tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-260649632024-03-13T07:49:21.815-05:00Diary of a Mad Cubs FanAC 06 69 106Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-26013183135932238492014-07-05T10:56:00.000-05:002014-07-05T10:56:00.635-05:00Find out how smart a Cubs fan is using this one weird trickIf you're curious to know how baseball-educated the Cubs fan is that you're talking to, try asking them what they think of the trade with the A's. You know, the one that sent Jeff Samardzija and Jason Hammel - our two best starters this year but for the sudden emergence of Jake Arrieta - to Oakland for prospects. Really good prospects - Addison Russell and Billy McKinney represent the last two first round picks of a franchise that is known for how it builds through the draft - but, nevertheless, prospects, right?<br />
<br />
Well, right, but completely missing the point. No matter what news source you read this story on, if comments are enabled, it is a virtual certainty that one of the first ones you will see will say something like this: "Looks like the five-year plan is turning into a twenty-year plan."<br />
<br />
The people who write these comments undoubtedly think they are very clever. And I'm sure they legitimately feel aggrieved by the notion that every time a Cubs pitcher starts to look really good, Epstein and Hoyer ship him out. But these people also do not understand, at all, what Epstein and Hoyer are doing.<br />
<br />
First of all, I would love to hear how trading Jason Hammel - signed to a one-year deal - constitutes pushing back any sort of plan. It's true that this year's Cubs are better than their record suggests - they've now scored one more run than they've allowed, meaning their Pythagorean record is 42-42 rather than the 38-46 of real life. 42-42 would still be last place in what has been a very competitive NL Central, of course, but it would be closer to where you could dream about one of those wild card spots. But that's about all you could do. Even if they snuck into the playoffs, it is extremely unlikely at best that this year's Cubs have anything close to the talent to put together a serious pennant run.<br />
<br />
The same goes for Samardzija, really. He's under contract through next year, but he recently turned down a five-year extension which would have paid him $17 million per season. That's not a misprint. Jeff Samardzija, whose career ERA+ is 101 - i.e. for his career he's been 1% better than an average pitcher - thinks he is worth more than $17 million a year. Okay. I mean, someone may give him that money - his ERA+ this year is 135 and he's still just 29 - but you can see why the Cubs didn't, right? Epstein has said that his plan is to stockpile bats - a much less volatile commodity than pitching - and then cross the pitching bridge when he comes to it. There is an outside chance that the Cubs will be ready to contend in 2015, and they may miss Shark then if so... but even if the window begins next year, it likely doesn't fully open until 2016 or 2017 at the earliest. Samardzija wouldn't have been around anyway.<br />
<br />
(It's also worth noting that the Cubs could always re-sign Hammel and/or Samardzija as free agents, should they want to. Although this move means a clear punt on 2014 - but again, this team was never going anywhere this year - it doesn't really say that much about the next several years. And it's pretty unlikely that Oakland will even try to meet Samardzija's apparent asking price.)<br />
<br />
So what, really, did the Cubs trade? They traded three months of Jason Hammel (who is my age and has a career ERA of 4.62) and a year plus three months of Jeff Samardzija. And in return, they got Addison Russell, one of the best prospects in baseball; Billy McKinney, the A's 2013 first round pick who only turns 20 in August; and Dan Straily, who so far has been a slightly below average major league pitcher but who is only 25 and has several more years of club control. At the very least, he eats a lot of the innings that Samardzija and Hammel are vacating; at best, he was once a top-100 prospect and could maybe still turn into something.<br />
<br />
The bottom line is that in Russell <i>alone</i> the Cubs got a great deal. It's unclear what it means for the future of the Cubs infield - between Rizzo, Kris Bryant, Javier Baez, Arismendy Alcantara, and Castro, the Cubs already had every position pretty well covered. It does mean, though, that there is some room for one or two of those guys not to work out. Baez is still pretty raw and has been scuffling at AAA Iowa this year (though he's still just 21); Alcantara and Bryant, though, could both be with the big league club come Opening Day 2015. Russell could be insurance in case Castro never quite puts it all together, or Castro could slide over to second if Alcantara doesn't work out.<br />
<br />
Or, perhaps more likely, one or two of these guys could be dealt for the pitching the Cubs lack in the farm system when the bats are actually ready to contend. This is what Jim Hendry tended to get wrong. He plundered the Cubs' farm system (already thin at the time) to land pitching that couldn't get a mediocre team over the hump. Matt Garza is long gone from Chicago, while Chris Archer is starring in Tampa. It's obvious who got the better end of that deal. Epstein is willing to make deals like that, but only when the pitcher in question is the obvious final piece of the puzzle. Hammel and Samardzija weren't final puzzle pieces. Russell might yet be. That's why this was a great trade. And why you should be giving mega side-eye to anyone who suggests otherwise.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-27166785077204936902011-10-28T22:49:00.002-05:002011-10-28T22:59:13.792-05:00It happened againEver since the Cubs should have made the World Series in 2003 but blew it, every World Series winner has been in one way or another a kick in the teeth for Cubs fans.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2003:</span> Marlins win. I ended up rooting for the Marlins since I hate the Yankees so much, but to have a ten-year-old team win its second World Series, and with the way the Cubs lost to them... ugh.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2004:</span> Red Sox win and are no longer our partners in "curses" (though at least they beat the Cardinals and Yankees on the way).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2005:</span> White Sox win and are (a) the White Sox and (b) another team breaking a very long streak of not winning.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2006:</span> Cardinals win, and with a horrible 83-win team no less.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2007:</span> Red Sox win again, and in just a handful of years go from being our "twin" franchise to looking more like a modern dynasty.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2008:</span> Phillies, the only pre-expansion team with fewer World Series titles than the Cubs, win their second World Series to equal the Cubs.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2009:</span> Yankees win. Ordinarily whatever, I doubt most Cubs fans hate the Yankees as much as I do, but the icing on the cake was how all the Yankees players talked about how it had been so long for their fans since their last World Series win in 2000. FUCK Yankees fans.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2010:</span> Giants win, ending the third-longest title drought in MLB and leaving only the Cubs and Indians as the last pre-expansion teams not to have won a title in the expansion era.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2011:</span> Cardinals win a-fucking-gain. The icing on this one? The fact that Ryan Theriot was hitting leadoff for the Cardinals in the clinching Game Seven. Ryan Theriot shouldn't be hitting leadoff for anyone at any time, least of all a team that's winning the World Series. What a joke. Also, it's the fucking Cardinals.<br /><br />Your move, Theo.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-89467935595752761322011-10-24T11:51:00.002-05:002011-10-24T13:00:33.883-05:00Scared MiklaszThere are two types of rivalry in the sports world: the kind that spring up between two great teams - Lakers/Celtics in the NBA, for one key example - and the kind that spring up for simple reasons of geography and playing each other a lot. Yankees/Red Sox is perhaps the key example of the form - it only turned into more in the last decade or so, really - but Cubs/Cardinals is perhaps an even better illustration. The two teams have been in the same division since the Cardinals (then the St. Louis Browns) joined the National League in 1892. But post World War II, as the Cubs' fortunes dropped, that aspect of the rivalry tailed off. For two decades, between 1925 and 1945, the Cardinals and Cubs were perhaps the two most dominant franchises in the National League. The Cardinals played in eight World Series and won five. The Cubs didn't win any but represented their league in the Fall Classic fully five times in that span. Between 1942 and 1946, the Cardinals won four pennants; the one they didn't, in 1945, was won by the Cubs. (To be fair, those WWII years were a bit goofy.)<br /><br />Obviously, however, the rivalry has been a bit different since then. It's more about a rivalry between two major Midwestern cities, and two teams that simply go back a long way and have played each other well over two thousand times. The Cardinals have won nine more pennants and four more World Series since 1946; they could add a fifth World Series this year. The Cubs, I don't need to tell you, have won none of either.<br /><br />But this is clearly still a rivalry. And what's more, it's clearly still a rivalry that matters even to the more successful team in it. Why else would Bernie Miklasz, long-time columnist for the <span style="font-style: italic;">St. Louis Post-Dispatch</span> write a column - during the World Series that his team is playing in! - like, well, this?<br /><br /><b>The St. Louis Cardinals have been so dominant in the NL Central, it looks like the rival Chicago Cubs are hiring two general managers in a desperate attempt to topple their rivals.</b><br /><br />I just got done enumerating how much more successful the Cardinals have been over the last 65 years. However, ten points for answering the following question: in the last five years, who has won more NL Central titles, the Cubs or the Cardinals?<br /><br />Of course, the answer is the Cubs, who won in 2007 and 2008. The Cardinals won in 2009 but finished second to the Reds in 2010 and to the Brewers this year. Really, over the last five years, the Brewers have at least as good a claim to NL Central "dominance" as the Cardinals. I know the Cardinals are in the World Series having beaten the Brewers, but this is about the division, right?<br /><br />Anyway, this is a stupid argument regardless. Aside from the fact that the announcement of Theo Epstein's hiring happens to have come during the playoffs, and that the Cubs simply would have to do better than the Cardinals to win a division title, what do the Cubs' moves have to do with St. Louis that they don't have to do with "it's been 103 years since we won the World Series and we would like to win one at some point in the not too distant future"? Get a hold of yourself, Bernie.<br /><br /><b>The boy wonder, Theo Epstein, is defecting from Boston to take over the Cubs. He'll be given the title of team president and $18.5 million over five years. According to media reports, Epstein is hiring his buddy, Jed Hoyer, away from the San Diego Padres. If and when that becomes official, Hoyer will leave the GM post in San Diego for the GM title with the Cubs.</b><br /><br />Adorably pejorative use of the term "boy wonder." Epstein does have two World Series teams under his belt, at least. It's not like he has Billy Beane's track record, say.<br /><br /><b>The Cubs are obviously desperate to win a World Series. They haven't played in one since 1945, or won one since 1908. The Cardinals, currently competing in their 18th World Series, have been in three of the last eight Fall Classics.</b><br /><br />Yes, I'm sure the Cubs would rather have the Cardinals' record. So would a lot of teams. Even the Yankees haven't played in three of the last eight World Series.<br /><br /><b>Since Bill DeWitt Jr. bought the franchise in 1996, which is also the same year Tony La Russa arrived as manager, the Cardinals have qualified for the postseason nine times.</b><br /><br />They won the NL Central five times in seven years between 2000 and 2006, which is pretty impressive, although since then, as mentioned, they've only won it once in the last five years. But yes. They've been fairly successful the last 15 years.<br /><br /><b>Going into Game 3 of the World Series on Saturday night at Rangers Ballpark, the Cardinals have won 11 postseason series and 47 postseason games during the La Russa Era.<br /><br />The other five teams in the NL Central, combined, have won only five postseason series and 27 postseason games while competing against La Russa.</b><br /><br />The other NL Central teams don't tend to compete against LaRussa in the postseason, this year notwithstanding. The Cardinals certainly have had more success than their NL Central counterparts in the playoffs - in the seven seasons since 1996 that they won the division, the Cardinals won at least one playoff series in six of them (a 2009 NLDS loss to the Dodgers the exception) and made the World Series twice. The combined power of the teams that won the NL Central in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011, meanwhile, yielded exactly zero trips to the World Series and seven first-round losses out of nine (the 2003 Cubs and this year's Brewers were the only ones to make it as far as the NLCS).<br /><br />So, yes. Job well done. The Cardinals are currently playing in the World Series, you know. Did you really need to whip their dick out and ask the other teams in the division if anyone wants to compare lengths?<br /><br /><b>The Cubs obviously believe that Epstein, 37, can break the many curses in Chicago, whether it be the Billy Goat, the black cat, or Bartman. To attain success, Epstein must also break the Cardinals' firm hold on the NL Central.</b><br /><br />One division title in the last five years. And the Cubs could easily finish second to the Cardinals and still win the World Series as a wild card, as Epstein's Red Sox did in 2004 and as the Cardinals themselves are attempting to do this year. But yes, it is likely that in order to do well, the Cubs will have to be better than the Cardinals in the long term.<br /><br /><b>After all, Epstein put an end to the curse — and cursing — in Boston by guiding the Red Sox to World Series championships in 2004 and 2007. The Red Sox had gone 86 years without capturing a World Series until Epstein ended the torment.</b><br /><br />Factual statement. Although is anyone else getting the feeling that Miklasz legitimately believes in "curses"? What a maroon.<br /><br /><b>In the AL East, Boston ownership cast the New York Yankees as the "Evil Empire" that had to be taken down. The Cardinals are to the Cubs what the Yankees are to the Red Sox. So Epstein's hiring should increase the competitive intensity of a Cubs-Cardinals rivalry that's turned into a baseball-and-beer happy hour.</b><br /><br />Pretty much what I said earlier. Although the Cardinals definitely do <i>not</i> have the Yankees' money, which is likely to prove one big difference should the Cubs succeed in righting their operational ship.<br /><br /><b>Mozeliak respects Epstein and thinks the Cubs have made an impressive hire. But it's not as if the Cubs are the first team to step up and take aim at the Cardinals.<br /><br />Houston had a positive run between 1997 and 2005. Milwaukee GM Doug Melvin won the division this year and has led the Brewers to two postseason berths in the last four years. The Pittsburgh Pirates are improving. And former Cardinals GM Walt Jocketty revived the Cincinnati Reds, at least for a season (2010). The Cubs won the division in 2007 and 2008.</b><br /><br />I see one big similarity between the Yankees and Cardinals - they both feel like it's divine right that they win the division every year. Houston had a "positive run" between 1997 and 2005? Hey, if you just want to completely discount nine-year stretches, what say we ignore everything between 2000 and 2008? Now the Cardinals have just two division titles to their credit and a single WS appearance. And of course if you correctly parse that last paragraph, you can see what Miklasz is obviously avoiding but what I already pointed out: the Cardinals have won the division once in the last five years. That is not a stranglehold. Aside from Albert Pujols and Chris Carpenter, there is almost no resemblance between the current team and even the 2006 Cardinals, the last year of their most dominant stretch between 2000 and 2006 when they made the playoffs six out of seven years and won a World Series.<br /><br /><b>Cardinals fans have seen this before; his name was Andy MacPhail. Remember that? MacPhail was the young GM behind the Minnesota Twins' two World Series titles, in 1987 and 1991. The Cubs hired MacPhail to lead them out of the poison ivy. How did that work out? Other baseball saviors included Dusty Baker and Lou Piniella.</b><br /><br />"Hey, I know my team's in the World Series, but what if I wrote a piece just making fun of the Cubs? Now that's serious journalism."<br /><br /><b>The Cardinals will have to work harder, and be even better, to ward off challengers. And the franchise must confront a major issue — the future of free-agent Albert Pujols in a matter of weeks.<br /><br />Will Pujols stay, or will he go?<br /><br />Either way, Mozeliak is confident of maintaining the winning tradition.</b><br /><br />Replace Pujols with a replacement player and the Cardinals aren't in the playoffs this year, nor in most years. I would expect he's probably not going anywhere, though, if only because I can't imagine other teams lining up to pay him what he wants, and if he's not going to get a massive contract, he'll probably stay in St. Louis for a merely very large contract.<br /><br /><b>It starts with a 2012 rotation that will feature the return of Adam Wainwright from elbow surgery. He'll join his co-ace Chris Carpenter, promising lefthander Jaime Garcia, Kyle Lohse, Jake Westbrook and a couple of intriguing rotation candidates in Lance Lynn and Marc Rzepczynski.<br /><br />"There's definitely going to be the Pujols factor. But putting that aside, I like what we have in place," Mozeliak said before Game 3. "When you look in our rotation for next year, you can see the quality there, and the depth. On the pitching side, we have a very positive outlook for 2012."<br /><br />Re-signing corner outfielder Lance Berkman to a one-year deal for 2012 provides a backup plan should Pujols depart. And if Pujols leaves, that would create an opportunity for Allen Craig to receive hundreds of additional at-bats. If Pujols goes, the Cardinals would have some money to spend on other free agents. But Mozeliak certainly will make an effort to sign Pujols.<br /><br />"When we look at our everyday lineup, obviously we have a question mark with Albert, and at shortstop," Mozeliak said. "And if we can fill those in the offseason, and re-sign Albert, the St. Louis Cardinals have a very bright future."<br /><br />There's also a chance of La Russa deciding to retire at the end of the season, but the internal expectation is that La Russa will return in 2012.</b><br /><br />Wow, you actually talked about the Cardinals for a while! Congratulations. I love the idea that Pujols leaving could be okay because at least it would mean Allen Craig could get some more at-bats.<br /><br /><b>Could the Cubs emerge as a player in the Pujols sweepstakes? Media insiders in Chicago downgrade the possibility, insisting that Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts wants to rebuild through the draft, player development and an expanded scouting presence in the Dominican Republic.<br /><br />The Cubs are still trying to get out from under some toxic contracts handed out to Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Zambrano and others. The Tribune Co., which sold the Cubs to Ricketts, pushed a win-now approach that turned Wrigley into a vast money pit, filled with wasted dollars.<br /><br />Still, I wouldn't rule the Cubs out on Pujols.</b><br /><br />"Could one plus one equal three? All evidence suggests that combining one and one will get you two. Still, I wouldn't rule out that one plus one could equal three."<br /><br /><b>The Cubs had a $125 million payroll this season, and for all of the hype over Epstein's sabermetric-based, value-driven philosophies, he developed expensive tastes in Boston. The Red Sox failed to make the playoffs in 2010 and 2011 despite spending $331 million in player payroll over the last two seasons. Epstein signed off on nonsensical free-agent contracts for pitcher John Lackey, left fielder Carl Crawford and setup reliever Bobby Jenks, among others.