Cubs (Boyd) vs Phillies (Wheeler): 6/9/25, 5:45pm

[PeanutPunch33]

Edit

Edited June 10, 2025 by PeanutPunch33

[soccer10k]

1 hour ago, DrCub said:

No one actually said that.  Geographyhater said since 4/23 they have a very bad record against teams .500 or better.  4-9 since then.  You cannot mention things like this because it means you hate the Cubs and are only looking for horrible things and the Cubs to fail and Armageddon to begin. 

Again, why are we focused on the last 13 games while ignoring the 13-8 record against over .500 teams before then? If the Cubs started 4-9 but then went 13-8 would you have the same narrative? Probably not.

There are intelligent reasons to critique the Cubs. You're just not making them.

Edited June 10, 2025 by soccer10k

[JHBulls]

I couldn’t watch once extra innings started

Cubs bats:

[Derwood]

Wow, this dude really single-handedly added 5 pages to this thread

[javy knows my name]

I was watching a bit in delay and I was surprised after the game was over to see that it jumped from 3 to 9 pages. Pretty bummed

[Bertz]

So the record vs. teams over .500 since an arbitrary date thing is dumb on the merits, but I just realized it's not actually even correct?  Since April 23rd

1-3 vs Phillies

2-1 vs Milwaukee

1-2 vs SF

1-2 vs the Mets

4-2 vs. the Reds 

1-2 vs the Tigers

That's 10-12, not 4-9.  I'm not even sure how you get 4-9?  Like the Reds are 1 game over so I could see them not being included depending on when you checked but backing them out still doesn't do it.

[soccer10k]

59 minutes ago, Bertz said:

So the record vs. teams over .500 since an arbitrary date thing is dumb on the merits, but I just realized it's not actually even correct?  Since April 23rd

1-3 vs Phillies

2-1 vs Milwaukee

1-2 vs SF

1-2 vs the Mets

4-2 vs. the Reds 

1-2 vs the Tigers

That's 10-12, not 4-9.  I'm not even sure how you get 4-9?  Like the Reds are 1 game over so I could see them not being included depending on when you checked but backing them out still doesn't do it.

The only way it works is excluding the Reds and Brewers but that requires backdating to May 26. 10-12, take out the 6-3 against the Central teams puts you at 4-9. And even then it's still really dumb for all the reasons everyone else has mentioned so far.

[Geographyhater8888]

2 hours ago, Bertz said:

So the record vs. teams over .500 since an arbitrary date thing is dumb on the merits, but I just realized it's not actually even correct?  Since April 23rd

1-3 vs Phillies

2-1 vs Milwaukee

1-2 vs SF

1-2 vs the Mets

4-2 vs. the Reds 

1-2 vs the Tigers

That's 10-12, not 4-9.  I'm not even sure how you get 4-9?  Like the Reds are 1 game over so I could see them not being included depending on when you checked but backing them out still doesn't do it.

Reds are 34-33, that’s true. If they lose today that record drops to 6-10. I got to 4-9 by calculating their opponents records at the time they played them.

Clearly to you and many others it’s just a random trend and nothing to look at, and I hope you’re all correct and they make me look stupid the rest of the year, 

Edited June 10, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Geographyhater8888]

5 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Highest on base percentage and slugging in that stretch if you were looking for something less ‘nerdy’ but I get the sense I know where this is going and will just say that yes, clearly they don’t have the Clutch Gene or The Will To Win and there can be no recovery from those flaws.  

I’m not at all saying that. They’ve blown me away so far. The problem is when you have scoring outputs of 8, 0, 7, 1, 6, 0, 3, that’s 4 games where your offense gave you little to no chance of winning. It’s great for that run differential and pythag win record, which would’ve made the cubs a playoff team in 23 and 24 if that’s how they calculates wins and losses but unfortunately it’s not. 

