05/06 Los Angeles (Harang) @ CUBS (T Wood) 1:20 CDT, WGN TV

[Brian]

Im quite surprised how much I'm liking this team.

[davell]

I know Cespedes is a .750ish OPS type guy right now, but having another legit power threat would make a difference for us, in my opinion.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I know Cespedes is a .750ish OPS type guy right now, but having another legit power threat would make a difference for us, in my opinion.

 

I don't know how Cespedes 4/36 contract will end up looking in the long run, but the 3/21 contract to Josh Willingham is looking pretty good. He's at .305/.418/.598 thus far. He might not keep up that pace, but he's pretty much always been a mid .800s OPS guy and his D is pretty much on par with Sorianos.

[mul21]

I know Cespedes is a .750ish OPS type guy right now, but having another legit power threat would make a difference for us, in my opinion.

 

I don't know how Cespedes 4/36 contract will end up looking in the long run, but the 3/21 contract to Josh Willingham is looking pretty good. He's at .305/.418/.598 thus far. He might not keep up that pace, but he's pretty much always been a mid .800s OPS guy and his D is pretty much on par with Sorianos.

 

How is that relevant to the Cubs in any way?

[davell]

We're playing the "what if we had done this" game basically.

[El Duderino]

cespedes has crazy splits. he is destroying everything at home and has been absolutely brutal on the road.

 

home: 318/426/659

away: 175/217/263

 

you think it would be the opposite. also, according to br, he's already accumulated -1.1 war on defense. :shock:

[Andy]

Im quite surprised how much I'm liking this team.

I feel like they're outperforming how good they should be, even as they aren't doing so, record-wise. It's crazy, and unfortunate, how close (basically just a few gigantic bullpen gags) this team is to being decent.

[UMFan83]

This team is frisky. I think they are 7-5 in their last 12 games...for many teams that's mediocre, but for the Cubs thats pretty good.

 

The offense still sucks, but the starting pitching is keeping us in most games...I will take that. This next series against the Braves will be a pretty good test to see if our pitching is as legit as we hope.

 

This is exactly what I wanted from the Cubs for 3 years now (other than getting to the playoffs). The last 2 years were boring as hell with the same guys underperforming. This team has a lot of question marks, but that's a good thing. It gives you something to get excited about every day. I look forward to a Shark start, a Castro AB with RISP, a LaHair AB when we need a homer, etc. It's much better than watching Z pitching below expectations with a outburst or two along the way, or ARam doing his thing for a floundering team.

 

With the Bulls season taking a nosedive, it's good to know I might have something to get me through the summer.

[bcl412]

A 7-5 record is about .580 win percentage which would put your team at around 94 wins. It's meaningless since it's such a small stretch but I wouldn't call it mediocre.

[UMFan83]

A 7-5 record is about .580 win percentage which would put your team at around 94 wins. It's meaningless since it's such a small stretch but I wouldn't call it mediocre.

 

Good point, I stand corrected

[Guest]

I like that they held their own against some decent/good teams. Took 2 of 3 at home against the Cards and Dodgers, who are both leading their divisions and split with Philly and Cincy, who are both .500 teams. I wouldn't feel nearly as good if they did it against the Padres, Pirates, Rockies and Brewers.

 

Of the next 32 games, only 5 (3 vs Atlanta and 2 vs. St. Louis) are against teams over .500. By comparison, 12 of the 28 games the Cubs have played so far have been against teams over .500. I know that doesn't necessarily mean those teams the Cubs are going to play stink, but this stretch certainly appears easier than what the Cubs have already gone through.

[Rizzo Smash]

I'm really happy with how the Cubs have done thus far. It seems like we've played nothing but good teams so far this season and that continues with the Braves tomorrow.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Certainly doesn't feel like a sub .400 team, but we are only 6 back in the division, and we could be less if it weren't for an overperforming Cardinals team. The NL Central looks as bad ad it did in '07. There is an extra playoff spot and no NL team that strikes me as dominant. Stop blowing saves and stop starting Chris Volstad, and we could have something. The downside is that we've had 2 guys carrying out offense, one of whom is largely expected to fall off a cliff, so if more guys would start hitting consistently that would help too.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I know Cespedes is a .750ish OPS type guy right now, but having another legit power threat would make a difference for us, in my opinion.

