Aramis Ramirez returned to the Cubs' lineup today, playing DH. He hit a solo home run in his first at-bat and went 2-for-3, also reaching on a hit-by-pitch, with a run scored and two RBI, as the Cubs beat the Sox 5-1 in the opener. Considering Ramirez tends to be a second-half player, this is a great time for him to be coming back. The fact that he played DH and was pulled for a pinch-runner in the ninth suggests that he's probably not 100% quite yet, but it could just be that Piniella is treating him with kid gloves (certainly not a bad idea). Either way, he might be just what this offense needs right now.
Zambrano had another great outing - eight innings, twelve Ks, one earned run. Don't look now, but his ERA is down to 4.27 after it was 5.77 in April and as high as 5.62 in June (specifically, on June 1, the day of his 13-hit abomination against Atlanta). Since the fight with Barrett, Zambrano is 3-1 with a 1.15 ERA, the only loss coming in the 1-0 game where Zambrano almost threw a no-hitter, then threw a complete-game two-hitter, but lost when the Cubs managed only two hits off the Padres and no runs. By all rights, he should be 4-0 in that time, but either way the ERA speaks for itself. And what I said on April 18 is no longer true - Zambrano is now making himself money with each additional start. I really hope the Cubs' ownership situation gets settled soon, because if they can't offer Zambrano a big contract, he is going to be pitching in New York next year. And that's really going to upset me. As mercurial as Zambrano can be, he's a workhorse and a guy who could be the anchor of the franchise for another decade. He hasn't had the injury problems that derailed his fellow young guns Wood and Prior; he's a guy who will win you 15 games with an ERA in the low 3.00s. You're going to let that walk out the door because he can be emotional? If you ask me, that's just not enough of a liability. (And frankly, can you imagine Zambrano handling the New York media? God forbid he has another April like this one after signing a $120-million contract; they'd eat him alive.)
Fun fact: Rob Bowen has already drawn three walks in two games as the Cubs' starter. Barrett had 17 in 57 games.
Other fun fact: In his first start for the Padres, Barrett struck out three times and allowed a passed ball. (Maybe I shouldn't have wasted energy defending him...)
Fun ancillary recap item: "The White Sox fired senior director of amateur scouting Duane Shaffer after 35 seasons with the team." This is like when Steinbrenner fired the strength coach. Really? The director of amateur scouting? I guess Jerry Owens was a bust, but don't you think that if anyone needed to be fired due to the Sox's recent slump, it should be someone involved with the big club? Maybe I'm crazy.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Make or break
It's somewhat unfortunate that the defining series of the Cubs' season would have to come against the crosstown rival White Sox, but sometimes that's just how things work out. Following a disappointing series loss to the Rangers - currently the second-worst team in baseball, only a half-game ahead of the Reds - the Cubs find themselves 8.5 back in the division, a game behind the Cardinals in third place, and only a game and a half out of fifth. The runs scored/runs allowed ratio has dwindled to 320/303, now worse than Milwaukee's. Since climbing to within five games of first place on June 8, the Cubs are just 5-7, while the Brewers have rebounded after their slump to go 8-3 in the same time period. Meanwhile, the Cardinals keep adding pitching, and while Tomo Ohka and Mike Maroth aren't going to scare the pants off anyone, they're improvements over Anthony Reyes and a sign that St. Louis isn't satisfied with its 301/370 RS/RA ratio.
With the All-Star Break only about two weeks away, it's make-or-break time for the Cubs. Failure to reach .500 by early to mid-July, barring another long slump by the Brewers to keep the division lead accessible, is going to all but stick a fork in the Cubs' season, even if they remain buyers as the trading deadline approaches. (The latest rumor - Ken Griffey Jr. coming over from the Reds - is tantalizing but unlikely, and I'm not sure it even solves any problems this team currently has.)
So why this White Sox series? Because the White Sox have been underachieving as well, possibly even worse than the Cubs have. The Sox are 29-39, already double-digits out in the division and seemingly headed for their first sub-.500 season since 1999 and their first fourth-place finish in the three-division era. Their fans, so giddy just two years ago, are in full-blown depression mode; Bill Simmons talks about a five-year championship grace period, but I think all bets are off once your team stops being the perennial contender that a World Series winner seemingly should. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the Sox's freefall if only because it shuts up their fans (although deprived of the ability to brag about the Sox's success, some are going straight into "mock the Cubs exclusively" mode, which would be a lot worse if it weren't so desperate and pathetic); it's just that this series would probably tell us a lot more about the Cubs if the Sox didn't look quite so bad right now.
