To: White Sox
From: MLB
Contents: One gift-wrapped three-game sweep
My dad frequently resorts to the old "it was fixed" angle whenever he's watching any game with shady officiating. My standard response in these situations is that the officiating was merely incompetent, and that no conspiracy is afoot. But you watch a series like the Cubs/White Sox series at US Cellular this weekend and it's really hard to come to a different conclusion. Incompetent officiating is nothing new, but it's rare to see officiating so blatantly one-sided. I watched most of the Saturday game and the first two innings of Sunday night's game, until the point where it was apparent the umpires had no intention of calling the game fairly. And while I obviously have my rooting interest, at no point did I feel like the Cubs were getting a fair shake.
If an umpire has a bad strike zone, that's one thing - if he enforces it the same way for everyone. That certainly didn't happen in Sunday night's game - Buehrle had to throw a pitch either above the shoulders or in the dirt for it to be a ball. Everything else was a strike. Pitches six inches outside and two inches below the knee were routinely strikes, as they had been the previous day for the White Sox relievers. How a team is expected to produce any offense when those kinds of pitches are strikes is beyond me. It wasn't a problem for the White Sox, of course, because the Cubs' strike zone was half the size. Marshall threw a curveball that should have struck Thome out; ESPN even showed the K-Zone replay showing that it was an obvious strike. It was called a ball; on the next pitch, Thome singled. On Saturday, the plate umpire was making his own judgment on check swings, something which is virtually never seen; most of the times he did it, a Cub was at the plate. On Sunday, Crede checked his swing well through the hitting zone; it was called no swing. When Piniella came out to argue, he was tossed by the plate umpire even as his back was turned to said umpire.
The crew was part minor league umpires, so maybe they were just staggeringly incompetent. But they really were just incredibly, bafflingly incompetent. And it's amazing to think that they could be so incompetent just against the Cubs. Maybe it was just home-field bias and not actually a sinister plot to have the White Sox win, but even if that's the case, it exposes a real problem in the way baseball is officiated. And it makes me laugh when I hear people talk about how horrible replay would be, because the "human element" needs to be preserved. You know what? When the "human element" is this fucking terrible, who needs it?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Double your agony
We're through 80 games. It's not quite half the season, but here's one way to think about it. I realized this season that it was dangerous to get too obsessed with the results of a single game, which has helped to keep me sane while following the Cubs on a daily basis. Think about a football season - there are only 16 games, so a single game might make or break you, but in baseball, where there are ten times as many games, you could consider each ten-game stretch to be "make or break." Individual games, probably not so much.
At least that's what I tell myself on days like today. I looked it up - the last time the Cubs gave up 10 runs or more in back to back games was August 27-28, 2006, a 10-6 loss at St. Louis followed by an 11-6 loss at Pittsburgh. Of course, those Cubs were well on their way to 96 losses, were starting Freddie Bynum at second, and started Les Walrond in the Cardinals game. This Cubs team, meanwhile, should be on its way to 96 wins. Hasn't looked like it the last couple days, though.
I don't know about Marquis, but I've always been a bit worried about Dempster. On Monday night, the guys on ESPN 1000 were talking about Dempster and asking if Cubs fans were sold on him (this was the night after he'd beaten the Sox 7-1 to complete the sweep at Wrigley). I considered calling in and saying that I wasn't because of BABIP, but I figured that wouldn't get me too far on talk radio.
But you look at Dempster's stats and it's clear he's been walking a bit of a tightrope. Going into today's game, his BABIP was .238; league average tends to be around .300. In fact, his BABIP used to be much lower, but in his last two starts before today it was .375 (and I doubt it got any lower today). He was still getting away with it - last Sunday, he allowed ten hits, but just one run, thanks in part to three double plays behind him.
It's kind of been the story of the Cubs' staff as a whole this year, with the possible exception of Lilly, who's still very much a flyball pitcher:
Dempster: 15 starts (before today); games in which the majority of balls put in play against him were not ground balls: 1.
Zambrano: 15 starts; games in which the majority of balls put in play against him were not ground balls: 5.
Marquis: 15 starts; games in which the majority of balls put in play against him were not ground balls: 3.
(For comparison's sake, Lilly: 17 starts; games in which the majority of balls put in play against him were not ground balls: 13.)
This is why Lilly can give up a bunch of home runs - he allows a lot of fly balls. Similarly, if you give up a lot of ground balls and line drives, you can have a bad day and give up a lot of hits. It doesn't help that, because of various injuries, the Cubs' defensive alignment is a little bit of a mess right now. Your starters in the field today: Lee (1B), Fontenot (2B), Cedeno (SS), Ramirez (3B), Patterson (LF), Edmonds (CF), Ward (RF). Not exactly optimal - Ward has so little foot speed that he's usually pulled for a pinch-runner immediately after getting on base when he pinch hits, and Patterson is a second baseman by nature; he botched a ball in left so terribly (it enabled Pierzynski to go to third on a single) that after the game Piniella said that Patterson wouldn't be put in left field any more. (I can't help but wonder if this means he's going back to Iowa; we've already got several players on the roster capable of playing second, including the left-handed Fontenot, meaning speed is the only thing that's going to keep Patterson with the big club.)
The Cubs are third in the NL in defensive efficiency, and the defense has been a huge part of the equation as the pitchers have started pitching more to contact. (Lilly's 8.67 K/9 leads the starters; Dempster's at 7.45, Gallagher 7.36, Zambrano 5.76, and Marquis is at 4.64. Two years ago, Zambrano was at 8.83.) This has reduced walks - Zambrano's on pace for just 72, the lowest since he became a full-time starter - but it can also increase hits if balls are finding their ways through holes. Zambrano has already allowed 105 hits; as a result, even with his walks way down, he's on pace for the second-worst WHIP of his career (since becoming a full-time starter). His BABIP against is .296; you can see where Dempster's .238 might worry me.
In other words, he was probably due to have a day like today, especially when the defense wasn't really backing him up. Listening to the broadcast until things started getting ugly, it sounded like Dempster was getting pretty unlucky - soft singles finding gaps, doubles down the line, a ball right over Fontenot's head that DeRosa, a taller man, might have caught. Then, of course, after Dempster had given up four straight hits (three of which drove in runs) in the third, he started shying away from pitching to contact, and that's when he walked the bases loaded. And then he had to throw shit over the plate, and we ended up with Swisher's grand slam. And that's the ballgame, basically.
So, there are reasons to be concerned - to some degree you might consider today as statistical inevitability catching up to him a bit - but also reasons to feel a little better than we otherwise might; when the optimal defensive alignment is on the field, Dempster's likely to be a more effective pitcher. His normalized runs allowed number is 3.14; independent of defense, it's 3.53. If the defense can stay above average, things should be okay. As long as his arm can hold up, of course.
What I am a little worried about now is the rest of this series, given that the Seans are going. Gallagher needs to give us at least six tomorrow; with Lieber having thrown 3.1 today, he's probably not going to be available until Sunday at the earliest, which leaves the pen with no long man should Gallagher have any struggles like Dempster or Marquis. (And we all know how much better an offensive team at home the Sox are - comparably so to the Cubs, in fact. Gallagher has been pretty good at not allowing runs recently - high of 3 in his last five starts, and he allowed just an unearned run in Tampa on the 19th only to be screwed out of a win by Marmol's blowup. Maybe this won't be so bad. But the Cubs have got to score runs for him. In only two innings today was no one on base, but Lee hit into a double play in the first and another in the third with the bases loaded. Coming when it did - the Cubs were still down just 1-0 - you could argue that the latter swung the momentum of the entire game, although if the Sox still scored 7 runs the next half-inning then it wouldn't have mattered much, probably. But what could have been a couple runs was a rally-killing, inning-ender, and then in the bottom of the inning the Sox put the game out of reach.)
Anyway, this is long enough. But I will say that I'm not concerned yet about these last couple games. However, if you look at the season in groups of ten games, and we're through the first eight, there's probably some reason to be concerned.
First 10: 6-4
Second 10: 8-2
Third 10: 4-6
Fourth 10: 6-4
Fifth 10: 5-5
Sixth 10: 9-1
Seventh 10: 7-3
Eighth 10: 4-6
Worst block since the third ten, back in late April/early May. That trend needs to get reversed, starting tomorrow.
At least that's what I tell myself on days like today. I looked it up - the last time the Cubs gave up 10 runs or more in back to back games was August 27-28, 2006, a 10-6 loss at St. Louis followed by an 11-6 loss at Pittsburgh. Of course, those Cubs were well on their way to 96 losses, were starting Freddie Bynum at second, and started Les Walrond in the Cardinals game. This Cubs team, meanwhile, should be on its way to 96 wins. Hasn't looked like it the last couple days, though.
I don't know about Marquis, but I've always been a bit worried about Dempster. On Monday night, the guys on ESPN 1000 were talking about Dempster and asking if Cubs fans were sold on him (this was the night after he'd beaten the Sox 7-1 to complete the sweep at Wrigley). I considered calling in and saying that I wasn't because of BABIP, but I figured that wouldn't get me too far on talk radio.
But you look at Dempster's stats and it's clear he's been walking a bit of a tightrope. Going into today's game, his BABIP was .238; league average tends to be around .300. In fact, his BABIP used to be much lower, but in his last two starts before today it was .375 (and I doubt it got any lower today). He was still getting away with it - last Sunday, he allowed ten hits, but just one run, thanks in part to three double plays behind him.
It's kind of been the story of the Cubs' staff as a whole this year, with the possible exception of Lilly, who's still very much a flyball pitcher:
Dempster: 15 starts (before today); games in which the majority of balls put in play against him were not ground balls: 1.
Zambrano: 15 starts; games in which the majority of balls put in play against him were not ground balls: 5.
Marquis: 15 starts; games in which the majority of balls put in play against him were not ground balls: 3.
