CubColtPacer

Game 4 looks good on paper... Webb is only 2-3 in day games and the wind is going to be howling out according to Sunday's forecast. Two things: 1) If the wind is howling out and Webb is pitching, that's a very bad thing. He's going to keep the ball down more than any pitcher the Cubs send down there, which means the Diamondbacks are going to hit more home runs than the Cubs in that scenario. 2) Thankfully, Webb is not the game 4 starter. Micah Owings is, and he is a flyball pitcher. If the wind is blowing out with Owings on the mound, that should be advantage Cubs. Until Owings comes up to hit! My thoughts exactly. As much as Owings scares me with the bat, I'd still take the Cubs power hitters with Owings on the mound rather than the Diamondbacks power hitters with Z on the mound in a game where the wind is howling out.

Zambrano was on auto-pilot, there was no reason to pull him. You don't pull a starter that YOU KNOW is dominant AT THAT TIME, even if it's for your best reliever. You don't know whether Marmol has his stuff or not that night, but you KNOW Zambrano does. Ok, I understand what you're saying and we can debate that. But to say that Lou was trying to lose or concede the game, that's just plain assinine. Lou was absolutely playing for Game 4 by taking him out at 85 pitches. How about we try to win one first? You have to win 3 games. If your chance of winning game 4 goes up by more than your chance of losing game 1, then it's the correct move.

Game 4 looks good on paper... Webb is only 2-3 in day games and the wind is going to be howling out according to Sunday's forecast. Two things: 1) If the wind is howling out and Webb is pitching, that's a very bad thing. He's going to keep the ball down more than any pitcher the Cubs send down there, which means the Diamondbacks are going to hit more home runs than the Cubs in that scenario. 2) Thankfully, Webb is not the game 4 starter. Micah Owings is, and he is a flyball pitcher. If the wind is blowing out with Owings on the mound, that should be advantage Cubs.

So does most of the board. If somebody went back and read through all the game logs and all the rants pages after the Cubs struggled on offense this year, you'll see many rants about tip your cap. This board is very much one to blame the offense and probably not give as much credit to the pitcher as is sometimes due. When they actually do give credit, it then makes you sit up and notice because it doesn't happen very often. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing to focus on what our offense is doing right/doing wrong rather than what the pitcher is doing. I'm just saying that these posts crediting Webb are not common for most pitchers, and the board is not nearly as quick to tip the cap as you're implying. As for the sinker, I think some people are confusing his sinker (which was only ok last night) with the nasty changeup that he was striking quite a few out with low in the zone. Here's a quote from Lee: And an add on from Webb: When Lee sounds mystified even after the game, and Webb states that he had the best offspeed stuff of the year (which certainly he doesn't say very often) it's pretty certain the players all think he had good stuff.

Remember what Bruce said earlier in the game thread. Lou said before the game that he was going to use Z for 100+ pitches tonight if he was effective. Something during the game made him change that opinion, and we don't know what it was yet.

On the bright side, Webb isn't as fresh as he was when he started the game about 27 pitches ago On the bright side, Webb isn't pitching anymore. Unfortunately, they have their best relievers in the game as well, but hopefully the Cubs can do the same thing to them that the Diamondbacks did to Marmol.

Not if you're on 3 days rest, it isn't. Yup, I think it's the combination of the heat and the fact that they want to pitch him in game 4.

I dont agree with this at all. Not against Webb. Yeah, Webb is someone who you need to swing at th first pitch more often than not. Unless it's out of the zone of course. Webb wants you to swing at his early sinkers. Why would doing what he wants be a good thing? Webb hates to get behind in the count, so he tries to throw get me over pitches on the first pitch or two to get ahead in the count. Those are the pitches to attack before he throws those sinkers on the edge of the zone if you get behind in the count.

Better than Riot. Not ideal, but I don't mind. At least the riot can put together some competent at bats every once in a while. Jacque Jones at bat embarrasses me to be a Cubs fan. And yet, somehow, when Theriot came up to the plate, he was slightly more likely to make an out. Not arguing that fact, but I still have yet to figure out why. Easy. As many horrible swings as Jacque takes, he has the ability to make the pitcher pay for mistake pitches. Theriot doesn't have a very good approach at the plate either for somebody of his type (he doesn't see very many pitches per at bat and puts the first 3 pitches into play more than any other Cub). When you combine that with it being much harder for Theriot to take advantage of pitcher's mistakes, it means that even when Theriot drives the ball it turns into a lot of easy flyball outs.