</b><br /><br />While the entirety of the Crawford deal was pretty ludicrous, Crawford was worth between 7 and 8 wins in 2010. The fact that he played poorly in 2011 does not seem like something you can pin on Epstein. In addition, one of the reasons why Epstein "developed expensive tastes" in Boston was because it was DEMANDED by an ownership and fanbase that loved the rings and wanted more, and in the AL East the easiest way to compete with the Yankees is to splash the cash. (Yes, the Rays, but think about this: if the Rays had $100 million to play with, wouldn't they just win the division every year?) This year's and last year's Red Sox teams both had injury issues, and this year's team was the highest-scoring in the AL. Unforeseen things happen in baseball. It's easy to second-guess Epstein in hindsight, but if the Red Sox pull one more win out somewhere along the line, they could easily have found their way into the World Series (since it's not like great pitching has been a theme of this postseason), and then what would everyone be saying about Epstein?<br /><br /><b>How much credit should Epstein get for the two World Series titles in Boston? Obviously he made some good moves. He hit it big on some draft picks, including Dustin Pedroia, Jonathan Papelbob [<i>sic</i>], Jacoby Ellsbury and Clay Buchholz. But even with the second-highest payroll in baseball, Epstein's creation went sour.</b><br /><br />No doubt all attributable to Epstein's presence.<br /><br /><b>Moreover, Epstein took over a 93-win team when he became Boston GM in 2003. His challenge in Chicago is more challenging, and vexing.</b><br /><br />True for a number of reasons, almost none of which have anything to do with St. Louis, the team you cover that is in the World Series right now.<br /><br /><b>And the Cardinals aren't moving out of the division.</b><br /><br />Well, I guess the Cubs will have to figure out a way to finish ahead of the Cardinals, like they did in 2007 and 2008, when they were winning more division titles in those two years than the Cardinals and their division stranglehold have won in the last five. I mean, honestly, I would expect this kind of arrogance from the Yankees, but the Cardinals haven't exactly earned it of late. Yeah, they won the World Series in 2006 and made it again this year, but in between those two they did exactly jack squat, making one playoffs and winning zero games in it.<br /><br />Besides, if Epstein could survive in a division with the Yankees (and, for that matter, Tampa), do you think he's worried about the <i>Cardinals</i>? Once the organization is, hopefully, strengthened, if the Cubs have a strong front office AND more money than the Cardinals, don't you think the Cubs will have a pretty good chance to dominate? Which is why this reads, in the words of Hire Jim Essian's Bad Kermit, like "whistling past the graveyard." St. Louis has already lost the iron grip they held on the division from 2000 to 2006, and if the Cubs' organization can get its act in gear for the first time since World War II, that iron grip may just pass to the Cards' biggest rival. I'm not saying it's going to happen. But I'm saying it <i>could</i> happen, and Bernie Miklasz is clearly terrified that it <i>will</i>.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-63495767566133661512010-10-22T19:12:00.004-05:002010-10-22T20:15:38.707-05:00Q ratingIt's okay to think that Ryne Sandberg should have been made the next Cubs manager. It's not okay to think it <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&page=wojciechowski/101020&sportCat=mlb">the way Gene Wojciechowski thinks it</a>, however.<br /><br /><b>Maybe this will work. Maybe a guy who would have never gotten a sniff at the full-time job if Lou Piniella hadn't flamed out will break the Chicago Cubs' 102-year starvation diet. Maybe Mike Quade is the next Jim Leyland or Earl Weaver, a nobody who became a baseball somebody.<br /><br />But I doubt it.</b><br /><br />I also doubt it, but mostly because the Cubs are not a great team right now. Other managers who I doubt could lead the Cubs to a World Series title next year: Ryne Sandberg, Joe Girardi, Joe Torre, the ghost of Frank Chance.<br /><br /><b>If it happens, if Quade can lead the Cubs to their first World Series championship since 1908, then I'll believe anything -- that Barry Bonds hit all those home runs because of flaxseed oil, that Wade Phillips will be the 2010 NFL Coach of the Year.</b><br /><br />Ha ha! Take that, Barry Bonds and the Cowboys! Wait - what is this article about again?<br /><br /><b>There are reasons why the Cubs are the Cubs -- and the decision to hire Quade is one of them. I'm not saying it's a terrible choice; just the wrong choice.<br /><br />Nothing personal, but Ryne Sandberg, not Quade, should have been introduced Tuesday as the 51st manager of the Cubs. It would have made so much sense.</b><br /><br />I mean, I guess. Sandberg had been managing in the Cubs' system for four years. Quade was a minor league manager as early as 1985 and managed the Iowa Cubs for three years. In 2004 he took them to the PCL finals, for whatever that's worth.<br /><br /><b>Sandberg isn't some Mark McGwire big-timer whose first coaching job was on the major league level. Sandberg grinded for four years as a manager in the bus and drive-thru-window leagues of the minors. He did his time for the Cubs in Class A, Double-A and Triple-A, earning Pacific Coast League manager of the year honors this past season.</b><br /><br />He's done a nice job. He also has four years of minor league experience to Quade's 17, and zero years of big league coaching experience to Quade's four, so trying to sell him as someone who "paid his dues" as though Quade hasn't is just kind of stupid.<br /><br /><b>He also has a bronze plaque in Cooperstown, which should count for something. And he's wearing a Cubs cap on it.</b><br /><br />The last guy to be a Hall of Famer as a player and then win a World Series as a manager: no one. It's never happened. The closest we come - ignoring player/managers, of whom there were a few in the first half of the 20th century - is Red Schoendienst, who led the 1967 Cardinals to the World Series title four years after retiring. Of course it also took Red until 1989 to make the Hall, getting in only via the Veterans Committee, and you could certainly argue that he's one of the weaker members of the Hall. On the other hand, he was <i>also</i> a second baseman! Draft Sandberg!<br /><br /><b>Sandberg was the consummate professional as a player, and he would have been the consummate Cubs manager. He spoke with his bat and glove when he played those 15 seasons in Chicago. But once out of uniform, he spoke from his heart.</b><br /><br />What Sandberg's playing career has to do with his potential managerial career: little to nothing.<br /><br /><b>Go back and listen to his HOF induction speech in 2005, when he vaporized a certain unnamed former teammate (hello, Sammy Sosa). Sandberg has always been about playing the game the right way. You think he would have been intimidated managing the bizarre and undependable Carlos Zambrano? Something would have had to give, and it wouldn't have been Sandberg.</b><br /><br />This seems to imply that someone else <i>was</i> intimidated by Zambrano, but Piniella was only too happy to send Zambrano home and Quade didn't have to deal with Z at his angriest or flakiest anyway. So, what are you talking about?<br /><br /><b>Sandberg would have been good for the Cubs and also good for business. If you don't think that matters, then you weren't at Wrigley Field during the final month or so of another lost season.</b><br /><br />The Cubs drew more than 3 million fans in 2010, behind only Philly, the Dodgers and St. Louis in the NL, and ahead of the other three NL playoff teams. (Only three other teams in baseball - the Yankees, Angels and Twins - drew more. The Cubs drew more than the Red Sox.) I'm sure Sandberg would be a popular enough manager, but business isn't really suffering. And you need only ask Dusty Baker about how popularity will dwindle when you're not managing a winning team.<br /><br /><b>There are no guarantees Sandberg would have won a division, a pennant or a World Series. But he couldn't have done any worse than Piniella, whose teams failed to win a playoff game in six tries. And after the magic and heartbreak of 2003, Dusty Baker never led the Cubs to another postseason appearance. Nor did Don Baylor before him.</b><br /><br />Sandberg: he might not win, but hey, who has? Of course, I could just as easily say this of Quade, whom you're busy crushing. And for the record, Piniella's teams may not have won a postseason game but they did win the NL Central in back to back years, the first time the Cubs made two straight postseasons in literally a century. So I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, Sandberg could have done worse than that. For all I've said about Dusty Baker over the years, he got the Cubs closer to the World Series than at any time since 1945. Sandberg could certainly have done worse than him.<br /><br /><b>There weren't a dozen baseball fans outside the city of Chicago who knew who Quade was when the Cubs asked him to pitch long managerial relief for the final 37 games this summer. I'm not sure there were a dozen fans in Chicago who knew who he was.</b><br /><br />Ha ha hyperbole! Quade was the third base coach. Plenty of people who follow the team knew who he was.<br /><br /><b>Even after he was hired Tuesday, I had two baseball fans tell me, "You hear about the Cubs and Quade?" But they mispronounced his name: calling him, Qu-aid, instead of Quad-ee.</b><br /><br />"Two non-Cubs fans I spoke to had only seen Mike Quade's name written down, therefore he sucks."<br /><br /><b>People know Sandberg's name. People name their kids after Sandberg.</b><br /><br />Not a reason he should be hired as manager.<br /><br /><b>I'm all for rewarding loyalty. Quade spent 17 years managing in the minors and four years as a major league coach. On Aug. 22, he replaced the beleaguered Piniella, who called it quits and returned home to Tampa to care for his ailing mother.</b><br /><br />Love how buried this was when he talked about Sandberg's four years of "grinding" at the top.<br /><br /><b>Quade finished 24-13 as interim manager and showed a nice, firm touch when handling players such as shortstop Starlin Castro, a gifted but sometimes brain-cramped rookie who needed the occasional tough love. Quade also got seven wins out of the revitalized Zambrano. And he earned the support of key Cubs veterans.</b><br /><br />Douchebag. Shouldn't be hired.<br /><br /><b>That support, those 24 victories and the fact that the Cubs are on their second 100-year rebuilding plan likely had a lot to do with Quade's hiring. Plus, he's a likable, personable, grinder type of guy.</b><br /><br />Wait, they're <i>both</i> grinders? How will we settle this grudge match? Quick: both go to the outfield and take turns shagging David Eckstein pop flies. Winner gets a football punted and then signed by Darin Erstad, and also the job as Cubs manager.<br /><br /><b>Still, Quade has only 37 more games of big league managerial experience than Sandberg. Now compare that to Sandberg's big-game experience. And with all due respect to Quade, those 37 games were played when nothing was on the line for the Cubs.</b><br /><br />37 more games of big league managerial experience... plus 13 extra seasons in the minors. Might count for <i>something</i>. Also, at the risk of bashing my own team, what big game experience does Ryno really have? He has ten career playoff games under his belt and his team lost seven of them (though his personal playoff numbers are great, albeit in a very small sample). During his 15 seasons with the Cubs, he played on two first place teams, zero other teams that finished even as high as second, and three last place teams. I love the guy, but it is hard to find many recent Hall of Famers with <i>less</i> "big game experience."<br /><br /><b>Make no mistake: The Cubs' payroll isn't going to approach the $145 million the Ricketts family spent in 2010 to finish fifth in the NL Central. It is a roster with a handful of talented young players, but also a roster with the ball-and-chain contracts of Alfonso Soriano and Zambrano.</b><br /><br />So, maybe it doesn't matter that much who the manager is, huh?<br /><br /><b>You wonder if owner Tom Ricketts liked Quade not only because of those 24 victories but also because he might have come more cheaply than Sandberg. He definitely was a less expensive alternative to Piniella, as well as to New York Yankees manager Joe Girardi, who told reporters Tuesday that he had considered the idea of managing the Cubs. No way would Girardi have signed the same contract as Quade: a two-year deal with a club option for a third.</b><br /><br />Given how little value the average manager adds to a team, I'm definitely cool with not shelling out big dollars. As, again, you yourself mentioned just a few paragraphs ago, Lou Piniella and Dusty Baker - high-priced managers with pedigrees - couldn't get the Cubs to the World Series. If someone who has never managed in the big leagues couldn't possibly do worse, as you claim, why am I supposed to believe that Quade would do worse either?<br /><br /><b>Sandberg was slightly surprised and more than slightly disappointed when he learned he hadn't gotten the Cubs job. But that's baseball. It's like in "Bull Durham," when Nuke LaLoosh says, "Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains. Think about that for a while."</b><br /><br />It's exactly like that. Or something.<br /><br /><b>It rained on Sandberg Tuesday. By the end of next season, we'll know if Cubs fans got soaked too.</b><br /><br />If the Cubs don't win next year, and they almost certainly won't, it's not going to be due to Quade vs. Sandberg. Okay? You wrote this whole article around why Quade was a bad choice and I don't see a single good reason. Pretty much all you have is "Well, Sandberg played for the Cubs and was good at it." That's not a reason <i>not</i> to give a guy a job, but it's certainly not a reason to give him a job without question, is it?Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-42272883770054774772010-04-21T20:43:00.002-05:002010-04-21T22:26:34.323-05:00Jim's not so dandyAs I write this, my mood is elevated. Carlos Silva is continuing to defy the odds and/or prove that the NL really is <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> much worse than the AL. Alfonso Soriano is 3-for-3 with a home run. The Cubs lead the Mets 5-1 in the 7th and look like they might actually win a game after losing four straight to the Mets and Astros, arguably the two worst teams in the NL at this exact moment (and not counting the Cubs).<br /><br />Still, all is not right in Cub World. Today it was announced that when Ted Lilly returned, the starter moving to the bullpen would not be Carlos Silva or Tom Gorzelanny. It would, instead, be purported ace and 18-million-dollar man Carlos Zambrano. This decision irked me, to put it mildly.<br /><br />This is not to say that Zambrano has been pitching <span style="font-style: italic;">great</span>; his ERA is 7.45 and in fact he's allowed more earned runs (16) than Dempster, Gorzelanny, Silva and Wells combined (15). With that said, he's made more starts than anyone else on the team, with four already, and only one of them was notably awful (the Opening Day 8 ER in 1.1 IP debacle). In fact, two of the other three were quality starts and his K/9 and K/BB are at historic highs. He hasn't pitched in the bullpen since 2002. Oh, and he makes <span style="font-style: italic;">eighteen million dollars</span>. To give you some perspective, the highest-paid relief pitcher is Mariano Rivera at 15 million; the highest-paid non-closer is Fernando Rodney at a mere 5.5 million. Also bear in mind that despite his poor start, Z is most likely to return to his career average, which is 3.56. He's never had an ERA over 3.95 in a full season. By comparison, Gorzelanny's career ERA is 4.80 and Silva's is 4.67. I know I complained about the bullpen needing to be fixed, but this wasn't exactly what I was talking about.<br /><br />Do you start to wonder if maybe Piniella and Hendry just don't have a clue what they're doing? Because I do. When Piniella came in, people thought he was a potential savior. He was a big name and he'd had success. So we all overlooked things. He won a World Series! (In 1990, and hadn't even been to one since.) He won 116 games with the Mariners! (They didn't even get to the World Series that year.) His Tampa teams were lousy... but that wasn't <span style="font-style: italic;">his</span> fault. And when the Cubs won the division in 2007 and then 97 games and another division title in 2008 for their first back-to-back playoff appearances in 100 years... who could say Piniella wasn't a great manager?<br /><br />But I've heard it said that managers don't do as much to win games as they can do to lose them. The players will play and win without the manager, but the manager can make dumb decisions that compromise the players' ability to win. And you have to wonder about Piniella a little bit. I mean, he <span style="font-style: italic;">honestly thinks</span> that putting Zambrano in the bullpen is the best thing for the club. I like to think that if another starter struggles Z will be back in the rotation... but I don't know. Piniella seems like a pretty old-school baseball guy, the type who plays hunches and judges players by the look in their eye and thinks that Joba Chamberlain is more valuable pitching 60 innings a year than 180. He gave Tom Gorzelanny the starting job over Sean Marshall even though Marshall is pretty much inarguably a better pitcher. He can't decide where to hit Ryan Theriot. He has, in the past, seriously suggested trying to play Soriano at second again even though Soriano has spent less than four innings at the position since 2005.<br /><br />But then I wonder how much of it is really Lou's fault. I mean, I'm not convinced he's a great manager. But isn't he doing pretty much the best he can with the pieces he's been handed? And then I think about Jim Hendry, and how I'm pretty sure he's a lousy GM. I did a post in June of 2007 on Hendry's GM tenure as a trader, concluding that he had been basically average, at least if by average you meant that he'd basically made as many bad deals as good ones (though I would argue that his two best trades to that point, for Ramirez and Lee, pretty much outweighed all the bad ones with the exception of the Juan Pierre deal). I think that's pretty much still true - the Kevin Gregg deal was lousy, but the Rich Harden one was pretty good, at least from the standpoint that no one traded away in it has done anything for Oakland (in fact, only Eric Patterson plays for their major league team, and not well - Sean Gallagher is mopping up for the Padres and Matt Murton currently plays in Japan). Et cetera.<br /><br />Of course, Hendry has been pretty lousy when it comes to free agents. His major signings since taking over the GM job in July of 2002, from oldest to most recent:<br /><br />Mike Remlinger<br />Shawn Estes<br />LaTroy Hawkins<br />Todd Walker<br />Ryan Dempster<br />Greg Maddux<br />Glendon Rusch<br />Neifi Perez<br />Henry Blanco<br />Jeromy Burnitz<br />Scott Eyre<br />Bob Howry<br />Jacque Jones<br />Mark DeRosa<br />Alfonso Soriano<br />Ted Lilly<br />Daryle Ward<br />Jason Marquis<br />Cliff Floyd<br />Kosuke Fukudome<br />Jon Lieber<br />Reed Johnson<br />Jim Edmonds<br />Aaron Miles<br />Milton Bradley<br />Marlon Byrd<br />Xavier Nady<br /><br />Granted, calling some of those "major signings" may be a stretch - Ward, for instance, had 212 at-bats over two seasons with the Cubs. But I included everyone I thought had made a difference to the Cubs, either positively or negatively; guys like, say, Chad Fox, I didn't bother counting because they were so insignificant overall (though Hendry's love affair with Fox could be another whole post). The point is, look at that list. Now tell me, who on it was an unqualified success as a signing? I vote for the following: Walker, Dempster, DeRosa, Lilly, Johnson, Edmonds. Six out of 27 (though granted the jury is still out on Byrd and Nady, technically). Now, who was an unqualified disaster? I vote for Hawkins, Perez, Jones, Miles and Bradley. That's only five, but really, isn't a ratio that close pretty lousy? Plus a lot of people would probably argue I was being generous with Soriano and Fukudome (mostly due to the size of their contracts), and potentially Marquis as well.<br /><br />You also have to consider JUST HOW awful the Perez, Miles and Bradley signings were. Perez is one of the worst baseball players of all time. In 2002 for the Royals, his OPS+ was 44. The next year in San Francisco, it was 65. In 2004, it was 48, and the Giants had finally had enough and released him. The Cubs snapped him up for some reason, and over a tiny, tiny stretch sample of 23 games, he hit .371/.400/.548. So they brought him back for 2005, and he turned back into a pumpkin with a .274/.298/.383 line. Yet Hendry re-signed him for 2006, possibly because Dusty Baker <span style="font-style: italic;">loved</span> Neifi for no good reason and insisted on hitting him first or second a lot of the time and giving him 609 PAs. No wonder the '05 team couldn't finish .500 even though Derrek Lee had an MVP-type season. (And no wonder Lee only had 107 RBI despite hitting 46 home runs - Neifi and Corey Patterson had a combined 1,090 plate appearances, many in the leadoff and 2nd spots, despite a combined OBP of .275.) He continued to suck in 2006, and was finally, mercifully traded to the Tigers in August.