No wonder the Cubs are desperately looking for starters

[CubColtPacer]

Cubs Ranks now through almost 2 months (all NL ranks)

 

Offense

Runs: 5th (3rd in R/G)

BA: 2nd

OBP: 2nd

SLG: 4th

OPS: 2nd

doubles: 5th

HR: 13th

Strikeouts: 3rd (fewest)

Walks: 16th (dead last)

 

Starting Pitching

ERA: 16th (dead last)

Walks: 5th worst

Strikeouts: 10th

BAA: 16th (dead last)

OBP allowed: 16th (dead last)

SLG allowed: 15th

OPS allowed: 16th (dead last)

 

Relief Pitching

ERA: 6th

Walks: 2nd worst

Strikeouts: 4th

BAA: 10th

OBP: 14th

SLG: 9th

OPS: 11th

 

So the offense has been really good (although strange considering the low home run and walk totals). The starting pitching has been atrocious and the bullpen has been lucky. Considering the top 3 in the bullpen have all been very good to elite so far this year though, the bullpen numbers will get a lot better if the starters go deeper and the back end of the bullpen doesn't have to get used so much.

 

Is this team a starter or two away from being good? And will that matter with how big of a hole they've dug?

[UMFan83]

I dunno, can the Cubs sustain the BA they are at, because if they aren't walking and aren't hitting HRs that offensive number will drop.

 

Even as it is right now, the offense is good but very inconsistent.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Keep in mind Dempsters horrific start to the year and the fact that weve been starting a minor leaguer, a middling relief pitcher, and a 50 year old in place of what should have been a more than solid 4-5. Unfortunately, I dont see Rodrigo Lopez, Ramon Ortiz, Russ Ortiz, Shawn Estes, Julian Tavarez, or which ever late 30s guy who was mediocre at best in their prime they decide to dig up next as being much of an upgrade.

[CubColtPacer]

I dunno, can the Cubs sustain the BA they are at, because if they aren't walking and aren't hitting HRs that offensive number will drop.

 

Even as it is right now, the offense is good but very inconsistent.

 

My opinion is that the Cubs can't sustain this average but they probably shouldn't be 13th in HR's all season long either. But their average should be high at the end of the season because they've got a lot of high average guys in their lineup.

 

I don't think the offense is inconsistent. The Cubs, Diamondbacks, and Rockies are all very close in the runs scored department so I looked at their run distribution to see if they were different:

 

Cubs

0 runs: 4

1: 3

2: 5

3: 6

4: 10

5: 9

6: 1

7: 2

8: 1

9: 3

10: 1

11: 3

 

Diamondbacks:

0 runs: 1

1: 5

2: 6

3: 9

4: 11

5: 5

6: 5

7: 2

8: 1

9: 1

10: 1

11: 1

12: 0

13: 2

 

Rockies

0 runs: 2

1: 5

2: 6

3: 11

4: 3

5: 5

6: 6

7: 6

8: 0

9: 2

10: 1

11: 0

12: 2

 

So the Cubs have been shut out a couple more times than normal but they have scored 0-2 runs 12 times, the Diamondbacks have also done it 12 times, and the Rockies have done it 13 times. And the Cubs have been right around average (4 or 5) runs 19 times, while the Diamondbacks have done it 16 times and the Rockies have done it only 8 times. The Cubs offense is no more inconsistent than any other offense out there.

[Little Slide Rooter]

So they're basically a 2-5 run/game team, with the occasional feast and the occasional famine. Being a 2-5 run team is fine and dandy if you have the type of pitching staff, which we dont. At this point, we have a solid 1-3, assuming Garza isnt on the DL for long, a great back of the pen. Shark and Russell are decent enough middle relieve options, but other than that, theres Coleman, Davis, Grabow, Maine, and Berg(until now) who have no business on a big league roster. I know most teams have a few mop up men in the pen, but those 4-5 starters are just killing us.

[ChiCubsFan]

You don't really need numbers to know that starting pitching is currently this teams weakness. I really wish we didn't trade Gorz for nothing, but oh well. As far as our offensive production goes, I see it being somewhat sustainable. Our BA isn't going to remain quite as high, but were going to hit more homers (Aram) and hopefully take more walks. The only guys on our team who have done a good job in that department so far are Fukudome and Pena (Soto has been good too and Ramirez hasn't been as terrible as the rest of the team). I'd like to see our hitters, mainly Castro, start drawing more walks. Getting Soto back will also help with our offense a lot.