For the Cubs, yes. I remember the Bears Super-bowl thread was pretty big pre-game. We had 2 weeks to fill that up. Yeah, the Super Bowl game thread was a monster before the game had even started. Which makes sense-the Colts and Bears hadn't faced each other in quite a while, so there was a lot to discuss about how the teams matched up that isn't present for the Cubs and Diamondbacks who have seen each other a few times already this year. Also, all roster and injury news was discussed in the one thread rather than splitting it out like we have the last few days. I believe the Super Bowl thread has something like 120 pages before it started. 40 pages pre-game for a baseball thread (what it should be at the least by game time) is quite impressive I think.

Better than Riot. Not ideal, but I don't mind. At least the riot can put together some competent at bats every once in a while. Jacque Jones at bat embarrasses me to be a Cubs fan. Theriot might put together some competent at-bats, but he isn't very productive at the plate. I'd rather take the guy who looks worse most of the time but produces more runs.

Augie with Cubs: 316 AB's, .196/.270/.275 Augie on another team: 172 AB's, .297/.386/.390 Now I know both of those are too small of sample sizes, but I honestly never thought that Augie could ever have that kind of production in any 172 at-bat sample. I can't believe he's back in the major leagues, I can't believe he was one of the Diamondbacks top pinch hitters for a while earlier in the season, and I really can't believe how he's the starting second baseman for a playoff team and somehow isn't a major hole there. I honestly have no idea how he has done it.

Look at his pre-season picks, especially this sentence: The Reds as the division winner in a division good enough to have a WC winner as well? Even before the season, that was ridiculous.

He was never hitting that low...at least, not according to his splits nor as far as I remember. They had him in RF while Fontenot was getting regular time. His lowest average point was .231 on May 19th. He still had a .346 OBP even then though. From looking over the game logs, he was never benched. He had a day or two off here and there, but never more than that.

What would be your reaction if the Cubs lost game 4 and the series with your best pitcher slated to pitch game 5? I'm guessing you would be mad like the rest of us for starting your best starter in game 2 instead of game 1 in hopes that your best starter would pitch game 5. Unless you believe in momentum from game to game, that doesn't matter. It just meant that you would have lost the series in 4 games rather than 5.

Neither time with a team that won 90 games So? Because that is the traditional standard of a good team. It doesnt mean anything but I would venture to say that every team that has ever made the post season with less than 90 wins probably have a very low percentage of returning the next season. That's an interesting question. Let's look at the WC era (I have no idea what the results will be until I type them out): 1995: only played 144 games 1996: Baltimore and St. Louis made it. Baltimore went back the next year while St. Louis did not. 1997: Cleveland and Houston made it, reached the next year 1998: Cleveland and Texas made it, reached the next year 1999: nobody made it 2000: Yankees made it, reached the next year 2001: Cleveland, Atlanta, and Arizona made the postseason with less than 90 wins. Atlanta and Arizona returned the next year, Cleveland did not. 2002: no team reached the postseason with less than 90 wins 2003: Cubs reached the postseason, didn't return 2004: nobody reached 2005: Houston and San Diego reached. San Diego returned, Houston did not 2006: St. Louis, Los Angeles, and San Diego reached, none returned in 2007. So 9 out of the 16 went back to the playoffs the next year. Of the 7 who did not, 3 of them were very close to making the playoffs (Cubs in 04, Houston in 06, San Diego in 07). Only 3 of the 15 had a losing record the next year (Cardinals in 97, Indians in 02, Cardinals in 07) Still not a lot of evidence, but it seems to show that if you make the playoffs with less than 90 wins you'll tend to have a pretty good shot of making it again. Pretty sure the 2001 Diamondbacks had 92 wins, but it is an interesting point anyway. You are correct, and I looked back and the Indians also had over 90 wins that year. I know what I did. I was looking at the standings on October 2nd/October 3rd for all the years because I know the season doesn't end after that. In 2001, the season was pushed back a few days because of 9/11, so I didn't look at the final season standings. So that makes 8 out of 14 that made the playoffs the next year. Thanks for the correction.

where did you get this? If so, it shows Lou's foresight as well. Thank god for Lou. Could you imagine this roster with Dusty? It's in Paul Sullivan's blog that was posted in the game thread. Here is the quote about it: http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2007/10/october-surpris.html

Marquis is the 8th reliever. They aren't going to use 8 relievers on a normal basis. The main reason he's on the roster is what happens if one of the starters gets hurt? You can't carry just 3 pitchers who are capable of starting, and the Cubs obviously believe right now that Marshall's arm is not capable of throwing the amount of pitches needed to start. So even if they believe Marshall is the better pitcher overall, the right move is still to take Marquis. He's the better insurance policy.