<br /><br />Miles was coming off a career year for the Cardinals in 2008, with a .317/.355/.398 line. He was intended to be a cheaper Mark DeRosa, in that he could play a lot of different positions but for less money. As it turned out, there was a reason he was cheaper. Miles' line for the Cubs: .185/.224/.242, for an OPS+ of 20, which makes Neifi Perez look like fucking Ernie Banks.<br /><br />A lot has been said about Bradley already, and there's no real need to rehash it here. His year for the Cubs could have been worse: .257/.378/.397. Bradley later complained the Cubs had expected him to hit home runs, and that since his career high was 22, this was misguided. This is probably true, but Bradley's below-.400 SLG (his first since 2001) shows that he wasn't hitting with power at all. Of his 101 Cub hits, just 30 went for extra bases (17 doubles, a triple, and 12 homers).<br /><br />But what the Bradley signing really said to me was that Hendry just wasn't paying attention. The whole point behind the Bradley signing was that the Cubs wanted a left-handed-hitting outfielder, since Kosuke Fukudome hadn't fully panned out in 2008. Bradley, a switch-hitter, would surely fit the bill after he punched up a .436 OBP to lead the AL in 2008. This completely ignored:<br /><br />1. that Bradley had mostly played DH in 2008<br />2. that even when mostly playing DH he had trouble staying healthy<br />3. perhaps most importantly, that Bradley was a better right-handed batter than left<br /><br />Bradley, for his career, hits .264/.364/.430 as a lefty and .303/.384/.492 as a righty. <span style="font-style: italic;">This</span> was the lefty bat we were missing? A corner outfielder who slugs .430 and can't stay on the field? Bradley may not have had as bad a season as some would paint it, and it may not have been his fault that he couldn't meet the inflated expectations - but the point is that for what Hendry was thinking he was going to get, it was clearly a botched signing.<br /><br />So who's to blame for the mess the 2010 Cubs are in? Hendry has handed out huge contracts to aging players and has shown an alarming tendency to pillage an already thin farm system to obtain guys who aren't that good to begin with. Piniella has made some head-scratching decisions, but to the extent that he affects the games, he's only as good as what he has to work with. I just pray that Hendry doesn't ruin the 2014 Cubs' chances by trading Starlin Castro or Josh Vitters for Heath Bell or something stupid like that.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-3172369823429680902010-04-15T22:54:00.003-05:002010-04-16T01:10:29.335-05:00Bullshit penI can't say I was especially optimistic before this season. The big offseason acquisition was Marlon Byrd, a career 98 OPS+er with a history of being unable to stay on the field. On the one hand, the pieces from the dominant '08 team were almost all still in place and many (Soto, Soriano, Ramirez) were candidates for rebound years; on the other hand, all were also two years older. Soto is the only everyday player under 30. Etc.<br /><br />Yet so far, things haven't been quite as bad as maybe one would think. Derrek Lee has once again started strong. Byrd and Ramirez have three home runs each, even if they haven't hit much else yet. Soto hasn't really started hitting yet but he is getting on base. Fukudome is off to another pretty good start (although today he went 0-for-5 and struck out three times).<br /><br />More importantly, the starting pitching has kept the Cubs in almost every game. In nine games so far, Cubs starters have five quality starts. Ryan Dempster and Randy Wells have both looked pretty good, and Carlos Silva and Tom Gorzelanny both had surprisingly effective outings in the Cincinnati series. Carlos Zambrano has been up and down so far, but he is 1-0 with a no-decision since the Opening Day debacle. No, the real problem here... is the bullpen.<br /><br />You already know this, of course. Last year's Cubs bullpen wasn't exactly stellar. Angel Guzman was a revelation, but of course he's now injured. Kevin Gregg disappointed, perhaps predictably. Nobody liked seeing Aaron Heilman enter a game. Jeff Samardzija went from his seemingly revelatory August 2008 to a 7.53 ERA, which included a handful of mostly awful starts. The David Patton experiment was a complete train wreck. The team's total ERA was 3.84 even though the ERAs of the top four starters were 3.05, 3.10, 3.64 and 3.77.<br /><br />So the bullpen was mostly turned over. Heilman is gone. Gregg is in Toronto. Carlos Marmol, coming off his iffiest year yet, was handed the closer's job that he <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span> have been given in '09 and has so far thrived - granted, it's only been four games, but in 4.1 innings he's struck out nine, walked just two (and hit one), and allowed a single hit and no runs. Time will tell if he's going to be the shutdown closer we all thought he would eventually be following his 2007 season, but he's off to a good start.<br /><br />The rest of the pen? Well, it features a lot of guys you haven't heard of but who have one thing in common: they probably don't belong in a major league bullpen.<br /><br />Here is the list of players who have appeared in a relief role for the Cubs this season, by innings pitched:<br /><br />Sean Marshall (6.0)<br />Carlos Marmol (4.1)<br />John Grabow (3.2)<br />James Russell (3.1)<br />Jeff Samardzija (3.1)<br />Esmailin Caridad (2.2)<br />Justin Berg (2.1)<br />Jeff Gray (1.0)<br /><br />I suspect a lot of Cubs fans have only heard of three or four of these guys. I believe James Russell came over in the DeRosa trade, but that's all I know about him, if that's even right. Jeff Gray used to be an Athletic, which I only know because he's wearing an A's hat in his ESPN.com profile photo. I think Caridad and Berg are Cubs farmhands. That's all I know, pretty much. And I typically follow baseball pretty closely.<br /><br />Oh, and here are the ERAs of these players:<br /><br />Marshall: 1.50<br />Marmol: 0.00<br />Grabow: 9.82<br />Russell: 0.00<br />Samardzija: 16.20<br />Caridad: 13.50<br />Berg: 7.71<br />Gray: 18.00<br /><br />Well, say this much: at least (Grabow excepted) it's pretty much gone in the right order.<br /><br />Just to make this as long and obnoxious as possible, here's a quick breakdown of EVERY INNING the Cubs bullpen has pitched so far this year. You might sense a pattern forming.<br /><br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/5/10, bottom 2: Sean Marshall comes in and records two outs.<br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/5/10, bottom 3: Sean Marshall 1-2-3 inning.<br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/5/10, bottom 4: Sean Marshall 1-2-3 inning.<br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/5/10, bottom 5: James Russell allows a single, no runs.<br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/5/10, bottom 6: James Russell allows a single, no runs.<br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/5/10, bottom 7: Jeff Samardzija walks the bases loaded and is eventually charged with six runs, four earned, while recording a single out. Justin Berg gets the last two outs (while also giving up a single allowing his inherited runner to score). The Braves bat around in this inning and turn the game from 8-5 to 14-5.<br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/5/10, bottom 8: Berg's turn to walk the bases loaded while getting just one out and giving up two more runs for the 16-5 final. John Grabow has to get the last two outs.<br /><br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/7/10, bottom 7: Sean Marshall 1-2-3 inning.<br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/7/10, bottom 8: With the Cubs up one and one out, John Grabow gives up a double followed by a home run to put the Braves up 3-2 (the score they win by). Esmailin Caridad gets the inning's last out.<br /><br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/8/10, bottom 7: Sean Marshall gets two outs and Esmailin Caridad finishes the 1-2-3 inning.<br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/8/10, bottom 8: Caridad gets two outs but gives up a single. John Grabow comes in and immediately walks the tying run aboard. Carlos Marmol enters and ends the inning with a groundout.<br />Cubs @ Braves, 4/8/10, bottom 9: Marmol gives up a single and a walk but allows no runs to get the save, striking out two.<br /><br />Cubs @ Reds, 4/9/10, bottom 7: Justin Berg 1-2-3 inning.<br />Cubs @ Reds, 4/9/10, bottom 8: Esmailin Caridad loads the bases with no outs thanks to two walks and a bunt single, then gives up a grand slam to someone called "Drew Stubbs." The Cubs go from up 3-1 to down 5-3. Caridad proceeds to record three straight outs, proving that the magic was in him all along!<br /><br />Cubs @ Reds, 4/10/10, bottom 8: John Grabow gives up one single but is otherwise unscathed.<br />Cubs @ Reds, 4/10/10, bottom 9: Carlos Marmol 1-2-3 inning (strikes out the side) for the save.<br /><br />Cubs @ Reds, 4/11/10, bottom 7: Tom Gorzelanny, previously cruising, loads the bases with one out and gets pulled in favor of Sean Marshall. A run scores on a weak infield single, but Marshall strikes out the next two to end the inning with the score tied at 1.<br />Cubs @ Reds, 4/11/10, bottom 8: John Grabow loads the bases with one out. Esmailin Caridad comes in and walks in the go-ahead run, then gives up a sac fly for good measure. James Russell enters to get the the final out.<br /><br />Cubs v. Brewers, 4/12/10, top 7: Ryan Dempster leaves with one out and a man on third. James Russell strikes out two of the next three batters, though he does allow a single that scores the inherited runner.<br />Cubs v. Brewers, 4/12/10, top 8: Jeff Samardzija 1-2-3 inning (his first as a reliever since September 2008!).<br />Cubs v. Brewers, 4/12/10, top 9: Not Carlos Marmol's neatest finish - walk, strikeout, HBP, double play - but no runs and a game finished (four-run lead, no save).<br /><br />Cubs v. Brewers, 4/14/10, top 7: With one out, one on and the Cubs down two, Justin Berg and James Russell record an out each to end the threat.<br />Cubs v. Brewers, 4/14/10, top 8: Jeff Gray (called up in place of the now-injured Caridad) makes his first and to date only appearance, going out, single, RBI triple, RBI triple, walk, double play.<br />Cubs v. Brewers, 4/14/10, top 9: After the Cubs miraculously score four runs to take the lead in the bottom of the eighth after being down to their last strike of the inning, Carlos Marmol strikes out the side for his third save.<br /><br />Cubs v. Brewers, 4/15/10, top 6: Sean Marshall loads the bases with one out, but at least holds Milwaukee to a sac fly (though one that gives them the lead at the time).<br />Cubs v. Brewers, 4/15/10, top 7: With the game tied again, Jeff Samardzija gets two quick outs, then gives up a walk, a stolen base and the go-ahead single before ending the inning.<br />Cubs v. Brewers, 4/15/10, top 8: Samardzija allows a home run to make it 7-5 Brewers but at least gets out of the inning with nothing more than a walk after that.<br />Cubs v. Brewers, 4/15/10, top 9: The Brewers score another run off John Grabow without ever getting the ball out of the infield - infield single, sac bunt (man reaches on a Grabow error), groundout, groundout, run-scoring infield single, HBP, fielder's choice to end the inning.<br /><br />So let's do a quick count:<br /><br />Innings in which the bullpen got at least one out: 28<br />Innings in which the bullpen did not allow a man they faced to reach: 10 (36%)<br />Innings, of those, pitched exclusively by Sean Marshall or Carlos Marmol: 6 (60%)<br />Innings in which the bullpen allowed at least one run to score (including inherited runners): 12 (43%)<br />Losses, of the Cubs' five, which the bullpen was directly responsible for: 4 (80%)<br /><br />To sum things up, if the Cubs had a better bullpen they could be like 7-2 and in first place right now, they will allow someone to at least reach base nearly two-thirds of the time, and they are closing on allowing runs in half the innings they pitch.<br /><br />In fact, of the 49 runs the Cubs have allowed in nine games, 22 - 45% of the total runs allowed! - have been charged to the bullpen. What percentage of the Cubs' <span style="font-style: italic;">innings</span> has the bullpen pitched? Well, it's not 45%, I can tell you that. It is, in fact, 35%. 45% of the runs in 35% of the innings.<br /><br />Of course, you don't need me, or all this, to tell you the bullpen sucks. So, what's to be done?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Can we please end the Jeff Samardzija thing already?</span><br /><br />I get it. They spent a lot of money to tempt him away from football and so felt like they had to rush him to the pros, and now they feel like they have to keep him. But the bare fact is this: <span style="font-style: italic;">since the start of the 2009 season, he has given up 35 earned runs in 38 innings.</span> He isn't good right now and I think it's pretty clear that he isn't learning how to pitch on the big club. I know it's hard because he's making $3 million - an obscene amount for someone so unaccomplished; Carlos Marmol is making $2.125 million this year, by comparison - on top of the huge signing bonus he got. But he SUCKS. Is this about trying to be right, Hendry, or is it about trying to win ball games? Oh, <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pattoda01.shtml">yeah</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. John Grabow: mistake.</span><br /><br />If there's one thing Jim Hendry likes it's pitching well for the Cubs for a month. Besides Samardzija's apparently unrepeatable 2008, there was Grabow coming from Pittsburgh in an attempt to shore up the bullpen last year. It didn't really work, but Grabow pitched well enough (3.24 ERA in 25 innings) and hey, he's a lefty. So Hendry signed him for two years, $7.5 million. John Grabow, who <span style="font-style: italic;">might</span> pitch like 80 innings, makes more than the starting shortstop, the two second basemen combined... he makes nearly <span style="font-style: italic;">two</span> million more than Sean Marshall, who is also a lefty and is a much better pitcher. Next year he'll make almost five million dollars, which will make him one of the highest paid non-closer relief pitchers in baseball. Oh, and he's already lost the Cubs two games this season and only once in six appearances has he simply recorded the outs he was tasked with and allowed nothing more. Hey, <span style="font-style: italic;">I'm</span> left-handed - can <span style="font-style: italic;">I</span> have a couple million to be bad at pitching?<br /><br />Of course, that doesn't really answer the question of what's to be done. The sad answer is "nothing, because he was signed to a ridiculously expensive contract relative to his role and no one is going to want him unless the Cubs eat a bunch of the money and I think we've seen them make enough trades like that recently."<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Call up Andrew Cashner.</span><br /><br />The guy's already been to college - how much more seasoning could he need? I'm going to say without hesitating that he's better than Jeff Samardzija right now. He's got 20 Ks in just 10.1 minor league innings this year. Yes, his ERA is 4.35, but he also won't be starting in the pros - give him the 8th inning, right now, and see what he can do. I mean, why wouldn't you? Right now the bullpen is costing you games left and right. This could very well be the last year in this window for the Cubs - if indeed the window is still open at all - so you might as well take a couple risks to try and improve the team.<br /><br />If I'm Lou Piniella, I'm pretty frustrated right now. It must be awful to be in a close game and have to pull your starter, knowing that half the time, whoever you call from the pen is going to give up some runs. (Take away Marmol's four game-finishing innings, all ninth innings with the Cubs ahead, and the bullpen allowed runs in 12 of 24 innings in which it appeared. Boom, 50%.) So what do you think, Jim? Can we take a chance on getting Lou some help in the pen? And I don't mean doing something stupid like trading Jose Ceda for Kevin Gregg.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-39962185368052118622009-11-13T00:52:00.003-06:002009-11-13T01:23:40.322-06:00Stove me upIt's impressive that by May 24 I had already decided that the 2009 Cubs were (a) unlikable and (b) going nowhere, but both turned out to be completely true, so can you blame me? Hope springs eternal for 2010, of course, with (finally) new ownership and hopefully healthier and/or more productive seasons from Ramirez, Soriano and Soto, among others.<br /><br />Still, it wouldn't be the offseason without the hot stove, and since the Cubs are supposedly doing everything in their power to dump Milton Bradley, they're coming up a lot. (This is a typical Cubs move, of course: try to sell a guy at the absolute low point of his value from both on-field and off-field perspectives. They did the same thing with Sammy Sosa and what did it get them? Jerry Hairston, Jr. and Mike Fontenot.)<br /><br />But it's not just for that reason. The Cubs remain a big-market team, and with several mid-market teams supposedly losing money and needing to dump assets, the Cubs are suddenly coming up in trade rumors. Trade rumors that have been completely invented by Chicago sports columnists who lack anything else to talk about. But let's look at just one of these, which I saw today: Phil Rogers suggesting the Cubs should offer Carlos Marmol and Starlin Castro for Curtis Granderson.<br /><br />Granderson's from the area, and he's a left-handed-hitting center fielder. But that's where the fit would seem to end. He turns 29 before the start of next season, and while that qualifies as youthful on the current Cubs squad, he peaked in the 2007 season and has dropped in each of the last two, falling to a league-average 100 OPS+ in 2009. Even Kosuke Fukudome (104) topped that, and Fukudome's bat plays better in center than in right.<br /><br />It's also not clear why Detroit would want to trade Granderson now. His contract for 2010 is a still pretty affordable $5.5m, and while it leaps upward in following years ($8.25m in 2011, $10m in 2012, and $13m in 2013, although that's a club option with a $2m buyout), he's hardly the contract that's choking Detroit in 2010 - that would be Magglio Ordonez ($18m), Miguel Cabrera ($20m), Jeremy Bonderman ($12.5m), Carlos Guillen ($13m), Dontrelle Willis ($12m), Nate Robertson ($10m)... you get the point. Granderson's $5.5m, in those circumstances, is hardly unaffordable, and the only reason he might be traded is simply because he <span style="font-style: italic;">can</span> be - who's taking any of those other guys? (Well, I can imagine someone taking Cabrera, even at 20 mil.) Still, I would hardly consider it a slam-dunk.<br /><br />And then, would it make sense for the Cubs to trade Marmol and Castro? Sure, Marmol's ERA has been climbing, but isn't this guy supposed to be your closer in 2010? Who's the next option? And Castro doesn't even turn 20 until late in spring training; granted, you could argue that he wouldn't be ready in 2010 anyway, that the Cubs' window with its current core is closing fast, and that Castro's stock has risen due to hype to the point where he might be able to be dealt for much more than he'll end up being worth. (Of course, if he does live up to the hype, it has potential to be the Juan Pierre trade all over again.) On the other hand, you could also argue that the Cubs' organization is somewhat bizarrely swimming in shortstops with some promise - Hak-Ju Lee is even younger than Castro (having only just turned 19) and he OBPed .399 at Boise last year, and further up the chain is Darwin Barney, whose name I've at least heard before (although a glance at his stats isn't going to wow anyone as of now). So maybe Castro is expendable. Marmol, however, may not be.<br /><br />If the Cubs are serious about winning in 2010 - and they should be, as the NL looks to be pretty wide open once more - it may well take a bold move. But I don't think this would be that move.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-49686332821705122562009-05-24T23:50:00.002-05:002009-05-25T00:40:56.480-05:00Unwatchable, that's what they areWhile it's still <span style="font-style: italic;">technically</span> early, and while the 2007 Cubs dug themselves a much deeper early hole, the 2009 season seems to be slipping through our fingers before it could really even get going. The Cubs have followed a season-high five-game winning streak - which brought them to 21-14 and within spitting distance of first place - by losing seven in a row, including a six-game road trip on which they were swept by both St. Louis (somewhat understandable) and San Diego (somewhat unforgivable). Why? Well, it's pretty simple: this team has forgotten how to hit.