I think the cubs are a good team and bound for playoffs, I’m not sold on them making a playoff deep run as of right now which has created 4 pages of posts telling me how wrong I am. It’s not that deep and I hope they make me look stupid the rest of the season.  
 

Could be as simple as bad luck facing every teams TOR starters, which would mean the cubs need Shotah back badly and another arm acuired at the deadline for less unfavorable matchups in a playoff series. 

Edited June 10, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Stratos]

4 hours ago, KCCub said:

Just maybe Wheeler, Flaherty, Skubal, Gore, Abbott, and Lodolo are good at what they do. 

Yeah we've seen very good teams and very good pitchers on the road.  It's not a big deal.  We're not being blown out or anything.

[Geographyhater8888]

8 hours ago, DrCub said:

It’s much more meaningful than two games.  You act like we’ve been going nuts over this, when it was a simple statement of fact, and frustration.  Seriously.  We didn’t suggest the team sucked, or they were going down and would never win again.  Nothing of the sort.  So stop acting as if that’s what happened.  

 

Are we supposed to just shrug our shoulders? Just a coincidence they’ve scored 2 of less runs in 7/13 games vs teams 10+ games over 500 and all consecutively? 
 

There’s a reason they were picked to win between 88-90 games and with Steele at that. Acknowledging they’re a good to maybe a very good team but a bit flawed relative to the other top contenders is a touchy subject apparently.

 

Edited June 10, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Geographyhater8888]

8 hours ago, KCCub said:

Just maybe Wheeler, Flaherty, Skubal, Gore, Abbott, and Lodolo are good at what they do. 

They certainly are. With eras from 3.4, 2.8-2.9 and 2.16 that means that they allow more than 2 runs in 27 innings or so before facing the cubs, what we consider a potent lineup. You’d think all 4 starters wouldn’t all have lowered their ERAs in the last week.

hopefully it’s nothing more than a relative slump that started vs the Rockies and something they’ll break out of. Maybe aim for 2 or 3 runs instead of 0-1 vs these top end pitchers. You’ll need that in the playoffs.

[Bertz]

3 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Are we supposed to just shrug our shoulders?

I'm not going to dictate how people can engage eith the sport, but I mean yeah that's generally the healthy response. 

It's a long season, streaks and slumps happen.  The very best teams of all time still lose ~50 games.  The slumps the Cubs have gone through to this point have been comically short to this point.  If you get this worked up when the team loses to guys like Zack Wheeler and Tarik Skubal, on the road no less, how in the world are you going to cope with actual adversity presents itself?

[CubUgly]

8 hours ago, JHBulls said:

I couldn’t watch once extra innings started

Cubs bats:

Yep, we've gone from really good at situational hitting early in the season to really bad at it the past few weeks.   Like contact and getting runners over is not part of the equation anymore. 

[CubUgly]

5 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I'm not going to dictate how people can engage eith the sport, but I mean yeah that's generally the healthy response. 

It's a long season, streaks and slumps happen.  The very best teams of all time still lose ~50 games.  The slumps the Cubs have gone through to this point have been comically short to this point.  If you get this worked up when the team loses to guys like Zack Wheeler and Tarik Skubal, on the road no less, how in the world are you going to cope with actual adversity presents itself?

I'm not saying this team is the 2016 Cubs, they are not, but even that team - right around this time of the year or soon after went on a 5-15 stretch.  I was in full blown panic. 

[Geographyhater8888]

7 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I'm not going to dictate how people can engage eith the sport, but I mean yeah that's generally the healthy response. 

It's a long season, streaks and slumps happen.  The very best teams of all time still lose ~50 games.  The slumps the Cubs have gone through to this point have been comically short to this point.  If you get this worked up when the team loses to guys like Zack Wheeler and Tarik Skubal, on the road no less, how in the world are you going to cope with actual adversity presents itself?

It’s a natural overreaction to annoying losses every other day. It’s not time to panic yet, just an interesting trend that’s hopefully just my Cubs paranoia blowing things out of proportion.

