I know it's just the worthless Nationals, but ...

[dew1679666265]

The Nationals have the 5th best offense in the NL, and we held them under 3 runs per game.

 

Our pitching hasnt been a problem, its the offense. Yeah, they pounded the Nats for 26 runs in 4 games, but aside from Lannan, these are awful pitchers. We'll see what happens in Philly vs. decent, but not great starting pitchers.

 

I think he was responding to the comment that the Nationals are just a AAA team. The pitching staff isn't good, but they have a very good offense.

[dew1679666265]

The switch from Hamels to Blanton should be a good one for the Cubs. Besides the fact that Hamels has the potential to go out and dominate in any start no matter how poorly he's done throughout the season, Hamels also has much better peripherals this season (especially K:BB ratio) than does Blanton. Both have similar numbers overall, but I feel much more confident about our ability to score off of Blanton than to score off of Hamels.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The Nationals have the 5th best offense in the NL, and we held them under 3 runs per game.

 

Our pitching hasnt been a problem, its the offense. Yeah, they pounded the Nats for 26 runs in 4 games, but aside from Lannan, these are awful pitchers. We'll see what happens in Philly vs. decent, but not great starting pitchers.

 

I think he was responding to the comment that the Nationals are just a AAA team. The pitching staff isn't good, but they have a very good offense.

 

I know, and out starters have been holding offenses down all season, its our offense hitting thats been the main issue. The question is, did they get lucky vs. bad pitching, or are they starting to heat up? Either way, its good to build momentum going into a series vs. one of the better offenses in the league.

[dew1679666265]

The Nationals have the 5th best offense in the NL, and we held them under 3 runs per game.

 

Our pitching hasnt been a problem, its the offense. Yeah, they pounded the Nats for 26 runs in 4 games, but aside from Lannan, these are awful pitchers. We'll see what happens in Philly vs. decent, but not great starting pitchers.

 

I think he was responding to the comment that the Nationals are just a AAA team. The pitching staff isn't good, but they have a very good offense.

 

I know, and out starters have been holding offenses down all season, its our offense hitting thats been the main issue. The question is, did they get lucky vs. bad pitching, or are they starting to heat up? Either way, its good to build momentum going into a series vs. one of the better offenses in the league.

 

I definitely agree there. If nothing else this series should boost the confidence of the offense - which may be needed more than anything.

[MembersOnlyJacket]

I definitely agree there. If nothing else this series should boost the confidence of the offense - which may be needed more than anything.

 

It was needed for everyone not named Jake Fox or D. Lee. They continue to rake.

 

If Fukudome and Theriot and solidify the top of the order, this team can score runs.

[chuckywang]

The Nationals have the 5th best offense in the NL, and we held them under 3 runs per game.

 

Well might as well pop the champagne now! But in all seriousness, I'm not sure where you're getting that, they are 9th in the NL in runs scored.

[dew1679666265]

The Nationals have the 5th best offense in the NL, and we held them under 3 runs per game.

 

Well might as well pop the champagne now! But in all seriousness, I'm not sure where you're getting that, they are 9th in the NL in runs scored.

 

They're also 5th in the NL in OPS, 4th in AVG and 2nd in OBP. They've got a good offense.

[brinoch]

The Cubs are 3rd in the National League in terms of Runs Allowed -- behind San Francisco and Los Angeles (and the generally advantaged pitching parks of the NL West). They are 5th in OBP/A. Pitching isn't (and hasn't been) the problem. The problem has been the anemic offense -- 12th in Runs scored and 10th in OBP.

 

If indeed the offense is heating up, then I think the Cubs will continue to do very well. The key for me is that the Cards haven't underperformed so far this season while the Cubs clearly have. With all the injuries and issues the team has had, they are 2 games out of first with 72 games left to play. That's nothing. Even playing like utter garbage for much of the season, the Cards weren't able to draw away from the pack.

[dew1679666265]

If indeed the offense is heating up, then I think the Cubs will continue to do very well. The key for me is that the Cards haven't underperformed so far this season while the Cubs clearly have. With all the injuries and issues the team has had, they are 2 games out of first with 72 games left to play. That's nothing. Even playing like utter garbage for much of the season, the Cards weren't able to draw away from the pack.

 

This is exactly true. If the Cubs don't get any better the rest of the year, it'll likely be a battle down to the final day.