(For comparison's sake, Lilly: 17 starts; games in which the majority of balls put in play against him were not ground balls: 13.)
This is why Lilly can give up a bunch of home runs - he allows a lot of fly balls. Similarly, if you give up a lot of ground balls and line drives, you can have a bad day and give up a lot of hits. It doesn't help that, because of various injuries, the Cubs' defensive alignment is a little bit of a mess right now. Your starters in the field today: Lee (1B), Fontenot (2B), Cedeno (SS), Ramirez (3B), Patterson (LF), Edmonds (CF), Ward (RF). Not exactly optimal - Ward has so little foot speed that he's usually pulled for a pinch-runner immediately after getting on base when he pinch hits, and Patterson is a second baseman by nature; he botched a ball in left so terribly (it enabled Pierzynski to go to third on a single) that after the game Piniella said that Patterson wouldn't be put in left field any more. (I can't help but wonder if this means he's going back to Iowa; we've already got several players on the roster capable of playing second, including the left-handed Fontenot, meaning speed is the only thing that's going to keep Patterson with the big club.)
The Cubs are third in the NL in defensive efficiency, and the defense has been a huge part of the equation as the pitchers have started pitching more to contact. (Lilly's 8.67 K/9 leads the starters; Dempster's at 7.45, Gallagher 7.36, Zambrano 5.76, and Marquis is at 4.64. Two years ago, Zambrano was at 8.83.) This has reduced walks - Zambrano's on pace for just 72, the lowest since he became a full-time starter - but it can also increase hits if balls are finding their ways through holes. Zambrano has already allowed 105 hits; as a result, even with his walks way down, he's on pace for the second-worst WHIP of his career (since becoming a full-time starter). His BABIP against is .296; you can see where Dempster's .238 might worry me.
In other words, he was probably due to have a day like today, especially when the defense wasn't really backing him up. Listening to the broadcast until things started getting ugly, it sounded like Dempster was getting pretty unlucky - soft singles finding gaps, doubles down the line, a ball right over Fontenot's head that DeRosa, a taller man, might have caught. Then, of course, after Dempster had given up four straight hits (three of which drove in runs) in the third, he started shying away from pitching to contact, and that's when he walked the bases loaded. And then he had to throw shit over the plate, and we ended up with Swisher's grand slam. And that's the ballgame, basically.
So, there are reasons to be concerned - to some degree you might consider today as statistical inevitability catching up to him a bit - but also reasons to feel a little better than we otherwise might; when the optimal defensive alignment is on the field, Dempster's likely to be a more effective pitcher. His normalized runs allowed number is 3.14; independent of defense, it's 3.53. If the defense can stay above average, things should be okay. As long as his arm can hold up, of course.
What I am a little worried about now is the rest of this series, given that the Seans are going. Gallagher needs to give us at least six tomorrow; with Lieber having thrown 3.1 today, he's probably not going to be available until Sunday at the earliest, which leaves the pen with no long man should Gallagher have any struggles like Dempster or Marquis. (And we all know how much better an offensive team at home the Sox are - comparably so to the Cubs, in fact. Gallagher has been pretty good at not allowing runs recently - high of 3 in his last five starts, and he allowed just an unearned run in Tampa on the 19th only to be screwed out of a win by Marmol's blowup. Maybe this won't be so bad. But the Cubs have got to score runs for him. In only two innings today was no one on base, but Lee hit into a double play in the first and another in the third with the bases loaded. Coming when it did - the Cubs were still down just 1-0 - you could argue that the latter swung the momentum of the entire game, although if the Sox still scored 7 runs the next half-inning then it wouldn't have mattered much, probably. But what could have been a couple runs was a rally-killing, inning-ender, and then in the bottom of the inning the Sox put the game out of reach.)
Anyway, this is long enough. But I will say that I'm not concerned yet about these last couple games. However, if you look at the season in groups of ten games, and we're through the first eight, there's probably some reason to be concerned.
First 10: 6-4
Second 10: 8-2
Third 10: 4-6
Fourth 10: 6-4
Fifth 10: 5-5
Sixth 10: 9-1
Seventh 10: 7-3
Eighth 10: 4-6
Worst block since the third ten, back in late April/early May. That trend needs to get reversed, starting tomorrow.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Even better than the road thing
As pretty much everyone knows because the media won't shut up about it, the Cubs haven't been a great road team this year. In fact, they're 32-8 (!!!) at home, and just 16-20 on the road. I was in a Baseball Prospectus chat today when the issue came up via a Rays fan, after John Perrotto had commented that the Cubs were the team to beat in the NL Central:
So, a few things about that:
(1) As pointed out by a Cubs fan later in the chat, it's not quite accurate to say the Rays "completely destroyed" Marmol in last Thursday's game; if anything, they destroyed Eyre, off whom Crawford hit the GS. Marmol destroyed himself via two walks and two hit batsmen.
(2) It's a bit ironic to hear a Rays fan questioning the Cubs' credentials due to their road record. Your Tampa Bay Rays home/road record splits:
Home: 30-13; Road: 14-18
The Rays, in fact, have played more home games than any team in baseball to this point, and are exactly as "horrible" on the road as are the Cubs. Throw in the fact that the Rays have an extremely young starting pitching staff (the oldest of their five primaries is 26, and only two of the five have seasons of more than 170 innings to their credit in their careers) and I'd be a little bit more worried about my team than the Cubs if I'm a Tampa fan.
But whatever. This isn't about the Rays. The point is to look at the Cubs' road "struggles" and ask the question: are they doomed because of this?
Well, let's consider a couple things right off.
1. If the Cubs finish with the best record in the NL, it might not matter.
Even if you assume the Cubs can only win at home - to the tune of the .800 winning percentage they've posted there so far - they would still put up 101 wins if they continue their current home and road winning percentages through the rest of the year. As I mentioned a few posts ago, it's probably not likely that either of these trends will continue, but it's likely that they'll both approach each other. And if the Cubs use that to win 100 games, they'll almost certainly have the best record in the NL, and if they keep winning at home in the postseason, hello World Series. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
2. The Cubs score more runs than they allow on the road.
The Cubs' enormous +112 run differential - by far the best in baseball - has been built on the back of their home record, where they have scored 260 runs in 40 games (6.5 rpg!) while allowing just 151. But their road differential is also positive, with 158 runs scored (4.4 rpg) and 155 allowed. In other words, the Cubs' Pythagorean road record is 18-18, meaning that so far they have been a bit unlucky. And, in fact, if we look at the Cubs' 20 road losses, we find that fully fifteen of them have been by one or two runs. Even the series in Tampa, where the Cubs supposedly looked awful and had the floor mopped with themselves, saw the Cubs lose the first two games by a combined two runs. In fact, as pointed out by Mike D. on Hire Jim Essian:
In fact, the Cubs' team ERA is 3.44 at home and 3.92 on the road - half a run worse, of course, but still pretty good.
The obvious point is that the Cubs hit a lot better at home than they do on the road. The somewhat damning slashes:
Home: .311/.388/.506
Road: .254/.330/.383
Ick, right? As it happens, the latter number is mostly dragged down by the particularly poor road play of Kosuke Fukudome and Mark DeRosa - both hitting .214 with sub-.325 OBPs on the road right now - just as the home numbers are somewhat inflated by the exact opposite performances that Fukudome (.372/.479/.547) and DeRosa (.352/.432/.512) have turned in at Wrigley. Given that both are major-league caliber players, I doubt these splits will continue to be quite so heinous all year. DeRosa's career splits show a guy who's a better player at home, but he's pretty much always had a hitter's park as home base, so that's not too surprising. More encouraging are the home/road splits of guys like Lee and Soto, which line up fairly well (Soto's stat lines are almost shockingly similar home vs. away). Ultimately we're not even halfway through the season yet, and it's entirely likely that the numbers will stabilize.
3. Why pick on the Cubs with this data?
Here are all the teams within 6.5 of their division leads with similar home/road issues as the Cubs to this point:
Boston (29-9 home, 18-22 road)
Tampa Bay (30-13 home, 14-18 road)
White Sox (24-11 home, 17-23 road)
Minnesota (25-16 home, 15-20 road)
Detroit (20-16 home, 16-23 road)
Cleveland (20-18 home, 15-23 road)
Florida (22-15 home, 18-20 road)
Mets (20-14 home, 17-23 road)
Atlanta (27-12 home, 11-27 road)
Milwaukee (25-13 home, 16-21 road)
Arizona (24-15 home, 15-22 road)
Dodgers (19-17 home, 16-23 road)
Well, look at that - it's nearly every goddamn team in baseball. In fact, only five teams in baseball have road records above .500, and only three have road records more than a game over - the Phillies (20-17), the Cardinals (21-16), and the Angels (a jaw-dropping 24-12). So far from being "horrible" on the road, to use the parlance of our goofy Rays fan friend, the Cubs are doing pretty much what everyone else is doing - having a slight losing record on the road - with the caveat that they are also destroying the competition at home right now. There's no real reason to think the Cubs will be below .500 on the road all year, but even if they are, there's a decent chance they'd still win in the mid-90s, and it's hard to see that not being good enough for a playoff spot.
Of course, yes, I think the Cubs need to improve on the road, especially with a lot of road games coming up and especially with those games coming against teams the Cubs need to beat (St. Louis and Milwaukee in particular). The ten-game road trip starting Friday - three on the South Side, four in San Francisco, three in St. Louis - will be a good barometer; 5-5 is the worst I hope to see out of that trip. But come on - this team is more talented than any of those three. If they can just scrape out a few more runs here and there, that road record will turn around in a hurry.
jlarsen (DRays Bay): Cubs too strong in the long haul? They're horrible on the road(under .500 possibly) and the Rays completely destroyed Marmol after Lou forgot he had Carlos in the 'pen for a few consecutive days. If Rays fans know anything, it's that Lou is known to make some very questionable moves that point that he was as much the blame for the Rays only topping out at 70 wins when he was manager as the front office was.
