Cubs-Brewers Game One Thread, By The Numbers

5 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

The reaction to Boyd getting a short rest start over him is almost entirely tied to hindsight than it is truly logic. 

This is absolutely not true. There were plenty of us who didn't like the decision to start Boyd on short rest when they announced it. Are there some people who are overreacting in hindsight? Sure. But it's absolutely not "almost entirely tied to hindsight".

9 hours ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

Boyd on short rest against a team that has blasted him this season looks even worse after the Brewers got shut down by Civale and Ben Brown of all people

Brown has done very well against the brewers this year (very small sample size) and Boyd has done atrocious against them.  Who would have ever guessed? 

8 hours ago, Stratos said:

Hindsight is 20/20.  He threw 50 pitches last start.  Brewers had all week to watch and analyze Boyd and pick up any typing he might have done or sequencing or whatever.

History of 3 days rest starters and Boyd’s track record against the brewers is NOT hindsight.  

There can't be that many instances is baseball history where a team hit 3 more home runs than their opponent and lost by 6+ runs. I mean, it's baseball so I assume it's happened like 27 times but it's got to be rare.

1 hour ago, DrCub said:

History of 3 days rest starters and Boyd’s track record against the brewers is NOT hindsight.  

Unless Boyd had a good start in Game 1.  And he threw like 10 innings against them this year.  They were a bad 10 IP but it's also a very small sample size, and he was going to start Games 2 & 5 anyways so this isn't even a factor.

Your manager is a genius if a move works out and he's an idiot if the moves don't work out.  They start Rea Game 1 and he gets shelled and everyone is on Counsell about starting their 4th best active SP and not starting Boyd.

People are going to b*tch and complain about everything when the Cubs lose.  Honestly it's best to just avoid the Game threads when the Cubs are trailing or after a loss unless it's to complain and blow off steam,  it's unbearable.

Edited October 5, 2025 by Stratos

7 hours ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

But they took their best option for Game 2 and turned him into a non-option.

This is where I was prior to the announcement of the first starter and afterwards, and it's in print somewhere here as proof. However, I will acknowledge there weren't many positive alternatives. My main thing was get the main quality innings eaters the necessary rest. Boyd is already 100IP above anything he's done the last 3 years. Rea and Assad (I would have put him on the roster for this series) have way less abuse on their arms for the season even if they were also on short rest. Peralta was likely winning game one without a gem by the Cubs pitching staff anyway. So I felt like maybe getting Boyd rest to go in game 2 made more sense than sticking him back out there on short rest.

Rea had only surrendered 1 run in his last 13 innings as a starter during the regular season and a 2.63 ERA for the months of Sept./Oct. Sure, we weren't happy that he was signed to a deal in the first place, but again, maybe reward his fine end of season work with a game 1 start against a very difficult opponent. Civale ended up shutting the Brewers down for more than 4 innings. Maybe Rea does the same thing and game 1 has a completely different outcome.

5 hours ago, soccer10k said:

This is absolutely not true. There were plenty of us who didn't like the decision to start Boyd on short rest when they announced it. Are there some people who are overreacting in hindsight? Sure. But it's absolutely not "almost entirely tied to hindsight".

I struggle to see how anyone could have strong opinions about this pre-game. I know people did, but again, it feels like people more or less setting up a scapegoat versus looking at the logic of the situation faced by the Cubs and Counsell. 

Door number 1 was your best starting pitcher available, both on talent and numbers who is on short rest and who hadn't had success this year against Milwaukee.  

Door number 2 was your fifth best SP, someone you didn't have in your original rotation to start the year, who pitched more recently than Door 1 and had bad numbers against Milwaukee in his own right. 

Door number 3 was a pitcher with a 15% K%, a 4.69 xFIP, hadn't pitched in a while and was deemed so good he wasn't rostered on either playoff roster. 

They're all bad choices. There's nothing to think here was a clear away good one. It's like passionately arguing you'd rather get a stomach virus over food poisoning because maybe you'll throw up less this way. There is nothing good about either one.