 

But if the Cubs improve at all, the division is ours for the taking. Barring a major trade, the Cards aren't getting much better. The Cubs, however, have quite a bit of upside they haven't reached yet. Whether they do or not will decide the division.

[Derwood]

The Cubs are 3rd in the National League in terms of Runs Allowed -- behind San Francisco and Los Angeles (and the generally advantaged pitching parks of the NL West). They are 5th in OBP/A. Pitching isn't (and hasn't been) the problem. The problem has been the anemic offense -- 12th in Runs scored and 10th in OBP.

 

If indeed the offense is heating up, then I think the Cubs will continue to do very well. The key for me is that the Cards haven't underperformed so far this season while the Cubs clearly have. With all the injuries and issues the team has had, they are 2 games out of first with 72 games left to play. That's nothing. Even playing like utter garbage for much of the season, the Cards weren't able to draw away from the pack.

 

Unless the weather heats up a lot in August, Wrigley will get "park factored" as a pitcher's park this year. Len mentioned that in the 40ish home games this year, the wind has only blown out 10 times

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There are five teams within 5.5 games of first.

 

Even if we assume the Cubs are playing significantly below their ability level (something I'm not sure I agree with), then we're left with assuming that no inferior team out of five gets freakily hot/lucky in the final 72 games either.

[jersey cubs fan]

There are five teams within 5.5 games of first.

 

Even if we assume the Cubs are playing significantly below their ability level (something I'm not sure I agree with), then we're left with assuming that no inferior team out of five gets freakily hot/lucky in the final 72 games either.

 

Are you saying it would be foolish to assume one of those second rate teams don't get insanely hot? Because I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

[dew1679666265]

There are five teams within 5.5 games of first.

 

Even if we assume the Cubs are playing significantly below their ability level (something I'm not sure I agree with), then we're left with assuming that no inferior team out of five gets freakily hot/lucky in the final 72 games either.

 

Are you saying it would be foolish to assume one of those second rate teams don't get insanely hot? Because I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

 

I would say the likelihood is that one of them don't get incredibly hot, but that the possibility exists.

 

The more likely occurence is that the most talented team in the division (Cubs) start playing closer to their capability.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There are five teams within 5.5 games of first.

 

Even if we assume the Cubs are playing significantly below their ability level (something I'm not sure I agree with), then we're left with assuming that no inferior team out of five gets freakily hot/lucky in the final 72 games either.

 

Are you saying it would be foolish to assume one of those second rate teams don't get insanely hot? Because I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

 

The odds against any specific one of them getting hot or lucky is slim.

 

But the odds of taking the field and having one of them get hot/lucky is pretty good.

 

Four 20% chances combine to a 59% chance.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The more likely occurence is that the most talented team in the division (Cubs) start playing closer to their capability.

 

Exactly how far below our ability are we really playing?

 

We are getting better than "expected" performances from almost the entire bullpen. Randy Wells and Rich Harden balance out, Dempster and Zambrano are pretty close to ability, and Lilly is ahead. On the whole, we are pretty far ahead on our pitching.

 

On offense, we've had the Ramirez injury, but it's reasonable to expect at least one major injury per season, and Fox's extra at-bats start to balance that out.

 

So we're left with Lilly+bullpen vs. Soriano, Bradley, 2b, and Soto. Soto spent a lot of years as an awful-hitting minor-league catcher before putting up two spectacular ones, so I don't know if you can just assume he's going to come back.

 

So while Lilly/bullpen vs. Soriano, Bradley, 2b probably puts us "below expectations," I don't think we're so far below them that it's a sure thing that we'll play better in the second half.

[BeerHere]

I'm tempering my enthusiasm as it was a nice four game sweep, but it was against the Nats. To me this series highlighted the shortcomings of the Nationals (pitching and defense) more than it highlighted the strengths of the Cubs. I am pleasantly surprised at the bullpen though - other than the Heilman inning yesterday the pen pitched well and has really picked it up lately. There must be something that they love in Patton as it seems that they are trying very hard to keep him. It was nice to see Soriano pit the ball hard, maybe he is starting to come around. Likewise for Fontenot. Theriot continues to impress me as well - nothing too flashy but I love the OBP in the 2 hole.