John Perrotto: I still think they are the best team in the NL Central, though your points about their weaknesses are well taken.
So, a few things about that:
(1) As pointed out by a Cubs fan later in the chat, it's not quite accurate to say the Rays "completely destroyed" Marmol in last Thursday's game; if anything, they destroyed Eyre, off whom Crawford hit the GS. Marmol destroyed himself via two walks and two hit batsmen.
(2) It's a bit ironic to hear a Rays fan questioning the Cubs' credentials due to their road record. Your Tampa Bay Rays home/road record splits:
Home: 30-13; Road: 14-18
The Rays, in fact, have played more home games than any team in baseball to this point, and are exactly as "horrible" on the road as are the Cubs. Throw in the fact that the Rays have an extremely young starting pitching staff (the oldest of their five primaries is 26, and only two of the five have seasons of more than 170 innings to their credit in their careers) and I'd be a little bit more worried about my team than the Cubs if I'm a Tampa fan.
But whatever. This isn't about the Rays. The point is to look at the Cubs' road "struggles" and ask the question: are they doomed because of this?
Well, let's consider a couple things right off.
1. If the Cubs finish with the best record in the NL, it might not matter.
Even if you assume the Cubs can only win at home - to the tune of the .800 winning percentage they've posted there so far - they would still put up 101 wins if they continue their current home and road winning percentages through the rest of the year. As I mentioned a few posts ago, it's probably not likely that either of these trends will continue, but it's likely that they'll both approach each other. And if the Cubs use that to win 100 games, they'll almost certainly have the best record in the NL, and if they keep winning at home in the postseason, hello World Series. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
2. The Cubs score more runs than they allow on the road.
The Cubs' enormous +112 run differential - by far the best in baseball - has been built on the back of their home record, where they have scored 260 runs in 40 games (6.5 rpg!) while allowing just 151. But their road differential is also positive, with 158 runs scored (4.4 rpg) and 155 allowed. In other words, the Cubs' Pythagorean road record is 18-18, meaning that so far they have been a bit unlucky. And, in fact, if we look at the Cubs' 20 road losses, we find that fully fifteen of them have been by one or two runs. Even the series in Tampa, where the Cubs supposedly looked awful and had the floor mopped with themselves, saw the Cubs lose the first two games by a combined two runs. In fact, as pointed out by Mike D. on Hire Jim Essian:
If you look at their last thirteen losses, they have lost by one run in eight of those games, by two runs twice, and by three runs once. The only two losses in that span by more than three runs are the Tampa disaster and the game two weeks ago when Zambrano blew his top in Chavez Ravine–and even in both of those games, the Cubs had been winning going into their opponent’s half of the 7th inning.
In fact, the Cubs' team ERA is 3.44 at home and 3.92 on the road - half a run worse, of course, but still pretty good.
The obvious point is that the Cubs hit a lot better at home than they do on the road. The somewhat damning slashes:
Home: .311/.388/.506
Road: .254/.330/.383
Ick, right? As it happens, the latter number is mostly dragged down by the particularly poor road play of Kosuke Fukudome and Mark DeRosa - both hitting .214 with sub-.325 OBPs on the road right now - just as the home numbers are somewhat inflated by the exact opposite performances that Fukudome (.372/.479/.547) and DeRosa (.352/.432/.512) have turned in at Wrigley. Given that both are major-league caliber players, I doubt these splits will continue to be quite so heinous all year. DeRosa's career splits show a guy who's a better player at home, but he's pretty much always had a hitter's park as home base, so that's not too surprising. More encouraging are the home/road splits of guys like Lee and Soto, which line up fairly well (Soto's stat lines are almost shockingly similar home vs. away). Ultimately we're not even halfway through the season yet, and it's entirely likely that the numbers will stabilize.
3. Why pick on the Cubs with this data?
Here are all the teams within 6.5 of their division leads with similar home/road issues as the Cubs to this point:
Boston (29-9 home, 18-22 road)
Tampa Bay (30-13 home, 14-18 road)
White Sox (24-11 home, 17-23 road)
Minnesota (25-16 home, 15-20 road)
Detroit (20-16 home, 16-23 road)
Cleveland (20-18 home, 15-23 road)
Florida (22-15 home, 18-20 road)
Mets (20-14 home, 17-23 road)
Atlanta (27-12 home, 11-27 road)
Milwaukee (25-13 home, 16-21 road)
Arizona (24-15 home, 15-22 road)
Dodgers (19-17 home, 16-23 road)
Well, look at that - it's nearly every goddamn team in baseball. In fact, only five teams in baseball have road records above .500, and only three have road records more than a game over - the Phillies (20-17), the Cardinals (21-16), and the Angels (a jaw-dropping 24-12). So far from being "horrible" on the road, to use the parlance of our goofy Rays fan friend, the Cubs are doing pretty much what everyone else is doing - having a slight losing record on the road - with the caveat that they are also destroying the competition at home right now. There's no real reason to think the Cubs will be below .500 on the road all year, but even if they are, there's a decent chance they'd still win in the mid-90s, and it's hard to see that not being good enough for a playoff spot.
Of course, yes, I think the Cubs need to improve on the road, especially with a lot of road games coming up and especially with those games coming against teams the Cubs need to beat (St. Louis and Milwaukee in particular). The ten-game road trip starting Friday - three on the South Side, four in San Francisco, three in St. Louis - will be a good barometer; 5-5 is the worst I hope to see out of that trip. But come on - this team is more talented than any of those three. If they can just scrape out a few more runs here and there, that road record will turn around in a hurry.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Put a Sox in it
In July 2004 - midway through a season that would culminate in the Red Sox's first world championship in 86 years but was hardly looking promising at the time - Bill Simmons wrote a column where he talked about the positives of living a coast away from the Boston media (later included, with substantial revision, in Now I Can Die in Peace). In particular, he mentions how sports radio and newspaper columnists - whose principal jobs are to boost ratings and circulation by being controversial - tend to contribute to and intensify any negative feelings he might be having about the team.
I mention this because I was reminded of it when thinking about the constant harping on the Cubs/White Sox "rivalry" by the media here. I guess it's a big series in its way, but any series with the Cardinals is more intense, and more important, than two late June series with the Sox, and any real Cubs fan will tell you as much.
Like all lifetime Cubs fans I know, I never hated the Sox. Growing up - away from the Chicago media and before interleague play existed - I would root for the Sox, as a Chicago team. (I even went to a Sox game my freshman year of college, and, more damningly, bought a jersey. It has since been donated to a clothing drive.) Of course my primary interest was in seeing the Cubs win, but something like 2005 would have been an okay consolation prize. There are still fans who feel this way - my dad and Michael Wilbon come to mind, people who grew up in the 50s, 60s, 70s - periods in which the Cubs and Sox were nothing approaching rivals, when fans of both teams tended to root for each other. (Wilbon is from the South Side, for crying out loud.) Of course, they're also people who haven't lived full-time in Chicago for decades.
But living and working in the city in the interleague age, it's impossible to be a fan of both teams. Sox fans seem to uniformly despise the Cubs, and take a perverse amount of glee in seeing the Cubs fail, nearly as much as seeing their own team win. (As reported by Bad Kermit on Hire Jim Essian, Sox fans started a "Cubs lost!" chant at US Cellular - in an extra-inning tie game, with their first-place team at bat. How much more pathetically obsessed can you get?)
Some of this is because the media desperately wants a rivalry. And a lot of it is because White Sox fans desperately want a rivalry. And still more of it is because the team's management (sometimes prodded by the media) won't shut up about it.
For example, before today's Cubs win, Ozzie Guillen (yet again) talked trash about Wrigley Field:
This was in the AP game recap. Why, other than as an attempt to fan the flames? What does it matter to anyone whether a notorious loudmouth prefers his soulless abomination of a home ballpark?
Better still, Kenny Williams had this to say:
A few points of response:
(1) Fuck you.
(2) Name me one Sox fan who would enjoy a Cubs World Series win (particularly if it was just another reminder that their own team had not won in forever).
(3) Way to yell at Cubs fans for not rooting for the White Sox, then work in a dig at Cubs fans two seconds later, giving us all more reasons not to root for the White Sox.
(4) Seriously, fuck you, you condescending prick.
It's not quite as bad as when Scoop Jackson called us all racists for not rooting for the Sox in 2005, but come on. It's this ridiculous mindset that drives me more crazy than anything else. Sox fans spend all year making fun of Cubs fans, rooting against the Cubs, antagonizing Cubs fans - and then they want us to root for them??? Get out of my face with that bullshit. I know you've all got a massive inferiority complex, and I know you're mad that you can't consistently sell out your stadium even when the team is winning (not including today, the Cubs have drawn more than half a million more fans than the White Sox this year already, in just two more home games), and I know you're upset that the national media makes a bigger deal out of the Cubs (hint: it's because we have fans who don't live in Chicago, and also more fans in Chicago, and also, fans). But maybe if you would just shut up, this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. I have no particular interest in hating the Sox; at this point, I have no interest in really caring about them, period. But it's difficult to ignore when you're constantly making obnoxious spectacles out of yourselves.
So, I think it may be time to go to plan B, just like Kermit did in the post linked above. Plan B: ignore the White Sox. Don't mention them; it's not worth it. White Sox fans would love nothing more to think that Cubs fans are seriously invested in this rivalry, but real Cubs fans aren't. Real Cubs fans want the Cubs to win or, failing that, the Cardinals to lose. The White Sox? Yeah, great, who gives a shit. It's a rivalry stoked by Sox fans and by "Cubs fans" who are really college kids from out of town who adopted the team so they have an excuse to hang out at a ballpark and drink (and then the twenty- and thirtysomethings those kids turn into). These are the same idiots who buy all those stupid unlicensed shirts outside Wrigley. Legitimate Cubs fans hate these people; they make the rest of us look bad.
