BA Picks Cubs 5th in Division (Media Prediction Thread)

[goonys evil twin]

People are giving reasons why the Cubs should be better. They aren't justifying their disdain for somebody thinking the team might not improve as much as they'd hope. You can't just assume that since bad things happened last year, and things appear better right now, that no bad things will happen in 2007. Remember, teams like the Yankees lost Matsui and Sheffield for long stretches, yet managed to improve by 2 games last year. Almost every team deals with unexpected losses or letdowns every year. The Cubs have addressed the problems that caused them to lose 96 games last year. But it's highly debatable whether or not they've addressed the problems that will keep them from winning 85 this year. Things could go relatively well this year for the Cubs, and they could still finish right around .500 and well out of the race.

 

Simply put, Cubs fans have no business being outraged that somebody is predicting a less than stellar improvement.

[goonys evil twin]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that.

 

You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game.

 

I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation.

 

Oh great, more nonsensical "pessimism" garbage.

 

I'm calling for more than 80 wins, in part, because I'm hoping for less severe bad luck. What I'm saying here is it's ridiculous to suggest somebody can't realistically predict the Cubs for 5th place.

[98navigator]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that.

 

You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game. People are assuming 100% health for all but Prior and Wood and no major setbacks. That's foolish. This team could probably win anywhere from 75-85 wins. I'm looking at the upper part of that range. But it's hardly unfair to think more about the lower end.

 

It is unfair. Stop talking about 2006. Very little changed between the start of 2006 and the 2005 season. I never had any faith in that team's ability to improve. The 2007 team could only be judged against last year's team if the key roster spots were similar; which they are not. The team that played the majority of the innings last season was in a constant state of flux. The change in field management is equally important.

 

 

I can see this team surpassing 85 wins.

[CubColtPacer]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that.

 

You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game. People are assuming 100% health for all but Prior and Wood and no major setbacks. That's foolish. This team could probably win anywhere from 75-85 wins. I'm looking at the upper part of that range. But it's hardly unfair to think more about the lower end.

 

Let's look at the difference between last year and this year.

 

Last year, you had 9 guys make 9 starts or more-here are the ERA's for 6 of those guys:

 

Juan Mateo-10 GS, 5.32 ERA

Sean Marshall-24 GS, 5.59 ERA

Carlos Marmol-13 GS, 6.08 ERA

Mark Prior-9 GS, 7.21 ERA

Angel Guzman-10 GS, 7.39 ERA

Glendon Rusch-9 GS, 7.46 ERA

 

That's 6 horrible starters right there with 75 combined starts, and that doesn't even count the starters with less than 9 starts (Williams, Ryu, and Walrond add about another 5 starts with about a 7 ERA combined as well).

 

That's 80 starts from people who should not have been in the rotation. For this team to come anywhere close to that, one of the top 3 starters would have to go down for a significant time and have Marquis and Miller (plus Guzman) be awful, along with the minor leaguer or Prior that replaces the injured starter for that time. Is it reasonable? Maybe at the edge of it...is it at all likely that all of that happens? No.

 

Also, their top end starting pitching was awful. Rich Hill was the #2 starter with a 4.17 ERA over 16 starts, and Greg Maddux was the #3 with a 4.69 over 22 starts. Those are the only 3 starters with 9 starts or more that have ERA's under 5.

 

The hitting I detailed in the A-Rod post-from the stats last year, 1B, CF, and LF should all be major upgrades for the team, with most of the other positions being equal or slight upgrades, with possible small downgrades at catcher and RF (depending on how much Barrett plays this year, and if they platoon Jacque or not). Even if a couple of the hardest to replace goes down (Lee and Aram for significant time, for example) the offense would still be better than it was last year.

 

Finally, you have the improvement in the coaching staff, which the impact of that is still to be determined.

[goonys evil twin]

Okay fine, forget it. There's no way this team fails to reach the 85 win mark. To 90 and beyond! Lou and Soriano can't be stopped.

[98navigator]

FYI, Jim Callis is on Murphy's Score show right now.