<br /><br />The streak has included the Cubs being outscored 28-10. Worse yet, half of those runs came in the first game of the streak, a 6-5 loss to Houston at Wrigley last Sunday. In the six games since, the Cubs have been outscored 22-5. 22 runs in 6 games really isn't that terrible. In fact, in the middle five games of the streak, the Cubs pitchers had an ERA of just 3.15 - but the Cubs only scored <span style="font-style: italic;">three runs in the entire five games</span> in support. As a result, Ted Lilly, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Wells were all saddled with losses despite seven-inning quality starts during that stretch.<br /><br />During the seven games, the Cubs have just 41 hits in 226 at-bats, a team batting average of .181. Take away their 11-hit "barrage" against Houston, and the six road losses featured just 30 hits in 187 at-bats, a team BA of .160. "But Flax," you might say, "batting average doesn't tell you the whole story!" True. The Cubs have walked 10 times in the six games, itself not a huge number - and when I tell you that six of those came in one game, suddenly things look even worse. Three of the six games featured no walks at all. Worse still, the Cubs aren't even putting the ball in play, striking out 56 times in the seven games. That's a strikeout every four at-bats, nearly one per inning.<br /><br />Who's to blame? It's not any one player, but I'd say the bulk of the fault lies squarely with the table-setters, Soriano and Theriot. In the six road games, Derrek Lee is hitting .368 (7-for-19) with a .400 OBP. Do you know how many RBI he has? <span style="font-style: italic;">One</span>. And it was a solo home run. The problem is that Soriano and Theriot, at the top of the order, have gone a combined 4-for-45 in the past six games (.089), and neither has walked once. Soriano has struck out nine times in 21 at-bats.<br /><br />Still, nobody's hitting. In the same six games, here's how everyone else is doing: Fukudome .125 (though he's also taken four walks and a hit-by-pitch for a .333 OBP), Bradley .158, Soto .188, Fontenot .235, Miles .100, Scales .100 (though his OBP is .357 because of three walks and an HBP), Hoffpauir .143 (with seven strikeouts in 14 at-bats). In a six-game span, only one guy has more than four hits (Lee with seven), only two guys have reached base more than five times (Lee 8 and Fukudome 7), and only two guys (Scales and Fukudome) have taken more than <span style="font-style: italic;">one</span> walk. Meanwhile, four guys have struck out at least five times (Soriano 9, Hoffpauir 7, Fukudome 6, Soto 5). It's ugly.<br /><br />What now? The Cubs are severely limited as far as possible changes they can make to the team - I don't know that there's anyone like a Jim Edmonds last year who could possibly be brought in. People are talking about Jake Fox, who's tearing up the PCL - but it's still the PCL. Fox is apparently a guy who either homers or strikes out, and we've already got Soriano and Hoffpauir, plus Fox can't really play anywhere but first base with anything resembling acceptable defense. As far as outside help, who's there? And perhaps more to the point, who can be replaced? The outfield makes too much to be movable. The only real open space on the infield is second base, perhaps the shallowest position in the game from a hitting perspective. You're not going to fill that spot with anything better than what's already there. And the Cubs' options for trades are limited anyway given how thin the farm system is.<br /><br />Of course, we should remember that a seven-game losing streak - while it sucks - is hardly cause to start talking about blowing up the team or anything. Lee's bat was cold for weeks without creating significant problems because the rest of the team was hitting better; it seems likely that a team full of professional hitters will be able to turn it around. Still, how much longer can we wait for them to do so? Even the 2007 Cubs never lost more than six in a row. We're not quite at the 2006 Cubs "7-22 in May" point... but even the 2006 Cubs topped out at eight straight losses. Should the Cubs somehow be swept at home by the Pirates - an unlikely occurrence, but at this point I'm ruling nothing out - that would be ten straight losses, the most since the 1997 Cubs lost fourteen straight to start the season (en route to a 68-94 finish). If that happens, I'm going to buy a Bears cap and devote the rest of my summer to miniature golf.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-46893494457508836132009-05-10T10:50:00.003-05:002009-05-10T17:38:29.823-05:00This may not be the yearI know it's technically still early, and the Brewers beat up on the Cubs in the first two series last year only for the Cubs to flatten them down the stretch (except in games where they had already clinched), but my God - did you ever think you'd see a Brewers/Cubs game where the Cubs' bullpen was so much worse? Let's take a look at the bullpen so far:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Angel Guzman:</span> Perversely, he's been the best of the bunch, with the lowest ERA (4.11) and best strikeout-to-walk ratio (2.67). He's also thrown the most innings (15.1), so at least the guy who's throwing the best is getting the most work. With all due respect, though, when Angel Guzman is your best reliever that probably isn't saying much about your pen.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Carlos Marmol:</span> His injury probably hasn't helped, although he seems to be on the way up - in his last three appearances he hasn't walked anyone, and his ERA is somewhat artificially high thanks to a four-run, 0.1 IP appearance on April 29 in a game that the Cubs were already losing 4-0. Still, his ERA is 4.50, he's already blown two saves, and his K/BB ratio is just 1.42 after being around 2.75 the last two years. At least his numbers aren't too bad aside from his leap in walk rate, which is inflated thanks to four walks in that Arizona game. He'll probably be fine.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Kevin Gregg:</span> Gregg actually seems to have settled down after a rough start, as he's up to five saves and has still blown just the one at Milwaukee on April 10. His ERA has receded to 4.40, and his K/BB in his last six appearances is 6/1. Still, for the year he's allowing 15 W+H/9. That number will probably improve significantly if his current form keeps up, at least.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Aaron Heilman:</span> Here's where things start to get bad. At 15 IP, Heilman has been the second most active member of the bullpen, but he seems to be going in the wrong direction. In his first eleven appearances this year, Heilman allowed just one earned run; after a scoreless inning and a third on April 26, his ERA stood at 0.82. Today it's 5.40 after just five additional outings. Most of the damage was done on April 30, when he entered a tie game with the Marlins in the top of the tenth and proceeded to get charged with six runs, five earned, without recording a single out. However, he hasn't been much better since then; after two scoreless appearances against Florida and Houston, he's been abused by Milwaukee, allowing The Incredibly Annoying Ryan Braun's game-winning eighth-inning home run on Friday (in a spot that should have been Marmol's, except I guess Lou is trying not to use him every damn day like he did in the early-going last year) and walking three after coming on in relief of the incompetent Chad Fox (about whom more anon) on Saturday. At least, I guess, if you take away the Marlins game he hasn't been <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> bad - his ERA is only 2.40 if you pull out those five runs.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Neal Cotts:</span> I know Cotts is a lefty, and those are hard to come by, but I don't know what it's going to take to get him run out of town. Luis Vizcaino didn't give up a single run as a Cub and was released; Cotts seems to be allergic to outs. In 14 appearances he's recorded just 20 outs while allowing 18 baserunners (9 hits, 8 walks and a hit batsman). He's actually only given up runs in four of his fourteen appearances, but because he has a tendency to pitch 0.1 innings, his ERA is 6.75. One of the reasons why he hasn't given up that many runs, though, is because he has a lot of outings that look like this:<br /><br />April 10 @ MIL: brought on to face PH Craig Counsell. Hits him with a pitch; gets yanked. Marmol finishes the inning.<br /><br />April 11 @ MIL: brought on to face Prince Fielder. Walks him; gets yanked. Heilman finishes the inning.<br /><br />April 18 vs. STL: brought on to start the 7th. Walks the first two batters he faces; gets yanked. Marmol finishes the inning.<br /><br />April 21 vs. CIN: brought on to start the 8th. Strikes out the first batter, then allows a single and a walk; gets yanked. Marmol finishes the inning.<br /><br />It goes on. In fact, only four times this year has Cotts recorded as many as three outs; on the same number of occasions he hasn't recorded <span style="font-style: italic;">any</span>. Don't the Cubs have anyone left-handed at Iowa or even Tennessee? I don't see how they could be any less effective.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">David Patton:</span> Speaking of less effective - it's David Patton, everyone! The Rule V draftee was a fun story making the team after never pitching above A ball, but I think it's time to admit that he looked good in the spring because he was pitching in late-inning situations against total nobodies. If I'm a manager, I think I have a few spring games where I throw a few relievers to start the game; if that's what you're basing the team on, you need to know which of these guys can actually face down real big-league hitters. I guess considering Patton spent the last two seasons as a middling high-A reliever, he hasn't been as bad as one might have feared, and his ERA is certainly made worse by his 1.2-inning, five-ER outing on April 25 when he gave up the grand slam to Pujols - but if you take that away it's still over 5.00. Aside from Cotts, he has the worst WHIP of anyone who's pitched more than four innings - really, across the board his stats are second only to Cotts' in their awfulness among the regular relievers. Is it really worth not having to offer him back to Colorado, or is there just no one else in the pipeline? (What about Jose Ascanio, who's been destroying the PCL so far? Albeit he's done so as a starter, and maybe he's being saved for that role.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jeff Samardzija:</span> Samardzija is already back down at Iowa, but he wasn't given much of a chance - just five appearances and 3.1 IP. He didn't have a very good start, coming into a game vs. the Reds on April 23 and giving up four hits and two runs in one inning, but since then he'd gotten two Ks in mop-up duty on April 27, another two Ks on April 29 (although between those he gave up a three-run double, all the runs getting charged to Marmol), and gotten out of a bases-loaded spot with a short flyball on May 1. Then on May 5 against the Giants he turned in this string: HBP (to load the bases), two-run double, RBI single, popout, walk. Only one of the three runs was credited to him, but apparently Lou had seen enough and Samardzija was bounced back to Iowa. While he certainly wasn't super-effective in his brief time up, it's worth remembering that Samardzija gave up runs in two of his first three appearances last year, and then went <span style="font-style: italic;">the entire month of August</span> without allowing another one.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Chad Fox:</span> The real reason not to send Samardzija back down is that it resulted in Chad Fox being called up. I would rather Jake Fox come up. To pitch. Here's what Fox has done since returning to the big club:<br /><br />May 7 @ HOU: enters the game in the bottom of the ninth with the Cubs up 8-2. Jason Michaels walks, Ivan Rodriguez triples (scoring Michaels), Jeff Keppinger grounds out (scoring Rodriguez), Darin Erstad triples (scoring on a sac fly after Kevin Gregg replaces Fox). Final line: 0.1 IP, 3 ER.<br /><br />May 9 @ MIL: enters the game in the bottom of the eighth with the Cubs down 9-6. Ryan Braun walks, then Fox throws a wild pitch in the middle of walking Prince Fielder and gets yanked <span style="font-style: italic;">mid at-bat</span>. (Aaron Heilman comes in and finishes walking Fielder, then eventually allows both Braun and Fielder to score. Baseball's bizarre scoring system charges Fox with one run but two earned runs.)<br /><br />So in two appearances, Fox has two walks and half of a third (he's credited with three in the stats), two hits, and five earned runs... and one out (and that an RBI groundout). His ERA? 135.00. His WHIP? 15.00. He makes Chien-Ming Wang look like Bob Gibson. I've gotta think we've seen about all we're going to see of Chad Fox at this point. Whatever he was doing at Iowa - where he had a 1.64 ERA and 1.00 WHIP, along with a 10/3 K/BB in 11.1 IP - he can't seem to replicate it at the major league level. If you can't even get outs in mop-up duty, you need to be out of here.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">EDIT: I didn't actually get to see Saturday's game, and after writing this I found out that Fox got injured on the 2-0 wild pitch he threw and that's why he was "yanked" mid at-bat. Most likely he's thrown not just his last Cubs pitch but his last big-league pitch as well. With that in mind I feel kinda bad for the guy, but really it wasn't working out even if he'd stayed uninjured. Jose Ascanio is coming up instead, so hopefully that goes better.</span><br /><br />So that's the bullpen so far. I guess the top end really isn't all that bad, but the bottom has just been awful. Last year the bullpen was a relative strength, but it's just looked bad way too often so far. Maybe this is just the result of a few <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> bad outings, but I don't know.<br /><br />Add in all the injuries - especially with Ramirez set to miss at least a month and Zambrano on the 15-day DL - and the Cubs will be lucky to hold on until everyone gets healthy, if indeed everyone ever does get healthy at the same time. The worst part with all this is that 2009 was probably the best chance; this team is only getting older, and if guys can't stay healthy now, what chance do they stand in two years when Soto is basically the only guy under 30?Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-10242736069117324882009-05-05T20:21:00.002-05:002009-05-05T20:35:39.133-05:00What's the problem?For some reason, people made a big deal about the Cubs' lineup today. Here it was:<br /><br />1. Gathright, CF<br />2. Miles, SS<br />3. Fukudome, RF<br />4. Lee, 1B<br />5. Hoffpauir, LF<br />6. Fontenot, 3B<br />7. Scales, 2B<br />8. Hill, C<br /><br />On ESPN 1000 they referred to this lineup as "the Iowa Cubs." I'm really not sure why. Aside from Scales - called up (probably just for a couple days) to fill Zambrano's roster spot - the seven remaining starting position players featured three regular starters (Fukudome, Lee and Fontenot), two guys who have been getting regular playing time in the absences of Bradley and Ramirez, and the backup catcher, Hill, in a day game after a night game. Only Gathright's presence in the leadoff spot really stands out as particularly weird.<br /><br />If Lincecum weren't the opposing pitcher, would anyone have noticed? It sort of looked like the Cubs were punting the game, but you do have to consider that they are in the middle of 20 games in 20 days, and it makes sense to give the regulars some rest in a day game following a night game. The fact that it was Lincecum really doesn't change that much regarding the decision. If anything it does make it a slightly easier decision; since you already want to give your regulars a rest, there's no reason not to do it in a game that is already going to be pretty difficult to win.<br /><br />I'm much more concerned with the fact that Samardzija appears to be Croatian for "Farnsworth" than with anything else that happened in this game.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-90652274567990342722009-04-18T19:07:00.004-05:002009-04-18T20:17:31.118-05:00Cubs 7, Cardinals 5 (11 innings)I know what I said about recapping series, but fuck it - it's not every day I get to sit and watch a Cubs game at all, let alone one won with a walk-off homer in extras.<br /><br />I had been out and got in front of a TV in the top of the 7th just after Cotts walked two guys on eight pitches and was yanked for Marmol. (Jesus Christ, by the way. Are the Cubs ever going to have a lefty specialist who actually gets lefties out when called upon? Looking through their history, they basically haven't had a consistently good lefty reliever since Randy Myers, and since he was the closer that doesn't exactly count.) Marmol did a great job cleaning up the mess in the 7th, but somehow fell apart in the 8th against a significantly less dangerous part of the order, blowing the save, and requiring Kevin Gregg's services an inning early.<br /><br />I have to say I liked what Lou did here, whether it was intentional or not. At this point, Marmol is clearly your best bullpen pitcher and Gregg - for all his early tribulations - is pretty clearly #2. Bill James' concept of the "bullpen ace" recommends using your best guy in whatever situation deems it necessary rather than saving him to "close" a game that may never get to that point if you don't put the best guy in now, and Lou worked that well, bringing in Marmol an inning earlier than he clearly would have liked to put out Cotts' fire, and then bringing in Gregg to put out Marmol's. I was more shocked that Gregg not only proceeded to go two innings (I guess his knee was okay because it was warmer today?), but to look pretty darn good doing it, striking out the first two men he faced in the 8th and mowing down the 2-3-4 in the top of the 9th.<br /><br />Aside from the obvious, there was no more exciting play in the game than <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=4200417&c_id=chc">Soriano's assist</a> to double Duncan off second to end the top of the 10th - he really whipped that thing out of his glove, although it wasn't exactly great baserunning on Duncan's part. But that one roused me as much as anything before the homer. And actually, the bullpen did a pretty decent job after Marmol - neither Gregg, nor Heilman, nor Guzman gave up a hit. I think we'd all like to see some more of that.<br /><br />As for A-Ram... well, what can you say? He <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/player/mp_tpl_3_1.jsp?w=2007/open/tp/archive06/062907_milchn_ramirez_gwhr_tp_350.wmv&pid=mlb_tp&gid=2007/06/29/milmlb-chnmlb-1&mid=200706292056556&cid=mlb&fid=mlb_tp400&v=2&id=580945">did</a> <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200806202968467&c_id=chc">it</a> <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=4201721">again</a>.<br /><br />The Cubs certainly haven't lacked for drama this season, have they? So far their seven wins include three in which they scored the winning run in their last at-bats (they also have two losses in which the opposing team did the same). Maybe this is part of a plan to make sure they don't fall apart in the playoffs again - play a game with playoff-like intensity every goddamn day, just to get acclimated to it. Come October, it'll be just like any other game! Or maybe everyone playing and watching will be dead of stress-induced heart attacks. Man, this team.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-40314902295431363342009-04-18T13:06:00.003-05:002009-04-18T13:34:30.172-05:00FU-KU-DO-MEAt the risk of "talking during the no-hitter," as it were, remember how crazy we went for Kosuke Fukudome in the first months of the '08 season? Especially right at the start when he came flying out of the gate. Fukudome's stats through the first ten games of 2008:<br /><br />.333/.447/.487, .934 OPS, 3 2B, 1 HR, 6 RBI, 8/7 BB/K<br /><br />(And that's bearing in mind that in games 9 and 10 he went a combined o-for-8.)<br /><br />Of course, we all know what happened next. Over the course of the year, Fukudome's numbers kept dropping; in the second half he went just .217/.314/.326, and in the final two months he hit under .200, getting so bad that he only started 9 games in September.<br /><br />Coming into this season I said the following:<br /><br />"[W]hat to expect out of Fukudome is entirely unclear; watching him bat in the second half of last year was pretty depressing given how great he looked the first couple of months. Like most Cubs fans, I still desperately want the guy to hit, and at least he can take a walk now and again (leading the team last year with 81), but the days of thinking he could pop 20 homers out of Wrigley and go for a .400 OBP like last year's PECOTA projected are long gone. (For the record, this year's PECOTA pegs Kosuke at .386, which still seems awfully optimistic. But hey, Hideki Matsui improved in <span style="font-style: italic;">his</span> second year in America.)"