So I'm done trading fire. Let the White Sox fans make themselves look pathetic and obsessed on their own time. I'm just going to watch the Cubs, and hopefully watch them win a World Series, at which time White Sox fans won't have crap to say, anyway.
(And, oh yeah, nice win today. No place like home, apparently.)
I mention this because I was reminded of it when thinking about the constant harping on the Cubs/White Sox "rivalry" by the media here. I guess it's a big series in its way, but any series with the Cardinals is more intense, and more important, than two late June series with the Sox, and any real Cubs fan will tell you as much.
Like all lifetime Cubs fans I know, I never hated the Sox. Growing up - away from the Chicago media and before interleague play existed - I would root for the Sox, as a Chicago team. (I even went to a Sox game my freshman year of college, and, more damningly, bought a jersey. It has since been donated to a clothing drive.) Of course my primary interest was in seeing the Cubs win, but something like 2005 would have been an okay consolation prize. There are still fans who feel this way - my dad and Michael Wilbon come to mind, people who grew up in the 50s, 60s, 70s - periods in which the Cubs and Sox were nothing approaching rivals, when fans of both teams tended to root for each other. (Wilbon is from the South Side, for crying out loud.) Of course, they're also people who haven't lived full-time in Chicago for decades.
But living and working in the city in the interleague age, it's impossible to be a fan of both teams. Sox fans seem to uniformly despise the Cubs, and take a perverse amount of glee in seeing the Cubs fail, nearly as much as seeing their own team win. (As reported by Bad Kermit on Hire Jim Essian, Sox fans started a "Cubs lost!" chant at US Cellular - in an extra-inning tie game, with their first-place team at bat. How much more pathetically obsessed can you get?)
Some of this is because the media desperately wants a rivalry. And a lot of it is because White Sox fans desperately want a rivalry. And still more of it is because the team's management (sometimes prodded by the media) won't shut up about it.
For example, before today's Cubs win, Ozzie Guillen (yet again) talked trash about Wrigley Field:
Guillen was on a roll before the game and got in another shot at one of his favorite targets, Wrigley Field. Especially the batting cage under the right field bleachers.
"You go to take batting practice and the rats are bigger than pigs out there. You want to take a look? I think the rats are lifting weights," he said.
"That's the way it is. This is a museum. People like to come to Wrigley Field. I don't say people don't like to come here. I said, 'Ozzie doesn't like to come here.' "
This was in the AP game recap. Why, other than as an attempt to fan the flames? What does it matter to anyone whether a notorious loudmouth prefers his soulless abomination of a home ballpark?
Better still, Kenny Williams had this to say:
"You might as well build a border, a Great Wall of China on Madison, because we are so different. We might as well be in two different cities. The unfortunate thing for me when I look at a lot of this is it's a shame that a certain segment of Chicago refused to enjoy a baseball championship being brought to their city [in 2005]. The only thing I can say is, happy anniversary."
A few points of response:
(1) Fuck you.
(2) Name me one Sox fan who would enjoy a Cubs World Series win (particularly if it was just another reminder that their own team had not won in forever).
(3) Way to yell at Cubs fans for not rooting for the White Sox, then work in a dig at Cubs fans two seconds later, giving us all more reasons not to root for the White Sox.
(4) Seriously, fuck you, you condescending prick.
It's not quite as bad as when Scoop Jackson called us all racists for not rooting for the Sox in 2005, but come on. It's this ridiculous mindset that drives me more crazy than anything else. Sox fans spend all year making fun of Cubs fans, rooting against the Cubs, antagonizing Cubs fans - and then they want us to root for them??? Get out of my face with that bullshit. I know you've all got a massive inferiority complex, and I know you're mad that you can't consistently sell out your stadium even when the team is winning (not including today, the Cubs have drawn more than half a million more fans than the White Sox this year already, in just two more home games), and I know you're upset that the national media makes a bigger deal out of the Cubs (hint: it's because we have fans who don't live in Chicago, and also more fans in Chicago, and also, fans). But maybe if you would just shut up, this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. I have no particular interest in hating the Sox; at this point, I have no interest in really caring about them, period. But it's difficult to ignore when you're constantly making obnoxious spectacles out of yourselves.
So, I think it may be time to go to plan B, just like Kermit did in the post linked above. Plan B: ignore the White Sox. Don't mention them; it's not worth it. White Sox fans would love nothing more to think that Cubs fans are seriously invested in this rivalry, but real Cubs fans aren't. Real Cubs fans want the Cubs to win or, failing that, the Cardinals to lose. The White Sox? Yeah, great, who gives a shit. It's a rivalry stoked by Sox fans and by "Cubs fans" who are really college kids from out of town who adopted the team so they have an excuse to hang out at a ballpark and drink (and then the twenty- and thirtysomethings those kids turn into). These are the same idiots who buy all those stupid unlicensed shirts outside Wrigley. Legitimate Cubs fans hate these people; they make the rest of us look bad.
So I'm done trading fire. Let the White Sox fans make themselves look pathetic and obsessed on their own time. I'm just going to watch the Cubs, and hopefully watch them win a World Series, at which time White Sox fans won't have crap to say, anyway.
(And, oh yeah, nice win today. No place like home, apparently.)
Pressed peanut sweepings
For the first time this season, two things happened:
(1) Carlos Marmol made an appearance in which he did not retire a batter. (He threw 20 pitches, seven for strikes, walking two and hitting two more. Then Scott Eyre gave up a grand slam, leading to Marmol being charged with four earned runs. Which you can't argue he didn't deserve. His ERA went from 2.09 to 2.93.) This is the first time Marmol has appeared without recording an out since May 27, 2007, when he came in against the Dodgers in the bottom of the 11th at Chavez Ravine with two on and no outs, intentionally walked Rafael Furcal, and then plunked Juan Pierre to end the game. (The run was charged to Angel Guzman.) This may not sound like a long time ago, but consider that it was Marmol's fourth appearance of 2007 after being called up, and just his tenth career major league relief appearance.
(2) The Cubs were swept by an opponent and lost three games against any opposition in a row. The 2007 Cubs already had a four-game losing streak by April 13, and by June 20 had three more three-game skids and a six-game losing streak, including their first three-game sweep of the year, the infamous Florida series at Wrigley Field where the Cubs had a players-only meeting before the series' third game and proceeded to lose 9-0. As it happened, the Cubs were only swept three times last year in series of three games or more; two of them were to the Marlins. (The third was at Houston in early August.)
For a confluence of reasons, I was unable to see any of the game last night. I watched the top of the first on Gamecast before I left work, then turned on WGN when I got into the car to drive over to Subway for a sandwich at 8:45. As if he was just waiting for me, Pat Hughes greeted my arrival to the radio broadcast with a description of the previous half-inning, which was the very one which had seen the Rays score seven runs to take an 8-3 lead, just after the Cubs had broken through to go up 3-1 in the top half. (Scott Eyre, fresh off having his streak of unscored-upon appearances broken, sucked no less hard than did Marmol, allowing the grand slam, then a triple, a run-scoring double, a sac fly, and another double before being pulled.)
When I heard the score, I turned off the radio in disgust, then ripped my Cubs cap - which I have been wearing everywhere this season, usually only taking it off when indoors - off my head and slammed it onto the passenger seat. When I went into Subway, I didn't even put it back on. But after I ate and drove across the street to CVS, I thought for a second and then returned the hat to my head. When you get right down to it, it's a mid-June series against a pretty good team; these Cubs don't get swept much, but it's kind of ridiculous to expect them to never get swept, or to never lose three games in a row. They were playing in an unfamiliar stadium against an unfamiliar team - in 2003, the Cubs took two of three from the then-Devil Rays in their only previous meeting, at Wrigley. (Tampa's manager that year, of course? Lou Piniella.) Those Rays lost 99 games. These Rays might win 90. And frankly, all three games could have gone either way - the Cubs had at least the tying run on base in the ninth inning in both of the first two games, and even though they lost by five runs last night, obviously that doesn't happen if Marmol doesn't have the worst appearance of his relief career. (This one might have been worse, statistically. But not by much. And considering the difference in stakes - look at the list of Cubs pitchers for that game! Do you think it was anything other than Dusty seeing what the farm had, at the end of a lost season? - this one has to be the worst. And just for posterity's sake, the worst appearance of his career, period, was probably this one. 8 walks!)
My basic point here is that I'm not as worried at this point as I might be. It's probably just as well that I didn't watch the game, because I think it's hard to sit through a seven-run inning and not just absolutely flip out. But really, I'm not that concerned. It's one game; it's one series. Every team, even the best ones, has moments like this. The 2001 Seattle Mariners - managed by, of course, Lou Piniella - won 116 games, and even they had a four-game losing streak in September, getting swept at Oakland. They even lost the middle game of that series 11-2. Shit, they even had that famous game where they led the Indians 12-0 after three and 14-2 after five, then allowed three in the seventh, four in the eighth, and five in the ninth to tie the game, and finally lost 15-14 in eleven innings. All five runs in the ninth scored with two outs! Can you imagine, as a Mariners fan, sitting through that game? (Probably similar to Rockies fans earlier this year, I'd imagine, only much, much worse.) And that team won 116 games that year. The A's went 102-60 and finished fourteen games out of first.
Yes, what happened to the Seattle Mariners in 2001 has no bearing on what's happening to the 2008 Chicago Cubs, whether or not the manager is the same. But my point is simply that June 20 is so early in the season. The Cubs have played 73 games; we won't reach the halfway point until next Saturday. And we still lead the NL in BA, OBP, ERA, and run differential. We still have the best record in the division (and the league) by 3.5 games. Ultimately, we still control our own destiny. And even if the series at Tampa is indicative of more than just a blip, there's plenty of time to right the ship. Remember, on June 20 last year we were 32-38 and eight games behind Milwaukee. Which position would you rather be in?