[SouthSideRyan]

I dunno, can the Cubs sustain the BA they are at, because if they aren't walking and aren't hitting HRs that offensive number will drop.

 

Even as it is right now, the offense is good but very inconsistent.

 

The Cubs BABIP is pretty much where it should be based on their LD%

[SouthSideRyan]

Keep in mind Dempsters horrific start to the year and the fact that weve been starting a minor leaguer, a middling relief pitcher, and a 50 year old in place of what should have been a more than solid 4-5. Unfortunately, I dont see Rodrigo Lopez, Ramon Ortiz, Russ Ortiz, Shawn Estes, Julian Tavarez, or which ever late 30s guy who was mediocre at best in their prime they decide to dig up next as being much of an upgrade.

 

The Cubs are 19-14 in games started by their original starting 5. It's the sacks of crap we've ran out there otherwise that have sabotaged us.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Keep in mind Dempsters horrific start to the year and the fact that weve been starting a minor leaguer, a middling relief pitcher, and a 50 year old in place of what should have been a more than solid 4-5. Unfortunately, I dont see Rodrigo Lopez, Ramon Ortiz, Russ Ortiz, Shawn Estes, Julian Tavarez, or which ever late 30s guy who was mediocre at best in their prime they decide to dig up next as being much of an upgrade.

 

The Cubs are 19-14 in games started by their original starting 5. It's the sacks of crap we've ran out there otherwise that have sabotaged us.

 

Thats my point. Z and Garza have been good. Demp has been solid as of late, and Wells and Cashner were great in their very short time.

[Sammy Sofa]

Didn't Wells only have one start? And Cashner didn't even finish his first one?

[otis89]

Didn't Wells only have one start? And Cashner didn't even finish his first one?

 

Yes, but they were both excellent in their lone starts, and the Cubs won both of them.

[scarey]

I dunno, can the Cubs sustain the BA they are at, because if they aren't walking and aren't hitting HRs that offensive number will drop.

 

Even as it is right now, the offense is good but very inconsistent.

 

The Cubs BABIP is pretty much where it should be based on their LD%

 

Why does everyone always forget LD% when discussing high BABIPs?

[MembersOnlyJacket]

The Cubs are last in walks and 2nd to last in stealing bases. Not just in the NL, but all of MLB. And, it's not even close. I'm not as concerned about the ability to steal bases as I am to draw a walk.

 

St. Louis batters have walked 69 more times than the Cubs.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"inconsistent" offense is right up there with "can't hit with runners on base" and "never get the run home with a runner on third and less than two outs."

 

It might be true, but fans of almost every team seem to believe it every year regardless.

[Guest]

Keep in mind Dempsters horrific start to the year and the fact that weve been starting a minor leaguer, a middling relief pitcher, and a 50 year old in place of what should have been a more than solid 4-5. Unfortunately, I dont see Rodrigo Lopez, Ramon Ortiz, Russ Ortiz, Shawn Estes, Julian Tavarez, or which ever late 30s guy who was mediocre at best in their prime they decide to dig up next as being much of an upgrade.

 

The Cubs are 19-14 in games started by their original starting 5. It's the sacks of crap we've ran out there otherwise that have sabotaged us.

 

They showed a stat on WGN at the beginning of the game that said the Cubs are 3-12 when Russell, Coleman and Davis start and those three have an ERA over 8 when they start. So even if the Cubs could have gone 8-7 in those starts, they'd be 27-21 right now and in second place, 1.5 out of first. 5-10 in those starts would put them at .500.

[TruffleShuffle]

and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

[Little Slide Rooter]

Keep in mind Dempsters horrific start to the year and the fact that weve been starting a minor leaguer, a middling relief pitcher, and a 50 year old in place of what should have been a more than solid 4-5. Unfortunately, I dont see Rodrigo Lopez, Ramon Ortiz, Russ Ortiz, Shawn Estes, Julian Tavarez, or which ever late 30s guy who was mediocre at best in their prime they decide to dig up next as being much of an upgrade.

 

The Cubs are 19-14 in games started by their original starting 5. It's the sacks of crap we've ran out there otherwise that have sabotaged us.

 

They showed a stat on WGN at the beginning of the game that said the Cubs are 3-12 when Russell, Coleman and Davis start and those three have an ERA over 8 when they start. So even if the Cubs could have gone 8-7 in those starts, they'd be 27-21 right now and in second place, 1.5 out of first. 5-10 in those starts would put them at .500.

 

Going 8-7 with 3 horrendous pitchers is asking alot. Even if we had Wells and Cashner, its far from a guarantee that we would have. Lets face it, its not like this is Cain and Lincecum were missing.

