Jump to content
North Side Baseball
  • The Third 54 Report: Stealing One


    Matt Trueblood

    Baseball doesn’t lend itself well to momentum. The closest thing, old heads will tell you, is the next day’s starting pitcher. For the Dodgers, though, not even a huge advantage in that department was enough. The Cubs won a game they had no business winning Sunday, and they’re starting to get a good vibe going.

    Image courtesy of © Kirby Lee-USA TODAY Sports

    Cubs Video

    Every team will win 54 games in the long grind of an MLB season, and every team will lose 54. The other 54 determine the outcome of your season. When you lost on an excruciating walkoff sequence the previous night, though, and when it’s getaway day at Dodger Stadium, and when you’re sending your fourth starter out to face one of the co-favorites for the NL Cy Young Award, you tend to mentally chalk that day’s contest up as one of the inevitable losses, and not even worry much about it.

    Under the intense and demanding leadership of their new core, though, the Cubs didn’t approach Sunday’s game that way at all. For one thing, Drew Smyly managed to avoid almost all trouble, and got David Ross 17 outs. He wasn’t missing bats, but he stayed around the strike zone, and little of the Dodgers’ contact was both solid and in the air. When Smyly has his three-pitch mix working, even if his curve isn’t dipping quite enough to generate whiffs, he can battle his way through five or six frames on the strength of good defense and enough guile to escape a jam. Only Chris Taylor, who cracked a solo home run against him in the third inning, managed to put a run on Smyly Sunday.

    That set a new tone for the game. It turned out to be the Cubs’ starting pitcher who lent momentum to the game, and that made it (unexpectedly) winnable. The offense continued to push the envelope. Nico Hoerner was picked off when he made an early break for second base against Julio Urías in the first inning, but Dansby Swanson and Cody Bellinger each stole a base. Bellinger, who had reached on an error, went to third on a ground ball and scored on an infield dribbler in the fifth, tying the score.

    Ian Happ could have broken things open in that same frame, as the team loaded the bases ahead of him with two outs. Again, though, a southpaw got the better of him. This time, Dave Roberts didn’t even have to do any maneuvering. Urías went right after Happ and induced a weak flare for an inning-ending groundout.

    At that moment, it again felt like the game could slip away from the Cubs, as it did Saturday night. Instead, the very next inning, Patrick Wisdom and Bellinger cracked back-to-back home runs. That’s the kind of offense that brings wavering games back from the brink of loss. That combination of relentlessness and suddenness has eluded the Cubs for most of the last four seasons, and the appearance of it in this game is no guarantee that they’ll sustain it. For one day, though, the Cubs gave themselves a bit of room to breathe.

    It almost wasn’t enough, of course. A bit of wildness from Adbert Alzolay and a fly ball that Seiya Suzuki lost in the California sun put the Dodgers within a hit of the lead. Mark Leiter, Jr. came on to put out the fire, though, and had what feels like his third or fourth huge outing of the year already. His splitter is one of the most valuable weapons in the Cubs’ bullpen. The spin rate on the pitch, thus far this year, averages just 909 revolutions per minute. Of the 141 pitchers who have thrown at least 25 changeups or splitters this year, only the Reds’ Fernando Cruz has lower spin than Leiter. That makes the pitch tumble and fade as well as just about any splitter for which one could hope, and it was devastatingly effective against Freddie Freeman and Max Muncy in this series.

    Leiter isn’t a true relief ace, or anything. The Cubs still don’t have one, though Keegan Thompson looks like that kind of pitcher on his best nights. It’s beginning to look like they have another in what’s becoming an impressive line of highly effective committees out there, though, and every game gives David Ross, Tommy Hottovy, and the rest of the pitching infrastructure more information about how best to deploy the unit. On Sunday, they learned that they can count on Leiter and Michael Fulmer on back-to-back days, at least in limited matchups, and that Leiter isn’t someone teams will solve after a single look. 

    More importantly, of course, the team managed the improbable series win. They now go to Oakland, where the 3-13 Athletics await, with a very good chance to sew up a winning West Coast swing. The outline of a team that stays above .500 for more than a couple of weeks to open the season is coming into focus.

    Third Bucket Record: 3-3

    Think you could write a story like this? North Side Baseball wants you to develop your voice, find an audience, and we'll pay you to do it. Just fill out this form.