So now it's time for the two most annoying weekends of the year, made even more annoying than usual by the fact that the Sox are also in first place. Can we please just turn around and win all three? (For what it's worth, we haven't lost a home game since May 17, winning 11 straight.) Tell you what - I'll be generous and say I'll be satisfied with just taking two of three.
(1) Carlos Marmol made an appearance in which he did not retire a batter. (He threw 20 pitches, seven for strikes, walking two and hitting two more. Then Scott Eyre gave up a grand slam, leading to Marmol being charged with four earned runs. Which you can't argue he didn't deserve. His ERA went from 2.09 to 2.93.) This is the first time Marmol has appeared without recording an out since May 27, 2007, when he came in against the Dodgers in the bottom of the 11th at Chavez Ravine with two on and no outs, intentionally walked Rafael Furcal, and then plunked Juan Pierre to end the game. (The run was charged to Angel Guzman.) This may not sound like a long time ago, but consider that it was Marmol's fourth appearance of 2007 after being called up, and just his tenth career major league relief appearance.
(2) The Cubs were swept by an opponent and lost three games against any opposition in a row. The 2007 Cubs already had a four-game losing streak by April 13, and by June 20 had three more three-game skids and a six-game losing streak, including their first three-game sweep of the year, the infamous Florida series at Wrigley Field where the Cubs had a players-only meeting before the series' third game and proceeded to lose 9-0. As it happened, the Cubs were only swept three times last year in series of three games or more; two of them were to the Marlins. (The third was at Houston in early August.)
For a confluence of reasons, I was unable to see any of the game last night. I watched the top of the first on Gamecast before I left work, then turned on WGN when I got into the car to drive over to Subway for a sandwich at 8:45. As if he was just waiting for me, Pat Hughes greeted my arrival to the radio broadcast with a description of the previous half-inning, which was the very one which had seen the Rays score seven runs to take an 8-3 lead, just after the Cubs had broken through to go up 3-1 in the top half. (Scott Eyre, fresh off having his streak of unscored-upon appearances broken, sucked no less hard than did Marmol, allowing the grand slam, then a triple, a run-scoring double, a sac fly, and another double before being pulled.)
When I heard the score, I turned off the radio in disgust, then ripped my Cubs cap - which I have been wearing everywhere this season, usually only taking it off when indoors - off my head and slammed it onto the passenger seat. When I went into Subway, I didn't even put it back on. But after I ate and drove across the street to CVS, I thought for a second and then returned the hat to my head. When you get right down to it, it's a mid-June series against a pretty good team; these Cubs don't get swept much, but it's kind of ridiculous to expect them to never get swept, or to never lose three games in a row. They were playing in an unfamiliar stadium against an unfamiliar team - in 2003, the Cubs took two of three from the then-Devil Rays in their only previous meeting, at Wrigley. (Tampa's manager that year, of course? Lou Piniella.) Those Rays lost 99 games. These Rays might win 90. And frankly, all three games could have gone either way - the Cubs had at least the tying run on base in the ninth inning in both of the first two games, and even though they lost by five runs last night, obviously that doesn't happen if Marmol doesn't have the worst appearance of his relief career. (This one might have been worse, statistically. But not by much. And considering the difference in stakes - look at the list of Cubs pitchers for that game! Do you think it was anything other than Dusty seeing what the farm had, at the end of a lost season? - this one has to be the worst. And just for posterity's sake, the worst appearance of his career, period, was probably this one. 8 walks!)
My basic point here is that I'm not as worried at this point as I might be. It's probably just as well that I didn't watch the game, because I think it's hard to sit through a seven-run inning and not just absolutely flip out. But really, I'm not that concerned. It's one game; it's one series. Every team, even the best ones, has moments like this. The 2001 Seattle Mariners - managed by, of course, Lou Piniella - won 116 games, and even they had a four-game losing streak in September, getting swept at Oakland. They even lost the middle game of that series 11-2. Shit, they even had that famous game where they led the Indians 12-0 after three and 14-2 after five, then allowed three in the seventh, four in the eighth, and five in the ninth to tie the game, and finally lost 15-14 in eleven innings. All five runs in the ninth scored with two outs! Can you imagine, as a Mariners fan, sitting through that game? (Probably similar to Rockies fans earlier this year, I'd imagine, only much, much worse.) And that team won 116 games that year. The A's went 102-60 and finished fourteen games out of first.
Yes, what happened to the Seattle Mariners in 2001 has no bearing on what's happening to the 2008 Chicago Cubs, whether or not the manager is the same. But my point is simply that June 20 is so early in the season. The Cubs have played 73 games; we won't reach the halfway point until next Saturday. And we still lead the NL in BA, OBP, ERA, and run differential. We still have the best record in the division (and the league) by 3.5 games. Ultimately, we still control our own destiny. And even if the series at Tampa is indicative of more than just a blip, there's plenty of time to right the ship. Remember, on June 20 last year we were 32-38 and eight games behind Milwaukee. Which position would you rather be in?
So now it's time for the two most annoying weekends of the year, made even more annoying than usual by the fact that the Sox are also in first place. Can we please just turn around and win all three? (For what it's worth, we haven't lost a home game since May 17, winning 11 straight.) Tell you what - I'll be generous and say I'll be satisfied with just taking two of three.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Premature speculation
The Cubs have played 70 games (92 to go). At 45-25, they have the best record in baseball; they lead the NL in average, OBP, runs scored, runs allowed and ERA; nearly every starter plus several pitchers have a case for All-Star selection. In the 100th anniversary year of the last time the Cubs won the World Series, an end to the century of misery is starting to look possible. And yet they only have a 3.5-game lead in the division (thanks to the PECOTA-unforeseen success to this point of the Cardinals), one of the smallest in baseball. (The Diamondbacks, who last year used 90 wins to just barely hold on to the NL's deepest division, are just 37-33 and yet lead the West by 5.5 games because the other four teams are well below .500.) As such, there's still plenty of feeling that the Cubs are going to be in the market - no, need to be in the market - to upgrade their team before the July 31 trade deadline.
I always try not to be recklessly optimistic when it comes to the Cubs. But I look at this team right now and I think maybe it's a little soon to start talking about brushing people aside. Maybe in another month things will look different. But let's take a look at this team, and at possible positional upgrades, and you tell me if people aren't moving to the trading block a bit too quickly.
C - Geovany Soto (.288/.374/.527, 11 HR, 42 RBI; 28% CS)
You can't possibly complain about Geovany Soto. When the Cubs went to the NLCS in 2003, their catchers were Damian Miller (76 OPS+) and Paul Bako (67 OPS+). They were fairly strong defensive catchers (combined 36.7% CS), but Soto is so much better offensively that it's clearly a much bigger advantage for the Cubs nowadays. The only question will be if Soto can hold up over a full season, but Henry Blanco is there to spell him, and playing a full season at Iowa and then coming to the Cubs in September last year didn't seem to slow Soto down. Clearly no needs here.
1B - Derrek Lee (.289/.349/.511, 14 HR, 44 RBI)
Lee's been slumping a little recently, but he's Derrek Lee. Solid here. At backup, Micah Hoffpauir's been hitting pretty well in his limited action, and he adds a lefty power bat off the bench in Daryle Ward: Professional Hitter's absence.
2B - Mark DeRosa (.299/.384/.464, 8 HR, 36 RBI, 97 positions played)
At age 33, DeRosa looks primed to have his best season as a professional - he's already closing on his career high in homers (13) and is almost halfway to his career high in RBI (74), plus his current slash averages would be career highs in all three categories. All that and he can play virtually anywhere on the field, save maybe pitcher, catcher and center - and I bet he'd try center if he had to. (He's already played five positions this year, including extended spells in left and at third during injuries to Soriano and Ramirez.) Did the Brian Roberts fiasco in spring training fire him up, or is he just having a career year at the perfect time? (Roberts, for the record, has a .361 OBP at the moment.)
SS - Ryan Theriot (.310/.388/.373, 32 BB/23 K, 1 HR, 18 RBI)
Okay, Theriot could probably field his position better, and he's got no power. His SB% is also way down (to an ugly 13/8, already twice as many times as he was caught last year with half the steals so far). But he's doing a good job of getting on base, and as the usual #2 hitter when the #1 hitter is a power guy, that's pretty much what you look for him to do, hopefully sticking around for the ride when Lee or Ramirez hit one out (or scampering around on a double). I would like to see a few more hits that aren't singles, but overall there's not much to complain about as of yet. There is still the nagging question of whether he can avoid another September fade.
3B - Aramis Ramirez (.300/.412/.502, 10 HR, 45 RBI, 40 BB/41 K)
Though Ramirez is only on pace for mid-20s in home runs, he's on pace to blow past his career high in walks (50) and OBP (.373). He's always been a hotter second-half player - his career best month for homers is July, and August for OPS - so while his HR and RBI totals don't project to anywhere near a year like 2006 (38/119), it's worth remembering that in 2006 he had just 14 HR and 43 RBI at the end of June before going on a tear over the final three months. All in all he's probably been the most consistent offensive force on the team since coming over in 2003 from Pittsburgh, even though you can pencil him in for a couple missed weeks most years (it helped his numbers to play 157 games in 2006).
LF - Alfonso Soriano (.283/.332/.547, 15 HR, 40 RBI, 7 SB/1 CS)
Of course, one of the main reasons for discussion of help is Soriano's absence - and perhaps rightly so, since he was (and still is) leading the team in home runs. But as I've pointed out before, the team OBP tends to go up in Soriano's absence, and it's not like there haven't been RBI machines at the #3, #4, and #6 holes in the order. Besides, what's the point of scrambling to fill this void with someone from the outside who'd be rendered useless as soon as Soriano returns?