[Guest]

Keep in mind Dempsters horrific start to the year and the fact that weve been starting a minor leaguer, a middling relief pitcher, and a 50 year old in place of what should have been a more than solid 4-5. Unfortunately, I dont see Rodrigo Lopez, Ramon Ortiz, Russ Ortiz, Shawn Estes, Julian Tavarez, or which ever late 30s guy who was mediocre at best in their prime they decide to dig up next as being much of an upgrade.

 

The Cubs are 19-14 in games started by their original starting 5. It's the sacks of crap we've ran out there otherwise that have sabotaged us.

 

They showed a stat on WGN at the beginning of the game that said the Cubs are 3-12 when Russell, Coleman and Davis start and those three have an ERA over 8 when they start. So even if the Cubs could have gone 8-7 in those starts, they'd be 27-21 right now and in second place, 1.5 out of first. 5-10 in those starts would put them at .500.

 

Going 8-7 with 3 horrendous pitchers is asking alot. Even if we had Wells and Cashner, its far from a guarantee that we would have. Lets face it, its not like this is Cain and Lincecum were missing.

 

So you're going from calling Wells and Cashner "a more than solid 4-5" to saying it's far from a guarantee the team would have a .500 record with them pitching instead of the crap they've been running out there?

 

I wasn't saying it was a guarantee that they could would have been 8-7 if Cashner and Wells didn't get injured and I also understand that injuries happen. But the fact is that the other starters the Cubs have been throwing out there were absolutely horrendous and if they'd have just pitched poorly or bad, the Cubs could be a couple games better than they are. The Cubs were 19-14 when the other guys started and that's including some bad luck starts from Garza and Dempster's disastrous April. No team can overcome starts like the ones Russell/Coleman/Davis have given us and the taxing of the bullpen that comes from those guys not being able to make it through five innings.

[MembersOnlyJacket]

You've gotta hand it to Hendry and the advanced scouts, this Doug Davis move was a master stroke. I'm sure the Lopez move will be even better...

[Backtobanks]

You've gotta hand it to Hendry and the advanced scouts, this Doug Davis move was a master stroke. I'm sure the Lopez move will be even better...

 

The last time I looked Lincecum, Halladay, and Sabathia weren't available.

[MembersOnlyJacket]

You've gotta hand it to Hendry and the advanced scouts, this Doug Davis move was a master stroke. I'm sure the Lopez move will be even better...

 

The last time I looked Lincecum, Halladay, and Sabathia weren't available.

 

Really ? I didn't notice!

 

Davis hasn't posted an ERA in MLB in 7 years and, while the Cubs defense has not been great, they have made 10 errors in the three games he's started. 10. I could dry my clothes faster than it takes him to get the ball to the plate.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Keep in mind Dempsters horrific start to the year and the fact that weve been starting a minor leaguer, a middling relief pitcher, and a 50 year old in place of what should have been a more than solid 4-5. Unfortunately, I dont see Rodrigo Lopez, Ramon Ortiz, Russ Ortiz, Shawn Estes, Julian Tavarez, or which ever late 30s guy who was mediocre at best in their prime they decide to dig up next as being much of an upgrade.

 

The Cubs are 19-14 in games started by their original starting 5. It's the sacks of crap we've ran out there otherwise that have sabotaged us.

 

They showed a stat on WGN at the beginning of the game that said the Cubs are 3-12 when Russell, Coleman and Davis start and those three have an ERA over 8 when they start. So even if the Cubs could have gone 8-7 in those starts, they'd be 27-21 right now and in second place, 1.5 out of first. 5-10 in those starts would put them at .500.

 

Going 8-7 with 3 horrendous pitchers is asking alot. Even if we had Wells and Cashner, its far from a guarantee that we would have. Lets face it, its not like this is Cain and Lincecum were missing.

 

So you're going from calling Wells and Cashner "a more than solid 4-5" to saying it's far from a guarantee the team would have a .500 record with them pitching instead of the crap they've been running out there?

 

I wasn't saying it was a guarantee that they could would have been 8-7 if Cashner and Wells didn't get injured and I also understand that injuries happen. But the fact is that the other starters the Cubs have been throwing out there were absolutely horrendous and if they'd have just pitched poorly or bad, the Cubs could be a couple games better than they are. The Cubs were 19-14 when the other guys started and that's including some bad luck starts from Garza and Dempster's disastrous April. No team can overcome starts like the ones Russell/Coleman/Davis have given us and the taxing of the bullpen that comes from those guys not being able to make it through five innings.