 

I don't know how Cespedes 4/36 contract will end up looking in the long run, but the 3/21 contract to Josh Willingham is looking pretty good. He's at .305/.418/.598 thus far. He might not keep up that pace, but he's pretty much always been a mid .800s OPS guy and his D is pretty much on par with Sorianos.

 

How is that relevant to the Cubs in any way?

 

The point of bringing up Cespedes was that we need another legit power threat. Willingham is a legit power threat. Theo/Jed opted not to spend big money this offseason and opted to go bargain hunting instead. The Twins got a nice bargain on Willingham.

[Guest]

just think... if our closer could've managed not to blow 3/5 save opportunities, we'd be 14-14 right now.

[Theo]

just think... if our closer could've managed not to blow 3/5 save opportunities, we'd be 14-14 right now.

If my aunt had a pair, she of course would be my uncle. I don't understand this line of thought, who's to say that the replacement for Marmol would have converted all those opportunities? Many teams in fact, can point out that a slightly different outcome here or there would give them 3-4 extra wins at this point in the season.

[Guest]

just think... if our closer could've managed not to blow 3/5 save opportunities, we'd be 14-14 right now.

If my aunt had a pair, she of course would be my uncle. I don't understand this line of thought, who's to say that the replacement for Marmol would have converted all those opportunities? Many teams in fact, can point out that a slightly different outcome here or there would give them 3-4 extra wins at this point in the season.

 

not all that unreasonable to expect better than 2/5 saves converted

 

 

especially when at least one of those blown ones was of the 3 run variety

 

 

edit - and i guess dolis actually got "credit" for that one, but yea.

[Little Slide Rooter]

just think... if our closer could've managed not to blow 3/5 save opportunities, we'd be 14-14 right now.

If my aunt had a pair, she of course would be my uncle. I don't understand this line of thought, who's to say that the replacement for Marmol would have converted all those opportunities? Many teams in fact, can point out that a slightly different outcome here or there would give them 3-4 extra wins at this point in the season.

 

not all that unreasonable to expect better than 2/5 saves converted

 

 

especially when at least one of those blown ones was of the 3 run variety

 

 

edit - and i guess dolis actually got "credit" for that one, but yea.

 

Every team is going to have their share of blown saves, so it's not realistic to chalk each one up as a game we should have won. However, the Wood-Marmol connection was especially bad early on.

[bcl412]

just think... if our closer could've managed not to blow 3/5 save opportunities, we'd be 14-14 right now.

 

I think I've counted 6 games that the Cubs have had leads or been tied after the 7th inning that they went on to lose. I'd take just two of those changed to wins and that's a 13-15 record.

 

On the other hand, we've came back and won a handful of times too.

[Guest]

just think... if our closer could've managed not to blow 3/5 save opportunities, we'd be 14-14 right now.

If my aunt had a pair, she of course would be my uncle. I don't understand this line of thought, who's to say that the replacement for Marmol would have converted all those opportunities? Many teams in fact, can point out that a slightly different outcome here or there would give them 3-4 extra wins at this point in the season.

 

not all that unreasonable to expect better than 2/5 saves converted

 

 

especially when at least one of those blown ones was of the 3 run variety

 

 

edit - and i guess dolis actually got "credit" for that one, but yea.

 

Every team is going to have their share of blown saves, so it's not realistic to chalk each one up as a game we should have won. However, the Wood-Marmol connection was especially bad early on.

 

i didn't realize that saying "just think".... if we had actually managed to save a reasonable 5/5 games instead of 2/5 - one of which involved a 3 run 9th inning lead - we'd be .500 instead of 11-17 constituted chalking up more wins

 

every team is going to have blown saves... doesn't change the fact that converting all of a small sample like 5, especially given some of the circumstances involving them, isn't an unreasonable expectation.

 

and i'm pretty sure a 40% (or is it 50?) conversion percentage isn't all that realistic to project over the long haul, either.

[Little Slide Rooter]

just think... if our closer could've managed not to blow 3/5 save opportunities, we'd be 14-14 right now.

If my aunt had a pair, she of course would be my uncle. I don't understand this line of thought, who's to say that the replacement for Marmol would have converted all those opportunities? Many teams in fact, can point out that a slightly different outcome here or there would give them 3-4 extra wins at this point in the season.

