The Cubs are simply not clutch

[killthegoat06]

Bases loaded with no outs TWICE in 3 games and the Cubs fail to score a run.

 

If that isn't lack of "clutch" hitting, I don't know what is. Oh, and just a side note...the Cubs lost both games when having this great opportunity.

 

Playoff teams take advantage of those opportunities. Inference???

 

Ken

 

How about the fake rally in the 13th?

 

They didn't actually load the bases until there were 2 out, but the point is made, just the same.

 

BOTTOM OF THE THIRTEENTH INNING

 

Putz in to pitch for Seattle

Jones called out on strikes

Theriot singled to right field

Pie singled to left field , Theriot to second

Fontenot lined out to second base

Soriano walked , Theriot to third, Pie to second

K Hill, pinch hitting for Gallagher, grounded out to first, 3-1

 

0 runs 2 hits 0 errors 3 men left on base

 

I know it was 2 outs. My point was the lack of clutch runs. The 8th was a bigger disaster, though.

[Banedon]

Bases loaded with no outs TWICE in 3 games and the Cubs fail to score a run.

 

If that isn't lack of "clutch" hitting, I don't know what is. Oh, and just a side note...the Cubs lost both games when having this great opportunity.

 

Playoff teams take advantage of those opportunities. Inference???

 

Ken

 

I didn't watch the end of the game last night, but when I saw the score this morning, and read the recap, I knew this thread was in for a ressurection. :P

 

Admittedly the "close and late" stats didn't hold up last night, but interestingly, depite how good those stats have been, their extra inning offensive stats have been absolutely horrendous. Real bad.

 

You've certainly had the right two games to confirm your "perceptions"...I'll be sure to bump this thread when the opposite occurs... 8-)

[BigbadB]

I know it was 2 outs. My point was the lack of clutch runs. The 8th was a bigger disaster, though.

 

It would have been much easier to attempt to rally against Jason Davis or O'Flerety rather than JJ Putz, who hasn't blown a save all year.

 

This game is a pretty good example to explain why this team is where they are in the standings.

 

They seem to just sit around waiting for the other team to do something before doing something themselves.

 

This team needs to learn to be proactive rather than reactive.

[TruffleShuffle]

This team needs to learn to be proactive rather than reactive.

 

This sounds like something you'd hear in a business meeting about Global Integrated Business Solutions.

[BigbadB]

This team needs to learn to be proactive rather than reactive.

 

This sounds like something you'd hear in a business meeting about Global Integrated Business Solutions.

 

You were at that meeting too? :P

[jersey cubs fan]

This team needs to learn to be proactive rather than reactive.

 

Perhaps by being more aggressive, and making things happen while putting the pressure on the defense?

[TruffleShuffle]

This team needs to learn to be proactive rather than reactive.

 

This sounds like something you'd hear in a business meeting about Global Integrated Business Solutions.

 

You were at that meeting too? :P

 

no, but i will watch the U.S. Open this weekend, and hear plenty of meaningless business catch phrases!

[CubinNY]

This team needs to learn to be proactive rather than reactive.

 

This sounds like something you'd hear in a business meeting about Global Integrated Business Solutions.

 

You were at that meeting too? :P

 

no, but i will watch the U.S. Open this weekend, and hear plenty of meaningless business catch phrases!

 

Actually being proactive rather than reactive is not a meanigless phrase either in business or in education.

 

It's much easier to prevent a problem than it is to deal with a problem after it has occurred. The trouble is prevention prevents the person from experiencing the contingencies and although we are verbal animals we don't often follow rules that don't have strong, immediate, probabilities. So we have to react to a situation that could have been prevented.

 

Brushing and flossing is but one example.

[Fred Hornkohl]

I know it was 2 outs. My point was the lack of clutch runs. The 8th was a bigger disaster, though.

 

It would have been much easier to attempt to rally against Jason Davis or O'Flerety rather than JJ Putz, who hasn't blown a save all year.

 

This game is a pretty good example to explain why this team is where they are in the standings.

 

They seem to just sit around waiting for the other team to do something before doing something themselves.

 

This team needs to learn to be proactive rather than reactive.