 

I agre that its not at all onconceivable that we could have gone 8-7 with Cashner and Wells, but once they went down, we knew it would be rough when it came to those spots in the rotation. I dont know if we thought that the subs would have been as awful as they were, but we didnt exactly have much pitching depth.

[Backtobanks]

Keep in mind Dempsters horrific start to the year and the fact that weve been starting a minor leaguer, a middling relief pitcher, and a 50 year old in place of what should have been a more than solid 4-5. Unfortunately, I dont see Rodrigo Lopez, Ramon Ortiz, Russ Ortiz, Shawn Estes, Julian Tavarez, or which ever late 30s guy who was mediocre at best in their prime they decide to dig up next as being much of an upgrade.

 

The Cubs are 19-14 in games started by their original starting 5. It's the sacks of crap we've ran out there otherwise that have sabotaged us.

 

They showed a stat on WGN at the beginning of the game that said the Cubs are 3-12 when Russell, Coleman and Davis start and those three have an ERA over 8 when they start. So even if the Cubs could have gone 8-7 in those starts, they'd be 27-21 right now and in second place, 1.5 out of first. 5-10 in those starts would put them at .500.

 

Going 8-7 with 3 horrendous pitchers is asking alot. Even if we had Wells and Cashner, its far from a guarantee that we would have. Lets face it, its not like this is Cain and Lincecum were missing.

 

There aren't many teams that play over .500 ball with the #4 and #5 starters pitching. I think it might be safe to say that we might have 2-3 more wins with Wells and Cashner.

[CubColtPacer]

Keep in mind Dempsters horrific start to the year and the fact that weve been starting a minor leaguer, a middling relief pitcher, and a 50 year old in place of what should have been a more than solid 4-5. Unfortunately, I dont see Rodrigo Lopez, Ramon Ortiz, Russ Ortiz, Shawn Estes, Julian Tavarez, or which ever late 30s guy who was mediocre at best in their prime they decide to dig up next as being much of an upgrade.

 

The Cubs are 19-14 in games started by their original starting 5. It's the sacks of crap we've ran out there otherwise that have sabotaged us.

 

They showed a stat on WGN at the beginning of the game that said the Cubs are 3-12 when Russell, Coleman and Davis start and those three have an ERA over 8 when they start. So even if the Cubs could have gone 8-7 in those starts, they'd be 27-21 right now and in second place, 1.5 out of first. 5-10 in those starts would put them at .500.

 

Going 8-7 with 3 horrendous pitchers is asking alot. Even if we had Wells and Cashner, its far from a guarantee that we would have. Lets face it, its not like this is Cain and Lincecum were missing.

 

There aren't many teams that play over .500 ball with the #4 and #5 starters pitching. I think it might be safe to say that we might have 2-3 more wins with Wells and Cashner.

 

That was supposed to be the Cubs main strength though that their #4 and #5 starters weren't that different from their first 3. Wells especially is pretty close to the other three starters. But the pitching staff is always going to have some injuries so we can't just plug them in for a full year and project the Cubs record even though the Cubs have gone overboard a little bit so far this year.

[Backtobanks]

The Cubs are 19-14 in games started by their original starting 5. It's the sacks of crap we've ran out there otherwise that have sabotaged us.

 

They showed a stat on WGN at the beginning of the game that said the Cubs are 3-12 when Russell, Coleman and Davis start and those three have an ERA over 8 when they start. So even if the Cubs could have gone 8-7 in those starts, they'd be 27-21 right now and in second place, 1.5 out of first. 5-10 in those starts would put them at .500.

 

Going 8-7 with 3 horrendous pitchers is asking alot. Even if we had Wells and Cashner, its far from a guarantee that we would have. Lets face it, its not like this is Cain and Lincecum were missing.

 

There aren't many teams that play over .500 ball with the #4 and #5 starters pitching. I think it might be safe to say that we might have 2-3 more wins with Wells and Cashner.

 

That was supposed to be the Cubs main strength though that their #4 and #5 starters weren't that different from their first 3. Wells especially is pretty close to the other three starters. But the pitching staff is always going to have some injuries so we can't just plug them in for a full year and project the Cubs record even though the Cubs have gone overboard a little bit so far this year.

 

I don't know how anybody could say that Cashner wasn't that different from our first three starters since he hasn't proven anything as a starter in the ML. I agree that Wells should be considered a good #4 starter assuming he continues to pitch the way he has.