CF - Jim Edmonds (.309/.342/.515, 2 HR, 14 RBI, 6 2B, just 22 games played as a Cub)
Edmonds took a little while to warm up, but now that he has, he's pretty warm - .375/.409/.625 in June, in fact. So why are we still talking about the need for a "left-handed power bat?" (And more importantly, if that is the need, why is anyone bringing up Scott Podsednik?)
RF - Kosuke Fukudome (.293/.401/.426, 5 HR, 29 RBI, 45 BB/42 K)
Whether or not it's true that Fukudome passed the art of getting on base to the rest of the team by osmosis, he's certainly been successful at it, trailing only Ramirez in OBP and leading the team in walks. With warmer weather coming, I think it's entirely possible for that power number to climb; there's still a chance he approaches 20 HR, I think. And while he's not the prototypical power-hitting corner OF, he might just be the best defensive RF in the National League. Think - well - Ichiro, except that only once has Ichiro recorded an OBP higher than .400, mostly because he doesn't take many walks. Fukudome doesn't steal as many bases, though. Still, his strong fundamentals have been a welcome sight for anyone frustrated by years of Dustyball.
Bench - Ronny Cedeno, Mike Fontenot, Henry Blanco, Micah Hoffpauir, Reed Johnson, Daryle Ward
Johnson has actually seen a lot of starts, hitting .267/.342/.381, though he's come up with a few timely home runs and has been a solid backup-type guy who can make starts in left or center when needed. Hoffpauir and Ward both fill the role of the "slow power-hitting lefty who can fill in at first or, if you're desperate, in an outfield corner," depending on Ward's health (right now, not). Blanco has been hitting pretty well by his standards and had a key HR in the big comeback vs. the Rockies. Cedeno and Fontenot are kind of slightly lesser offensive versions of Theriot, but they can both fill in on the infield (Cedeno pretty much anywhere, Fontenot at second if DeRosa is playing elsewhere). It's not the deepest bench ever, but it has a lot of guys who can get on base - Cedeno and Fontenot have gotten better at working walks, Ward can take a walk, and Johnson practically loves the hit-by-pitch. It's also worth mentioning here that Carlos Zambrano is hitting .362/.362/.511 and may actually be the best-hitting non-regular the Cubs have. (Although he does not know how to take a walk.)
SP - Carlos Zambrano (8-2, 2.98 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 7 HR, 32 BB/66 K)
SP - Ted Lilly (7-5, 4.76 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, 14 HR, 31 BB/83 K)
SP - Ryan Dempster (8-2, 2.81 ERA, 1.06 WHIP, 8 HR, 35 BB/75 K)
SP - Jason Marquis (5-3, 4.24 ERA, 1.49 WHIP, 6 HR, 30 BB/37 K)
SP - Sean Gallagher (3-3, 4.54 ERA, 1.37 WHIP, 4 HR, 15 BB/36 K)
Some of the numbers could definitely be better - Zambrano's WHIP, for example, is one of the highest of his career (it's better than last year's, but let's not forget that he sorta sucked last year), and it's not even due to walks - he's been pitching more to contact and sometimes it's been causing him to give up a lot of hits. His ERA isn't too bad for it, I guess, and his cultivation of a sinker has dropped his HR allowed. Lilly's ERA is so high because of his awful start to the year, but over the last seven weeks he's been much improved, finally dropping the ERA under 5.00 with six innings of shutout ball against Toronto on Sunday. He's also been striking guys out like crazy, including back-to-back double-digit K games on May 9 and 14. Dempster has been the shocker of the year, not only leading the starters in ERA and (by quite a bit) in WHIP, but having no starts under 5 innings (the only starter of whom that's true), the team's only CG, and just two starts where he allowed as many as four runs (and none where he allowed more) are all pretty impressive stats for a guy who spent the last several years as a reliever. That, of course, is the main concern with him (will he have enough stamina for the whole year, and especially deep [we hope] into October?); that and his BABIP, which at .215 is pretty low and risks a regression to the mean at some point. Marquis was looking to start his second-half shitfest early this year until getting an earful from Piniella on the mound; in his last two starts he's turned in two pretty dominant outings (at least by his standards). My dad always says he thinks Marquis has stuff that's just as good as Brandon Webb and his problem is making the pitches - while that's as true as what would happen if a frog had wings (he wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin'), maybe Piniella can actually smack some mental makeup into Marquis. Or maybe these two starts were just a blip. As for Gallagher, he hasn't looked too bad for a rookie. He has nearly as many Ks as Marquis in half as many starts, and he's a hard-luck 3-3 as the Cubs have scored three runs or less in four of his seven starts. He still needs to show he can make good enough pitches to last beyond five innings on a start-by-start basis, though.
Aside from the fact that only one of those guys is a lefty, I like this rotation right now. My main concern is that it needs to go deeper into games.
RP - Carlos Marmol (1-1, 3 sv, 2.09 ERA, 0.77 WHIP, 15 BB/63 K, 43.0 IP)
RP - Bob Howry (2-2, 1 sv, 5.08 ERA, 1.46 WHIP, 5 BB/29 K, 33.2 IP)
RP - Michael Wuertz (1-1, 2.73 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 12 BB/16 K, 29.2 IP)
RP - Jon Lieber (2-3, 3.21 ERA, 1.37 WHIP, 4 BB/18 K, 33.2 IP)
RP - Kerry Wood (3-1, 18 sv, 2.65 ERA, 0.86 WHIP, 8 BB/44 K, 37.2 IP)
Bullpen wear is another possible worry. I'd be less worried about Marmol if Howry and Wuertz could get their crap together; Howry is looking a bit better but Wuertz has been a damn mess recently, like in San Diego on June 2 when he put two guys on with walks, forcing Lou to go to Marmol earlier than he wanted and ultimately helping to cause the home run the next inning that scared the hell out of me. In recent years, Wuertz was like Marmol, a guy who could come in and strike out the side - this year he has just 16 K in 29.2 innings, and his ERA is mostly so low because he'll get pulled and Marmol will strand the inherited runners. Marmol is pitching too many games, in my opinion. Maybe guys like Eyre and Cotts can help take some of the load off, as they've both been decent since returning, but since they're both lefties, they'll probably see a lot more situational use. Aside from the overuse, of course, Marmol's been pretty godlike. As for Lieber, his one spot start was a total fiasco, but he's been pretty good out of the pen. People were ready to run Wood out of town after he blew three of his first seven save chances (along with the Opening Day issues that Fukudome bailed him out of), but since then he's blown just one, and now none since May 24, saving 8 in a row and 14 of 15 chances. Workload might be a concern there as well - after all, he's already thrown more innings than in any year since 2005. But right now he's second in the NL in saves, is striking guys out, and has mostly been unhittable.
So!
What did you notice in that list that the Cubs were really missing? I can think of three things:
*Lefty outfield bat
*Lefty starter
*Another shutdown reliever
Let's look at these one at a time:
Lefty outfield bat: Right now, this is Edmonds, and I see no need for it to be otherwise. But let's say that he cools back off and, come late July, the Cubs are mediocre in center again. The problem with calling for a lefty outfield bat - and preferably one with power - is that there's nowhere to put it but center; Fukudome and Soriano are pretty well entrenched at the corners (we've already seen it's not worth moving Soriano, and while Fukudome probably could play center, Lou has already stated his understandable reluctance to move Fukudome when he might be the best right fielder in the NL). Here's your list of lefty CF power bats who have seen regular playing time this year:
Josh Hamilton, David DeJesus, Nate McLouth, Grady Sizemore, Rick Ankiel.
Well, I'm sure all of those guys will be available. DeJesus, maybe, but then he's not really even a power hitter looking at his career stats - if he gets to 20 this year, which is a small stretch from his current 7, that would vastly outpace his career high of 9. The rest you can just forget. Maybe the Cubs should have held onto Hamilton when they took him in the Rule V draft two years ago, rather than giving him to the Reds for nothing. (Can you imagine this team right now if the center fielder were hitting even close to the way Josh Hamilton is hitting? Now I'm getting mad. Let's just move on.)
Lefty starter: The obvious answer is "C.C. Sabathia," but it's hardly a guarantee that he's going to be traded, and even if he is, he'll probably cost a king's ransom just in prospects - and that's before you sign him to a $20 million-per-year extension. There are less obvious guys out there - Randy Wolf, for example, although it turns out that his 3.83 ERA is exactly league average for a guy whose home starts are in Petco. (Home: 2.45; road: 5.31. Yeesh.) Erik Bedard has been mentioned if the new Mariners GM wants to ship him right back out. But Bedard, for all his apparent talent, has been awful away from Safeco, and his demeanor seems a little frosty, which I'm not sure would fit into this clubhouse so well. (If we got the 2007 Erik Bedard, then it might not matter. But so far it's unclear that he's not something of a one-year wonder.) Among non-lefties, I've heard Paul Byrd's name thrown out, but his ERA is 4.89; Greg Maddux was also mentioned, but do we need to go down that road again? (Also, his ERA away from Petco is a very human 4.75.)
Shutdown reliever: Nobody trades shutdown relievers - or if they do, you always, always overpay. Better off calling Ascanio back up and giving him another shot, or something. Right now I think the bullpen is holding steady enough.