Similarly, there is no obviously or statistical reason to feel strongly about anyone of the Cubs options headed into Game 1. You're gambling on bad choices. If Colin Rea on 2-days rest (not a full start) is one of your options? That says everything in an of itself.  It feels silly to have any strong feelings any direction here. Then. Or now. It's very possible that alternative universe Colin Rea who gave up 5+ runs in 20% of his starts got bombed out today too.

I'm not saying that people can't have opinions, but this one is just a toss-up between three bad choices. It's nothing, where I sit, to have a *strong*opinion on, before the game, after the game or whatever. 

10 hours ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

But they took their best option for Game 2 and turned him into a non-option.

Would you have waved the white flag and went with Rae or Assad, who wasn’t on the playoff roster? There’s really no clear cut alternative, especially with a bullpen that’s gassed. I personally would’ve went with option b at the time but you’re conceding the first game of the series and hoping you take 3/4 vs a team with the best record in baseball. The optics look bad no matter what you choose, 

To your overall point though pitching Boyd was a desperation measure and  close to waving the white flag even without hindsight to be fair.

Edited October 5, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

1 hour ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Would you have waved the white flag and went with Rae or Assad, who wasn’t on the playoff roster?

Starting Rae is absolutely not waving the white flag.  Baseball is baseball and, on any given day, Colin Rae can beat Paul Skenes.  Is it a game the Cubs would have been likely to win?  No, but neither was Boyd on short rest.

21 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Starting Rae is absolutely not waving the white flag.  Baseball is baseball and, on any given day, Colin Rae can beat Paul Skenes.  Is it a game the Cubs would have been likely to win?  No, but neither was Boyd on short rest.

I lean starting Rea without the benefit of hindsight even on 3 days rest only throwing 15 pitches. But it’s still 3 days rest. It’s two sh!tty ends of the same stick. 
 

the more I think about it the stronger I side with starting Rae independently of the outcome.

Edited October 5, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

14 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Starting Rae is absolutely not waving the white flag.  Baseball is baseball and, on any given day, Colin Rae can beat Paul Skenes.  Is it a game the Cubs would have been likely to win?  No, but neither was Boyd on short rest.

 

8 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

I lean starting Rea without the benefit of hindsight even on 3 days rest only throwing 15 pitches. But it’s still 3 days rest. It’s too sh!tty ends of the same stick. 

I leaned starting Assad. I am on record, prior to the first pitch he threw, of not liking the Boyd decision. But I do acknowledge it is a pick from a lot of bad choices. But as ID mentioned, no decision was a sign of waving the white flag. In baseball anything can happen. Counsell made a rational decision based on who he had and it needed up not working out well. No guarantee the other options would have worked either. So we move on and take the next one. 

36 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

 

I leaned starting Assad. I am on record, prior to the first pitch he threw, of not liking the Boyd decision. But I do acknowledge it is a pick from a lot of bad choices. But as ID mentioned, no decision was a sign of waving the white flag. In baseball anything can happen. Counsell made a rational decision based on who he had and it needed up not working out well. No guarantee the other options would have worked either. So we move on and take the next one. 

I can argue both sides of this but Boyd has struggled for the last 2 months and has been rocked vs Milwaukee, a team that’s had success against lefties. Hes not the ace or workhorse you can count on to pitch on 4 days rest and guarantee you as good of if not a better outcome than Rea at this point in the season who only threw 15 pitches on Wednesday or a fully rested Assad.

Whatever small difference it makes yesterday it definitely increases your chances in games 2 and 3 and hopefully a game 4 and 5. It’s all moot if the offense doesn’t score runs anyways and Nico makes costly errors.

 

Edited October 5, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

I get why Counsell went with Boyd, it just didn't work out.  This falls more on Jed to me.  He should have gotten another starter in the off season.  They should have completed the deal to get Luzardo, or even gotten someone else. 

8 hours ago, DrCub said:

History of 3 days rest starters and Boyd’s track record against the brewers is NOT hindsight.  