That said, the fact that the Sox are playing so poorly does allow us to use this series as something of a barometer for the rest of the season. With the Cubs at seven games under and flirting with falling out of the division race entirely, here are the four potential outcomes of this weekend's series and what they mean:
Cubs sweep 3-0
This result is, quite obviously, the optimal one. First of all, it tells us that the Cubs are capable of rebounding from disappointing series losses to San Diego and Texas. Second of all, it gets the Cubs within four games of .500, a good position to be in as July approaches, when .500 needs to be accessible. Third of all, it shuts up all Sox fans everywhere. And finally, it shows us that the Cubs are capable of beating teams that they should be beating. Did you know that the Cubs have only swept one series all year, over the Nationals at Wrigley on May 4-6? It's true. That was also the second-to-last time the Cubs were over .500 (the last time was two days later, after they lost one game to fall back to .500, then won).
Cubs win 2-1
The Cubs take the season series if they win 2-1, which would give some bragging rights, but this is more important because it involves winning a road series. Ultimately, the Cubs can pull themselves out of their hole without a huge winning streak so long as they can win most of the series they play. A series against a big rival - while not as important as series against the Cardinals or Brewers - would be nicely symbolic. Yes, winning 2 of 3 from a struggling Sox team isn't nearly as good as sweeping a team in freefall, but given how hard it's been for the Cubs to sweep anyone, I'd take the series win. The Cubs would pick up a game on .500 - a start - and with a series against Milwaukee looming next weekend, hopefully gain some needed momentum.
Cubs lose 2-1
A series loss would hurt. The Sox are not a good team right now and have trouble scoring runs, which leaves the Cubs with little excuse. That plus Aramis Ramirez's return means that there's absolutely no reason the Cubs shouldn't be winning these games 6-2 (except for the fact that they're the Cubs). Two losses means either the starting pitching got roughed up - a problem since the Cubs throw their three best recent starters at the Sox - or that the offense struggled - a problem since the Sox's pitching has not impressed lately - or perhaps that the bullpen turned back into a pumpkin. No matter why it happens, it's going to be emblematic of larger problems likely to keep the Cubs from making any runs at the division.
Cubs get swept
Absolute devastation. In addition to forcing the fans to endure the taunts and jibes of Sox fans for the rest of the year, this would drop the Cubs to ten games under .500 and would probably expose numerous gaping flaws in the team that aren't going to be fixed this year. If this happens, just stop watching the Cubs for the rest of the season, because they aren't going to be doing jack shit.
With the All-Star Break only about two weeks away, it's make-or-break time for the Cubs. Failure to reach .500 by early to mid-July, barring another long slump by the Brewers to keep the division lead accessible, is going to all but stick a fork in the Cubs' season, even if they remain buyers as the trading deadline approaches. (The latest rumor - Ken Griffey Jr. coming over from the Reds - is tantalizing but unlikely, and I'm not sure it even solves any problems this team currently has.)
So why this White Sox series? Because the White Sox have been underachieving as well, possibly even worse than the Cubs have. The Sox are 29-39, already double-digits out in the division and seemingly headed for their first sub-.500 season since 1999 and their first fourth-place finish in the three-division era. Their fans, so giddy just two years ago, are in full-blown depression mode; Bill Simmons talks about a five-year championship grace period, but I think all bets are off once your team stops being the perennial contender that a World Series winner seemingly should. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the Sox's freefall if only because it shuts up their fans (although deprived of the ability to brag about the Sox's success, some are going straight into "mock the Cubs exclusively" mode, which would be a lot worse if it weren't so desperate and pathetic); it's just that this series would probably tell us a lot more about the Cubs if the Sox didn't look quite so bad right now.
That said, the fact that the Sox are playing so poorly does allow us to use this series as something of a barometer for the rest of the season. With the Cubs at seven games under and flirting with falling out of the division race entirely, here are the four potential outcomes of this weekend's series and what they mean:
Cubs sweep 3-0
This result is, quite obviously, the optimal one. First of all, it tells us that the Cubs are capable of rebounding from disappointing series losses to San Diego and Texas. Second of all, it gets the Cubs within four games of .500, a good position to be in as July approaches, when .500 needs to be accessible. Third of all, it shuts up all Sox fans everywhere. And finally, it shows us that the Cubs are capable of beating teams that they should be beating. Did you know that the Cubs have only swept one series all year, over the Nationals at Wrigley on May 4-6? It's true. That was also the second-to-last time the Cubs were over .500 (the last time was two days later, after they lost one game to fall back to .500, then won).