[Vanilla Ice]

The more likely occurence is that the most talented team in the division (Cubs) start playing closer to their capability.

 

Exactly how far below our ability are we really playing?

 

We are getting better than "expected" performances from almost the entire bullpen. Randy Wells and Rich Harden balance out, Dempster and Zambrano are pretty close to ability, and Lilly is ahead. On the whole, we are pretty far ahead on our pitching.

 

On offense, we've had the Ramirez injury, but it's reasonable to expect at least one major injury per season, and Fox's extra at-bats start to balance that out.

 

So we're left with Lilly+bullpen vs. Soriano, Bradley, 2b, and Soto. Soto spent a lot of years as an awful-hitting minor-league catcher before putting up two spectacular ones, so I don't know if you can just assume he's going to come back.

 

So while Lilly/bullpen vs. Soriano, Bradley, 2b probably puts us "below expectations," I don't think we're so far below them that it's a sure thing that we'll play better in the second half.

You should not discount Ramirez's injury because "it is reasonable to expect at least one major injury per season". The fact is that he represents a big upgrade over what we had at third base for the first half and raises the talent level of the Cubs for the second half.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You should not discount Ramirez's injury because "it is reasonable to expect at least one major injury per season". The fact is that he represents a big upgrade over what we had at third base for the first half and raises the talent level of the Cubs for the second half.

 

Assuming he can stay healthy. And assuming that no one else gets hurt and we lose just as much. This team has no depth at all.

 

We've gotten a .262 .332 .435 line from our 3b this season. That's not what Ramirez would put up, but it's not like it's been a black hole.

[dew1679666265]

The more likely occurence is that the most talented team in the division (Cubs) start playing closer to their capability.

 

Exactly how far below our ability are we really playing?

 

We are getting better than "expected" performances from almost the entire bullpen. Randy Wells and Rich Harden balance out, Dempster and Zambrano are pretty close to ability, and Lilly is ahead. On the whole, we are pretty far ahead on our pitching.

 

On offense, we've had the Ramirez injury, but it's reasonable to expect at least one major injury per season, and Fox's extra at-bats start to balance that out.

 

So we're left with Lilly+bullpen vs. Soriano, Bradley, 2b, and Soto. Soto spent a lot of years as an awful-hitting minor-league catcher before putting up two spectacular ones, so I don't know if you can just assume he's going to come back.

 

So while Lilly/bullpen vs. Soriano, Bradley, 2b probably puts us "below expectations," I don't think we're so far below them that it's a sure thing that we'll play better in the second half.

 

Is the bullpen really significantly overperforming? Gregg has similar numbers to his past couple of years, Marmol is significantly worse than he's been since moving to the pen, Guzman has been excellent but he's always been capable of that, Heilman has been similar to last year and much worse than two years ago and Marshall has very similar numbers to the past two years. Maybe Guzman has been better than expected, but that's countered by Marmol being far worse than expected. If anything, I'd say the pen has been right around where it should be to this point.

 

Offensively, Soriano is 140 points of OPS worse this year than last. A dropoff is extremely fair and expected, but after drops of 14 and 21 points the last two years, 140 is quite a huge dropoff and more than could have been expected. Bradley hasn't had an OPS this bad since 2002 and has dropped 258 points since last year. Again, a dropoff is perfectly understandable, but not to this degree. He's also got his worst slugging percentage since the 2001 season.

 

Lilly is much better than expected, but most of the rest of the starting staff - like you said - are either performing at expectations or cancel each other out (Wells/Harden). I don't think it's a sure thing that we'll be better in the second half either, that's why I never said it. But if Aramis produces at all and if Bradley/Soriano improve some, we have a good shot at winning the division. Lilly may regress, but he's not significantly better this year than 2007 and he's proven for two and a half seasons now that he's a better pitcher than he was in Toronto.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Marshall is about the same, Gregg is a little better. Marmol has always been a good bet to regress, I'm surprised he's not regressed further. Heilman is better than last year, but below his career to that point, right where plexiglass principle says he should be. Guzman has a career ERA+ of 90 and WHIP of 1.504. He's putting up 176 and 1.073 to this point, and at his age and arm history, I think "washed up" was a good projection for him.

 

All in all, I'd say yes, we've gotten much better than we had a right to expect out of our bullpen.