Using this logic, Ben Brown should have been the game 1 starter. 

3 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

I struggle to see how anyone could have strong opinions about this pre-game. I know people did, but again, it feels like people more or less setting up a scapegoat versus looking at the logic of the situation faced by the Cubs and Counsell. 

Door number 1 was your best starting pitcher available, both on talent and numbers who is on short rest and who hadn't had success this year against Milwaukee.  

Door number 2 was your fifth best SP, someone you didn't have in your original rotation to start the year, who pitched more recently than Door 1 and had bad numbers against Milwaukee in his own right. 

Door number 3 was a pitcher with a 15% K%, a 4.69 xFIP, hadn't pitched in a while and was deemed so good he wasn't rostered on either playoff roster. 

They're all bad choices. There's nothing to think here was a clear away good one. It's like passionately arguing you'd rather get a stomach virus over food poisoning because maybe you'll throw up less this way. There is nothing good about either one.

Similarly, there is no obviously or statistical reason to feel strongly about anyone of the Cubs options headed into Game 1. You're gambling on bad choices. If Colin Rea on 2-days rest (not a full start) is one of your options? That says everything in an of itself.  It feels silly to have any strong feelings any direction here. Then. Or now. It's very possible that alternative universe Colin Rea who gave up 5+ runs in 20% of his starts got bombed out today too.

I'm not saying that people can't have opinions, but this one is just a toss-up between three bad choices. It's nothing, where I sit, to have a *strong*opinion on, before the game, after the game or whatever. 

Yes, I would have much preferred to roll the dice with one of the other guys than starting a guy on 3 days rest when we know there's a track record of guys on 3 days rest pitching poorly. And again, those guys who typically go on 3 days rest are your ace types who are much better pitchers than Matthew Boyd. According to The Athletic, pitchers in the WC era have made 158 starts on three days rest, their teams won 66 of those games, and they compiled a 4.47 ERA in those starts. So if really good pitchers turn into average pitchers on 3 days, what do you think an average pitcher is going to turn into? Because Matthew Boyd isn't an ace. He had a 5.51 ERA in his last 9 starts or a 4.63 ERA since the ASB.

Yes, the Cubs very easily could have lost this game starting Rea or Assad. But starting Boyd was a bad decision and it backfired as poorly as possible.

Also, the fact that a SP wasn't on the WC roster doesn't really matter than much. It was a 3 game series so of course a SP or two is going to get left off.

Well … Craig Counsel not only single-handedly put the Cubs into 2nd place, but he also single-handedly cost them game 1 in the NLDS and probably another game or two since he used half the bullpen and does not have Assad.

Counsel has no clue when it comes to evaluating his own players. First he puts them into second place by playing the same players everyday in the hot summer months of July and August.  Then he thinks Boyd is Superman who can pitch against a fully rested team, which happens to have the best record in the MLB on only three days rest.  And to top it off, he cuts his most rested starter from the Roster.  If Assad pitched game one, the outcome surely would have been far better.  No way Boyd on 3 days rest is better than Assad on 7.

49 minutes ago, Banks-Williams said:

 

Well … Craig Counsel not only single-handedly put the Cubs into 2nd place, but he also single-handedly cost them game 1 in the NLDS and probably another game or two since he used half the bullpen and does not have Assad.

Counsel has no clue when it comes to evaluating his own players. First he puts them into second place by playing the same players everyday in the hot summer months of July and August.  Then he thinks Boyd is Superman who can pitch against a fully rested team, which happens to have the best record in the MLB on only three days rest.  And to top it off, he cuts his most rested starter from the Roster.  If Assad pitched game one, the outcome surely would have been far better.  No way Boyd on 3 days rest is better than Assad on 7.

This is absurd. Theres a day off and he didnt use a single reliever of consequence.

 

Soroka, Civale, and Ben Brown are not half the pen, and again they get a day off. 