 

http://670thescore.com/

[Soriano12]

I wanted to send an email to the editors of BA, but it is $25 per email question. :cry:

[CubColtPacer]

Okay fine, forget it. There's no way this team fails to reach the 85 win mark. To 90 and beyond! Lou and Soriano can't be stopped.

 

I don't think anybody is saying that either. If you compare the teams on paper though, the Cubs have one of the 3 best teams in the division, and possibly the best. Could they hit a pretty good amount of bad breaks and get 70-75 wins? Sure. When you compare them to the other teams in the division right now though, how can you justify that they are the 5th best team?

[CubinNY]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that.

 

You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game.

 

I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation.

 

The Friken' Marlins entier team was filled with AAAA and AAA and AA guys last year and still finshed better than the Cubs.

 

The Cubs were terrible. This year they've put together a team that doesn't quite fit. And a pitching staff that includes Hill, Lilly, and Marquis. All suspetible to an inordinate number of HRs.

 

Last year the Cubs were among the worst statistical teams in baseball and had one of the worst records in baseball. I think it is unrealistic to expect them to be drastically better. But even if they are drastically bettter that still only puts them around .500.

[TheDude]

Simply put, Cubs fans have no business being outraged that somebody is predicting a less than stellar improvement.

 

Sure they do. Predicting 5th is absurd. For all intents, this team is adding Lee and Soriano to the offense.

 

This team won't be trotting out every minor league pitcher with a jock-strap this year either, which was a major reason for last year's misery.

 

All the best pieces of this team return, while most of the bad pieces do not. For anyone in the business of predicting team success, ignoring the changes made to the team and just progressing on a pre-defined curve based on previous seasons is bad business.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that.

 

You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game.

 

I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation.

 

The Friken' Marlins entier team was filled with AAAA and AAA and AA guys last year and still finshed better than the Cubs.

 

The Cubs were terrible. This year they've put together a team that doesn't quite fit. And a pitching staff that includes Hill, Lilly, and Marquis. All suspetible to an inordinate number of HRs.

 

Last year the Cubs were among the worst statistical teams in baseball and had one of the worst records in baseball. I think it is unrealistic to expect them to be drastically better. But even if they are drastically bettter that still only puts them around .500.

 

With all due respect, the Marlins team was filled with very talented AAA and AA guys last year. Ours not so much.

[CubinNY]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that.

 

You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game.

 

I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation.

 

The Friken' Marlins entier team was filled with AAAA and AAA and AA guys last year and still finshed better than the Cubs.

 

The Cubs were terrible. This year they've put together a team that doesn't quite fit. And a pitching staff that includes Hill, Lilly, and Marquis. All suspetible to an inordinate number of HRs.

 

Last year the Cubs were among the worst statistical teams in baseball and had one of the worst records in baseball. I think it is unrealistic to expect them to be drastically better. But even if they are drastically bettter that still only puts them around .500.

 

With all due respect, the Marlins team was filled with very talented AAA and AA guys last year. Ours not so much.

 

So stipulated. Even so, they were still better than the Cubs.

[CubColtPacer]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that.

 

You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game.

 

I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation.

 

The Friken' Marlins entier team was filled with AAAA and AAA and AA guys last year and still finshed better than the Cubs.

 

The Cubs were terrible. This year they've put together a team that doesn't quite fit. And a pitching staff that includes Hill, Lilly, and Marquis. All suspetible to an inordinate number of HRs.

 

Last year the Cubs were among the worst statistical teams in baseball and had one of the worst records in baseball. I think it is unrealistic to expect them to be drastically better. But even if they are drastically bettter that still only puts them around .500.

 

Are you saying that this teams ceiling is around .500?

[CubinNY]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that.

 

You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game.

 

I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation.

 

The Friken' Marlins entier team was filled with AAAA and AAA and AA guys last year and still finshed better than the Cubs.

 

The Cubs were terrible. This year they've put together a team that doesn't quite fit. And a pitching staff that includes Hill, Lilly, and Marquis. All suspetible to an inordinate number of HRs.

 

Last year the Cubs were among the worst statistical teams in baseball and had one of the worst records in baseball. I think it is unrealistic to expect them to be drastically better. But even if they are drastically bettter that still only puts them around .500.

