How will this Cubs season end up?

[Alfonso Soriano]

Poll Above

[Alfonso Soriano]

Oh man 2 world series predictions?

:koolaid:

[Derwood]

i went with NLDS loss. Assuming the other teams are some combo of ATL, NYM, MIL, SD or LA...I like our chances against the west better than the east. If the WC comes from the east, that screws someone (due to MLB's stupid rule that the best team in the league can't play the wildcard if they are from the same division)

[TruffleShuffle]

sticking with pre-season prediction... 2nd in division and miss the playoffs

[NCCubFan]

i went with NLDS loss. Assuming the other teams are some combo of ATL, NYM, MIL, SD or LA...I like our chances against the west better than the east. If the WC comes from the east, that screws someone (due to MLB's stupid rule that the best team in the league can't play the wildcard if they are from the same division)

That rule actually worked out to the Cubs' advantage in 2003. As the third seeded division champion the Cubs should have played the second seeded champion (Giants). But because the top seed (Braves) and wildcard (Marlins) are in the same division the Cubs had to play the top-seeded Braves instead. And we all know how that turned out.

 

Despite that, however, I do agree with your assessment of the rule. It penalizes teams by making them play a higher seed than they should. It worked out for the Cubs in 2003, but it may not next time.

[Drew Doughty]

i said world series loss, so i must have some strong kool-aid (actually it's diet coke).

 

I think we fare a lot better against teams like San Diego and LA in the playoffs, assuming Rich Hill can settle down in the second half. Our 3-4 man rotation stacks up pretty well against most teams, if I had to bet.

[NCCubFan]

I said World Champions. :bluekoolaid:

[Prior4CyYoung]

i went with NLDS loss. Assuming the other teams are some combo of ATL, NYM, MIL, SD or LA...I like our chances against the west better than the east. If the WC comes from the east, that screws someone (due to MLB's stupid rule that the best team in the league can't play the wildcard if they are from the same division)

That rule actually worked out to the Cubs' advantage in 2003. As the third seeded division champion the Cubs should have played the second seeded champion (Giants). But because the top seed (Braves) and wildcard (Marlins) are in the same division the Cubs had to play the top-seeded Braves instead. And we all know how that turned out.

 

Despite that, however, I do agree with your assessment of the rule. It penalizes teams by making them play a higher seed than they should. It worked out for the Cubs in 2003, but it may not next time.

 

We did beat the Braves so in that sense it did work out. But it really makes you wonder what would have happened if the cubs played the giants and the marlins played the braves. The whole bartman incident would have never happened. We may have lost to the giants in the first round but we may have still beaten them and maybe the braves beat the marlins and then we beat the braves. These are all hypothetical but I do wish they didn't have that rule in place because it does kinda screw the top teams.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

i said world series loss, so i must have some strong kool-aid (actually it's diet coke).

 

I think we fare a lot better against teams like San Diego and LA in the playoffs, assuming Rich Hill can settle down in the second half. Our 3-4 man rotation stacks up pretty well against most teams, if I had to bet.

 

I could see LA, but San Diego? I don't feel too great about seeing Peavy and Young 4 times.

[Bruno7481]

i said world series loss, so i must have some strong kool-aid (actually it's diet coke).

 

I think we fare a lot better against teams like San Diego and LA in the playoffs, assuming Rich Hill can settle down in the second half. Our 3-4 man rotation stacks up pretty well against most teams, if I had to bet.

 

I could see LA, but San Diego? I don't feel too great about seeing Peavy and Young 4 times.

 

Yeah, I think I'd take my chances with LA first as well. Even tough Peavy hasn't been himself lately.

[Prior4CyYoung]

i said world series loss, so i must have some strong kool-aid (actually it's diet coke).

 

I think we fare a lot better against teams like San Diego and LA in the playoffs, assuming Rich Hill can settle down in the second half. Our 3-4 man rotation stacks up pretty well against most teams, if I had to bet.

 

I could see LA, but San Diego? I don't feel too great about seeing Peavy and Young 4 times.

 

Yeah, I think I'd take my chances with LA first as well. Even tough Peavy hasn't been himself lately.

 

If I remember correctly Peavy has really struggled in the playoffs in years past. And Young is well young and unproven in the playoffs. So I am not so sure about rather wanting to face LA over SD.

[Drew Doughty]

i said world series loss, so i must have some strong kool-aid (actually it's diet coke).