<br /><br />Well, Fukudome may yet turn out to just be a first-half player. There aren't too many of those in the majors that I'm aware of - Alex Rodriguez, despite his reputation, has virtually identical career numbers before and after the break, and while Dave Winfield (once pejoratively described as "Mr. May" by George Steinbrenner) does have better career first half stats, they're nothing along the lines of Fukudome's 2008 dropoff. But the guy has only been in the majors for one year. While a quick check of my copy of BP '09 reveals that the Japanese season is not shorter than the US version - Fukudome had 578 PAs in 2006, compared to 590 with the Cubs last year - it's clearly less strenuous. Every game is indoors in nearly identical stadia, the degree of travel is significantly less (Japan quite obviously has nothing like flying to the West Coast and back within a week), and of course the level of competition isn't exactly identical.<br /><br />My speculation has been that Fukudome's initial success had to do with him not being a known quantity - you see guys come up and rake all the time because pitchers don't necessarily know how to pitch them yet. Eventually the league caught up with Fukudome, and he had trouble making adjustments, instead overdramatizing his infamous bailout swing and turning into a corkscrew as a result. Come the offseason, it was up to Fukudome to make his own adjustments or risk becoming one of MLB's most expensive pine jockeys.<br /><br />Well, it's early. But given that pitchers supposedly know how to pitch Fukudome now, maybe he's actually figured it out? Sure, he could just be a first-half guy, but on the other hand, maybe he'll be more adjusted to the rigors of MLB this year and be able to maintain his form. He probably won't do what he's doing in the first ten games all season - small sample sizes and all that. But given the bang with which he exploded onto the scene last year, would you believe his first ten games this year aren't just better, but <span style="font-style: italic;">significantly</span> better?<br /><br />.371/.477/.771, 1.249 OPS, 5 2B, 3 HR, 9 RBI, 8/6 BB/K<br /><br />Yeah, he won't do that all year. A .771 slugging percentage would be the seventh-greatest year of all time, trailing only three seasons of Bonds and three seasons of Ruth. More likely than not he won't even turn in a .300/.400/.500, and he probably isn't going to hit 48 home runs and knock in 144. Ten days of stats really doesn't tell you much of anything, all told. (Milton Bradley probably won't hit .056 all year, either.)<br /><br />But with that said, I think - I <span style="font-style: italic;">hope</span> - that his start to this year being even faster than his start to last year says something about the steps forward he's taken as a player. Because if he falls off the table again, Jim Edmonds and Mark DeRosa won't be there with surprising seasons to pick up the slack, and even if Bradley can stay healthy he'll probably only give you what we were hoping from Kosuke in '08 in the first place. This team needs a .300/.400/.450-like line from Kosuke, with 15-20 homers and maybe 70-80 driven in. Only time will tell if he truly has the ability or if he just really loves hitting in April.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-49363047366676255452009-04-13T20:27:00.003-05:002009-04-13T21:07:49.926-05:00Walk the (first base) lineIn today's home opener, which the Cubs won 4-0 - more on that after the series concludes - the Cubs drew nine walks from Rockies pitching (six from starter Ubaldo Jimenez) and also took a hit by pitch (Reed Johnson, natch). This made ten free passes for the Cubs, just hours after receiving twelve (ten walks and two HBPs) from the Brewers in an 8-5 win. All told, the Cubs reached base 17 times against the Brewers and 19 times against the Rockies while failing to reach double digits in hits in either game. Recording nine or more walks and nine or fewer hits in consecutive games has only been accomplished 41 times since 1954 by any team; the last and only other Cubs team in that span to do it was the 1974 edition, which won at the Mets 5-4 on 9/15/74 in a game in which they had eight hits but <span style="font-style: italic;">eleven</span> walks (plus an HBP), then won at the Phillies 4-2 two days later, a game in which they walked nine times but had just four hits.<br /><br />Only once before in Cubs (post-1954) history had they recorded consecutive games with at least 17 times on base but single-digit hits. In 1980, the Cubs visited the Giants in August. On August 1, they had 8 hits, 8 walks, and a hit batsman, and won 5-3. The next day they had 9 hits and 9 walks but lost 8-5, with Dick Tidrow blowing a 5-4 lead by allowing four runs in the bottom of the 7th. Of course, those Cubs lost 98 games, so let's not read too much into this stat either way.<br /><br />One more walk by the Cubs in today's game would have admitted them to an even more exclusive club of just nine teams (since 1954) with consecutive games featuring double-digit bases on balls but single-digit hits. (Somewhat amazingly, of the nine teams, just two won both games while three lost both.) Last team to do it: the 2002 Phillies, who lost a game 5-3 despite 10 walks and 8 hits (0-for-7 with RISP will do that to you), then won the next day 10-8 with the same walk and hit totals. (This time they went 3-for-14 with RISP, but more crucially, Expos starter Bartolo Colon walked five men in one inning - one intentionally - including three in a row to start the inning and then later one with the bases loaded to give the Phillies three runs in the inning - on one hit.)Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-43476348703065985712009-04-12T23:32:00.002-05:002009-04-13T00:22:42.379-05:00Series recap: Cubs at Brewers, April 10-12, 2009Just win series.<br /><br />That <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> the goal. But did we need to get this nerve-wracking this early in the year? Look, I'm ultimately not worried about the Brewers - their lineup is basically the same as last year's but their pitching, as far as I can tell, is significantly worse. But I'd still rather not give games to them in April or any other time.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">April 10: Brewers 4, Cubs 3</span><br />Saw: None (at work), but was on phone and IM with my dad (who was watching) for most of game and was following on Gamecast<br /><br />Blech. I may have overreacted a little; at first I thought this loss was more brutal than any of last year's, ignoring all the times Wood gave up three runs in the bottom of the ninth to blow a two-run lead. But it certainly wasn't pleasant. Milton Bradley's first Cub hit being a home run? Nice. Harden striking out ten Brewers in six innings and looking like his exhibition game at Yankee Stadium was, well, just that? Nicer. Koyie Hill homering to give the Cubs the lead in the sixth? Nicest. The Cubs bullpen? Least nice. Some of this I blame Lou for - it shouldn't have taken three pitchers to get out of the seventh and three <span style="font-style: italic;">more</span> to get out of the eighth. Using two lefty specialists against the Brewers seemed particularly unnecessary - the Brewers hit righties so poorly they need <span style="font-style: italic;">Craig Counsell</span> in there to break up their lineup. Really, you had to bring in Cotts just to face Craig Counsell? (And then he hits him and you've burned a pitcher.) Possibly not the best use of resources. And then Gregg adds a horrible ninth to his two appearances in the Astros series in which he got one shaky save and then was on the mound at the time of the ten-inning loss's completion. Good start to the closer tenure there.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">April 11: Cubs 6, Brewers 5</span><br />Saw: Very little. We were in Culver's and the game was on TV in the background for Milwaukee's two runs in the seventh, but I missed everything else.<br /><br />Not Z's best outing although it <span style="font-style: italic;">was</span> a "quality start." I did manage to see the walk-happy bullpen show up again in the seventh - given how bad the Brewers' team OBP was last year, I don't know how you walk the bases loaded, even if it is Braun and Fielder and clearly you're terrified to pitch to them. And why even bring in Cotts when he's just going to walk a guy? Heilman sure looked good <span style="font-style: italic;">after</span> giving up the go-ahead runs, though, huh? Reminds me of that game against the Rockies in 2007 when Howry gave up the go-ahead home run and then (after nearly being attacked Randy Myers-style) immediately settled down and worked quickly out of the inning. Soriano - well, what can you say? I just hope he keeps sockin' 'em out.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">April 12: Cubs 8, Brewers 5</span><br />Saw: Bottom first, top second, bottom sixth through end of game<br /><br />We went for dinner in the middle of the game, so I missed the ridiculous fourth inning, featuring <span style="font-style: italic;">five</span> walks and a hit by pitch, and four runs scoring despite just one hit. Talk about being handed a game, although if not for Reed Johnson's heroics in the bottom of the fifth - which I didn't see live but which were replayed multiple times later in the game - it would have been handed right back. Truly, "P Fielder hit sacrifice fly to right," as the play-by-play on ESPN.com lists it, doesn't exactly do the encounter justice. Johnson may never be mistaken for an in-their-prime Ken Griffey Jr. or Andruw Jones, but he has made some epic catches for the Cubs since being signed just before the start of '08. Anyway, the Brewers issued 10 walks to the Cubs all told, six by Suppan, the starter, in just 3.2 innings. Just for good measure, they hit two <span style="font-style: italic;">more</span> guys, for a total of <span style="font-style: italic;">twelve</span> free passes. Total Cub hits in the game: five. Now <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> is called handing over a game. Man. But how about that team OBP for the Cubs!<br /><br />Bad news: gee, Milton Bradley got injured. On the bright side, Kosuke is hitting .409, and if Bradley hadn't left the game, Johnson doesn't make that catch on Fielder. (I guess Fukudome <span style="font-style: italic;">might</span> have, but hey. It worked out for now.) How about that middle of the Cubs order, huh? Lee hitting .080 and Bradley hitting .059? Heck of a start. (Although Lee did have 2 RBI with a sac fly and bases-loaded walk.)<br /><br />As for Gregg... the less said, the better. He only looks worse in comparison with Marmol when Marmol blows away the side in the 8th and then Gregg seems like he's going to roll only to give up a two-out homer to make it 8-5, followed by a double and a walk before managing to strike out Fielder as the tying run. Frankly, I'm not sad to see Marmol remain in a setup role - people complain about the firmness of the closer's role when the team's best reliever - say, K-Rod in New York - is locked into "ninth inning with a lead" scenarios and only rarely pitches in any others, rather than being able to throw him into any late-game spot, including in the 7th or 8th, where a big out is needed. Keeping Marmol out of the designated closer spot allows him to do things like he did on Friday, coming into the game in the 7th with two on and one out (he's certainly the guy you want to see there because he gives up so few hits and even so few balls in play). You certainly wouldn't want to see <span style="font-style: italic;">Gregg</span> in that spot, which is what would happen much more frequently were Marmol locked into the ninth. Really, while Gregg's ninth inning struggles have made the early part of the year a lot more heart-stopping than it really ought to be, it's better he's there - because the closer virtually always comes in with no one on base, it's an easier job and better suited for someone who <span style="font-style: italic;">isn't</span> a shutdown reliever with a huge strikeout total and extremely low WHIP the way the Marmot is. It's understandable that Marmol wants the "closer" title - those guys make more money. (As it is, Gregg makes $4.2 million while Marmol makes $575,000.) But if Marmol keeps doing what he's doing, I foresee a nice payday for him down the line whether he gets the "closer" mantle or not. And if I were the Cubs, I'd tell him that (a) we still consider him the likeliest future closer but (b) honestly, we're using him right now in the way we feel gives him the most value. People love saves, but no one is going to miss a reliever who strikes out 114 guys in 87.1 innings.<br /><br />Home opener! Bring on the Rockies.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-841033946671861942009-04-08T20:14:00.004-05:002009-04-08T22:25:12.260-05:00Series recap: Cubs at Astros, April 6-8, 2009Here's something I'm going to try this year - a recap following each series. We'll see how this goes since I don't always get a chance to watch the games and really, what are you getting out of a recap by someone who didn't see the game that you're not getting from anywhere else? Anyway.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">April 6: Cubs 4, Astros 2</span><br />Saw: 9th inning (plus heard 8th on WGN)<br /><br />Didn't see much of this one; I was still at work when it started and didn't get to a TV until the ninth inning. The bottom of the inning was plenty nerve-wracking, but hey, I saw the win. The box score shows Zambrano pitched fairly well in earning his first-ever Opening Day win (although he actually pitched better last year in a no-decision, statistically), and you have to like Soriano starting the year with a home run considering the notoriously slow power start to his Cubs career (not hitting his first home run until May 1, 2007) and his awful start last year (hitting below .200 as late as May 9).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">April 7: Astros 3, Cubs 2 (10)</span><br />Saw: Inning three through end of game<br /><br />Wandy Rodriguez isn't exactly Sandy Koufax, but he pitches well at home - in 2008, his ERA there was just 2.99. The Cubs struggled against him in this one, managing just four hits (though they also drew three walks); Soriano struck out three times and was so happy to see LaTroy Hawkins in the 8th that he hit a moon shot off him that nearly left the stadium entirely, tying the game at 2. Dempster pitched all right, getting a quality start, but the bullpen was up and down. Guzman looked pretty good, but Heilman, Cotts and Gregg all had one issue or another. When the first two reached against Cotts in the 10th, it was pretty clearly over. Gregg, as I predicted, has underwhelmed so far. On the other hand, Wood underwhelmed to start last year (having a horrid outing on Opening Day), so we should probably reserve judgment for now.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">April 8:</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Cubs 11, Astros 6</span><br />Saw: Bottom third through bottom fifth, and the last two outs<br /><br />By the time I got home, it was already 8-2. The home run that made it 8-4 was a typical Lilly home run, the hanger at about 85 (if even) that I feel like <span style="font-style: italic;">I</span> could hit out half the time. Russ Ortiz didn't throw a single pitch above the knees, I think, which of course meant he racked up a big run of strikeouts while the Astros started to chip at the 8-0 lead the Cubs had built off Brian Moehler. The Cubs finally picked up on "he's not actually throwing strikes" in the fifth, loading the bases on three walks and chasing Ortiz. Ramirez then doubled off the scoreboard to score two more (actually bouncing a tile out of the hand-operated scoreboard). Fontenot ended the inning, but with the lead back to 10-4, I decided to watch my DVR'ed <span style="font-style: italic;">Lost</span> episode. I got back just in time to see the last couple outs. Not the most impressive game for Cubs pitching - five homers? I ask you - but hey, a win is a win, and 11 runs is pretty nice. Also, Fukudome was 4-for-5 with a walk and a home run. Is this his early season form again, or might he actually be back on the ball this year? Well, ask again in a couple months.<br /><br />First opening-season series win since 2003 at the Mets (when the two winning pitchers were Wood and Prior). Heck, I'll take it.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-38575097499265836472009-04-05T23:01:00.002-05:002009-04-06T00:33:08.403-05:00Here Comes Your 2009th Nervous BreakdownBaseball season is finally back. The 2008 Cubs have faded in the rearview mirror, and it's time to see if the new iteration can improve on their result. Let's do a position-by-position look at the '09 Cubs compared to the 97-win squad of '08.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">First Base<br />'08:</span> Derrek Lee (.291/.361/.462, 20 HR, 90 RBI)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'09:</span> Derrek Lee<br /><br />Lee returns for his sixth season starting at first base for the Cubs, and with the exception of his lost 2006, they've all been at least pretty good. But 2005 looks more and more like a fluke year, and whether or not the wrist injury is responsible for his loss of power, the fact remains that Lee cannot be considered a 30-homer threat until/unless he actually does it again. It's not clear that Lee belongs in the 3-hole at this point of his career, but it seems like he's going to end up there. (Oddly, run simulators seem to suggest that it's beneficial <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> to put your best hitter in the third slot. So maybe this will work fine.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Second Base</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'08:</span> Mark DeRosa (.285/.376/.481, 21 HR, 87 RBI)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'09:</span> Mike Fontenot<br /><br />That's right - last year the Cubs got more production from their second baseman than their first baseman. You could certainly argue that the Cubs sold high on DeRosa - he's even older than Lee and only just had his career year? - but it's hard to argue that they couldn't use numbers like that from the middle infield, and his all-purpose utility ways were certainly handy last year. With the potentially fragile Milton Bradley manning right field, maybe it wouldn't have been so bad to keep DeRosa. Fontenot hit in his PAs last year, putting up even higher slashes than DeRo did, and the fact that he's a lefty clearly helped, but a dropoff in production from this position seems inevitable.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Shortstop<br />'08:</span> Ryan Theriot (.307/.387/.359, 73/58 BB/K, 22/13 SB/CS)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'09:</span> Ryan Theriot<br /><br />Riot's 2007 28/4 SB/CS ratio clearly made him think he could steal bases; last year took the wind out of <span style="font-style: italic;">those</span> sails. If Theriot can maintain a .300 average and an OBP in the high .300s, that would probably be adequate, especially if he's asked to bat 8th instead of 2nd as he often was last year. Most fielding metrics find him below average at short, and he has less than no power, so he'd better get on base.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Third Base<br />'08:</span> Aramis Ramirez (.289/.380/.518, 27 HR, 111 RBI)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'09:</span> Aramis Ramirez<br /><br />Ramirez's 2008 was a little weird - on the one hand, he marked a career high in walks and OBP, but on the other, his slugging was its lowest in five full seasons with the Cubs. Assuming health, 25-30 homers and 100 RBI or more seem likely, especially hitting in the fifth spot, a prime RBI position if Lee and Bradley get on base like they're supposed to. Overall, Rami has been one of the most consistent Cubs of the last few years, and he'll need to maintain that production for this team to win.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Left Field</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'08:</span> Alfonso Soriano (.280/.344/.532, 29 HR, 75 RBI)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'09:</span> Alfonso Soriano<br /><br />As always, the key to Soriano will be his health. Last year he smacked 29 homers despite playing in just 109 games, which equals 43 over a full season. Another broken hand seems unlikely (knock on wood), but we could certainly see more of the nagging injuries that limited him to 135 games in 2007, especially since he's only getting older (and really, who knows if he's only 33?). Anything less than 30 home runs out of Soriano this year is probably a bad sign.