Cubs win 2-1
The Cubs take the season series if they win 2-1, which would give some bragging rights, but this is more important because it involves winning a road series. Ultimately, the Cubs can pull themselves out of their hole without a huge winning streak so long as they can win most of the series they play. A series against a big rival - while not as important as series against the Cardinals or Brewers - would be nicely symbolic. Yes, winning 2 of 3 from a struggling Sox team isn't nearly as good as sweeping a team in freefall, but given how hard it's been for the Cubs to sweep anyone, I'd take the series win. The Cubs would pick up a game on .500 - a start - and with a series against Milwaukee looming next weekend, hopefully gain some needed momentum.
Cubs lose 2-1
A series loss would hurt. The Sox are not a good team right now and have trouble scoring runs, which leaves the Cubs with little excuse. That plus Aramis Ramirez's return means that there's absolutely no reason the Cubs shouldn't be winning these games 6-2 (except for the fact that they're the Cubs). Two losses means either the starting pitching got roughed up - a problem since the Cubs throw their three best recent starters at the Sox - or that the offense struggled - a problem since the Sox's pitching has not impressed lately - or perhaps that the bullpen turned back into a pumpkin. No matter why it happens, it's going to be emblematic of larger problems likely to keep the Cubs from making any runs at the division.
Cubs get swept
Absolute devastation. In addition to forcing the fans to endure the taunts and jibes of Sox fans for the rest of the year, this would drop the Cubs to ten games under .500 and would probably expose numerous gaping flaws in the team that aren't going to be fixed this year. If this happens, just stop watching the Cubs for the rest of the season, because they aren't going to be doing jack shit.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
All things must pass (especially baseballs)
As ESPN.com reported a couple hours ago and Cubs.com now confirms, the Cubs traded Michael Barrett and cash to the Padres today for backup catcher Rob Bowen and a single-A prospect.
I'm not sure how to feel about it. There seem to be two schools of thought on the trade:
(a) Barrett wasn't that bad; we should have gotten more back for him; it was pointless.
(b) Barrett was that bad, and even if he wasn't, there was too much personality conflict; he was a free agent anyway and probably wouldn't be resigned, so at least we got something for him.
I could argue that I'm of both schools. There's little doubt in my mind that this was mostly a dump job for personality reasons. As I argued last week, Barrett's offensive contributions - at least compared to the Blanco/Hill plate nightmare - tend to outweigh whatever defensive liabilities he brings to the table. However, historically, Barrett has both been better offensively and better defensively (this is his first year with the Cubs that his fielding percentage has been below league average for catchers). Last year he hit .307; this year, that's his OBP. His power numbers are on pace to set career highs, but that isn't everything. I'm not in the clubhouse, so I can't say just how much of a personality conflict existed there - most of his teammates insisted publicly there was no problem, but it seems like management didn't feel the same way.
You could certainly argue that we didn't get enough back for him - a backup catcher and a single-A prospect? Said prospect is rated okay, but certainly isn't a big-league player within the next year or two. The Cubs have a recent history of getting decent throw-ins (Fontenot came over in the Sosa deal, for example), but you've got to wait for those to pay off. If they do.
As for Bowen - is he the new backup, with Hill starting? Is he the new backup with Geovany Soto (who has been hitting like crazy at Iowa) called up to start? Is he the new starter with either Hill or Soto serving as backup? Honestly, who knows. Perhaps the Cubs felt that the catcher's offense just wasn't important enough - hell, check out 2003, when the Cubs won the division with the #8 hole mostly filled with Damian Miller (.233/.310/.369, 9 HR/36 RBI) and Paul Bako (.229/.311/.330, 0 HR/17 RBI). That's a pretty pitiful offensive contribution - Barrett already matched that homer total and had more than half the RBIs, while hitting 25 points higher or so.
On overall talent, this team is better than that team. So a minimal downgrade at catcher - assuming there is enough defensive improvement to statistically account for most of the offensive loss, and if whoever takes over as the starter finds the bat at least a little, it could - shouldn't make that much of a difference, so long as Lee and Soriano keep producing, Ramirez comes back soon, and the pitching stays solid. (Fingers crossed.)
I guess this trade was inevitable. Do I wish we could have gotten a little more back? Sure. But then you don't get much back for guys who:
(a) Are widely considered defensive liabilities at their position and aren't even hitting great this year;
(b) Have been in at least two fights in the past year and seem to have personality issues;
(c) Will be free agents at the end of the year;
(d) Everyone knows you've been looking to trade for weeks.
So, I guess I can live with it. I just hope we don't regret dealing away Barrett's offense in three months.
I'm not sure how to feel about it. There seem to be two schools of thought on the trade:
(a) Barrett wasn't that bad; we should have gotten more back for him; it was pointless.
(b) Barrett was that bad, and even if he wasn't, there was too much personality conflict; he was a free agent anyway and probably wouldn't be resigned, so at least we got something for him.
