 leads against the Reds, trailing 2-0 to the Nationals. In three cases he's been called upon to hold ties or preserve close deficits; he's 2-for-3, with the failure coming (of course) Opening Day.
But closers are judged by what they do in save situations, and so far Wood has not been slamming the door the way you'd want a closer to do. I'd like to see him get more consistent work, and I think that is likely to change; I know it's tempting to treat Wood with kid gloves because of his injury history, but I just don't think you can do that when you want him to be your closer. You need to be able to throw a closer on three straight days; if Wood can't do that, maybe he just shouldn't be closing. Aside from Marmol, he's got the best stuff of anyone in the bullpen; he may be susceptible to the occasional bad inning, something that's easier to hide when you're a starter, but aren't most guys? It's sticking out because he's had two horrible innings so far (and blown two other saves with mediocre innings), but he's still thrown 11 lights-out innings out of 15. Not a good percentage, and it's not like you can create more tight games for him to throw in, but it's likely that there will just be more tight games over the course of the summer, and I really don't see him sucking 25% of the time. Maybe I'm just an optimist.
More importantly, throwing Marmol into the closer's role is a bad idea. I'm sure Wood can handle the job mentally if you just give him more chances at it; Marmol is worth more in his current role, where you can throw him two innings, or 1.2 innings like yesterday. While the ninth obviously sticks out more because it's the last inning, having a guy who can be a shutdown guy in the seventh and eighth is better than trying to pigeonhole that guy into just the ninth. What good is reducing Marmol's workload to one inning if you don't have confidence in guys like Wood to hold leads - how are you going to get to Marmol in the ninth? As ridiculous as it sounds, if you trust Wood less than Marmol, then what you want to be doing is having him throw just one inning, rather than throwing the seventh and eighth wide open by throwing guys out there who can't get outs fast enough. Then you just end up never seeing Marmol, and you don't want to be never seeing a guy who's got 27 Ks to 5 walks in 19 innings this year and hasn't blown a hold or save chance yet in ten combined tries.
Look. I know there's this tendency to freak out. But it's May 2nd and we're 17-11 and a half-game back of a Cardinals team that almost certainly isn't going to be there come September. I don't think it's time to push the panic button because Kerry Wood had one bad inning. Do you? Last year we got our 17th win on May 13 (we already had 18 losses) and then lost 13 of the next 18 games. I really don't see that happening this year. I said on April 20 that I would get a lot more excited if the Cubs went at least 11-8 between April 21 and May 11. So far they've gone 5-5 in the first ten of that stretch, which means they need to win each of the next three series, perhaps a tall order. But they're more talented than St. Louis or Cincinnati, so it's not impossible. May is going to be a big month for this team, with series against every Central team but Milwaukee and every West team but the Giants, and 29 games in 31 days. If they can win 16 of those 29 games (bearing in mind they're starting 0-1 at this point), I'll be happy; anything more than 16 and I'll be thrilled. Let's just see if we can avoid wanting to blow the whole team up because of one inning. Deal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)