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Center Field<br />'08:</span> Jim Edmonds (.256/.369/.568, 19 HR and 49 RBI in 298 PAs) and Reed Johnson (.303/.358/.420, 6 HR and 50 RBI in 374 PAs)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'09:</span> Reed Johnson and Kosuke Fukudome<br /><br />The relatively unexpected power surge that Edmonds delivered to this position isn't likely to repeat, since neither Johnson nor Fukudome is a high-power guy. For that matter, what to expect out of Fukudome is entirely unclear; watching him bat in the second half of last year was pretty depressing given how great he looked the first couple of months. Like most Cubs fans, I still desperately want the guy to hit, and at least he can take a walk now and again (leading the team last year with 81), but the days of thinking he could pop 20 homers out of Wrigley and go for a .400 OBP like last year's PECOTA projected are long gone. (For the record, this year's PECOTA pegs Kosuke at .386, which still seems awfully optimistic. But hey, Hideki Matsui improved in <span style="font-style: italic;">his</span> second year in America.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Right Field<br />'08:</span> Kosuke Fukudome (.257/.359/.379, 10 HR, 58 RBI, 81/104 BB/K)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'09:</span> Milton Bradley<br /><br />Since Fukudome turned out not to be the world-beating left-handed right fielder the Cubs wanted after the '07 season, they went after another one in Bradley - and arguably took at least as big of a gamble. For all Fukudome's lack of production post-June, at least he could run out there every day and played above-average defense. Just what Bradley is going to turn in in those departments is really anyone's guess. He had a great season last year, leading the AL in on-base percentage (.436!) and OPS (.999), but he also played just 20 games in the field (and just 126 overall). In fact, just <span style="font-style: italic;">once</span> in his career has he been an everyday outfielder <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> played more or less a full season - 2004, when his OPS was a mere .786. His career stats are much higher in the AL - not having to field probably helped. And ironically, Bradley is actually a switch-hitter who hits better against lefties while batting RH than against righties while batting LH. Eesh. Still, I would hope the Cubs at least did their research on the injury front, and Bradley tore up the spring, hitting .460/.526/.800 (!!!) in 50 at-bats. Yes, that's just spring, but it's a good start.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bench<br />'08:</span> Mike Fontenot, Ronny Cedeno, Henry Blanco, Felix Pie, Daryle Ward, Micah Hoffpauir<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'09:</span> Koyie Hill, Aaron Miles, Micah Hoffpauir, Joey Gathright<br /><br />Not the most intimidating bench. Hoffpauir flashes power in spring and the minors, but he's been mired behind Derrek Lee at first and can't really play anywhere else (to paraphrase Christina Kahrl at Baseball Prospectus, he plays the outfield corners in the sense that he's happy to run out there if you give him a glove), which means he's likely relegated to pinch-hit duties for most of the year, especially if Lee plays 155 games again. Miles is clearly a downgrade from DeRosa from a hitting standpoint, but he can also play anywhere; expect him to log a lot of games in right and left if Soriano and Bradley have years anywhere similar to last from an injury standpoint. A team with DeRosa hitting 21 homers could survive such outages; Miles' career high is 6, accomplished at Coors Field in 2004. On the bright side, he hit .317 last year for St. Louis and can switch-hit. Hill should be a similar non-factor on offense to Blanco, though he had a monster spring; the real loss in Hank White's departure is his veteran presence and defense, though Soto should have the latter covered anyway. As for Gathright, it's unclear why he was considered an upgrade over Felix Pie, who at least had the redeeming quality of still having potential. Gathright basically looks like a Juan Pierre clone on paper, although possibly even less talented, and we all remember how <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> turned out. I suppose if Pie wasn't going to play regularly anyway then it's probably a wash as to who sat on the bench between him and Gathright, but it struck me as an odd move even at the time.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Starting Pitching</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'08:</span> Carlos Zambrano (14-6, 3.91), Ryan Dempster (17-6, 2.96), Ted Lilly (17-9, 4.09), Jason Marquis (11-9, 4.53), Rich Harden (5-1, 1.77)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'09:</span> Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, Ted Lilly, Rich Harden, Sean Marshall<br /><br />Zambrano lowered both his walks (which had been soaring) and strikeouts last year by largely pitching to contact, which unfortunately led to some ugly games, especially late in the year. It's also been speculated for some time that Zambrano has had lingering arm issues that would eventually blow up completely. He seems healthy this spring, but let's see how he looks in Houston. Dempster seems ripe for a regression, so let's just hope he doesn't fall back to the pack <span style="font-style: italic;">too</span> much. Lilly probably will be what he will be - 15 wins, era around 4, bunch of home runs allowed - while Harden is something of an enigma even if he can stay healthy. Marshall should be an upgrade over Marquis, but just how much of an upgrade remains to be seen.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Relief Pitching</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'08: </span>Carlos Marmol, Bob Howry, Michael Wuertz, Neal Cotts, Sean Marshall, Jon Lieber, Jeff Samardzija, Kevin Hart, Chad Gaudin, Scott Eyre<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'09:</span> Carlos Marmol, Aaron Heilman, Neal Cotts, Angel Guzman, David Patton, Luis Vizcaino<br /><br />Marmol's mediocre spring leaves him stuck in the 8th-inning role for now, which apparently disappointed him, hopefully not so much that he'll struggle. Heilman had a great spring; so did Patton, strangely, seeing as he's never pitched above Class A before. The rest of the pen is just "who had the least awful spring" - Cotts, Vizcaino and Guzman all had ERAs over 5, but had the good fortune not to pitch quite as badly as Chad Gaudin (released after signing a $2 million contract to avoid arbitration), Kevin Hart or Jeff Samardzija (both of whom had options and so headed back to Iowa). I imagine the hook will be quick if the middle relief struggles, though - with a couple years at most left in the win-the-World-Series window, the Cubs can't afford to turn into the Mets. Relief pitching was mostly a strength last year; it needs to be again.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Closer<br />'08:</span> Kerry Wood (5-4, 3.26 ERA, 34 SV, 6 BS)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">'09:</span> Kevin Gregg<br /><br />The sabermetric community frowned on the Gregg trade (he was acquired for Jose Ceda, a flamethrowing prospect who some said was a better pitcher than Gregg right now), but so far it seems all right - in the spring, Gregg made 11 appearances and didn't yield a single earned run. Of course, it's the spring - how often do the best players come up late in games? It's more likely that Gregg fattened his line on guys who will be in AA tomorrow if they aren't already. He'll probably be an adequate closer - 30 saves, 3.50 ERA - but this was probably a step down. Of course, if Gregg struggles, at least Marmol's there to step in.<br /><br />All told, I'm definitely not without my worries for this year's team. Last year's team really seemed like it should have won it all - 97 regular season wins, career years from Dempster and DeRosa, a killer one-two punch at the end of games reminiscent of Rivera-to-Wetteland on the '96 Yankees. This year's team probably won't win 97 games, doesn't have that same one-two punch unless Gregg proves us all wrong, and looking at the roster I just don't see how anyone is likely to outperform last year's counterpart at their position significantly, unless it's Bradley. After all the talk of not repeating last year's embarrassing NLDS departure, did this team really even improve, in the final analysis?<br /><br />It seems like the Cubs are primed to make the playoffs again. Milwaukee has taken two steps backwards, St. Louis hasn't really upgraded after overachieving last year (although a healthy Chris Carpenter would make a big difference for them), the Reds still seem too young to me, and Pittsburgh and Houston have been predicted by everyone to be awful. I still hate being the favorite, though. We've reached a point in the last decade where it's suddenly become a disappointment if the Cubs don't make the playoffs - or don't make the LCS or World Series - rather than a pleasant surprise when they do. And while no one wants to go through life rooting for a team that can only be counted on to make "pleasant surprise" playoff appearances, I'm not sure I'm a fan of being in the position of just coasting through the summer waiting for the playoffs to start. Which is ironic since I hate watching the Cubs lose, and any team that wins most of its games comfortably is clearly going to be a playoff lock.<br /><br />I don't know. Much like last year, I'm looking forward to the season, but I'm also dreading it. Does that make sense?Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-75691117664758247802008-11-14T14:19:00.002-06:002008-11-14T14:55:05.623-06:00Last of '98The 1998 Cubs were not the first team of my lifetime to make the playoffs. They were, however, the first to make it when I was really old enough to be fully engaged. And what a year that was. The Cubs were certainly not a great team, but there was Sammy Sosa battling McGwire for the right to Maris' record, and a dramatic wild card chase and playoff, and the wunderkind Kid K, Kerry Wood, tying the strikeout record and delivering one of the most dominant pitching performances of all time on May 6, his fifth career start.<br /><br />Wood never really lived up to his promise. Oft-injured, he had just two full seasons in Chicago, 2002 and 2003, and since the latter - the best of his career - his record is 18-20, with 34 saves (all in 2008). In 2006, he was paid $12 million to make four starts, earning more than $600,000 per inning pitched; all told, Baseball-Reference lists him earning almost $49 million for a career in which he has won 77 games, more than $636,000 per victory.<br /><br />But with that said, Wood was a good soldier. Perhaps feeling that he owed the Cubs for his well-paid and under-performed 2004-2006, he came back in 2007 on a cheap, one-year deal, reinventing himself as a reliever. He came back with another lower-paid, one-year deal in 2008 and took over as the team's closer, allowing both Ryan Dempster to move into the rotation as he wanted and Carlos Marmol to stay in the more favorable 8th-inning role. In the process, he became the first Cub to play on four playoff teams since Stan Hack.<br /><br />Sadly, the Cubs have announced that Wood will not be back in 2009, or at least that he will almost certainly not be be back assuming that someone else will be willing to sign him to a multi-year deal. It seems that Wood is looking for a three- or four-year commitment as a closer, surely for at least 6-7 million dollars a year, and the Cubs are not in a position to offer it to him. (Chalk one up for the slumping economy.) After trading prize prospect Jose Ceda for Marlins closer Kevin Gregg, the message is clear - we're moving on.<br /><br />The rational side of me understands this perfectly, of course. Even in 2008, Wood could be unreliable - he was out with a blister for most of July and could struggle with his command at times. Of course, the latter is true of most pitchers, and at his best Wood was typically unhittable. His best moment of the year came when he froze Prince Fielder with a breaking ball to get a game-ending strikeout on September 16, but even this came after giving up three hits and a run. To ask the Cubs to pay anything like 3/25 or 4/35 or whatever, when reasonably effective closers are a dime a dozen and few of them have anything resembling Wood's injury history, and with the team's ownership status still unresolved and the economy in shambles - yeah, that's probably too much.<br /><br />But the <em>fan</em> in me is upset. In part because Wood is the last connection to the seminal Cubs team of my childhood, and the only current Cub besides Zambrano to break camp with the team in '03. In part because even in the age of free agency, I think we're still conditioned to believe that players who come up with our team are going to stay with them forever, especially if they're good; surely we wouldn't let them go. Seeing Sammy Sosa leave the Cubs - yes, he didn't come up with them, but he spent the vast, vast majority of his career with the Cubs - was tough, and that was in spite of what the situation with him had turned into and in spite of the fact that he was aging in dog years. Seeing Wood leave, though, is significantly worse; he doesn't leave on bad terms like Sosa, he isn't sneaking out to grab a ring in his twilight years like Grace, and he isn't making a shameless money grab in spite of inspiring no confidence like Prior. He's a very good pitcher who, while only in a relief role, is about as effective as he's ever been. He's just turned himself into a luxury the Cubs clearly don't feel they can afford, at least when you combine the money he can command with his injury history. It's reached the point where the Cubs feel that if they're going to spend that kind of money, they need a guy who is more likely to be on the field day in and day out than not. And having that be the reason, while perfectly understandable, is tough to absorb.<br /><br />The other reason is that there is a pretty good chance that Wood will sign with an NL team and the Cubs will have to see him. Heck, he could sign in the division - Milwaukee and St. Louis could both use a closer. And the thought of Kerry Wood, the longest-tenured Cub at the close of the '08 season, jogging in from the bullpen in Cardinals red, makes me sick to my stomach. It's not just that I don't want Wood going to the Cardinals - I don't want to have to root against him. You thought seeing Jim Edmonds in blue was weird? Wood on the Cardinals or Brewers would be 100 times worse. For my own sanity, I really hope he goes to the AL.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-6056095388529325042008-10-27T23:21:00.002-05:002008-10-27T23:46:41.848-05:00Anything's possible if you just make shit upSay you're Phil Rogers and you need some grist for the rumor mill to fill out <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-26-rogers-whispers,0,102815.story">your "Whispers" column</a>. Hey, how about saying something totally unsourced about the Jake Peavy "deal"?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">The Cubs are on the list of teams for which </span><b style="font-style: italic;">Jake Peavy</b><span style="font-style: italic;"> will waive his no-trade clause. This doesn't look like a fit, but don't be surprised if </span><b style="font-style: italic;">Jim Hendry</b><span style="font-style: italic;"> tries to put together a package that would include a swap of first basemen, </span><b style="font-style: italic;"> <a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sports/derrek-lee-PESPT004276.topic" title="Derrek Lee" id="PESPT004276">Derrek Lee</a></b><span style="font-style: italic;"> and </span><b style="font-style: italic;">Adrian Gonzalez</b><span style="font-style: italic;">, who is supposedly untouchable.</span></blockquote><br />Uh, what? Let's break down this nonsense.<br /><br />Okay, the first sentence is true; the Cubs <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> on that list. Doesn't really mean much.<br /><br />The second sentence starts with "This doesn't look like a fit." True enough. It seems doubtful that the Cubs have the prospects to beat out teams like Atlanta.<br /><br />Then: "Don't be surprised if Jim Hendry tries to put together a package." Yup, that's fine. I mean, I want him to <span style="font-style: italic;">try</span>.<br /><br />Then we head to Crazy Town: "...that includes a swap of first baseman, Derrek Lee and Adrian Gonzalez, who is supposedly untouchable."<br /><br />Whaaaaaat? Phil, did you forget to take your non-crazy pills this morning? Think about this for a second. The Cubs don't have the prospects to put together a deal... so they're going to juice it up by asking the Padres to trade their untouchable first baseman for the Cubs' first baseman? I can just imagine how this conversation would go:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Kevin Towers:</span> Hello?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim Hendry:</span> Hey, Kevin, Jim Hendry here.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Towers:</span> Hi, Jim, how are you?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hendry:</span> Oh, fine, thanks. Listen, since you guys have Jake Peavy on the market and he's willing to come to us, I wanted to pitch a trade to you.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Towers:</span> Shoot.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hendry:</span> All right, Felix Pie, Kevin Hart and Jeff Samardzija. And we'll eat some of Samardzija's contract.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Towers:</span> I don't know, Jim. I really need some guys who are major-league ready right now. Pie hasn't exactly done much for your team, and Hart and Samardzija haven't proven they can start in the bigs. I've got the Braves ready to offer me either Jair Jurrjens or Charlie Morton as a centerpiece of a deal.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hendry:</span> Well, I could send you Jason Marquis...<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Towers:</span> Ha ha! You old jokester.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hendry:</span> Um, yes. I'm a jokester. Anyway, I thought you might find that a little light, so I'm willing to sweeten the pot.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Towers:</span> Go for it.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hendry:</span> What would you say to the triumphant return of Derrek Lee to San Diego?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Towers:</span> Well, we've already got a first baseman, Jim, and he's younger and more powerful than Lee.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hendry:</span> Here's how you resolve that problem - you trade him to us in return! So, what do you say?<br />[<span style="font-style: italic;">faint clicking sound</span>]<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hendry:</span> Kevin?<br />[<span style="font-style: italic;">dial tone</span>]<br /><br />Does Phil Rogers honestly believe that the Padres would trade the Cubs arguably their pitcher and best hitter for a grab bag of prospects and Derrek Lee? Just for fun, here's how Adrian Gonzalez stacks up with Derrek Lee:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Lee, 2008:</span> .291/.361/.462, 41 2B, 20 HR, 90 RBI; age for bulk of 2009 season: 33<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Gonzalez, 2008:</span> .279/.361/.510, 32 2B, 36 HR, 119 RBI; age for bulk of 2009 season: 27<br /><br />So Gonzalez is six years younger than Lee, has more power despite playing in Petco (on the road he hit .308/.368/.578), and makes $3 million in 2009 to Lee's $13 million. Who wouldn't do that???<br /><br />I don't believe for a second that Phil Rogers even had a source on this. I think he just made it up. Either that or it was some tossed-off thing that the source wasn't being serious about.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Randy Bush:</span> So that about wraps up the interview, I guess, Phil. Anything else you wanted to ask me?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Phil Rogers:</span> Yeah, any chance that Jake Peavy deal happens?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bush:</span> Heh, well, we'd all like it to, Phil. In fact, we'd love to be able to get Adrian Gonzalez from them too!<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rogers:</span> Really? Wow. What about Derrek Lee?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bush:</span> I suppose we'd have to ship him out there, then.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rogers:</span> Wow, I can't wait to break this story!<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bush:</span> Phil, I was clearly kidding.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rogers:</span> Can't hear you! On a deadline!Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-28838727414438048692008-10-18T14:32:00.002-05:002008-10-18T15:59:09.417-05:00Pet PeavyGood news, everyone! Jake Peavy is probably going to be traded by the Padres any day now, and he's listed five teams he'd be willing to accept a trade to. Those five? The Braves, the Dodgers, the Cardinals, the Astros, and <span style="font-style: italic;">your</span> Chicago Cubs.<br /><br />Now the bad news: there is no <span style="font-style: italic;">way</span> the Cubs can put together a package capable of getting Peavy.