So, yeah. Is there really anyone out there worth bringing in? Is it worth mortgaging the farm system to do so? (I mean, Peter Gammons doesn't even think we have enough to give up to get Sabathia from the Indians, and it's kind of hard to disagree - we'd really have to give up a young, potential impact pitcher in return, I think, and given Rich Hill's age and well-documented struggles I doubt the Indians would buy him in that role. Jose Ceda, maybe, but he's probably too raw to headline a deal. If there's anyone else out there who scouts love enough to front a trade for the reigning AL Cy Young winner, I don't know who he'd be.) I'm not inclined to say so right now. Sabathia and Bedard are the only two I might put on that pedestal - if you're going to make that kind of trade, make it for a potential impact guy, not for Randy Wolf - but if they're even available, it's not clear we've got the goods. And even if we do, both have potential downsides - Bedard has looked awful outside of a pitcher's park in Safeco and seems like a cold fish, and Sabathia doesn't exactly have a sparkling playoff record (although I know it's a very small sample size, and of course you do have to get to the playoffs first). I mean, I wouldn't say no to having Sabathia (or, I suppose, Bedard) on my team in a vacuum, but it's not like there aren't other things to take into consideration.
But for God's sake, if you hear that the Cardinals are trying to deal for Sabathia, throw the kitchen sink in there.
I always try not to be recklessly optimistic when it comes to the Cubs. But I look at this team right now and I think maybe it's a little soon to start talking about brushing people aside. Maybe in another month things will look different. But let's take a look at this team, and at possible positional upgrades, and you tell me if people aren't moving to the trading block a bit too quickly.
C - Geovany Soto (.288/.374/.527, 11 HR, 42 RBI; 28% CS)
You can't possibly complain about Geovany Soto. When the Cubs went to the NLCS in 2003, their catchers were Damian Miller (76 OPS+) and Paul Bako (67 OPS+). They were fairly strong defensive catchers (combined 36.7% CS), but Soto is so much better offensively that it's clearly a much bigger advantage for the Cubs nowadays. The only question will be if Soto can hold up over a full season, but Henry Blanco is there to spell him, and playing a full season at Iowa and then coming to the Cubs in September last year didn't seem to slow Soto down. Clearly no needs here.
1B - Derrek Lee (.289/.349/.511, 14 HR, 44 RBI)
Lee's been slumping a little recently, but he's Derrek Lee. Solid here. At backup, Micah Hoffpauir's been hitting pretty well in his limited action, and he adds a lefty power bat off the bench in Daryle Ward: Professional Hitter's absence.
2B - Mark DeRosa (.299/.384/.464, 8 HR, 36 RBI, 97 positions played)
At age 33, DeRosa looks primed to have his best season as a professional - he's already closing on his career high in homers (13) and is almost halfway to his career high in RBI (74), plus his current slash averages would be career highs in all three categories. All that and he can play virtually anywhere on the field, save maybe pitcher, catcher and center - and I bet he'd try center if he had to. (He's already played five positions this year, including extended spells in left and at third during injuries to Soriano and Ramirez.) Did the Brian Roberts fiasco in spring training fire him up, or is he just having a career year at the perfect time? (Roberts, for the record, has a .361 OBP at the moment.)
SS - Ryan Theriot (.310/.388/.373, 32 BB/23 K, 1 HR, 18 RBI)
Okay, Theriot could probably field his position better, and he's got no power. His SB% is also way down (to an ugly 13/8, already twice as many times as he was caught last year with half the steals so far). But he's doing a good job of getting on base, and as the usual #2 hitter when the #1 hitter is a power guy, that's pretty much what you look for him to do, hopefully sticking around for the ride when Lee or Ramirez hit one out (or scampering around on a double). I would like to see a few more hits that aren't singles, but overall there's not much to complain about as of yet. There is still the nagging question of whether he can avoid another September fade.
3B - Aramis Ramirez (.300/.412/.502, 10 HR, 45 RBI, 40 BB/41 K)
Though Ramirez is only on pace for mid-20s in home runs, he's on pace to blow past his career high in walks (50) and OBP (.373). He's always been a hotter second-half player - his career best month for homers is July, and August for OPS - so while his HR and RBI totals don't project to anywhere near a year like 2006 (38/119), it's worth remembering that in 2006 he had just 14 HR and 43 RBI at the end of June before going on a tear over the final three months. All in all he's probably been the most consistent offensive force on the team since coming over in 2003 from Pittsburgh, even though you can pencil him in for a couple missed weeks most years (it helped his numbers to play 157 games in 2006).
LF - Alfonso Soriano (.283/.332/.547, 15 HR, 40 RBI, 7 SB/1 CS)
Of course, one of the main reasons for discussion of help is Soriano's absence - and perhaps rightly so, since he was (and still is) leading the team in home runs. But as I've pointed out before, the team OBP tends to go up in Soriano's absence, and it's not like there haven't been RBI machines at the #3, #4, and #6 holes in the order. Besides, what's the point of scrambling to fill this void with someone from the outside who'd be rendered useless as soon as Soriano returns?
CF - Jim Edmonds (.309/.342/.515, 2 HR, 14 RBI, 6 2B, just 22 games played as a Cub)
Edmonds took a little while to warm up, but now that he has, he's pretty warm - .375/.409/.625 in June, in fact. So why are we still talking about the need for a "left-handed power bat?" (And more importantly, if that is the need, why is anyone bringing up Scott Podsednik?)
RF - Kosuke Fukudome (.293/.401/.426, 5 HR, 29 RBI, 45 BB/42 K)
Whether or not it's true that Fukudome passed the art of getting on base to the rest of the team by osmosis, he's certainly been successful at it, trailing only Ramirez in OBP and leading the team in walks. With warmer weather coming, I think it's entirely possible for that power number to climb; there's still a chance he approaches 20 HR, I think. And while he's not the prototypical power-hitting corner OF, he might just be the best defensive RF in the National League. Think - well - Ichiro, except that only once has Ichiro recorded an OBP higher than .400, mostly because he doesn't take many walks. Fukudome doesn't steal as many bases, though. Still, his strong fundamentals have been a welcome sight for anyone frustrated by years of Dustyball.
Bench - Ronny Cedeno, Mike Fontenot, Henry Blanco, Micah Hoffpauir, Reed Johnson, Daryle Ward
Johnson has actually seen a lot of starts, hitting .267/.342/.381, though he's come up with a few timely home runs and has been a solid backup-type guy who can make starts in left or center when needed. Hoffpauir and Ward both fill the role of the "slow power-hitting lefty who can fill in at first or, if you're desperate, in an outfield corner," depending on Ward's health (right now, not). Blanco has been hitting pretty well by his standards and had a key HR in the big comeback vs. the Rockies. Cedeno and Fontenot are kind of slightly lesser offensive versions of Theriot, but they can both fill in on the infield (Cedeno pretty much anywhere, Fontenot at second if DeRosa is playing elsewhere). It's not the deepest bench ever, but it has a lot of guys who can get on base - Cedeno and Fontenot have gotten better at working walks, Ward can take a walk, and Johnson practically loves the hit-by-pitch. It's also worth mentioning here that Carlos Zambrano is hitting .362/.362/.511 and may actually be the best-hitting non-regular the Cubs have. (Although he does not know how to take a walk.)
SP - Carlos Zambrano (8-2, 2.98 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 7 HR, 32 BB/66 K)
SP - Ted Lilly (7-5, 4.76 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, 14 HR, 31 BB/83 K)
SP - Ryan Dempster (8-2, 2.81 ERA, 1.06 WHIP, 8 HR, 35 BB/75 K)
SP - Jason Marquis (5-3, 4.24 ERA, 1.49 WHIP, 6 HR, 30 BB/37 K)
SP - Sean Gallagher (3-3, 4.54 ERA, 1.37 WHIP, 4 HR, 15 BB/36 K)
Some of the numbers could definitely be better - Zambrano's WHIP, for example, is one of the highest of his career (it's better than last year's, but let's not forget that he sorta sucked last year), and it's not even due to walks - he's been pitching more to contact and sometimes it's been causing him to give up a lot of hits. His ERA isn't too bad for it, I guess, and his cultivation of a sinker has dropped his HR allowed. Lilly's ERA is so high because of his awful start to the year, but over the last seven weeks he's been much improved, finally dropping the ERA under 5.00 with six innings of shutout ball against Toronto on Sunday. He's also been striking guys out like crazy, including back-to-back double-digit K games on May 9 and 14. Dempster has been the shocker of the year, not only leading the starters in ERA and (by quite a bit) in WHIP, but having no starts under 5 innings (the only starter of whom that's true), the team's only CG, and just two starts where he allowed as many as four runs (and none where he allowed more) are all pretty impressive stats for a guy who spent the last several years as a reliever. That, of course, is the main concern with him (will he have enough stamina for the whole year, and especially deep [we hope] into October?); that and his BABIP, which at .215 is pretty low and risks a regression to the mean at some point. Marquis was looking to start his second-half shitfest early this year until getting an earful from Piniella on the mound; in his last two starts he's turned in two pretty dominant outings (at least by his standards). My dad always says he thinks Marquis has stuff that's just as good as Brandon Webb and his problem is making the pitches - while that's as true as what would happen if a frog had wings (he wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin'), maybe Piniella can actually smack some mental makeup into Marquis. Or maybe these two starts were just a blip. As for Gallagher, he hasn't looked too bad for a rookie. He has nearly as many Ks as Marquis in half as many starts, and he's a hard-luck 3-3 as the Cubs have scored three runs or less in four of his seven starts. He still needs to show he can make good enough pitches to last beyond five innings on a start-by-start basis, though.
Aside from the fact that only one of those guys is a lefty, I like this rotation right now. My main concern is that it needs to go deeper into games.