I could argue that I'm of both schools. There's little doubt in my mind that this was mostly a dump job for personality reasons. As I argued last week, Barrett's offensive contributions - at least compared to the Blanco/Hill plate nightmare - tend to outweigh whatever defensive liabilities he brings to the table. However, historically, Barrett has both been better offensively and better defensively (this is his first year with the Cubs that his fielding percentage has been below league average for catchers). Last year he hit .307; this year, that's his OBP. His power numbers are on pace to set career highs, but that isn't everything. I'm not in the clubhouse, so I can't say just how much of a personality conflict existed there - most of his teammates insisted publicly there was no problem, but it seems like management didn't feel the same way.
You could certainly argue that we didn't get enough back for him - a backup catcher and a single-A prospect? Said prospect is rated okay, but certainly isn't a big-league player within the next year or two. The Cubs have a recent history of getting decent throw-ins (Fontenot came over in the Sosa deal, for example), but you've got to wait for those to pay off. If they do.
As for Bowen - is he the new backup, with Hill starting? Is he the new backup with Geovany Soto (who has been hitting like crazy at Iowa) called up to start? Is he the new starter with either Hill or Soto serving as backup? Honestly, who knows. Perhaps the Cubs felt that the catcher's offense just wasn't important enough - hell, check out 2003, when the Cubs won the division with the #8 hole mostly filled with Damian Miller (.233/.310/.369, 9 HR/36 RBI) and Paul Bako (.229/.311/.330, 0 HR/17 RBI). That's a pretty pitiful offensive contribution - Barrett already matched that homer total and had more than half the RBIs, while hitting 25 points higher or so.
On overall talent, this team is better than that team. So a minimal downgrade at catcher - assuming there is enough defensive improvement to statistically account for most of the offensive loss, and if whoever takes over as the starter finds the bat at least a little, it could - shouldn't make that much of a difference, so long as Lee and Soriano keep producing, Ramirez comes back soon, and the pitching stays solid. (Fingers crossed.)
I guess this trade was inevitable. Do I wish we could have gotten a little more back? Sure. But then you don't get much back for guys who:
(a) Are widely considered defensive liabilities at their position and aren't even hitting great this year;
(b) Have been in at least two fights in the past year and seem to have personality issues;
(c) Will be free agents at the end of the year;
(d) Everyone knows you've been looking to trade for weeks.
So, I guess I can live with it. I just hope we don't regret dealing away Barrett's offense in three months.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
In defense of Michael Barrett
Yes, no one would claim that Michael Barrett is the perfect catcher. He's had some baserunning blunders, his hitting has been less reliable this year than usual (though his power numbers are about normal), and his defense is hardly stellar. But before you say that he has to go - as my dad said to me tonight, precipitating all this - let's look at, you know, the actual stats.
Offense
Barrett is hitting .250 this year, which ranks him just 11th among 17 "qualified" catchers on ESPN.com. His .734 OPS ranks him 9th in that group, still not great. But Barrett's career averages are .267 and .756, and last year they were .307 and .885, both career highs. This year's slow start notwithstanding, signs suggest Barrett is getting better as a hitter. He's on pace for more homers and RBI this year than in any previous, as well.
Henry Blanco has a career BA of .224 and a career OPS of .654. So far this year he's hitting .194 and .481 (admittedly in very limited pre-DL time). Koyie Hill, called up when Blanco went on the DL, has one hit in 16 big-league at-bats. (You could talk about Barrett's baserunning blunders here, but it's not like Blanco has any speed to speak of, so it's doubtful he'd make any kind of significant upgrade on the basepaths just because Barrett has made a couple gaffes.)
Yes, it's possible you could replace Barrett's bat if you traded him. But if his defense is as bad as claimed, who would trade as good or better a bat for him? (And you'd really need a better bat to compensate for then having the 8-hole filled with someone who is probably doing pretty much nothing every time up.) On offense, Barrett wins.
Defense
Barrett has eight passed balls this year, which is not good. (By comparison, he had ten all of last year. The Gold Glove winner, Brad Ausmus, had one.) Of course, some of that is the staff he catches; they tend to be kind of wild. Still, 8 passed balls leads the majors. (Although Bengie Molina, who I think most people would say "Oh, good defensive catcher" about, has seven.) But Blanco has two passed balls in just ten starts. Barrett has 48 starts. If Blanco had 48 starts, he would have 10 passed balls, assuming accurate extrapolation. The point is: this is a hard staff to catch and Barrett is probably not doing a significantly worse job of it than anyone else would be, or at least not a worse job than Blanco. (Koyie Hill has no passed balls yet in four starts. Give that man the starting job!)