 

This team is scoring 0.21 R/G more than it did last year. That puts them 11 runs above league average. Not great; not where we want to be; but an improvement. We are no longer bottom 3 or 4 in all offense catagories except hits. We're even above league average in OBP !! Go figure.... this is the Chicago CUBS !!

 

06/12           AB   R    H  2B  3B  HR   TB RBI  BB   SO  SB  CS     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
Philadelphia  2236 326  587 131  13  72  960 313 251  457  49  10  0.263  0.344  0.429  0.773
Atlanta       2223 300  591 134   9  70  953 288 215  450  25   8  0.266  0.333  0.429  0.762
Florida       2257 320  581 134  19  72  969 303 224  550  44  11  0.257  0.332  0.429  0.761
NY Mets       2181 296  592 109  15  61  914 279 221  386  73  14  0.271  0.341  0.419  0.760
Milwaukee     2169 285  561 115   9  84  946 274 187  426  33  15  0.259  0.323  0.436  0.759
Cincinnati    2215 293  559 104  15  85  948 280 208  444  42  14  0.252  0.320  0.428  0.748
CUBS          2250 292  600 126  13  61  935 276 191  411  35  12  0.267  0.328  0.416  0.744
Colorado      2198 269  579 121  17  42  860 252 234  424  37  15  0.263  0.338  0.391  0.729
Arizona       2162 270  541 119  18  57  867 258 208  388  25  11  0.250  0.318  0.401  0.719
Houston       2162 261  538 122  11  54  844 253 201  393  28  15  0.249  0.318  0.390  0.708
San Francisco 2181 273  551 105  19  52  850 257 196  389  27  13  0.253  0.318  0.390  0.708
LA Dodgers    2195 279  568 120   8  42  830 269 219  310  48  19  0.259  0.328  0.378  0.706
St. Louis     2051 243  527 100   5  52  793 229 155  301  16  12  0.257  0.316  0.387  0.703
San Diego     2169 274  526 129  10  53  834 257 215  480  24  10  0.243  0.314  0.385  0.699
Pittsburgh    2214 269  555 120   8  53  850 253 178  448  22  10  0.251  0.314  0.384  0.698
Washington    2195 247  542 113  11  40  797 236 193  431  19  11  0.247  0.315  0.363  0.678

Average       2191 281  562 119  13  59  884 267 206  418  34  13  0.257  0.325  0.403  0.728
Maximum       2257 326  600 134  19  85  969 313 251  550  73  19  0.271  0.344  0.436  0.773
Minimum       2051 243  526 100   5  40  793 229 155  301  16   8  0.243  0.314  0.363  0.678

 

06/12     Avg    Max    Min  St Dev   CUBS   Rank  Zscore
AB       2191   2257   2051   46.45   2250      2    1.27
R         281    326    243   22.28    292      6    0.49
H         562    600    526   23.20    600      1    1.62
2B        119    134    100   10.28    126      5    0.69
3B         13     19      5    4.18     13      7    0.12
HR         59     85     40   13.47     61      6    0.12
TB        884    969    793   58.76    935      6    0.86
RBI       267    313    229   21.80    276      6    0.40
BB        206    251    155   22.31    191     13   -0.67
SO        418    550    301   58.34    411      7   -0.12
SB         34     73     16   14.05     35      7    0.06
CS         13     19      8    2.65     12      8   -0.19
BA      0.257  0.271  0.243    0.01  0.267      2    1.34
OBP     0.325  0.344  0.314    0.01  0.328      6    0.31
SLG     0.403  0.436  0.363    0.02  0.416      7    0.57
OPS     0.728  0.773  0.678    0.03  0.744      7    0.54

 

Compare those rankings to the last couple of years.........