Neither time with a team that won 90 games So? Because that is the traditional standard of a good team. It doesnt mean anything but I would venture to say that every team that has ever made the post season with less than 90 wins probably have a very low percentage of returning the next season. Edit. So after shooting off my typing I looked up every team that won less than 90 and made the playoffs. A surprisingly high number of them made the playoffs the next year. 10 of them made it the next season and 14 didnt make it. I only went back to 1969. I figured before divisional play there probably wasnt very many non 90 win teams to make the World Series. I didn't see your edit before you made your post. I think the pre-WC era is so different in terms of records needed to make the playoffs that it's hard to take data from that and try to extrapolate to the future in the WC era. As much as a 12 year data sample of the WC era is still too small, I think that's the only thing we can go on right now.

Neither time with a team that won 90 games So? Because that is the traditional standard of a good team. It doesnt mean anything but I would venture to say that every team that has ever made the post season with less than 90 wins probably have a very low percentage of returning the next season. That's an interesting question. Let's look at the WC era (I have no idea what the results will be until I type them out): 1995: only played 144 games 1996: Baltimore and St. Louis made it. Baltimore went back the next year while St. Louis did not. 1997: Cleveland and Houston made it, reached the next year 1998: Cleveland and Texas made it, reached the next year 1999: nobody made it 2000: Yankees made it, reached the next year 2001: Cleveland, Atlanta, and Arizona made the postseason with less than 90 wins. Atlanta and Arizona returned the next year, Cleveland did not. 2002: no team reached the postseason with less than 90 wins 2003: Cubs reached the postseason, didn't return 2004: nobody reached 2005: Houston and San Diego reached. San Diego returned, Houston did not 2006: St. Louis, Los Angeles, and San Diego reached, none returned in 2007. So 9 out of the 16 went back to the playoffs the next year. Of the 7 who did not, 3 of them were very close to making the playoffs (Cubs in 04, Houston in 06, San Diego in 07). Only 3 of the 15 had a losing record the next year (Cardinals in 97, Indians in 02, Cardinals in 07) Still not a lot of evidence, but it seems to show that if you make the playoffs with less than 90 wins you'll tend to have a pretty good shot of making it again.

After September 1st, Soto started against every left-hander the Cubs faced in the month (8 times in a row). It seems very likely that Soto will start game 2 as well. I don't know why Lou would change to Kendall now when he obviously likes Soto against left-handers. With that said, I do agree with you that if Kendall is going to start, you start him in game 1. His ability to make contact helps with Webb (and Soto's power advantage will be somewhat negated by Webb's sinker), and Z is the one pitcher that can hold runners which means Soto's arm isn't needed as much in game 1. So if they are going to start Soto in this game (which they announced they were), they need to start him the rest of the series.

That doesn't mean they'll actually use him. It's just saying that he's on the roster but won't start, and to tell everyone that he's being put on the roster just as an insurance policy doesn't sit well with people. So Marquis is technically available out of the bullpen, but the only place he likely would be used is the long reliever.

I'll take Chip over Joe I'll take Chip over Stockton. Dick Stockton is brutal. every time I hear Stockton's voice I think Bears and Lions for some reason I'll take him over Joe Buck for a season. Even if he is brutal. I just don't want to hear Joe Buck call a Cubs game, at all costs. If it were up to me, I wouldn't mind Joe Buck calling a few Cubs games yet this year. Really? I just can't take him anymore. I'd take Chip over Buck, any day. Let me think of a hyperbolic example. I'd take that Brewer play-by-play guy over Buck (Brian Anderson) :P "and the Cubs are within Grand Slam range!!" I think he meant the only way that the Cubs will get Buck is if they make the WS, and he happily would hear him in order to watch Cubs WS games.

same problem as blanco - getting dempster's salary off the books is a nice idea; getting someone to take the whole thing on will be damn near impossible. Why? Dempster has 1/5.5 left on his deal. Even the most SABR-savvy GMs have turned to much worse than Dempster in the name of getting a "true closer", and of course the not-so-bright GMs would probably see him as a bargain. Getting someone to take Dempster wouldn't be a problem, it'd be a matter of getting an appropriate return. If you believe he's so awful it's addition by subtraction. Be satisfied if they just take his contract. I'm not sure it's addition by subtraction because Dempster's awful, it's more that the Cubs simply have a surplus of relievers. If they re-sign Wood and trade Dempster, their top 5 relievers still are Marmol, Howry, Wood, Wuertz, and Eyre. That's a good bullpen, and Dempster's marginal value is not worth the 5 million to the Cubs. It might be to another team who has very few good relievers.

There is very little doubt in my mind that this is the Brewer's division for the next several years. I wouldn't say that for sure. Most of their young players are not going to get much better because they started out so well this year. I don't know if they have too much room to expand payroll after they have gone from 27 to 70 million in the last 3 years.. In 2-4 years they might have to trade off some of their talent because it will be so expensive to keep Fielder, Braun, Gallardo, Hart, etc. intact even during their arbitration years.