"Calls a good game"
This is something that is always offered to a catcher as praise even though it's totally nebulous and no one can really define it as anything other than "the pitcher's outing was good." If you have someone like Greg Maddux, say, who studies film rigorously, and he goes out and throws a one-hitter, did the catcher call a good game, or is Maddux hard-working and awesome? I wouldn't say that catchers have no effect on pitchers, but it's one of those probably-overrated intangible things that "baseball men" use as a way of avoiding sabermetrics.
"Catcher's ERA" is a ludicrously rough tool, but it's one way to look at how good a game someone has been calling. It's just the ERA of the pitchers while throwing to that catcher. For the Cubs, it looks like this:
Michael Barrett: 4.11
Henry Blanco: 4.04
Koyie Hill: 1.58
Barrett is #7 among qualified catchers in the majors. Doesn't sound too bad, and aside from Jason Kendall - whose Oakland staff has been ridonkulous so far - Barrett is within just over half a run of the top. But oh, look! Blanco is at 4.04!
In other words, over the course of 162 games, Michael Barrett will give up about 11 more runs thanks to the shittiness with which he calls games. That's one extra run (earned run, to be completely accurate) every 15 games.
Meanwhile, Michael Barrett's career RC/27 (that's runs created per 27 outs) is 4.85; Blanco's is 3.43. Which means that, for his career, Michael Barrett has, as an offensive player, been worth 1.42 runs more than Henry Blanco every seven games or so. Meaning that in the 15 games in which Barrett is allowing one more run, he's leading to roughly three more than Blanco is. Over the course of a season, a team caught exclusively by Henry Blanco and featuring nine Henry Blancos at the plate will give up 654.48 runs and score 555.66, and thus probably lose a lot. A team caught exclusively by Michael Barrett and featuring nine Michael Barretts at the plate will give up 665.82 runs, but it will also score 785.7, and almost certainly win way more games than the Hank White All-Stars.
It should be noted that the RC/27 number is career, since I didn't want to penalize Blanco too unjustly for his limited time this year. I did use his CERA from this year since that's the number my dad was so quick to cite. "Zambrano's ERA was much better to Blanco and Hill than it was to Barrett!" That may be so; it's obvious that Zambrano and Barrett have had their issues. But Zambrano is still just one pitcher on this staff; the others seem to have no more trouble pitching to Barrett than to Blanco. Barrett's slightly higher CERA, after all, was compiled in five times as many innings as Blanco's number, making it a little more impressive. (Hill's 1.58 is in four total starts, which is why I didn't even bother addressing it.)
In conclusion, everybody just calm down. Barrett's having a mediocre stretch, but the stats suggest he's just fine overall, and certainly better than anything else we have, in sum total. The potential slight advantage in Blanco/Hill CERA - if you even buy that CERA has much of anything to do with the actual catcher - is grossly outweighed by the drain on the lineup they'd be compared to Barrett. The stats have spoken.
Offense
Barrett is hitting .250 this year, which ranks him just 11th among 17 "qualified" catchers on ESPN.com. His .734 OPS ranks him 9th in that group, still not great. But Barrett's career averages are .267 and .756, and last year they were .307 and .885, both career highs. This year's slow start notwithstanding, signs suggest Barrett is getting better as a hitter. He's on pace for more homers and RBI this year than in any previous, as well.
Henry Blanco has a career BA of .224 and a career OPS of .654. So far this year he's hitting .194 and .481 (admittedly in very limited pre-DL time). Koyie Hill, called up when Blanco went on the DL, has one hit in 16 big-league at-bats. (You could talk about Barrett's baserunning blunders here, but it's not like Blanco has any speed to speak of, so it's doubtful he'd make any kind of significant upgrade on the basepaths just because Barrett has made a couple gaffes.)
Yes, it's possible you could replace Barrett's bat if you traded him. But if his defense is as bad as claimed, who would trade as good or better a bat for him? (And you'd really need a better bat to compensate for then having the 8-hole filled with someone who is probably doing pretty much nothing every time up.) On offense, Barrett wins.
Defense
Barrett has eight passed balls this year, which is not good. (By comparison, he had ten all of last year. The Gold Glove winner, Brad Ausmus, had one.) Of course, some of that is the staff he catches; they tend to be kind of wild. Still, 8 passed balls leads the majors. (Although Bengie Molina, who I think most people would say "Oh, good defensive catcher" about, has seven.) But Blanco has two passed balls in just ten starts. Barrett has 48 starts. If Blanco had 48 starts, he would have 10 passed balls, assuming accurate extrapolation. The point is: this is a hard staff to catch and Barrett is probably not doing a significantly worse job of it than anyone else would be, or at least not a worse job than Blanco. (Koyie Hill has no passed balls yet in four starts. Give that man the starting job!)