 

2006      Avg    Max    Min  St Dev   CUBS   Rank  Zscore
AB       5001   5105   4901   57.27   5053      4    0.90
R         694    773    632   43.08    632     16   -1.43
H        1324   1396   1256   36.49   1353      5    0.79
2B        272    307    245   16.30    245     16   -1.68
3B         31     50     11   11.68     38      4    0.63
HR        160    205    129   23.02    145     12   -0.64
TB       2137   2270   2015   79.49   2109     10   -0.35
RBI       661    734    598   42.93    598     16   -1.46
BB        483    556    365   49.31    365     16   -2.39
SO        975   1132    793  107.10    829      3   -1.36
SB         85    131     49   26.12    106      6    0.82
CS         34     57     19   11.03     45     14    0.96
BA      0.265  0.275  0.254    0.01  0.268      5    0.62
OBP     0.334  0.346  0.320    0.01  0.320     16   -2.11
SLG     0.427  0.451  0.401    0.01  0.417     12   -0.72
OPS     0.761  0.788  0.729    0.02  0.737     15   -1.32

 

 

2005      Avg    Max    Min  St Dev   CUBS   Rank  Zscore
AB       5508   5584   5426   49.35   5584      1    1.55
R         721    820    639   53.00    703      9   -0.34
H        1441   1506   1367   42.53   1506      1    1.53
2B        297    335    269   18.76    323      3    1.38
3B         29     39     15    6.89     23     13   -0.91
HR        161    222    117   28.03    194      2    1.17
TB       2281   2484   2093  107.64   2457      2    1.64
RBI       686    784    615   48.03    674      8   -0.26
BB        525    639    419   61.77    419     16   -1.71
SO       1055   1303    901  100.53    920      3   -1.34
SB         84    153     45   26.04     65     13   -0.74
CS         35     45     23    6.35     39     12    0.63
BA      0.262  0.272  0.252    0.01  0.270      2    1.29
OBP     0.330  0.348  0.319    0.01  0.324     11   -0.78
SLG     0.414  0.446  0.386    0.02  0.440      2    1.51
OPS     0.744  0.785  0.708    0.02  0.785      4    1.85

 

It seems to me that this offense is headed in the right direction; a claim we could not make the last few years. If that's reactive, then so be it.

[BigbadB]

This team needs to learn to be proactive rather than reactive.

 

Perhaps by being more aggressive, and making things happen while putting the pressure on the defense?

 

Proactive would be to put the best 8 guys on the field rather than feeling sorry that Izturis and Jones suck, and giving them some playing time to make them feel better.

[Outshined_One]

Whoever came up with the word "proactive" should be dragged out into the street and shot. I can't stand that buzzword.

 

/end rant

[CubinNY]

Whoever came up with the word "proactive" should be dragged out into the street and shot. I can't stand that buzzword.

 

/end rant

I didn't know proactive was a buzzwrod.

[rynefan]

Didn't know it was a buzzword, either.

[Sammy Sofa]

Whoever came up with the word "proactive" should be dragged out into the street and shot. I can't stand that buzzword.

 

/end rant

 

What?

 

"Proactive" isn't a buzzword.

 

By that logic, do you hate "reactive," too?

[imb]

I dont think it's a buzzword.

 

I do think it's a good idea in just about all cases.

[Sarcastic]

Whoever came up with the word "proactive" should be dragged out into the street and shot. I can't stand that buzzword.

 

/end rant

 

What?

 

"Proactive" isn't a buzzword.

 

By that logic, do you hate "reactive," too?

 

Depending on the context, any word can be adopted as a buzzword. Many bureaucrats chose a word to apply to all questions in all situations, pretending as if they are saying something while actually robbing the word of any meaning it might have originally had by usi9ng it so generally.

[badnews]

"Lady: We at the network want a dog with attitude. He's edgy, he's "in

your face." You've heard the expression "let's get busy"?

Well, this is a dog who gets "biz-zay!" Consistently and

thoroughly.

Krusty: So he's proactive, huh?

Lady: Oh, God, yes. We're talking about a totally outrageous

paradigm.

Meyer: Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just

buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?

[backpedaling] Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that.

[pause] I'm fired, aren't I?

Myers: Oh, yes."

[soccer10k]

Maybe the Cubs just aren't good in general.

[killthegoat06]

Maybe the Cubs just aren't good in general.

 

:shock: [-X

[jjgman21]

if proactive is not a buzzword, then what the hell is a buzzword?

[Banghart]

"Lady: We at the network want a dog with attitude. He's edgy, he's "in

your face." You've heard the expression "let's get busy"?