[BigbadB]

Some of you need to put the keyboard away and go to bed. Holy cow, this was a historically painful game thread to read through. It's fine to make a negative comment and move on. Frustration sucks and it's easy to point out things that make you feel that way. But geez.......

How many different ways do you really need to say the same thing over and over? It's literally several pages of saying the same damn thing.

[mul21]

Someone needs to read up on sample size.  Good lord.

[CubinNY]

41 minutes ago, BigbadB said:

Some of you need to put the keyboard away and go to bed.

I get the emotional reaction in-game. It's also important to look at the big picture. For the first time in almost 10 years, this Cubs team is a true contender. 

 

[squally1313]

1 hour ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

It’s a natural overreaction to annoying losses every other day. It’s not time to panic yet, just an interesting trend that’s hopefully just my Cubs paranoia blowing things out of proportion.

This team definitely has flaws and definitely has areas to improve to maximize their chances going into the fall. As mentioned earlier by maybe you, this was a team that even the optimists were expecting to top out around 88-90 wins, and that was before losing Steele for the year and Shota for a while. 

But I think what frustrates me about these types of criticisms, is that, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, the venn diagram of 'people complaining about their record against over .500 teams' and 'people disgusted by them dropping a game/series to a bad team' is basically just one circle. And from there it's like....where are these 60 losses supposed to come from? Should they just go winless against the 4-6 78 win teams they're going to face this year? 

The team needs pitching, I think they need it more than others do. The offense ran historically elite for a while there, and has come down to being some form of mediocre/average/good, depending on how you want to slice up the samples. Skubal is the best pitcher in baseball, Gore and Wheeler have been top ten this year, we've faced all three of them in the last week. Luzurdo is 13th, though he's struggling, and we get Skenes two days after that, so it's not letting up yet, but....there's only so many top 20 pitchers in baseball. It won't last. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

This team definitely has flaws and definitely has areas to improve to maximize their chances going into the fall. As mentioned earlier by maybe you, this was a team that even the optimists were expecting to top out around 88-90 wins, and that was before losing Steele for the year and Shota for a while. 

But I think what frustrates me about these types of criticisms, is that, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, the venn diagram of 'people complaining about their record against over .500 teams' and 'people disgusted by them dropping a game/series to a bad team' is basically just one circle. And from there it's like....where are these 60 losses supposed to come from? Should they just go winless against the 4-6 78 win teams they're going to face this year? 

The team needs pitching, I think they need it more than others do. The offense ran historically elite for a while there, and has come down to being some form of mediocre/average/good, depending on how you want to slice up the samples. Skubal is the best pitcher in baseball, Gore and Wheeler have been top ten this year, we've faced all three of them in the last week. Luzurdo is 13th, though he's struggling, and we get Skenes two days after that, so it's not letting up yet, but....there's only so many top 20 pitchers in baseball. It won't last. 

To be fair, it hasn't just been those pitchers holding them down. They scored 9 runs against the Rockies, and there's been several other games where they've scored less than 2 runs. Since the start of the Rockies series they have hit 226/292/364/86. And in the 4 series vs .500 teams which have generated the most angst, they've been held to 2 or less runs 5 times in 13 games. They are showing signs that fans have seen a lot of over the last few seasons. It shouldn't surprise anyone that fans are concerned things have taken a turn for the worse.

 

In this span Dansby has a 1 wRC+ in 54 PA, Nico has a 52 in 51 PA. The Catcher position has been negative. The rest of the offense has not been able to pick up the slack, unfortunately. Those 3 positions are horsefeathers killing us. If I were Jed I would be a little nervous. I'd be running through the various configurations for how to possibly get Long into the lineup, see if he can provide a spark. It's annoying as hell that as soon as the 3B position settled, the MIF completely fell apart and catchers have given us worse than 2024 production, to boot. 

[Bull]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

Yeah we've seen very good teams and very good pitchers on the road.  It's not a big deal.  We're not being blown out or anything.

