Cubs-Brewers Game One Thread, By The Numbers

14 minutes 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

Agreed! Those two pitched really well. No clue what was the reasoning behind staring Boyd today. Horrible decision 

Quote

Guy on 3 days rest was always destined not to be sharp, therefore it would've been far superior then to pitch the other guy on 2 days rest or the guy who didn't make the WC roster who has pitched once in 2 weeks, no sharpness issues there.

This is how all the people freaking out about the decision to start Boyd sound.

There wasn't an obvious decision, and this one didn't work out because of reasons known(Boyd wasn't sharp in the 1st) and unknown(he got BABIP'd a little and let down by his defense a lot).  The framing of it as an obvious unconscionable failure of a decision is a tell that people are venting more than they are thinking about the actual decision.

16 minutes ago, DrCub said:

There are good gambles and bad ones.  History tells us that this was bad based on 3 days rest starters and Boyd’s track record.  

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.

11 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

This is how all the people freaking out about the decision to start Boyd sound.

There wasn't an obvious decision, and this one didn't work out because of reasons known(Boyd wasn't sharp in the 1st) and unknown(he got BABIP'd a little and let down by his defense a lot).  The framing of it as an obvious unconscionable failure of a decision is a tell that people are venting more than they are thinking about the actual decision.

There wasn’t an obvious decision, but starting Boyd was obviously a bad one. Both can be true

8 minutes ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

There wasn’t an obvious decision, but starting Boyd was obviously a bad one. Both can be true

No, they cannot!  The idea that Boyd is an obviously bad decision implies there is one that is clearly and obviously better. When the alternatives are Rea(On 2 days rest from throwing 1.2 IP), Assad(injured most of the year and has 1 appearance in 2 weeks) or even Civale(no appearances in 10 days), thinking that they would definitely have been immune to the lack of sharpness Boyd had(a couple hard hit balls and a walk) is just wishful thinking.

2 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

No, they cannot!  The idea that Boyd is an obviously bad decision implies there is one that is clearly and obviously better. When the alternatives are Rea(On 2 days rest from throwing 1.2 IP), Assad(injured most of the year and has 1 appearance in 2 weeks) or even Civale(no appearances in 10 days), thinking that they would definitely have been immune to the lack of sharpness Boyd had(a couple hard hit balls and a walk) is just wishful thinking.

Sure boss whatever you say. 

2 hours ago, Chicago Al said:

It’s funny how much the Brewers boo and hate on CC. If they loved him so much why didn’t they extend him? 

Milwaukee did try to extend him. Chicago decided to pay twice what he is worth.

2 minutes ago, Frisbee Slider said:

Milwaukee did try to extend him. Chicago decided to pay twice what he is worth.

And you are who determines what someone is worth? 

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

And you are who determines what someone is worth? 

The market does. Most good managers make $4-$5 million. Counsell makes $8 million.

29 minutes 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.

Wouldn’t that have been the case for game 2, as well? Wouldn’t they have analyzed him and just hit him on Monday? I didn’t agree with starting Boyd. But I do acknowledge that there really wasn’t a good option. Yes, apparently this was a bad decision. But we see that now after the results. Has he done 4 innings giving up just the 2 he gave up before the Nico error we wouldn’t be talking like this. And had Nico made the play that may have happened. Easy to call the manager out after his decision doesn’t wkrk(not saying you are doing that, btw), but really starting Boyd in shirt rest when he only threw 58 pitches on Tuesday is not that crazy a decision. He just didn’t get it done. 
One comment I heard from the announced in the very first inning was one of them said, now that the Brewers scored runs in the first inning people will suggest the rest was good. Had they went 3 up and 3 down they would have been flat from not playing. So true that most people comment after the fact. 

2 hours ago, Stratos said:

LOL Tucker.

 

He was probably pissed off and he should be. 

5 minutes ago, Frisbee Slider said:

The market does. Most good managers make $4-$5 million. Counsell makes $8 million.

What did Francona get from the Reds? I believe the report is he got $45M. Not sure the years. 

Jesse Rogers says he heard Imanaga starts game 2. Offense has to show up in a big way. It ain’t over 💪

Edited October 4, 2025 by s2obed

12 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

What did Francona get from the Reds? I believe the report is he got $45M. Not sure the years. 

$5 million per season, three years plus option

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/mlb/reds/2025/02/10/comfort-zone-why-cincinnati-reds-job-worth-the-risk-for-tito-francona/78329313007/#

 

I remember Ross and then Counsell last year getting all sorts of criticism for how they handled the bullpen and supposedly pressing the wrong buttons or whatever, and my opinion then was that they were stuck picking between a bunch of bad options and it wasn’t going to end well regardless. This is kinda where I’m at with this decision and the rotation in general. Which is a Ricketts thing, and a Jed thing. Yeah, I know, they were expensive. I…don’t really care? This needed to get figured out, we knew about it in December, we knew about it in July. And here we are, mad that we picked an exhausted above average starter over Colin horsefeathers Rea? 

7 minutes ago, Frisbee Slider said:

$5 million per season, three years plus option

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/mlb/reds/2025/02/10/comfort-zone-why-cincinnati-reds-job-worth-the-risk-for-tito-francona/78329313007/#

 

I still don’t see the actual yearly salary. 

5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I still don’t see the actual yearly salary. 