 

I think we fare a lot better against teams like San Diego and LA in the playoffs, assuming Rich Hill can settle down in the second half. Our 3-4 man rotation stacks up pretty well against most teams, if I had to bet.

 

I could see LA, but San Diego? I don't feel too great about seeing Peavy and Young 4 times.

 

i don't feel great about it, but their pathetic offense is also going to make our pitching look better. what i meant by stack up better in the playoffs was that we would probably be better in the playoffs against them than in the regular season when we have no influence on who gets to start against who.

[NCCubFan]

We did beat the Braves so in that sense it did work out. But it really makes you wonder what would have happened if the cubs played the giants and the marlins played the braves. The whole bartman incident would have never happened. We may have lost to the giants in the first round but we may have still beaten them and maybe the braves beat the marlins and then we beat the braves. These are all hypothetical but I do wish they didn't have that rule in place because it does kinda screw the top teams.

Not necessarily true. Like you said we'll never know, but since the Marlins and Cubs were the hottest teams in the second half of the season, they could have still won the first round series even if the opponents were reversed. And if they would have won the NLCS matchup would have still been the same.

[CubmanPi]

I went WS loss, but I think that the Young/Peavy combo is going to be very tough to take down in a short series, so if the playoffs are in the Cubs' future, hopefully someone else takes care of them in the NLDS, because I would hate to see the Cubs have to try.

[Butterscup1679666578]

woo kool-aid.

[NCCubFan]

woo kool-aid.

It's summer. Kool-Aid is good. :D

[Prior4CyYoung]

We did beat the Braves so in that sense it did work out. But it really makes you wonder what would have happened if the cubs played the giants and the marlins played the braves. The whole bartman incident would have never happened. We may have lost to the giants in the first round but we may have still beaten them and maybe the braves beat the marlins and then we beat the braves. These are all hypothetical but I do wish they didn't have that rule in place because it does kinda screw the top teams.

Not necessarily true. Like you said we'll never know, but since the Marlins and Cubs were the hottest teams in the second half of the season, they could have still won the first round series even if the opponents were reversed. And if they would have won the NLCS matchup would have still been the same.

 

Well ya it is quite possible that Florida beats Atlanta and we end up playing them anyways. But who knows how long it takes the cubs to finish off the Giants as opposed to the braves. Maybe its only a 3 game series instead of 5 and are pitchers are more rested. Maybe the marlins struggle against the braves and there pitchers aren't rested and we beat them instead. Lots of possibilities that are fun to talk about but they didn't happen and we lost to the marlins life goes on I guess.

[Andy]

I went with NLDS loss, and I think we'll take the wild-card.

[soccer10k]

i said world series loss, so i must have some strong kool-aid (actually it's diet coke).

 

I think we fare a lot better against teams like San Diego and LA in the playoffs, assuming Rich Hill can settle down in the second half. Our 3-4 man rotation stacks up pretty well against most teams, if I had to bet.

 

I could see LA, but San Diego? I don't feel too great about seeing Peavy and Young 4 times.

 

Seeing Penny and Lowe 4 times isn't much better. I'd rather face LA than SD in the first round.

[seanimal]

I went with the '04 redux

[soccer10k]

I'm the only person to pick NLCS loss so far.

[CubmanPi]

I'm the only person to pick NLCS loss so far.

The one they lost this century actually counts as like fifty.

[soapy]

i went with 2nd place, no playoffs. despite the recent success, i'm still not convinced they have enough to overtake the brewers and/or win the wildcard. the pitching has been great, but the pessimistic side of me doesn't expect marquis and/or marshall to maintain their success. additionally, if the cubs don't start hitting homeruns, they are going to have trouble scoring.

 

if they upgrade the offense, i'll like their chances a whole lot more.

[CyHawk_Cub]

i went with 2nd place, no playoffs. despite the recent success, i'm still not convinced they have enough to overtake the brewers and/or win the wildcard. the pitching has been great, but the pessimistic side of me doesn't expect marquis and/or marshall to maintain their success. additionally, if the cubs don't start hitting homeruns, they are going to have trouble scoring.

 

if they upgrade the offense, i'll like their chances a whole lot more.

 

Ditto. I see the recent hot streak as mostly a correction for the earlier "bad luck," that, and good defense. We can't keep counting on bloop & seeing eye ground ball singles in RBI situations. Someone not named Aramis needs to pop a 3-run homer more often.

[jersey cubs fan]

23 choosing playoff appearance, 14 say nope.