<br /><br />Consider what the Cubs gave up for Rich Harden: essentially, it was the prospect pu-pu platter. Two guys in Murton and Patterson who had proven themselves as great AAA players but average major leaguers; an A-ball catcher (Josh Donaldson) who was highly rated but struggling (though he's improved substantially since joining the A's system); and a young pitcher (Sean Gallagher) whose ceiling is considered by most to be "third starter." And if Harden didn't have a history of injury, it doesn't seem likely that would have been enough to get the job done.<br /><br />But that deal exposed the barrenness of the Cubs' farm system. What top prospects do we have to swing a deal for a Cy Young winner in his prime? The Padres are said to want a center fielder, and surely they'll want either a very good young starter or maybe two good-to-decent ones. From the Cubs' standpoint, the obvious name for the first part is Felix Pie, but does anyone really think that's getting the job done? He still seems to be considered a decent prospect, but he doesn't seem to have the "future star" tag on him that he used to. Is he really still thought of highly enough to be the centerpiece of such a deal?<br /><br />And what pitchers do the Cubs have to give up? Once upon a time, that was the strength of the farm system, but many of the callups of the early 2000s flamed out. Now, who's left? Samardzija? Hart? Even if a package of Pie, Samardzija and Hart <span style="font-style: italic;">could</span> get it done for Peavy in a vacuum, what are the odds that that's the best offer?<br /><br />I hope Peavy goes to Atlanta, because I sure don't want to see him in the division, and fuck the Dodgers. But even though he'd be willing to waive his no-trade to come to the Cubs, I just don't think we've got the pieces necessary to do it.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-26433176112969773612008-10-05T15:06:00.002-05:002008-10-05T15:45:59.786-05:00AC 00 63 100There's not much more to say about the baseball itself. For the second year in a row, the opposing team got all the breaks, and the Cubs compounded their own misery by looking like a wreck on offense. The team that scored 855 runs in 161 games in the regular season scored six in three in the playoffs; the team that was second in the league in ERA allowed almost seven runs per.<br /><br />During Game One, I was angry. During Game Two, which I didn't get to watching until it was already 5-0, I was pretty much just numb. During Game Three, which I attempted to watch from the beginning but gave up on watching consistently once the Cubs went behind, I was angry again. But I already feel numb to the whole thing the day after, although I was in Borders today and saw a raft of Cubs-related merchandise, including caps reading "1908-2008: Team of Destiny" and various magazine covers, and it just felt like a punch to the gut.<br /><br />What upsets me isn't so much how badly they played, although that's certainly appalling. It's how quickly the whole thing was over, after 161 games that started on March 31, ran throughout the spring and summer and ended with the Cubs running away with a second straight Central Division title and 97 wins, the most since 1945. I threw myself into the team as much as I could this year, going to a road game for the first time in more than a decade, listening to day games on internet radio at work, keeping a printout of the schedule in my cubicle, on which I would write "W" and "L" as appropriate. I'm not going to claim I was the most rabid fan there was - I only went to three games, and just one of those was at Wrigley - but given my other commitments I think I did pretty well, trying to make time to watch the games whenever I could or at least following them online. And I loved this team. Every night someone else was the hero; Soto or DeRosa or Fukudome or Lee or Ramirez or Soriano or Edmonds or Johnson or Theriot or Marmol or Wood or Zambrano or Dempster or Harden or Lilly or even Marquis. Yeah, they had a few bad stretches, but what team doesn't? This was the team that was supposed to have the talent to go all the way.<br /><br />And then it was just over. We barely even had time to soak up the playoff excitement of DeRosa's home run in Game One when Dempster self-destructed, and the Cubs never led in the series again, rarely even looking competitive. The best post-HR moment was scoring two runs and looking briefly competent against Takashi Saito in the bottom of the ninth in Game Two; of course, the score was already 10-1 when the "rally" started. The Cubs, best team in the National League and arguably the best team in baseball, were the first team to be officially eliminated from the playoffs, falling to the mighty 84-win Dodgers. Even Milwaukee, overmatched by the Phillies and unable to get a win out of CC Sabathia in their Game Two, was able to take a game before falling. The NL Central, which had a claim to having the <span style="font-style: italic;">three</span> best teams in the NL as late as August, winds up with no teams in the NLCS.<br /><br />Every Opening Day with the Cubs is like a first date with that year's team. And this year's first date, with Fukudome's tying home run in the bottom of the ninth, was pretty special, even if the Cubs didn't end up winning. As the season went on, every Cubs fan was drawn into the relationship as far as they could go. Ask just about any Cubs fan, certainly any Cubs fan under the age of 40, and they'd tell you this was the best team of their lifetime. This team was doing things no team in decades had done. It was the 100-year anniversary. This was the team that was going to go all the way. And then, before we knew it, we'd been dumped, sitting heartbroken in front of the television, wondering how six wonderful months could have evaporated into disaster so quickly. Just as with a particularly devastating breakup, it's enough to make you tell yourself that you're going to swear off baseball forever - all it does is break your heart, and you can't take it anymore.<br /><br />But just as with that next person we can't stop thinking about, we're all going to be back eventually. It may not be next Opening Day, but every one of us is going to allow ourselves to love the Cubs again as long as they give us a reason to do so. The bulk of this team isn't going anywhere - aside from Jim Edmonds, not one of the key players from this year's team will be older than 34 next year. And consider this - aside from Mark DeRosa (and, you might possibly argue, Theriot), not one of the Cubs' position players had what you would call a career year. Five guys hit 20 home runs, but no one hit 30, even though at least four guys on the team probably have that capability. And while Dempster might have had his career year on the mound, just about everyone else on the pitching staff can be better. And who knows what Hendry might do to reshape the roster a bit in the offseason, maybe trying to bring in another frontline starter or a little relief help, or another outfield bat. This team will be back. It may not win 97 games again, but it's going to contend. And when you consider how long it's been since the Cubs even contended in three straight years, that in itself is a small victory.<br /><br />It hurts now. I know it does. But you haven't heard the last of the Cubs just yet. And if we've waited decades to get to this point<span style="font-style: italic;"></span>, and survived the agonies and indignities of 1969, and 1984, and 2003, always coming back eventually, always believing that one day things finally would go our way... well, there's a reason they call it "eternal optimism." We're Cubs fans. Giving up hope just isn't an option.<br /><br />Wait till next year.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-84333647329994965832008-10-03T10:19:00.002-05:002008-10-03T10:23:52.858-05:00Bulletin from a parallel universe in which things are awesome.Rich Harden throws eight innings of two-hit ball, striking out 13 Dodgers, and the Cubs get to Hiroki Kuroda in the fifth, taking Game Three of the series by a 4-1 score. The next day, a short-rested Derek Lowe struggles with his command, and the Cubs win 6-3; Manny Ramirez hits two solo homers off Ted Lilly, but separates his shoulder diving for a ball in the sixth inning. The series returns to Chicago for Game Five and Chad Billingsley holds the Cubs again, but this time Ryan Dempster is almost equal to the task (it helps that the Dodgers are forced to play Juan Pierre in left), and the Cubs enter the bottom of the ninth trailing 1-0. Takashi Saito walks Derrek Lee to start the inning, and his first pitch to Aramis Ramirez is ripped deep into the night for a walk-off home run, sending the Cubs into the NLCS, where the Phillies await.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-373311090433009132008-10-02T23:14:00.004-05:002008-10-03T01:22:21.939-05:00Game 2: There are no wordsI really don't even have the energy for this one. How do you give up 17 runs in two games to the Dodgers? (Well, seven walks in one game and four errors in the other, but <span style="font-style: italic;">even so</span>.) The offensive part doesn't necessarily surprise me - though it sucks - but to have the pitching and defense be so lousy (though Zambrano was better than you'd think looking at the score)...<br /><br />Honestly, yesterday I was really angry. Today I'm just numb. It's like it's happening to someone else's team.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-14679807393666911542008-10-01T20:48:00.002-05:002008-10-01T23:45:37.117-05:00Game 1: Dempster DivingHonestly, is there any way that could have gone worse? I suppose Aramis could have blown out his knee rounding first on his double, but that's about it. Here, in no particular order, are the five worst things about this game, and then I'm not talking about it anymore.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. There goes the home field advantage.</span><br />We heard that the Dodgers were better than they had been when the Cubs last played them, but consoled ourselves with two facts: (1) the Cubs are still better and (2) the Dodgers were lousy on the road all year, so having the home field should be enough of an edge. Well, now what? The Cubs have to win at least one in Los Angeles to have any hope. It's not like that's an impossible task, but so much for not having to do it.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Can we trust <span style="font-style: italic;">any</span> of the starting pitchers?</span><br />Whether Dempster was anxious or what, it doesn't matter - he blew it big-time, utterly failing to vindicate Piniella's faith in him. Let's say the series <span style="font-style: italic;">does</span> come back to a fifth game at Wrigley - are you feeling that confident seeing Dempster stride out there again?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. In Carlos we trust.</span><br />Yeah, Mr. 7.28 ERA Since August 1 now <span style="font-style: italic;">has</span> to win Game Two to save the Cubs' season. (At the very least, the Cubs have to win, but Zambrano simply can't pitch poorly.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Hi there, 2007 NLDS offense.</span><br />Only twice in the game did the Cubs put more than one runner on base in an inning. Once was DeRosa's two-run homer in the second, and the other was when DeRosa and Theriot had consecutive two-out singles in the fourth. Everyone else who got on - and the Cubs had a man on base in every single inning - just died there, most annoyingly Ramirez's leadoff double in the sixth.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Derek Lowe.</span><br />I hate you, I hate your stupid face, and I hate that the umpires call your stupid pitches at the ankles a foot off the plate for strikes.<br /><br />My dad wanted to spin this by saying that "you have to overcome some adversity to break a curse," pointing to the '04 Red Sox. Of course, the Red Sox won their first-round series 3-0. Also, the '05 White Sox overcame adversity to the tune of losing one game the entire postseason. Whatever. It comes down to this: the Cubs win tomorrow, or the Cubs lose this series. Here we go.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-26819954591956307462008-09-30T22:10:00.004-05:002008-10-01T00:05:59.593-05:00The 11 Best Games of 2008I did this last year, and okay, it wasn't exactly a harbinger of good things for the playoffs. But with 11 games left to win, here are the 11 best Cubs games of the 2008 regular season, this time with video! Let's hope that by the time October's over, they're games #12-22 of the 2008 season.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">11. "Atta boy, Jimmy!" (June 12)</span><br />Hosting the Braves and Tim Hudson, the Cubs struggled to get much offense going all day behind Carlos Zambrano. Trailing 2-1 entering the bottom of the ninth, Jim Edmonds - who was still fairly new as a Cub and trying to win the fans over - smacked a 1-0 offering from Blaine Boyer out to left to tie the game, eliciting <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200806122900697">this call</a> from Len Kasper, who (on WGN's 60th anniversary) had clearly been saving it all day. Perhaps even more entertaining was the Cubs winning the game in the 11th when they loaded the bases and Reed Johnson took a ball off his shoe to drive in the winning run.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">10. Revenge is a dish best served cold (May 11)</span><br />Hosting the Diamondbacks for the first time since being eliminated from the playoffs in three straight games the previous October, the Cubs had already won the series with a Sunday game against Randy Johnson looming. But due to the conditions (cold, wet, and with a 24-mph breeze blowing in), both teams scrapped their intended starters, treating the fans to Sean Gallagher against Edgar Gonzalez. Gonzalez got the better of the head-to-head, but the Cubs rallied - down 4-2 in the seventh, they scored two to tie it when <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200805112683094">Reed Johnson smacked a no-doubt line drive</a> into the teeth of the wind in left center, his first Cubs home run. In the eighth, <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200805112683395">Daryle Ward blasted a pinch-hit two-run double</a> to right center, and the Cubs swept the D-Backs out of Wrigley with a 6-4 win, an early statement series for the season (at a time when people still thought the D-Backs were good).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">9. Ward pinches the Fish (August 15)</span><br />Daryle Ward might not have had the kind of 2008 we all hoped for after his stellar 2007, but he could still come through in a big spot. Aside from the above mentioned double to beat Arizona, he also had a <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200808153315333">dramatic go-ahead three-run homer</a> on the same night that Michael Phelps won his seventh gold in Beijing. (So you can see why Ward got overshadowed.) With the Cubs down 5-3 against Marlins closer Kevin Gregg, Mark DeRosa drew a walk and Reed Johnson singled, leading to Ward's heroics. The Cubs held on to win 6-5 (not without a scare as Wood walked one, hit another and threw a wild pitch), their fifth in a row at the time.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">8. "Beating" Sabathia (July 28)</span><br />The Brewers had been adrift in the Central, falling as far back as 8.5 games on June 15 - the exact same deficit the Cubs had come back from a year earlier. And the Brewers, like the Cubs, came all the way back by the end of July, tying the division on July 26 and entering a pivotal four-game series in Milwaukee just a game back, having already taken four of six from the Cubs at Wrigley earlier in the year. The Cubs weren't about to yield anything, even against Milwaukee's newly-acquired ace CC Sabathia, who was already 4-0 as a Brewer with three complete games and a shutout. Ted Lilly was pitching well until giving up consecutive homers to J.J. Hardy and Ryan Braun in the sixth, followed by a run-scoring double to Corey Hart that put the Cubs behind 3-2. Sabathia couldn't hold the lead, however, giving up two singles, a double steal and a walk that loaded the bases with one out. Derrek Lee grounded into what looked like an inning-ending double play, but Reed Johnson made a good takeout slide into second and Rickie Weeks fired wide of first, <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200807283215938">scoring two runs</a> and putting the Cubs back ahead 4-3. Bob Howry blew the lead in the bottom of the inning with a solo home run to Russell Branyan, but the Cubs won it 6-4 in the ninth, Lee atoning for his near-DP with <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200807283216915">a double to score the go-ahead run</a>. It was the only game the Brewers would lose behind Sabathia (though he ended without a decision) until the Cubs beat him outright on September 16.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">7. Really beating Sabathia (September 16)</span><br />Speaking of which, here's that game. By this point the Cubs had an eight-game lead in the division, and they entered their final series with Milwaukee at Wrigley with a magic number of six. They lowered it to four after finally handing Sabathia an L to call his own, though it was close. The Cubs led 3-0 after three thanks to a couple of RBI doubles from Lee and Ramirez, but the Brewers closed it to 3-2 in the top of the sixth when Ryan Dempster allowed a mammoth home run to the mammoth Prince Fielder. Sabathia was still around in the seventh when Alfonso Soriano added a much-needed insurance run, taking the big fella <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200809163489983">deep to left</a> to make it 4-2. Fielder struck again to lead off the eighth, but the Cubs added another run in the bottom of the inning with a Henry Blanco pinch-hit RBI single. This was again needed to survive a set of Kerry Wood adventures in the ninth, which finally ended the game at 5-4 when he struck Fielder out looking on a gutsy breaking pitch.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">6. Rallying past the Phillies (August 28)</span><br />Opening a big home series against one of the NL contenders, the Cubs trailed 4-1 going into the bottom of the eighth after doing little against Cole Hamels. Although the Phillies' bullpen was strong for much of the year, seeing anyone but Hamels suited the Cubs as they scored five runs in the eighth. Mike Fontenot <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200808283383656">led off the inning with a pinch-hit homer</a>, and a double, single and walk loaded the bases for Aramis Ramirez, who put the Cubs up 6-4 <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200808283383777">with a single swing</a>. Wood had to face the big bats in the ninth, but allowed just a single to Jimmy Rollins, ending the game with a Ryan Howard pop-up.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Rallying past the Brewers (September 18)</span><br />For sheer degree of difficulty, it's tough to top this game (although the Cubs managed it; see #3). The Cubs trailed 6-2 heading into the bottom of the ninth, and proceeded to make two quick outs; at this point, the likelihood of them winning the game was so low that Baseball-Reference actually rounds it down to zero. But Ramirez doubled on the first pitch he saw, Edmonds singled (scoring Ramirez to make it 6-3), and DeRosa singled, bringing up Geovany Soto, who also took a liking to the first pitch he saw and <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200809183503832">murdered it to left center</a>, enough of a no-doubter that, as you can see on the video, Ryan Braun didn't even move. This sent the game to extras; Marmol and Wood mowed the Brewers down in the 10th and 11th, but in the 12th Wood put himself in a second and third, no out jam before working out of it. In the bottom of the 12th, Derrek Lee came up with two outs and runners at second and third; he'd been 0-for-5, but picked a good time for his first hit, <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200809183504075">lacing a single up the middle</a> to win the game and drop the Cubs' magic number to two.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Mr. Clutch (June 20)</span><br />Aramis Ramirez has taken heat over the years for not hustling all the time, but he was pretty good at coming through when it mattered in 2008, and isn't that what's really important? Perhaps the best example was the opening game of interleague against the White Sox; the Cubs trailed 3-1 after doing little off John Danks in six innings, but Octavio Dotel was greeted with consecutive homers from Lee and Ramirez to open the seventh (winning some lucky WGN listener $7,000, no less), tying the game up. There it stayed until the bottom of the ninth, when Ramirez, leading off against Scott Linebrink, hit the second pitch to <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200806202968467">pretty much dead center</a>. The Cubs had six walk-off wins in 2008, but this was the only one on a home run.