"Calls a good game"
This is something that is always offered to a catcher as praise even though it's totally nebulous and no one can really define it as anything other than "the pitcher's outing was good." If you have someone like Greg Maddux, say, who studies film rigorously, and he goes out and throws a one-hitter, did the catcher call a good game, or is Maddux hard-working and awesome? I wouldn't say that catchers have no effect on pitchers, but it's one of those probably-overrated intangible things that "baseball men" use as a way of avoiding sabermetrics.
"Catcher's ERA" is a ludicrously rough tool, but it's one way to look at how good a game someone has been calling. It's just the ERA of the pitchers while throwing to that catcher. For the Cubs, it looks like this:
Michael Barrett: 4.11
Henry Blanco: 4.04
Koyie Hill: 1.58
Barrett is #7 among qualified catchers in the majors. Doesn't sound too bad, and aside from Jason Kendall - whose Oakland staff has been ridonkulous so far - Barrett is within just over half a run of the top. But oh, look! Blanco is at 4.04!
In other words, over the course of 162 games, Michael Barrett will give up about 11 more runs thanks to the shittiness with which he calls games. That's one extra run (earned run, to be completely accurate) every 15 games.
Meanwhile, Michael Barrett's career RC/27 (that's runs created per 27 outs) is 4.85; Blanco's is 3.43. Which means that, for his career, Michael Barrett has, as an offensive player, been worth 1.42 runs more than Henry Blanco every seven games or so. Meaning that in the 15 games in which Barrett is allowing one more run, he's leading to roughly three more than Blanco is. Over the course of a season, a team caught exclusively by Henry Blanco and featuring nine Henry Blancos at the plate will give up 654.48 runs and score 555.66, and thus probably lose a lot. A team caught exclusively by Michael Barrett and featuring nine Michael Barretts at the plate will give up 665.82 runs, but it will also score 785.7, and almost certainly win way more games than the Hank White All-Stars.
It should be noted that the RC/27 number is career, since I didn't want to penalize Blanco too unjustly for his limited time this year. I did use his CERA from this year since that's the number my dad was so quick to cite. "Zambrano's ERA was much better to Blanco and Hill than it was to Barrett!" That may be so; it's obvious that Zambrano and Barrett have had their issues. But Zambrano is still just one pitcher on this staff; the others seem to have no more trouble pitching to Barrett than to Blanco. Barrett's slightly higher CERA, after all, was compiled in five times as many innings as Blanco's number, making it a little more impressive. (Hill's 1.58 is in four total starts, which is why I didn't even bother addressing it.)
In conclusion, everybody just calm down. Barrett's having a mediocre stretch, but the stats suggest he's just fine overall, and certainly better than anything else we have, in sum total. The potential slight advantage in Blanco/Hill CERA - if you even buy that CERA has much of anything to do with the actual catcher - is grossly outweighed by the drain on the lineup they'd be compared to Barrett. The stats have spoken.
Extra painful
Once again, the Cubs lose in extras and look bad doing it. It's bad enough that they blew a bases-loaded, no-out situation for the second time in four days (both times where a single would have all but locked up the game); the really disappointing part is the disappearing act in extra innings again. This team is now 1-6 in extra frames and frankly it's amazing they even got one win, so cold do the bats go once the inning number rolls into double figures. In four extra innings, the Cubs had four baserunners, but three of those were in the bottom of the 13th already down 5-3. And the fourth was an infield single that probably could have been called an error and wasn't. In that same timespan? Six strikeouts. The Mariners' bullpen is pretty good, I'll grant, but ugh. Not good times.
There's talk about Barrett's baserunning (again) and the inability to cash in the bases-loaded, no-out jam (again), but for me the worst move of the game was leaving Ohman in once he'd given up the double to Vidro. Ohman is used to going an inning or less; now he's on his ninth batter faced in Bloomquist (although Betancourt, having been intentionally walked, doesn't really count for this discussion), who isn't even a lefty! Gallagher was ready in the pen; I know he's a recent call-up, but Ohman clearly looked gassed (besides the fact that he sucks).
Naturally, Ohman gives up two runs and the Cubs lose another one. (The whole "Barrett can't find the ball" thing was weird, but it seemed like it just kind of squirted out of his glove as he started to come up... I mean, that'll happen. Frankly it's amazing that Jones got the ball to the plate at all, so I'm hesitant to pin the blame on the defense here.) Even more naturally, we had to get teased with a two-on, one-out in the bottom of the inning before Soriano was pitched around (shock of shocks) and Hill grounded out. (Another second-guess: why hit Hill there? Sure, he's an "actual batter," but given how he's looked at the plate, why not take your chances with Marquis? I mean, he's a better pro hitter right now.)