 

not all that unreasonable to expect better than 2/5 saves converted

 

 

especially when at least one of those blown ones was of the 3 run variety

 

 

edit - and i guess dolis actually got "credit" for that one, but yea.

 

Every team is going to have their share of blown saves, so it's not realistic to chalk each one up as a game we should have won. However, the Wood-Marmol connection was especially bad early on.

 

i didn't realize that saying "just think".... if we had actually managed to save a reasonable 5/5 games instead of 2/5 - one of which involved a 3 run 9th inning lead - we'd be .500 instead of 11-17 constituted chalking up more wins

 

every team is going to have blown saves... doesn't change the fact that converting all of a small sample like 5, especially given some of the circumstances involving them, isn't an unreasonable expectation.

 

and i'm pretty sure a 40% (or is it 50?) conversion percentage isn't all that realistic to project over the long haul, either.

 

Not disagreeing. Also, it's more frustrating when most of those saves we're blown largely as a result of excessive BBs.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

i didn't realize that saying "just think".... if we had actually managed to save a reasonable 5/5 games instead of 2/5 - one of which involved a 3 run 9th inning lead - we'd be .500 instead of 11-17 constituted chalking up more wins

 

every team is going to have blown saves... doesn't change the fact that converting all of a small sample like 5, especially given some of the circumstances involving them, isn't an unreasonable expectation.

 

and i'm pretty sure a 40% (or is it 50?) conversion percentage isn't all that realistic to project over the long haul, either.

 

It's not really that your rates are unrealistic, it's that it is a pointless endeavor. The Cubs are a very flawed team with very flawed players, one of which is Carlos Marmol, who regularly implodes and gives away a win with walks. The bullpen in general is filled with has beens and nobodies, along with a relatively decent arm or two. Hey, imagine if LaHair wasn't hitting like a god amongst men right now. The Cubs would probably have lost more games. Isn't it reasonable to expect Bryan LaHair not to OPS 1500 or whatever the hell it is right now?

[Guest]

 

i didn't realize that saying "just think".... if we had actually managed to save a reasonable 5/5 games instead of 2/5 - one of which involved a 3 run 9th inning lead - we'd be .500 instead of 11-17 constituted chalking up more wins

 

every team is going to have blown saves... doesn't change the fact that converting all of a small sample like 5, especially given some of the circumstances involving them, isn't an unreasonable expectation.

 

and i'm pretty sure a 40% (or is it 50?) conversion percentage isn't all that realistic to project over the long haul, either.

 

It's not really that your rates are unrealistic, it's that it is a pointless endeavor. The Cubs are a very flawed team with very flawed players, one of which is Carlos Marmol, who regularly implodes and gives away a win with walks. The bullpen in general is filled with has beens and nobodies, along with a relatively decent arm or two. Hey, imagine if LaHair wasn't hitting like a god amongst men right now. The Cubs would probably have lost more games. Isn't it reasonable to expect Bryan LaHair not to OPS 1500 or whatever the hell it is right now?

 

I understand all of this.

 

I'm just pointing out how bad it sucks, from a results based perspective, that those 3 games were blown. That's all.

 

Despite all those things you mentioned (or perhaps because of), it would be really nice to be .500 right now. Especially given the difficulty of the schedule. I'm not, by any means, trying to argue that this team is significantly better than its record or anything like that. 14-14 is just a hell of a lot prettier than 11-17.

[Guest]

As a mental exercise, I think the blown saves are easier to say "what if" about because it's the last step. If LaHair doesn't hit or Volstad avoids the inning of doom or Castro doesn't throw the ball everywhere, those things don't have the finality that the blown save has. In those instances where Marmol threw the game away, the team was literally that one bit of effectiveness from a win. That said, I don't think it's particularly useful to play that game, for reasons already mentioned. Despite the temptations, selectively re-writing what's happened is always going to get a favorable result.

 

As far as evaluating the team's progress, I'm personally looking to see where the team is when the Astros series begins. That marks the end of their streak of playing 31 games without facing a team expected to not be any good(of which there are at least 50 games this year). If they can make it to 18 wins by that point, I'll be satisfied with where the team is, especially with the knowledge now of the horrific 3-11 start.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Let's not forget that at the end of each season, for every game that you lose because of a blown save, lack of clutch hitting, defensive miscues or what have you, chances are that there was a game that you won due to the other team suffering similar misfortune.