 

And he didnt put them in 2nd place by using his players too much. They got 2nd place because the Brewers won 80% of their games over a 60 game stretch. The Cubs played great all year and had the 4th best record in the league. They played like a 1st place team.

Edited October 5, 2025 by We Got The Whole 9

Would have been nice to get this game, faced with a lot of bad choices regarding the starter.  It was basically pick you're own poison, I think Counsell knows it's about getting a split in Milwaukee.  He rolled the dice in game one didn't work out, he'll pull all the strings to get Monday' game.  I switched to Illinois-Purdue after the Brewers first four batters, I think Craig, if he could, would have switched to Boise State-Notre Dame.

1 hour ago, Banks-Williams said:

 

Well … Craig Counsel not only single-handedly put the Cubs into 2nd place, but he also single-handedly cost them game 1 in the NLDS and probably another game or two since he used half the bullpen and does not have Assad.

Counsel has no clue when it comes to evaluating his own players. First he puts them into second place by playing the same players everyday in the hot summer months of July and August.  Then he thinks Boyd is Superman who can pitch against a fully rested team, which happens to have the best record in the MLB on only three days rest.  And to top it off, he cuts his most rested starter from the Roster.  If Assad pitched game one, the outcome surely would have been far better.  No way Boyd on 3 days rest is better than Assad on 7.

It’s pretty obvious by now the success of the brewers was never Counsel. Maybe he was the reason they never one a series? Has anyone ever thought that maybe he was holding the Brewers back? It’s possible correct?

5 minutes ago, Caesar said:

It’s pretty obvious by now the success of the brewers was never Counsel. Maybe he was the reason they never one a series? Has anyone ever thought that maybe he was holding the Brewers back? It’s possible correct?

Probably. I mean he was terrible in that series loss they had last year to the Mets. 
Ooops, that wasn’t him. Just another hot take comment, without any merit. 

51 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

This is absurd. Theres a day off and he didnt use a single reliever of consequence.

 

Soroka, Civale, and Ben Brown are not half the pen, and again they get a day off. 

 

And he didnt put them in 2nd place by using his players too much. They got 2nd place because the Brewers won 80% of their games over a 60 game stretch. The Cubs played great all year and had the 4th best record in the league. They played like a 1st place team.

Why bother. His comment wasn’t worth responding to. Just ranting jibber jabber. And based on his name, you are never going to convince him otherwise. 

8 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Probably. I mean he was terrible in that series loss they had last year to the Mets. 
Ooops, that wasn’t him. Just another hot take comment, without any merit. 

Counsel can’t do no wrong in your eyes.

I'm guessing Priester and Quintana for the Brewers the next two?  If so, it's a step down from what the Cubs have, thus far, faced.  Both imminently hittable, no excuses for the Cubs' bats.

7 minutes ago, Caesar said:

Counsel can’t do no wrong in your eyes.

No, that is not it. You just take things over the top. One thing happens and you exaggerate it. You did it with a slump in August this year, you did it when Swanson made an error and you are doing it now. I didn’t agree with Boyd pitching. I said it before he threw his first pitch. Counsell thought otherwise. He didn’t get it right. But that doesn’t mean the other choices would have been much better. Doesn’t mean he lost the game for the team. He made a choice based on data the team had. He picked him out of all iffy choices. 

38 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

No, that is not it. You just take things over the top. One thing happens and you exaggerate it. You did it with a slump in August this year, you did it when Swanson made an error and you are doing it now. I didn’t agree with Boyd pitching. I said it before he threw his first pitch. Counsell thought otherwise. He didn’t get it right. But that doesn’t mean the other choices would have been much better. Doesn’t mean he lost the game for the team. He made a choice based on data the team had. He picked him out of all iffy choices. 

So in other words why discuss it because they way you see things there’s always a built in excuse. This is a baseball board. You want me to praise them and say phrases like , they tried, he only uses what the GM gave him. Blah, Blah. What do you wan to discuss? They are playing poorly and you need to call it that. He put Boyd in a position to not perform well and that’s it.