 

Lilly is currently 15 points of ERA+ ahead of his career best. At 33 years old, I'd say that's a pretty big surprise.

 

 

 

I'm not saying the Cubs can't win the division from this point. But in order to play better than they have at this point, I think they need a lot more things to go right than just showing up.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Instead of piecemealing it, I'll try to look at it this way:

 

Last year's Cubs were a 98 pythwin team. Plexiglass principle pulls them down a little, and I think the consensus was that they got worse this offseason, so that puts them at around 93 wins.

 

Even if we ignore all the negative data points from this season, from Ramirez's shoulder to the loss of production and all, and we still project them to win at a 93-win pace the rest of the way, that only gets them to 89 wins.

 

I'd say it's right around 50/50 that 89 wins would be enough to win this division.

[SouthSideRyan]

Marmol has always been a good bet to regress, I'm surprised he's not regressed further.

 

I'm not sure you know how regression works.

 

Guzman has a career ERA+ of 90 and WHIP of 1.504. He's putting up 176 and 1.073 to this point, and at his age and arm history, I think "washed up" was a good projection for him.

 

 

And I'm quite sure you don't understand projections work.

[illiniguy]

Instead of piecemealing it, I'll try to look at it this way:

 

Last year's Cubs were a 98 pythwin team. Plexiglass principle pulls them down a little, and I think the consensus was that they got worse this offseason, so that puts them at around 93 wins.

 

Even if we ignore all the negative data points from this season, from Ramirez's shoulder to the loss of production and all, and we still project them to win at a 93-win pace the rest of the way, that only gets them to 89 wins.

 

I'd say it's right around 50/50 that 89 wins would be enough to win this division.

Don't you have to apply all this logic to the other teams too though?

 

What are the odds Ryan Franklin remains this good? Joel Piniero?

 

How about Casey McGhee? Craig Counsell?

 

I'm not so sure 89 wins doesn't win this division by a few games.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Marmol has always been a good bet to regress, I'm surprised he's not regressed further.

 

I'm not sure you know how regression works.

 

Guzman has a career ERA+ of 90 and WHIP of 1.504. He's putting up 176 and 1.073 to this point, and at his age and arm history, I think "washed up" was a good projection for him.

 

 

And I'm quite sure you don't understand projections work.

 

I'm not sure you do. You could, you know, post a point or something in there, and then we'd at least see where each other are coming from.

 

Marmol had a good but not great minor league career, was awful as a starter at age 23 in the bigs, and then suddenly turned it on to be one of the most dominant middle relievers in the game for a few years. They've already gotten two years of mileage out of that, and historically, that's already pushing the limits of how long you can be a truly elite reliever.

 

As for Guzman, the more times a pitcher gets injured, the less likely he is to return with his stuff intact. Projecting an injured pitcher is more than just waiting for him to get healthy and saying "See, he's just like we always thought he'd be."

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Don't you have to apply all this logic to the other teams too though?

 

What are the odds Ryan Franklin remains this good? Joel Piniero?

 

How about Casey McGhee? Craig Counsell?

 

I'm not so sure 89 wins doesn't win this division by a few games.

 

Sure we can.

 

I'd project a lot worse out of Franklin, but a lot more out of Motte. Lohse and Wellenmeyer look like they could be better, too.

 

On offense, the Cardinals have a ton of replaceable black holes where they could gain quite a bit of ground. As a team, they've gotten .211 .284 .324 from 3b, and .214 .299 .340. Unlike the Cubs, who will be trotting Soriano out there no matter what, the Cardinals look like they are in good position to upgrade those holes.

 

The only question for them is whether Pujols can keep it up. I think we've been lucky for a few years that they haven't been better, because Albert Pujols and 24 decent players gives you a competitive team with even a little bit of luck. If he keeps hitting like this, I see no reason they can't keep up their current pace. And if they do that, the Cubs will have to really turn it on to pass them.

 

But the problem is, things aren't going to go as planned for everybody. Even if the Cardinals drop off, the Brewers might play 5 games better than their Pyth wins for the rest of the season and pass us. Houston and Cincinatti aren't very good, but neither would be the worst team to scrape together a win total in the high 80s.

 

I like the Cubs easily against the Brewers, Pirates or Astros, and I like them right now against the Cardinals (pending any trading deadline moves to fill those black holes). It's just picking them against the field that gives me troubles.