Quote

Francona, 65, rocked as he spoke during a recent conversation at the home in Tucson’s cactus-filled Catalina Foothills that he had built for his retirement years, which now will have to wait at least another three years after he signed a deal with a fourth-year option that sources say pays $5 million per season.

 

1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

This is how all the people freaking out about the decision to start Boyd sound.

There wasn't an obvious decision, and this one didn't work out because of reasons known(Boyd wasn't sharp in the 1st) and unknown(he got BABIP'd a little and let down by his defense a lot).  The framing of it as an obvious unconscionable failure of a decision is a tell that people are venting more than they are thinking about the actual decision.

There's a pretty good history of pitchers in the playoffs doing poorly on 3 days rest. And generally, those pitchers have typically been good. Most teams who do it are doing it because the guy is an ace. So not only are we starting a guy on 3 days rest, but it's a guy who gave up 2+ runs in his final 9 regular season starts (before 1 in 4 1/3 vs SD). Mid-upper 4's ERA the last two months or since the ASB.

A lot of us on here didn't like the decision and it certainly backfired. Would we have won the game starting Assad or Rea? Not necessarily. But I would much rather have started Rea and tried to piece together a bullpen game with tomorrow off. It was a bad decision given all the data we have on pitchers starting on 3 days rest and Boyd's last 2 months. I'm not sure I would have wanted 2015 Jake Arrieta starting on 3 days rest either, let alone 2025 Matthew Boyd.

An important thing to take into account is that we don't know what the Cubs plan with Boyd was. There is a lot of discourse over "guys who start on three days rest" but it's a good reminder that Boyd wasn't overly used three days prior. If the Cubs were only looking for a few innings (let's call it 3) from Boyd, we have plenty of data on "guys who were used 3 days ago in a few innings role" and it's far less bleak. Sure he was the "starter" but it may not have been a "go get me 5" thing via the plan. 

Regardless the Brewers torched up Soroka, have hit Rea really well this year and Javier Assad is just not a playoff starter. It was a lot of bad choices with no clearly identifiable better one. It's easy to believe Colin Rea would have gone 3 or 4 and been just fine, but it's probably almost as likely he got torched and everyone is whining they didn't start Assad, or the inverse of Assad getting lit up and bemoaning not starting Rea. 

When teams lose, people always want to boil down a pair of feet to lie their frustrations at. The easy answer here is Counsell, but I don't think it's so easy. It's only easy because we can't peer through the looking glass to see the alternate universe in which Colin Rea started and see how it went. 

2 hours ago, UMFan83 said:

Those Contreras brothers are trouble

That’s not even a bat flip, that tossing the bat aside with a flip

 

 

grow up Contreras 

2 hours ago, Caesar said:

Again why is he celebrating a meaningless homer down 9 to 1? 

Because they’re getting killed and it’s irritating.  Jesus wtf is wrong with you? 

5 minutes ago, DrCub said:

Because they’re getting killed and it’s irritating.  Jesus wtf is wrong with you? 

My name isn’t Jesus! Nothing is wrong with me. My name is Caesar.

12 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

An important thing to take into account is that we don't know what the Cubs plan with Boyd was. There is a lot of discourse over "guys who start on three days rest" but it's a good reminder that Boyd wasn't overly used three days prior. If the Cubs were only looking for a few innings (let's call it 3) from Boyd, we have plenty of data on "guys who were used 3 days ago in a few innings role" and it's far less bleak. Sure he was the "starter" but it may not have been a "go get me 5" thing via the plan. 

Regardless the Brewers torched up Soroka, have hit Rea really well this year and Javier Assad is just not a playoff starter. It was a lot of bad choices with no clearly identifiable better one. It's easy to believe Colin Rea would have gone 3 or 4 and been just fine, but it's probably almost as likely he got torched and everyone is whining they didn't start Assad, or the inverse of Assad getting lit up and bemoaning not starting Rea. 

When teams lose, people always want to boil down a pair of feet to lie their frustrations at. The easy answer here is Counsell, but I don't think it's so easy. It's only easy because we can't peer through the looking glass to see the alternate universe in which Colin Rea started and see how it went. 

I don’t see a scenario where Rea’s outing went worse than Boyd’s. This is the third time this series where Craig’s decisions have not worked (add in Shota pitching to Machado and trying to get 2 innings from Keller). That’s just too many bad ones in the biggest games of the season.

I also feel like the offense is slipping through criticism. The pitching staff has pitched really well in 3/4 games, while the offense is averaging just over 2 runs a game. Offense, it’s your time to win a game and beat a staff that you should handle the next 3 games.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

I don’t see a scenario where Rea’s outing went worse than Boyd’s. This is the third time this series where Craig’s decisions have not worked (add in Shota pitching to Machado and trying to get 2 innings from Keller). That’s just too many bad ones in the biggest games of the season.

I also feel like the offense is slipping through criticism. The pitching staff has pitched really well in 3/4 games, while the offense is averaging just over 2 runs a game. Offense, it’s your time to win a game and beat a staff that you should handle the next 3 games.

 

 

Again, after the fact it is easy to see Rea could have done better. And, as I said, I didn’t like the decision to start Boyd when it was done. But he could have just as easily pitched fine. Even had Nico made the play in the first inning, Boyd might have given them a few more without giving up runs. We don’t know. It was a decision without any real good options. And unfortunately this one didn’t work well.