So of course, no ground gained on the Brewers (even as they were no-hit!) and the Cardinals are still right there. Plus the suddenly kind of annoying Astros won again. I really hate following this teamevery day of my life sometimes.
There's talk about Barrett's baserunning (again) and the inability to cash in the bases-loaded, no-out jam (again), but for me the worst move of the game was leaving Ohman in once he'd given up the double to Vidro. Ohman is used to going an inning or less; now he's on his ninth batter faced in Bloomquist (although Betancourt, having been intentionally walked, doesn't really count for this discussion), who isn't even a lefty! Gallagher was ready in the pen; I know he's a recent call-up, but Ohman clearly looked gassed (besides the fact that he sucks).
Naturally, Ohman gives up two runs and the Cubs lose another one. (The whole "Barrett can't find the ball" thing was weird, but it seemed like it just kind of squirted out of his glove as he started to come up... I mean, that'll happen. Frankly it's amazing that Jones got the ball to the plate at all, so I'm hesitant to pin the blame on the defense here.) Even more naturally, we had to get teased with a two-on, one-out in the bottom of the inning before Soriano was pitched around (shock of shocks) and Hill grounded out. (Another second-guess: why hit Hill there? Sure, he's an "actual batter," but given how he's looked at the plate, why not take your chances with Marquis? I mean, he's a better pro hitter right now.)
So of course, no ground gained on the Brewers (even as they were no-hit!) and the Cardinals are still right there. Plus the suddenly kind of annoying Astros won again. I really hate following this team
Monday, June 11, 2007
Pick 'em up
We needed a big game from Zambrano and we got it. I'm a little bothered that he threw 128 pitches, and he seemed pretty gassed by the time he finished the eighth - but he struck out eight, allowed just five baserunners (three hits, a walk and a hit batsman), and hit 96 on the gun early in the game. And, of course, he hit what turned out to be the game-winning home run into the left-field seats. All told it was a fun game to be at, unless you like a lot of hits. I don't mind a good old-fashioned pitchers' duel, though (in fact, many of the Cubs' games I've attended have turned out to be such), although it was a little frustrating to see the offense struggle. (To be fair, a lot of balls were pretty well hit and just found gloves. Mike Lamb's liner stab and scramble to first to double Lee off, for example; pretty lucky on Houston's part.) I know Ramirez is out, but Lee has looked off for a couple weeks - he seems to be taking too many pitches. If I had a dollar for every third strike he's looked at in the past week, I could have a pretty big lunch tomorrow.
Still, good to see the bullpen get some rest, even if it meant a ton of pitches for Big Z (he seems to be one of the few guys capable of handling that workload, but I'm biting my tongue here), after getting shredded last night, and good to see Dempster rebound. And good to see a win when I'm actually in the ballpark. By my count I'm actually 6-1 since returning to Chicago for school in 2000, including five straight since 2001. Maybe I should go more often.
Still, good to see the bullpen get some rest, even if it meant a ton of pitches for Big Z (he seems to be one of the few guys capable of handling that workload, but I'm biting my tongue here), after getting shredded last night, and good to see Dempster rebound. And good to see a win when I'm actually in the ballpark. By my count I'm actually 6-1 since returning to Chicago for school in 2000, including five straight since 2001. Maybe I should go more often.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Same old sorry-ass Cubs
Between 1990 and 1998, the San Francisco 49ers beat the Los Angeles/St. Louis Rams seventeen times in a row. In the midst of this run, the Niners came to St. Louis for the first time in 1995 with the Rams in their new home and supposedly improved. San Francisco ran away with the game, and a 49ers player was quoted as saying, "Same old sorry-ass Rams."
I mention this because the title of this post, a paraphrase of the Rams quote, was what popped into my head after the conclusion of tonight's game, the second straight devastating loss in a row just when we thought the Cubs were turning the corner on their season.
First came last night, of course - when the Cubs put up a four-spot against Atlanta's best starter, Tim Hudson, in the top of the first and then saw him leave the game early, it looked like things were steaming along nicely. Then Jason Marquis laid a six-run egg, going just an inning and two-thirds, the bats fell asleep for the rest of the game, and the final score was 9-5.
Taken by itself, of course, those games are bound to happen occasionally. And with the good fortune of having John Smoltz pushed back again, the Cubs looked like they could still win the series - three out of four on the road would have been huge. So what happened?