    MORE FROM NORTH SIDE BASEBALL
    — Latest Cubs coverage from our writers
    — Recent Cubs discussion in our forums
    — Follow NSBB via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a North Side Baseball Caretaker

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Featured Comments

    Just thinking about how this Cubs team may be built to have more "third bucket games" as you call them than the average team.  What happens when you exceed 54 games? lol

    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

    Just thinking about how this Cubs team may be built to have more "third bucket games" as you call them than the average team.  What happens when you exceed 54 games? lol

    It's a somewhat arbitrary number, really. Should it be 48 games? 60 games?

    *shrugs*

    And I think some teams are just going to play more/less of those "bucket" games in any given season. Did the 2022 Dodgers *really* automatically lose 54 games? I mean, obviously not... they didn't even lose 54 games.

    Bad teams won't automatically win 54. Great teams won't automatically lose 54. And to your point, I suspect those 78-84 win teams largely thrive or decline based playing more of those bucket games and winning/losing them...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, UMFan83 said:

    Just thinking about how this Cubs team may be built to have more "third bucket games" as you call them than the average team.  What happens when you exceed 54 games? lol

    Oh, I’ve thought a lot about this! Hahaha. I’m treating it as an experiment. If I get to 69 of these or something, it’ll only help me (and maybe all of us?) learn better how to pick out the 54 that really make or break things—or to call BS on the concept. The incidence of close games is bound to be higher because of their style of play. Maybe as we go, I’ll sense some gradient of real variability deeper than score or game flow. That kind of stuff is why I’m doing these.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, Matt Trueblood said:

    Oh, I’ve thought a lot about this! Hahaha. I’m treating it as an experiment. If I get to 69 of these or something, it’ll only help me (and maybe all of us?) learn better how to pick out the 54 that really make or break things—or to call BS on the concept. The incidence of close games is bound to be higher because of their style of play. Maybe as we go, I’ll sense some gradient of real variability deeper than score or game flow. That kind of stuff is why I’m doing these.

    Cool, yeah I figured it was always just sort of a floating number, but 54 sticks with the initial Lasorda quote.  I've enjoyed reading these and find myself wondering during the games whether this will be a third bucket game 😂

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    For a point of comparison, the 2022 Cubs had 53 one run games, and 91 that were a two run difference in either direction.  The 2016 Cubs were in 46 one run games and 71 1-2 run games(including the weird tie).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Personally I think the entire premise is flawed.  The general idea seems to be that there are ~54 predetermined wins, ~54 predetermined losses, and the rest of the games are winnable toss-ups.  Whatever the numbers may be, I don't agree with the idea that the end results can be segmented in such a way.  It is one thing to say that a team's win total will almost always fall between 54-108 (which I think is all the Lasorda quote was really saying), but it seems rather silly to try to bucket the games into individual arbitrary groups.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

    Personally I think the entire premise is flawed.  The general idea seems to be that there are ~54 predetermined wins, ~54 predetermined losses, and the rest of the games are winnable toss-ups.  Whatever the numbers may be, I don't agree with the idea that the end results can be segmented in such a way.  It is one thing to say that a team's win total will almost always fall between 54-108 (which I think is all the Lasorda quote was really saying), but it seems rather silly to try to bucket the games into individual arbitrary groups.

    It's that last bit that is important.  I think it's a useful framing to remember that every team will have dozens and dozens of games they win and dozens and dozens of games they lose, it's a good reminder that no matter the team's quality they will have stretches of strong and poor play.  But picking out which games go in which bucket as you go is beyond the scope of that framing because you can't know ahead of time how good or bad the team will end up being in close games/games that weren't decided by the 6th inning.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    20 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

    For a point of comparison, the 2022 Cubs had 53 one run games, and 91 that were a two run difference in either direction.  The 2016 Cubs were in 46 one run games and 71 1-2 run games(including the weird tie).

    Yeah. I fully expect (and I think it’s already been true of one game?) not to count every one-run game as one of these. That’s the interesting texture and nuance of it, I hope. But again, this is something I’ve never tried to do in real time before, so it’s going to be a learning and feeling-out thing, and we can also make some more general observations as we go.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think it's a very useful way to assign "goodness" to a team. The three buckets might not all be the same size, but they are close. 

    Rob Neyer wrote a book many years ago about the "best" all-time baseball teams, one of his categories was something like blowout wins (I think it was by 4 or more runs) to measure greatness. I think the '27 Yankees had an incredible number of wins by more than 4 runs.  It factors into the overall run differential too. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...