I haven't read the infamous 5 pages that led this thread to this particular moment, and don't want to get into an argument. I just want to point out that in the playoffs you will be facing exactly what you reference. 

I do have a bit of a worry that the Cubs cash in against sub-par pitching and struggle overly much against elite pitching. I'm to lazy/busy to do the work to find out if that's right (I just added a PhD program to my already stupid schedule starting this fall and I'm currently trying to read everything in my field in preparation), but its something I'm watching. 

[soccer10k]

2 hours ago, Bertz said:

It's a long season, streaks and slumps happen.  The very best teams of all time still lose ~50 games.

One of the Dodger teams of the last few years played at a 116 win pace for like 4 1/2 months and then went on something like a 1-15 stretch.

[squally1313]

16 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

To be fair, it hasn't just been those pitchers holding them down. They scored 9 runs against the Rockies, and there's been several other games where they've scored less than 2 runs. Since the start of the Rockies series they have hit 226/292/364/86. And in the 4 series vs .500 teams which have generated the most angst, they've been held to 2 or less runs 5 times in 13 games. They are showing signs that fans have seen a lot of over the last few seasons. It shouldn't surprise anyone that fans are concerned things have taken a turn for the worse.

 

In this span Dansby has a 1 wRC+ in 54 PA, Nico has a 52 in 51 PA. The Catcher position has been negative. The rest of the offense has not been able to pick up the slack, unfortunately. Those 3 positions are horsefeathers killing us. If I were Jed I would be a little nervous. I'd be running through the various configurations for how to possibly get Long into the lineup, see if he can provide a spark. It's annoying as hell that as soon as the 3B position settled, the MIF completely fell apart and catchers have given us worse than 2024 production, to boot. 

I think generally when I see sample sizes that are clearly designed to highlight poor performance (or vice versa, I guess, but we don't see that a lot around here), I just inherently think it's cherrypicked . 54 PAs, 52 PAs, starting the team statistics after their 12-3 stretch, 4 series against teams over .500 (were the teams over 500 at the time? or are they now over 500? whichever one makes us look worse?) over a 6 week stretch....like, come on. Can we not use generally agreed upon cut off dates? End of the month, last two weeks, hell, maybe even since the beginning of the year (which isn't that big of a sample size!).

And ultimately, in this selected sample size of 'since the start of the Rockies series'.....they're 8-5! The rest of the offense has been able to pick up the slack, because we've been winning 62% of our games. Should I worry about offensive struggles and what they portend going forward? Absolutely. Am I worried about Dansby (xwOBA 36 points ahead of his actual wOBA YTD), and Nico (third best 2B by fWAR YTD) because of 50 PA samples? No.

[We Got The Whole 9]

4 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I think generally when I see sample sizes that are clearly designed to highlight poor performance (or vice versa, I guess, but we don't see that a lot around here), I just inherently think it's cherrypicked . 54 PAs, 52 PAs, starting the team statistics after their 12-3 stretch, 4 series against teams over .500 (were the teams over 500 at the time? or are they now over 500? whichever one makes us look worse?) over a 6 week stretch....like, come on. Can we not use generally agreed upon cut off dates? End of the month, last two weeks, hell, maybe even since the beginning of the year (which isn't that big of a sample size!).

And ultimately, in this selected sample size of 'since the start of the Rockies series'.....they're 8-5! The rest of the offense has been able to pick up the slack, because we've been winning 62% of our games. Should I worry about offensive struggles and what they portend going forward? Absolutely. Am I worried about Dansby (xwOBA 36 points ahead of his actual wOBA YTD), and Nico (third best 2B by fWAR YTD) because of 50 PA samples? No.

No, they haven't picked up the slack, the pitching has. Just be honest about horsefeathers. They have the 23rd ranked offense over the last 2 weeks. They have pitched to a 1.92 ERA, the best in the league.