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Climbing the Rockies Mountain (May 30)</span><br />Ted Lilly won 17 games for the Cubs in 2008, but he was also capable of having really bad outings. This was one such; Lilly lasted just three innings, allowing seven runs (though only four were earned). Jon Lieber replaced him and allowed two more; by the time the Cubs came to bat in the fifth, they were already down 9-1 and their chance of winning the game was down to about 1%. It was bad enough that Lou Piniella actually pulled Lee and Soto, putting Blanco and Micah Hoffpauir in their places. This turned out to be a pretty good move. Hoffpauir smacked a double to start the sixth, which was followed by home runs from Kosuke Fukudome and Jim Edmonds, cutting the deficit to 9-4. Still, the Cubs only had a 3% chance of winning entering the seventh inning, which they turned around in a hurry. With one out, Mike Fontenot singled, followed by a Blanco home run to cut the lead to 9-6. After Hoffpauir and Fukudome singled, Edmonds <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200805302800231">hit a deep double to center</a>, scoring both runners and cutting it to 9-8. The next hitter was Mark DeRosa, who <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200805302800246">lifted a full-count pitch into the breeze</a>, giving it enough to carry to the seats in left center and sending the remaining fans (of which there were surprisingly many, but then why leave the ballpark early on a late spring afternoon?) into a frenzy. The Cubs still had to hold the slim 10-9 lead, but Marmol struck out the side in the eighth, and Wood got a convenient lineout double play in the ninth before Todd Helton <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200805302801577">ended it with a flyout to right</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. The Clinch (September 20)</span><br />Only once in the division play era had the Cubs clinched things at home (2003), and the time was right to add a second, especially against the rival Cardinals and on national TV. The Cubs jumped ahead with three runs in the second, as Soriano hit a single that skipped past Brian Barton in left, clearing the bases and allowing Soriano to go all the way to third. The Cubs tacked on two more in the fourth on a Mark DeRosa RBI double and, amusingly, a <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200809203515335">suicide squeeze</a> from Ted Lilly (he ended up being safe on the play when the Cardinals attempted to get DeRosa at home and failed). Lilly's squeeze, somewhat fittingly, ended up being the difference, as he scuffled in the sixth, giving up a predictable home run to Troy Glaus to cut the lead to 5-4. That was as close as the Cardinals would get, however, as Kerry Wood <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200809203515598">closed the door once more</a> in the ninth - also fittingly, as he's the only Cub to appear on every playoff team of the wild card era.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Zambra-No (September 14)</span><br />It was an up-and-down season for Carlos Zambrano, as it often is. But he found time to throw <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200809153478790">the first Cubs no-hitter</a> since Milt Pappas in 1972, oddly enough against the Astros at Miller Park, the game having been moved due to Hurricane Ike (or, if you believe Astros fans, due to an anti-Houston conspiracy cooked up by secret Cubs fan Bud Selig). Zambrano needed 110 pitches, striking out 10 (including the last batter of the game) and walking just one (he put a second man on with a hit by pitch). Alfonso Soriano led off the game with a home run, and it was all the offense the Cubs needed; the Astros only sent two balls out of the infield, both <a href="http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200809153479253">caught by Mark DeRosa in right</a>. It was a great moment, and yet another historic punctuation to a season we all hope will end with even bigger things. (And yes, Zambrano followed this up with the worst post-no-hitter start since Bob Forsch in 1978. Let's not dwell on that.)<br /><br />The playoffs start tomorrow. Recaps/commentary will be here, hopefully for a lot longer than they were last year. Go Cubs go.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26064963.post-61000910042181198532008-09-28T21:11:00.005-05:002008-09-29T00:19:10.175-05:00Dodge this.There won't be a New York team in the playoffs, and I'm feelin' fine. But now that we know the Cubs' opponent, it's time to focus on the Dodgers and see just how these teams match up.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Season Series:</span> Cubs 5, Dodgers 2<br /><br />The Cubs took all three games at Wrigley Field in late May before splitting four at Chavez Ravine a week later. Just about every game in the series was pretty close, though; the Cubs won the first two games at Wrigley by identical 3-1 scores, then squeezed out a 2-1 win in the finale only by scraping out a run in the ninth and then another in the tenth. In LA, the Cubs blew a 4-0 lead in the first game but got a run in the ninth to win 5-4; the Dodgers then got a complete-game shutout from Hiroki Kuroda, followed by a 7-3 win when Carlos Zambrano fell apart in the bottom of the seventh. The Cubs salvaged a split, winning the fourth game by that familiar 3-1 score behind, somewhat surprisingly, Jason Marquis, who allowed just three hits in 6.1 innings.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Reason not to take the season series results very seriously:</span> Manny Ramirez<br /><br />The Cubs played all their games against a Dodgers team that was still sending Juan Pierre into left every day (and, for that matter, that was still going with Chin-Lung Hu and his .181 batting average at short). Going into today, Manny Ramirez was putting up this line as a Dodger: .396/.489/.743, with 17 homers and 53 RBI in 53 games. A little better than Juan Pierre and his .327 OBP and .329 slugging.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Position-by-Position</span><br /><br />To be honest, it's not entirely clear to me who the starters are at some positions for LA. For example, Rafael Furcal started the year as the starter at short. Then I think he was injured, and most recently the starter had been Angel Berroa - until Furcal started the last three games. Also, Jeff Kent has been on and off at second base. And frankly, how one evaluates the Dodgers changes a lot depending on whether Kent and Furcal are starting, as opposed to Blake DeWitt and Berroa. So I'll have to play the comps a bit by ear, here, based on what they're likely to throw out. Could I wait until Torre announces his roster? Maybe, but I don't feel like it.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Catcher: Geovany Soto vs. Russell Martin</span><br /><br />Martin is a very good hitter for a catcher - .279/.384/.395 this year - and he's pretty strong defensively, winning the Gold Glove last year (I know, I know). He's also caught the staff with the lowest ERA in the NL, for whatever that's worth. But Soto has been a more valuable hitter - .285/.364/.504 - and his staff isn't too shabby itself, plus Soto's caught-stealing percentage is slightly higher.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Edge:</span> Cubs, though not by as much as you might think.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">First Base: Derrek Lee vs. James Loney</span><br /><br />Loney's had an okay year, but hasn't flashed a lot of power for a first baseman - his OPS+ is actually just below average, at 99. His .341 OBP is pretty mediocre as well. Lee, for all the knocks on him, still managed to get to 20 home runs (although most were at home) and had a .363 OBP, which isn't too bad. For all the noise about his double plays, he ended up grounding into 26, but Loney grounded into 25 himself. Add in the fact that Lee is a great defensive first baseman while Loney is average, and the fact that Loney is in his second full season while Lee has a World Series ring, and that should give the Cubs the edge.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Edge:</span> Cubs.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Second Base: Mark DeRosa vs. Jeff Kent/Blake DeWitt</span><br /><br />This depends a lot both on DeRosa's health - he's been nursing a strained calf for a few days - and on which player is actually starting for the Dodgers. Kent came off the DL last Saturday, but has only appeared in three games since then and only twice as a second baseman. I'm guessing Kent gets the nod if he's healthy, as DeWitt is just a rookie and hasn't hit all that well (although he's having a strong September), but Kent's OBP for the year is only .327. He murdered the Cubs in his five games against them, though, going 8-for-19 with two home runs. As for DeRosa, assuming he's fully healthy, he's having a career year, setting new career marks in home runs, RBI, runs scored, walks, and OBP and slugging. All this and he's been 11 runs above average on defense, despite being shuttled around between four different positions and appearing in right field more often than at second base in September. For this he's been worth 7.8 WARP1 and is top 30 in the NL in VORP; Kent has been a below average defender and contributed just 2.3 wins to the Dodger cause.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Edge:</span> Cubs <span style="font-style: italic;">if</span> DeRosa is healthy, although even if they're forced to start Mike Fontenot at second, they might still have the edge (Fontenot was worth more wins that either Kent or DeWitt this year).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Shortstop: Ryan Theriot vs. Rafael Furcal/Angel Berroa</span><br /><br />It seems like it's Furcal's job now that he's back, and why not - his OBP in 36 games is .439, compared to Berroa's .305 in 83 games. Furcal has also been the superior defender historically in spite of his occasional tendency to air-mail throws to first. As for Theriot, he's never going to be mistaken for Alex Rodriguez at the plate, what with his one home run this year, but he's been pretty good at finding a way on base in big spots, whether by slapping a single or drawing a walk, and he does walk more than he strikes out, which is certainly a nice feature. All told he's been worth about five wins to the Cubs; all the guys who have played short for the Dodgers <span style="font-style: italic;">combined</span> add up to just slightly more, although a full season of Furcal, presumably, would have been worth more than that (I would project, but his slashes are so high in his short period of time that it's going to be inflated past what he likely would actually have contributed). At any rate, a fully healthy Furcal - if that's what he is - is probably a better player than Theriot.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Edge:</span> Dodgers if Furcal is 100%, Cubs if he's not (and especially if he isn't playing at all).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Third Base: Aramis Ramirez vs. Casey Blake</span><br /><br />Blake has hit 10 home runs since coming over from Cleveland, but his OBP is .313. Ramirez, meanwhile, might be the best hitter on the Cubs. The two are probably about a wash on defense, so you have to give the edge to Ramirez's offense.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Edge: </span>Cubs.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Left Field: Alfonso Soriano vs. Manny Ramirez</span><br /><br />Soriano, somewhat quietly, is really the engine that drives the Cubs. When he's out, you can tell; just look at the Cubs' record without him this year. He added 5.8 wins in just 108 games played; over a full season he might have added nearly 9, a pretty robust number. But Ramirez has added a mind-boggling 5.3 wins to the Dodgers in 53 games since coming over! He gives that lineup an entirely new dimension, and he's also got a ton of playoff experience.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Edge:</span> Dodgers.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Center Field:<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Jim Edmonds/Reed Johnson vs. Matt Kemp</span></span><br /><br />I was surprised to see Baseball Prospectus credit Kemp with 6.1 WARP1, since his OBP is only .340 and he's listed as an average fielder. I was even more surprised to then find out that combined, Edmonds and Johnson have only added 6.6 wins to the Cubs. Consider, however, that Kemp has played in almost every game for the Dodgers, while Edmonds and Johnson combined have about 25 fewer at-bats than Kemp does alone. Given the Cubs' ability to platoon, and the postseason experience Edmonds brings, I think you have to favor the Cubs here.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Edge:</span> Cubs.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Right Field: Kosuke Fukudome vs. Andre Ethier</span><br /><br />There's no guarantee Fukudome will even be starting, of course; if his bat stays silent, Piniella might try to play DeRosa out there (though that would depend on his injury) or even Hoffpauir (although that's a lot of defense to give up in a playoff environment). Either way, you probably have to give the offensive edge to LA; Ethier is hitting .302/.373/.507 this year, but .447/.547/.671 in September, possibly thanks to hitting in front of Ramirez, and seeing better pitches as a result, for most of the month. The Cubs have the advantage on defense, but for the moment you have to give the Dodgers the nod thanks to Ethier's hot bat.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Edge:</span> Dodgers.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Starting Pitching: Ryan Dempster, Carlos Zambrano, Rich Harden and Ted Lilly vs. Derek Lowe, Chad Billingsley, Hiroki Kuroda and Greg Maddux</span><br /><br />Dempster finished third in the NL in VORP, the highest among this group; next was Billingsley at seventh. Lowe was tenth, and while you have to go all the way to 23rd to hit the next Cub, Zambrano, Lilly and Harden are bunched up at 23, 24 and 28, just ahead of Kuroda at 30 and well ahead of Maddux at #80 (most of that accomplished with the Padres, of course). But Maddux might not even start; Joe Torre has suggested Lowe could come back on short rest in Game Four if the situation called for it. At any rate, this will probably be a series for people who love pitching. Certainly it was in the regular season, with both teams scoring less than three runs per game.<br /><br />The opening game will match Dempster and Lowe. Dempster, famously, was 14-3 at Wrigley this year, while Lowe has been touchable on the road, his BAA rising from .206 at Chavez Ravine all the way to .292. He doesn't walk many, though, and he's a sinker-ball pitcher, both factors that will give the Cubs trouble. Lowe started twice against the Cubs this year, both times matching up with Zambrano; he got a no-decision after seven shutout innings in the Dodgers' 2-1 loss on May 28, but won the 7-3 Dodgers win in LA on June 7, though he allowed three runs in seven innings in that one. Dempster was also 1-0 with a no-decision against LA, though the Cubs won both games; his start at Wrigley was seven innings of one-run ball.<br /><br />Game Two as scheduled will pit Zambrano against Billingsley. Like Lowe, Billingsley has pitched worse on the road - not surprising for pitchers in a pitcher's park - but not by much, and he's only got a couple bad starts all year. Zambrano, of course, is Zambrano; really, who has any idea what to expect out of him at this point? He might go eight innings and give up three hits, or he might get knocked out in the fourth. His biggest problem is always walks; if he can restrict those and keep himself under emotional control, he could be great. Let's not forget that he turned in a strong start on the road last year in the playoffs after sucking out loud for much of the final two months. The good news is, the Dodgers don't take a ton of walks. The bad news is they pounded 13 hits off him in his June 7 start in LA.<br /><br />Game Three should match up Harden and Kuroda in Los Angeles, where Kuroda blanked the Cubs on June 6. Like Lowe, Kuroda does not issue a lot of walks (in fact, the Dodgers were second in walks allowed, which partially explains their #1 ERA); he's also pitched better at home, though like Billingsley, the split isn't all that wide. Harden is one of the most unhittable pitchers in baseball; in seven of his 12 starts for the Cubs, he's allowed no more than two hits. Two! The only problems, of course, are (1) in three of those starts, he's only gone five innings and (2) he's also got four starts with at least four walks. The piece de resistance was on September 18, when he threw 115 pitches in five innings against the Brewers, walking six and striking out seven. (I believe he also hit the bull mascot twice.) His ERA with the Cubs is 1.77, but that's only so useful if he's forcing you to call the bullpen after five innings. Hopefully he can turn in seven of similar quality in what will likely be yet another pitchers' duel. Harden has been slightly worse on the road this year, but since he's a flyball pitcher when the ball actually gets in play, starting him away from Wrigley Field probably isn't a bad thing.<br /><br />Ted Lilly may be the hottest pitcher the Cubs have; he's gone 16-5 since a 1-4 start, and lowered his ERA to 4.09 after it was over 5.00 as late as June 10. He's pitched particularly well on the road of late, with his last two road starts both seeing him take no-hitters into the seventh inning (and both times at Miller Park). For the season, he's 10-4, 3.77 on the road next to 7-5, 4.50 at home, so throwing him out there on the road in a pitcher's park can't be a bad thing. Of course, he might not make a start in this series depending on how things go. As for who he would face, it's either Lowe on short rest or Maddux, who has been mediocre as a Dodger.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Edge:</span> It's pretty even, which isn't surprising when you have the top two teams in ERA going at it. But because of the home field advantage and the way the pitching lines up with that, I'd probably give a very slight edge to the Cubs, pretty much no more edge than the home field allows for. Obviously a lot of this depends on which Zambrano shows up. A top-of-his-game Zambrano, following a good outing by Dempster, gives the Cubs a good chance of being up 2-0 when heading out west. If Zambrano drops a bomb, that pretty well changes the complexion of the series.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Middle Relief: Carlos Marmol, Jeff Samardzija and the rest vs. Joe Beimel, Jonathan Broxton, Cory Wade, Chan Ho Park and the rest</span><br /><br />The Dodgers have more middle relievers in which I'd be willing to have confidence; the Cubs are pretty much down to two, and frankly I'm not sure I trust Samardzija all that far right now. The Cubs catch a break in that Hong-Chih Kuo, possibly the Dodgers' best reliever, won't be available, but they've got several guys with sub-3.00 ERAs. I don't even know who Piniella wants to take besides the above two since everyone else has been so lousy; I expect Howry will show up on the roster, and at least one of Marshall and Cotts. Kevin Hart has also pitched fairly well since being called back up on September 1. I've gotta think Marmol is the best of this bunch, and in fact he's fifth in baseball in WXRL, a reliever's win expectation over replacement (lineup-adjusted), adding more than five wins to the Cubs, a lot for a guy who pitches under 100 innings. But you go through six Dodgers on the list before you get to another Cub who isn't Wood, and that's Marshall at #125 in baseball. On volume, the Dodgers are better, and more equipped to handle the early departure of a starter.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Edge:</span> Dodgers.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Closer: Kerry Wood vs. Takashi Saito</span><br /><br />Saito was out for two months and has only had one save chance since coming back, but I'm assuming he'll be the closer in the playoffs. Edge to Wood mostly on the freshness count; Saito's stats are comparable to Wood's, with a better ERA, but the Cubs have also handed him a blown save and a loss this year in the two times he came on in either a save situation or a tie.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Slight edge:</span> Cubs.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Put it all together:</span> The Cubs are going to be the favorites, and they should be, but this isn't going to be a cakewalk. In the playoffs, you need good starting pitching, timely hitting, and a bit of luck. Last year the Cubs had none of that. If they want to avoid another, even more serious disappointment, things have to begin with the starters and roll from there; that's how the Red Sox and White Sox broke their droughts (the latter in particular). This should be obvious, of course, but that's what I'll be looking forward to seeing starting Wednesday. This team is the best team in the NL and it should be representing the league in the World Series if it plays up to its potential. Whether or not that happens... that's why they play the games.Flaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12901799425963089054noreply@blogger.com0