Well, this is a dog who gets "biz-zay!" Consistently and

thoroughly.

Krusty: So he's proactive, huh?

Lady: Oh, God, yes. We're talking about a totally outrageous

paradigm.

Meyer: Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just

buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?

[backpedaling] Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that.

[pause] I'm fired, aren't I?

Myers: Oh, yes."

Best Simpsons reference evar.

 

-Banghart

[abuck1220]

As I watched the Cubs let last nights game slip away, I thought about the difference between the Braves and the Cubs.

 

yikes...did you notice a difference between the cubs and braves today?

 

the cubs clutched their way to a hard-clutched clutch from behind clutch, while the braves choked away a lead in the ninth.

[DivineBovine]

They came from behind and actually won a 1 run game??!!! Unreal. Just so you guys don't think I make pessimistic posts only after they win...

 

I agree with the original poster. The team has shown that it lacks a spine this year. We can debate clutch vs. non-clutch all we want. But in my mind, I can't say it is just bad luck that they have such a horrific record in 1 run games, extra inning games, and games where they trail after 7 innings. I can't just chalk that up to chance, especially when they have outscored opponents 295-269 going into today.

 

Everyone believes in clutchness when it comes to basketball, or even football, yet a lot of people believe that baseball is more just a game of chance and statistics. Can't say I've ever played competitive baseball, but I'd imagine its easier to hit a 3 run homer when you're up 5 and the opposing pitcher just doesn't care that much about the outcome of the game any more. Or it's easier to throw strikes when the game is decided and the bases are empty.

 

I hate to say it, but in my mind, there are winners- Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong. And there are losers- like the 2007 Chicago Cubs have been. And it's been a collective effort.

 

Maybe today is a start to something, maybe they can turn it around. And of course I'll continue to follow them and root for them, but what's even the point in taking a pathetic NL central and squeaking into the playoffs at this point- unless there's a chance in the loser's mentality, they have no chance at all.

[XZero771679666304]

As I watched the Cubs let last nights game slip away, I thought about the difference between the Braves and the Cubs.

 

yikes...did you notice a difference between the cubs and braves today?

 

the cubs clutched their way to a hard-clutched clutch from behind clutch, while the braves choked away a lead in the ninth.

 

Gutless dogs, those Braves.

[XZero771679666304]

They came from behind and actually won a 1 run game??!!! Unreal. Just so you guys don't think I make pessimistic posts only after they win...

 

I agree with the original poster. The team has shown that it lacks a spine this year. We can debate clutch vs. non-clutch all we want. But in my mind, I can't say it is just bad luck that they have such a horrific record in 1 run games, extra inning games, and games where they trail after 7 innings. I can't just chalk that up to chance, especially when they have outscored opponents 295-269 going into today.

 

Everyone believes in clutchness when it comes to basketball, or even football, yet a lot of people believe that baseball is more just a game of chance and statistics. Can't say I've ever played competitive baseball, but I'd imagine its easier to hit a 3 run homer when you're up 5 and the opposing pitcher just doesn't care that much about the outcome of the game any more. Or it's easier to throw strikes when the game is decided and the bases are empty.

 

I hate to say it, but in my mind, there are winners- Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong. And there are losers- like the 2007 Chicago Cubs have been. And it's been a collective effort.

 

Maybe today is a start to something, maybe they can turn it around. And of course I'll continue to follow them and root for them, but what's even the point in taking a pathetic NL central and squeaking into the playoffs at this point- unless there's a chance in the loser's mentality, they have no chance at all.

 

 

 

 

But there is no mystical "clutch" ability. There are those who can maintain focus and there are those who cannot. The best simply do their job in the same manner in every situation, and let the law of averages play out.

 

However, those players who cannot maintain their focus under pressure can appear to be "unclutch". This is simply a case of them not doing their job well (see Jacque Jones in key situations). Having said this, players are not automatons, and there are a number of psychological factors than can cause a player to fail under perceived pressure more often than usual. It is incumbent upon them to deal with this, though.

 

As for the Cubs' problems this year, they have had to do more with the bullpen and a lack of fundamental awareness than anything else.