Ted Lilly hit Edgar Renteria in the first inning, and because it appeared to be retaliation for the Braves' having hit Soriano on Saturday, Lilly got ejected. This forced the pitching scramble that, ultimately, led to the loss.
Marmol, Ohman, Wuertz and Howry took the Cubs through the seventh with a 4-2 lead. In the top of the eighth, a great time for insurance runs, the Cubs loaded the bases with no outs - but Mike Fontenot, who had homered to lead off the seventh, hit into a double play, and no runs scored.
Although four relief pitchers had already been used, I'm not sure about Piniella's decision to send out Dempster in the eighth. Was he hoping Dempster could go two innings? He must have been; with Eyre and Gallagher - who had both pitched multiple innings on Saturday - the only other relievers on the bench, and Howry having pitched two innings already, Dempster going two was the only way the Cubs were going to get out of it with a win.
As it turned out, Dempster avoided having to go two by absolutely gagging up the game. First he gave up a double. Then he gave up another double; 4-3. Then he gave up a single. First and third, still no outs. Willie Harris, on first, stole second; now Dempster walks Kelly Johnson intentionally to load the bases. He induces a double play, but the tying run scores and Harris moves to third. Dempster proceeds to walk the bases loaded again, and then throws a wild pitch, allowing Harris to score the go-ahead run. Soriano and Pie hit a couple long flies in the top of the ninth, but the Cubs lose 5-4.
I said before the series that I'd take a 2-2 split on the road. But Jesus, like this? Marquis shitting the bed on Saturday and the bullpen getting shredded on Sunday? Derrek Lee going 0-for-4 on Sunday to continue his June funk, lowering his average to .332? (Granted, not having Ramirez for protection is hurting, but ugh. .233 in the last week and an OBP higher than his slugging?) This should have been 3-1 at least, probably 4-0. And the same stuff that always bites the Cubs in the ass did it again.
Zambrano starts tomorrow in the makeup game against Houston. I'll be there. Hopefully the real Zambrano is too.
I mention this because the title of this post, a paraphrase of the Rams quote, was what popped into my head after the conclusion of tonight's game, the second straight devastating loss in a row just when we thought the Cubs were turning the corner on their season.
First came last night, of course - when the Cubs put up a four-spot against Atlanta's best starter, Tim Hudson, in the top of the first and then saw him leave the game early, it looked like things were steaming along nicely. Then Jason Marquis laid a six-run egg, going just an inning and two-thirds, the bats fell asleep for the rest of the game, and the final score was 9-5.
Taken by itself, of course, those games are bound to happen occasionally. And with the good fortune of having John Smoltz pushed back again, the Cubs looked like they could still win the series - three out of four on the road would have been huge. So what happened?
Ted Lilly hit Edgar Renteria in the first inning, and because it appeared to be retaliation for the Braves' having hit Soriano on Saturday, Lilly got ejected. This forced the pitching scramble that, ultimately, led to the loss.
Marmol, Ohman, Wuertz and Howry took the Cubs through the seventh with a 4-2 lead. In the top of the eighth, a great time for insurance runs, the Cubs loaded the bases with no outs - but Mike Fontenot, who had homered to lead off the seventh, hit into a double play, and no runs scored.
Although four relief pitchers had already been used, I'm not sure about Piniella's decision to send out Dempster in the eighth. Was he hoping Dempster could go two innings? He must have been; with Eyre and Gallagher - who had both pitched multiple innings on Saturday - the only other relievers on the bench, and Howry having pitched two innings already, Dempster going two was the only way the Cubs were going to get out of it with a win.
As it turned out, Dempster avoided having to go two by absolutely gagging up the game. First he gave up a double. Then he gave up another double; 4-3. Then he gave up a single. First and third, still no outs. Willie Harris, on first, stole second; now Dempster walks Kelly Johnson intentionally to load the bases. He induces a double play, but the tying run scores and Harris moves to third. Dempster proceeds to walk the bases loaded again, and then throws a wild pitch, allowing Harris to score the go-ahead run. Soriano and Pie hit a couple long flies in the top of the ninth, but the Cubs lose 5-4.
I said before the series that I'd take a 2-2 split on the road. But Jesus, like this? Marquis shitting the bed on Saturday and the bullpen getting shredded on Sunday? Derrek Lee going 0-for-4 on Sunday to continue his June funk, lowering his average to .332? (Granted, not having Ramirez for protection is hurting, but ugh. .233 in the last week and an OBP higher than his slugging?) This should have been 3-1 at least, probably 4-0. And the same stuff that always bites the Cubs in the ass did it again.
Zambrano starts tomorrow in the makeup game against Houston. I'll be there. Hopefully the real Zambrano is too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)