RP - Carlos Marmol (1-1, 3 sv, 2.09 ERA, 0.77 WHIP, 15 BB/63 K, 43.0 IP)
RP - Bob Howry (2-2, 1 sv, 5.08 ERA, 1.46 WHIP, 5 BB/29 K, 33.2 IP)
RP - Michael Wuertz (1-1, 2.73 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 12 BB/16 K, 29.2 IP)
RP - Jon Lieber (2-3, 3.21 ERA, 1.37 WHIP, 4 BB/18 K, 33.2 IP)
RP - Kerry Wood (3-1, 18 sv, 2.65 ERA, 0.86 WHIP, 8 BB/44 K, 37.2 IP)
Bullpen wear is another possible worry. I'd be less worried about Marmol if Howry and Wuertz could get their crap together; Howry is looking a bit better but Wuertz has been a damn mess recently, like in San Diego on June 2 when he put two guys on with walks, forcing Lou to go to Marmol earlier than he wanted and ultimately helping to cause the home run the next inning that scared the hell out of me. In recent years, Wuertz was like Marmol, a guy who could come in and strike out the side - this year he has just 16 K in 29.2 innings, and his ERA is mostly so low because he'll get pulled and Marmol will strand the inherited runners. Marmol is pitching too many games, in my opinion. Maybe guys like Eyre and Cotts can help take some of the load off, as they've both been decent since returning, but since they're both lefties, they'll probably see a lot more situational use. Aside from the overuse, of course, Marmol's been pretty godlike. As for Lieber, his one spot start was a total fiasco, but he's been pretty good out of the pen. People were ready to run Wood out of town after he blew three of his first seven save chances (along with the Opening Day issues that Fukudome bailed him out of), but since then he's blown just one, and now none since May 24, saving 8 in a row and 14 of 15 chances. Workload might be a concern there as well - after all, he's already thrown more innings than in any year since 2005. But right now he's second in the NL in saves, is striking guys out, and has mostly been unhittable.
So!
What did you notice in that list that the Cubs were really missing? I can think of three things:
*Lefty outfield bat
*Lefty starter
*Another shutdown reliever
Let's look at these one at a time:
Lefty outfield bat: Right now, this is Edmonds, and I see no need for it to be otherwise. But let's say that he cools back off and, come late July, the Cubs are mediocre in center again. The problem with calling for a lefty outfield bat - and preferably one with power - is that there's nowhere to put it but center; Fukudome and Soriano are pretty well entrenched at the corners (we've already seen it's not worth moving Soriano, and while Fukudome probably could play center, Lou has already stated his understandable reluctance to move Fukudome when he might be the best right fielder in the NL). Here's your list of lefty CF power bats who have seen regular playing time this year:
Josh Hamilton, David DeJesus, Nate McLouth, Grady Sizemore, Rick Ankiel.
Well, I'm sure all of those guys will be available. DeJesus, maybe, but then he's not really even a power hitter looking at his career stats - if he gets to 20 this year, which is a small stretch from his current 7, that would vastly outpace his career high of 9. The rest you can just forget. Maybe the Cubs should have held onto Hamilton when they took him in the Rule V draft two years ago, rather than giving him to the Reds for nothing. (Can you imagine this team right now if the center fielder were hitting even close to the way Josh Hamilton is hitting? Now I'm getting mad. Let's just move on.)
Lefty starter: The obvious answer is "C.C. Sabathia," but it's hardly a guarantee that he's going to be traded, and even if he is, he'll probably cost a king's ransom just in prospects - and that's before you sign him to a $20 million-per-year extension. There are less obvious guys out there - Randy Wolf, for example, although it turns out that his 3.83 ERA is exactly league average for a guy whose home starts are in Petco. (Home: 2.45; road: 5.31. Yeesh.) Erik Bedard has been mentioned if the new Mariners GM wants to ship him right back out. But Bedard, for all his apparent talent, has been awful away from Safeco, and his demeanor seems a little frosty, which I'm not sure would fit into this clubhouse so well. (If we got the 2007 Erik Bedard, then it might not matter. But so far it's unclear that he's not something of a one-year wonder.) Among non-lefties, I've heard Paul Byrd's name thrown out, but his ERA is 4.89; Greg Maddux was also mentioned, but do we need to go down that road again? (Also, his ERA away from Petco is a very human 4.75.)
Shutdown reliever: Nobody trades shutdown relievers - or if they do, you always, always overpay. Better off calling Ascanio back up and giving him another shot, or something. Right now I think the bullpen is holding steady enough.
So, yeah. Is there really anyone out there worth bringing in? Is it worth mortgaging the farm system to do so? (I mean, Peter Gammons doesn't even think we have enough to give up to get Sabathia from the Indians, and it's kind of hard to disagree - we'd really have to give up a young, potential impact pitcher in return, I think, and given Rich Hill's age and well-documented struggles I doubt the Indians would buy him in that role. Jose Ceda, maybe, but he's probably too raw to headline a deal. If there's anyone else out there who scouts love enough to front a trade for the reigning AL Cy Young winner, I don't know who he'd be.) I'm not inclined to say so right now. Sabathia and Bedard are the only two I might put on that pedestal - if you're going to make that kind of trade, make it for a potential impact guy, not for Randy Wolf - but if they're even available, it's not clear we've got the goods. And even if we do, both have potential downsides - Bedard has looked awful outside of a pitcher's park in Safeco and seems like a cold fish, and Sabathia doesn't exactly have a sparkling playoff record (although I know it's a very small sample size, and of course you do have to get to the playoffs first). I mean, I wouldn't say no to having Sabathia (or, I suppose, Bedard) on my team in a vacuum, but it's not like there aren't other things to take into consideration.
But for God's sake, if you hear that the Cardinals are trying to deal for Sabathia, throw the kitchen sink in there.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
No no no no no
Last year, with Soriano injured in August, the Cubs put in a waiver claim on Scott Podsednik, only for him to be (mercifully) pulled back. I covered at the time how much I hated this idea.
Well, Podsednik's name is coming up. Again. At least this time it seems more like a rumor (I'm putting the blame on you, Troy E. Renck of the Denver Post):
Podsednik's stats this year? .222/.311/.311. He doesn't have a single number that isn't fucking terrible. Seriously, look at this guy's career stats - he sucks. He's so bad it's not even funny. The only thing he can do is steal bases, and he can only do that if he can get on base - and guess what he has been absolutely terrible at doing in four of the last five years? Some of that might be injury-related, but come on. A .299 OBP in 214 at-bats last year? If your entire game is based around getting on base, you are worthless with an OBP like that.
Fortunately it looks like Edmonds has started to hit, and pretty well - in his last twelve starts, he has seven games of two hits or more, and he saved the Cubs' butts in the 1948 game (I had to link to this clip eventually, right?). Hopefully that will keep any dalliances with Podsednik in the rumor stage. I guess maybe if you can get him for free, maybe I wouldn't be furious. But if Hendry trades anything for that guy at any point, I am going to mail him a bag of poop. (Oh, and "The Cubs don't have interest in Brian Fuentes?" Thank fucking God.)
In much more exciting news, the Cubs took two of three from the Blue Jays up in Toronto, with a strong start from Marquis on Saturday (beating Roy Halladay) and a somewhat shaky (five walks) but passable start from Lilly on Sunday. Even Gallagher didn't look that bad on Friday; he just didn't get much run support. Lee finally woke up, going 5-for-8 in the two wins, his first two multi-hit games since May 30. Ramirez hit his first home run since May 26 (10th overall). And the Cubs averaged 5 runs per game against one of the stingiest staffs in baseball. All in all, not a bad start to life without Soriano, but it doesn't get any easier, heading off to Tampa for a series starting Tuesday (and having to squeeze in the Hall of Fame Game on Monday in Cooperstown, although I don't expect the starters will see a lot of time in that game). Right now, though, I sure can't complain.
Well, Podsednik's name is coming up. Again. At least this time it seems more like a rumor (I'm putting the blame on you, Troy E. Renck of the Denver Post):
Renck says the Cubs might have renewed interest if Jim Edmonds doesn't work out. He says the Cubs have a "working list of potential available left-handed bats" as a contingency plan. One other Cubs-Rockies note - Ken Rosenthal says that despite his initial report, the Cubs do not have interest in Brian Fuentes.Dear God. Edmonds, for the record, is hitting .297/.333/.500 as a Cub, and that's before he went 2-for-4 with a double today. He's also got 14 RBI in 22 games, which is nothing to sneeze at. And, most importantly, he's not Scott Podsednik.
Podsednik's stats this year? .222/.311/.311. He doesn't have a single number that isn't fucking terrible. Seriously, look at this guy's career stats - he sucks. He's so bad it's not even funny. The only thing he can do is steal bases, and he can only do that if he can get on base - and guess what he has been absolutely terrible at doing in four of the last five years? Some of that might be injury-related, but come on. A .299 OBP in 214 at-bats last year? If your entire game is based around getting on base, you are worthless with an OBP like that.
Fortunately it looks like Edmonds has started to hit, and pretty well - in his last twelve starts, he has seven games of two hits or more, and he saved the Cubs' butts in the 1948 game (I had to link to this clip eventually, right?). Hopefully that will keep any dalliances with Podsednik in the rumor stage. I guess maybe if you can get him for free, maybe I wouldn't be furious. But if Hendry trades anything for that guy at any point, I am going to mail him a bag of poop. (Oh, and "The Cubs don't have interest in Brian Fuentes?" Thank fucking God.)
In much more exciting news, the Cubs took two of three from the Blue Jays up in Toronto, with a strong start from Marquis on Saturday (beating Roy Halladay) and a somewhat shaky (five walks) but passable start from Lilly on Sunday. Even Gallagher didn't look that bad on Friday; he just didn't get much run support. Lee finally woke up, going 5-for-8 in the two wins, his first two multi-hit games since May 30. Ramirez hit his first home run since May 26 (10th overall). And the Cubs averaged 5 runs per game against one of the stingiest staffs in baseball. All in all, not a bad start to life without Soriano, but it doesn't get any easier, heading off to Tampa for a series starting Tuesday (and having to squeeze in the Hall of Fame Game on Monday in Cooperstown, although I don't expect the starters will see a lot of time in that game). Right now, though, I sure can't complain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)