The Best in 60 years

[Bull]

In the "he'll fit right in" thread there is some talk of the best constructed lineups of recent Cubs teams (particularly 84 and 68-72) so I have a few questions to debate. All questions are about teams 1946 to present. All ask you to put modern thinking on statistics on your decision. Feel free to choose more than one for each, but signify which is the most glaring example.

 

1) Which Cubs teams were well constructed quality teams and didn't make the playoffs. OR What year was the biggest let down given players previous history, but everyone seemed to have a down year? The GM did his job, but the players didn't produce.

 

2) Which teams made the playoffs but were not quality teams/weren't well assembled. ( how the heck did career ERA+ Bielecki put up a 125 ERA+ in 1989. Not to mention Smith and Walton)

 

3) Which teams lacked one element to be great. (ie the 3rd place 1978 seemed to have good OBP but besides Kingman, the highest SLG% was Buckner at .419 - no power)

 

4) The big question: What was they best team over the last 60 years, the Cubs best chance to win it all? (deosn't have to be a playoff team)

 

 

I'll try to assemble a list and then rank 1. the biggest dissapointment, 2. the flukes, 3. the unbalanced winners, 4. the best shot at the WS.

[ConstableRabbit]

I would say 2004 is up there with the best. That team was absolutely STACKED, especially after Hendry pulled off the Nomar deal at the deadline. I was certain we were on our way.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

I would say 2004 is up there with the best. That team was absolutely STACKED, especially after Hendry pulled off the Nomar deal at the deadline. I was certain we were on our way.

 

I just cringe everytime I think of that team. Absolutely the best lineup in the NL.

 

[/i]

[waffle]

'69 cubbies were stacked. Much better than the miracle mets....

[Bull]

Now play nice kids. I need answers for 1,2,3,and4 with factual support.

[goonys evil twin]

I would say 2004 is up there with the best. That team was absolutely STACKED, especially after Hendry pulled off the Nomar deal at the deadline. I was certain we were on our way.

 

I just cringe everytime I think of that team. Absolutely the best lineup in the NL.

 

Not really. Maybe in name only, but that's it. 7th in NL in runs scored. 14th in BB, 11th in OBP. They were an impatient, and predictably inefficient lineup.

[kente777]

I would say 2004 is up there with the best. That team was absolutely STACKED, especially after Hendry pulled off the Nomar deal at the deadline. I was certain we were on our way.

 

I just cringe everytime I think of that team. Absolutely the best lineup in the NL.

 

Not really. Maybe in name only, but that's it. 7th in NL in runs scored. 14th in BB, 11th in OBP. They were an impatient, and predictably inefficient lineup.

 

I agree with your assessment. Perhaps on paper they were the best lineup, but they sure didn't produce like it.

[SoonerCubFan]

Since I was the one to refer to the best lineups in the last 40 years in another thread, I still stand by the view that the 1984 was the best constructed lineup top to bottom, with the 1967-1972 teams good but imbalanced (poor leadoff and bottom of the order).

 

The 1984 led the NL by a wide margin in runs scored, coming 1st in SLUG and 2nd in OBP, resulting in a large team OPS lead. They had excellent OBP at the top (and speed to go along with it), and lots of power spread from the 2nd to 7th place hitters. They had three guys with OPS+ of 128 or greater, and five better than league average, with one 98 OPS+ guy who still drovbe in 94 runs. They had their weak link hitting 8th.

 

The 1989 team (surprisingly to me) finished 1st in runs, finishing 3rd in OBP and 2nd in SLUG. They had a one year flash of solid hitting throughout the lineup (6 guys league average or better ine the everyday lineup, including a great platoon of Dwight Smith and Lloyd McClendon), although Walton was a vastly overrrated leadoff hitter.

 

The teams from 1967-1972 finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 6th, and 4th in runs scored, largely because of Williams and Santo in the middle, with help for a year or two from guys like Hickman, Pepitone, Cardenal and Adolfo Phillips. Banks was decent through 1969, but not great. Kessinger was a lousy leadoff hitter (career OPS+ of 72 is only slightly better than having Neifi leading off for 6-8 years), Beckert had a couple of decent years but was overall below average, and the 6-8 hitters were generally weak.

 

The Cubs have had sporadic terrific hitters like Sosa, Madlock, Buckner, etc. but never seem to overlap them on a team of solid hitters. Only in the late 60s-early 70s did they overlap morfe than 2 excellent hitters.

 

The biggest surprise team was probably the 1975 team, which was young and had some promise, finishing 4th in runs with 2 young guys posting 140+ OPS+ (Madlock and Thornton).

 

In conclusion, the key is to get a team with at least 3-4 guys capable of having well above league average OPS (and healthy), and as many guys above league average as possible. Lee and Ramirez are locks to be well above (120 or better OPS+). Murton is already good enough to be slightly above, so I expect him and Barrett to be at least 110+, and a platoon of Murton and Jones may yield a combined 110-120 out of one OF position. That's probably 4 positions we're well off at. The key will be to upgrade at least 2 of LR/RF, CF, 2B or SS to proven better than league average players.

[Pinktermite]

So what's the short answer here? I don't understand all these statistics, but the way I read this is that keeping Ramirez, a healthy DLee producing like he can, and with Murton platooning with Jones, and with Barrett...

 

We need two MORE hitters at least above average vs. the league...and then go after pitching?

 

So a Soriano, CLee, Tejada, ARod, JD Drew, Pat Burrell, Crawford....whatever it is...we need a couple more hitters...???