 

Are you saying that this teams ceiling is around .500?

 

There is no such a thing as a ceiling unless you are talking about a house.

 

Ceiling is nonsensical scoutspeak that someone uses when they want to appear to be smart.

 

I'm saying that the chances that the Cubs are a 90+ win team are small. It's not impossible, but it's not very likely either. I consider a 90 win team to be good.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

I accept the fact that the cubs could go from 100 wins- 75 wins, and that they could finish anywhere from first to 4th in the division. What I cant accept is anyone projecting the Reds being better that the Cubs. Just a joke.

[CubColtPacer]

 

There is no such a thing as a ceiling unless you are talking about a house.

 

Ceiling is nonsensical scoutspeak that someone uses when they want to appear to be smart.

 

I'm saying that the chances that the Cubs are a 90+ win team are small. It's not impossible, but it's not very likely either. I consider a 90 win team to be good.

 

Ok, that's possibly true. However, there was only 1 90 win team in the NL last year, and if you look around the NL the chance for pretty much any individual team in the NL this year besides the Mets has to be classified as "small". It's not like anybody got much better.

 

I think people are upset about the Cubs being ranked 5th is when you look at the Cubs vs the teams that were ranked 3rd and 4th. What are the Reds for example going to be better at than the Cubs this year? Looking at the lineup and pitching staffs, I'm not sure which one they are supposed to be better at.

[MustangMike]

Yeah, right. We're going to finish 5th...if Aramis and Lee both get hurt and Z's elbow melts.

 

 

omg ...don't even speak of such things!

[Fro]

Just by getting rid of Dusty and Lee being healthy, I think you're already over 80 wins. I think Lou over Dusty is a 10-win swing alone.

 

The offseason moves just add to that (and whatever we get out of Wood/Prior), plus development of the kids who got experience last year (Murton, Theriot, Hill, Guzman, etc.).

[dalgreen]

Simply put, Cubs fans have no business being outraged that somebody is predicting a less than stellar improvement.

 

Sure they do. Predicting 5th is absurd. For all intents, this team is adding Lee and Soriano to the offense.

 

 

No more absurd than some people on here picking the Cubs to win the division this time last year... and, yes, there were quite a few.

 

Until our pitching is as good as what the offense should be, I don't think it's absurd for anyone to predict a fifth place finish for the Cubs. By the way, shouldn't we pencil in Ramirez to be out for at least 15 games this year?

[Derwood]

i'll post my predictions for the division around early october

[Mizzou]

5th place? That's absurd. How can you rationally look at this division and say the Cubs are the 5th best team in it? Stupid.

[NewUserName]

I think the whole division is going to be kind of a crap shoot. What will probably make a lot of the difference will be "surprises". Who will be some of the upside surprises in the division and who will be some of the downside surprises?

 

I think the Cubs could win the division if Murton and Hill continue to progress, core group of players is mainly healthy and noone else in the division wins 95+ games. If Hill and Murton suck and Lee and Zambrano get hurt the Cubs could easily finish last again.

[dalgreen]

5th place? That's absurd. How can you rationally look at this division and say the Cubs are the 5th best team in it? Stupid.

 

It's called a prediction. I don't know why people are getting offended by it.

[Mizzou]

5th place? That's absurd. How can you rationally look at this division and say the Cubs are the 5th best team in it? Stupid.

 

It's called a prediction. I don't know why people are getting offended by it.

I'm hardly offended. It's just a stupid prediction, that's all.

[indifferent]

Just by getting rid of Dusty and Lee being healthy, I think you're already over 80 wins. I think Lou over Dusty is a 10-win swing alone.

 

The offseason moves just add to that (and whatever we get out of Wood/Prior), plus development of the kids who got experience last year (Murton, Theriot, Hill, Guzman, etc.).

 

Has anyone read Neyer's Book of Baseball Blunders? There's a whole chapter devoted to the Cubs hiring Dusty Baker. It focused on giving an imprudent amount of ABs to the likes of Perez, Macias, and Harris, as well as other flawed Dusty philosophies. I would never usually think a manager would make that much of a difference, but in this extreme case, I don't think five wins is out of the question just by changing managers.