Aaron Kennelly

Scooter seems to have a lot of problems picking up a baseball and throwing it 20 feet.

Yep. Get him on the playoff roster!

I've been saying that for a couple years now. But the guy took a month off and now hasn't hit for a month since coming back. I'd try and get him more playing time this week to see if he can get it together but I'm not sure he can hit anymore. It's not an attitude thing but taking a month off to hang at the jersey shore hasn't helped and could have had a real negative effect. Yeah, but Coghlan doesn't have an excuse for not being able to hit.

Very nice. And a sexy bat flip.

It's easy to take it for granted when you are just living in the moment. And then the dark days of 2011 sneak up on you fast and slap you in the face. The good part about this squad is that with all the young talent, we're set up like we've never been before. We'll get our money's worth. Just get the World Series part out of the way this year, please, I beg you.

I took that to mean that Schwarber is coming back to hit monster World Series dongs.

It always sucks when it ends, unless it ends in the good way. And if that happens, I'll... I don't know, but it will be amazing. But this team is so fun and has given us so many great moments, and there are more to come. I can't wait for the post-season. I know it is a crap shoot, but I doubt I'll ever feel more confident going into the playoffs. Let's go!

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ron-moved.gif

Yes, but before backing in, we also switched gears to go forward and run over their lifeless bodies several times. There's no shame in partying the next day, when there is still half a month of baseball left. Thank you. 93 wins on 9/15 isn't backing in. Sorry they couldn't sequence their wins in a manner to clinch on the field. Yep. You never back into a 17-game lead. To further continue the metaphor... We backed in our sleek, luxurious sports car, careful not to put any scratches on it. And everyone else is in their Ford Pintos, still sputtering down the road.

that about sums it up, as it just isn't the same backing into a win like that Yes, but before backing in, we also switched gears to go forward and run over their lifeless bodies several times. There's no shame in partying the next day, when there is still half a month of baseball left.

Crap. At least the Cardinals are going to lose an important game?

I'm just going to start typing horsefeathers, so as to not take any chances.

Boo!

Javy probably You must be ahead in a count to strike out after being ahead in a count.

J-Hey!

What the hell, Addi?

They've got this. They want to dance. Right now.

Dammit.

coming into tonight he walked 11 batters in 18 innings as a cub start, and his 3.93 era is mostly due to good luck on batted balls (.209 babip despite a 28% line drive rate). the poor command has been the biggest problem, which hopefully will be something that he can straighten out. And you're quoting rate stats in 18 innings of work, where one either way will fluctuate the numbers wildly. He's had 3 good starts, 1 meh start, and one bad start as a Cub, the shaky starts largely stemming from control issues where he gave up 8 walks in those 2 starts. Tonight as well he's allowed 3 hard hit balls with some unfortunate sequencing after his defense gave the Brewers an extra out. I think that's the big thing. A few pitches here or there can really screw up your walk or home run numbers, since there are very few walks issued or home runs hit in a short period. The things that stabilize quickly are a better indicator. Strikeouts stabilize quickly. He's striking out a ton of guys. His contact % is way down since coming here. His swinging strike % is way up. Ground ball rate stabilizes quickly, too. And he's been elite at getting ground balls. The periphs that matter sooner look pretty amazing. The walk rate and home run rate suck. But, I'm not too worried about it, because, like you said, it's a small sample. And he's fared well in those regards in much larger samples.

I think Montgomery's looked good. He's getting a bunch of swings and misses. He's had a bit of a problem with walking guys since he's come over and he's given up far too many homers. But, he's never really struggled with his control throughout his career. And the homers seem like an aberration -- his HR/FB with us is ridiculously high. He's a youngish, controlled lefty that gets a horsefeathers ton of ground balls and has a lot of swing-and-miss stuff. I'm excited for his future.

I'd also like to touch on the Cubs being historically great at LOB%. For one, they don't give up base runners or hits... period. They should be great at LOB%. When you don't allow guys to get hits, that means they can't drive in runs either. It's not as crazy as it looks. Of course they are stranding runners: Those runners only got on base because of a fluke. They were lucky to be on base, not unlucky to not score. The driving force behind the LOB number is the Cubs' ability to limit all offensive production. Teams are less likely to get on base when there are no outs when they face the Cubs. And they are also less likely to get on base when runners are on base. Good teams have higher LOB% than bad teams. And this is taking everything into account: the pitching staff being great at non-BABIP things, them being great at suppressing BABIP, the defense, all of it. Teams are hitting .207 against Cubs pitching (the next-lowest team being at .228). Of course teams are going to suck at hitting when guys are on base, too. We should expect the LOB% to be extremely high, because they are historically great at everything... in every scenario. This is the main reason for the historically high LOB%. He talks about the Cardinals from last year in this article: They were considerably better with runners on base. This was the driving force for their LOB%. They weren't really elite at limiting production with runners not on base. Taken as a whole, Cardinals pitching ranked 11th in WHIP last year. They were 7th in batting average against. They were 5th in FIP. 10th in xFIP. 11th in total team defense (DEF). They were a good, maybe very good, pitching staff. But they weren't historically great or anything. They weren't even close to being the best at limiting overall production in the league that year. The Cubs are historically great at limiting all production. Their non-ball-in-play production has been excellent. And they are historically great at suppressing BABIP -- through limiting hard contact and having a historically great defense. This is why they are so good with runners on base. They are historically great at LOB%. They aren't historically lucky. This is an important distinction. The Cardinals were historically lucky last year. Their fluky results with runners on base are why they were historically great. That's not the case with us. The Cubs have probably been a little lucky with runners on base, though. He points out that the opponents have a wOBA of .274 with the bases empty and .276 with runners on against the Cubs. It's close -- nearly identical. Most teams aren't that close. They haven't exactly been historically lucky in this regard, though. More just... a little lucky probably. But, let's look into that a little more, also. Why do teams fare worse with RISP? Well, there are a couple of reasons. For one, some guys struggle to pitch out of the stretch. Michael Pineda and Robbie Ray, for example, have had some troubles with this. It's a big reason why they've performed worse than their FIPs would indicate. Also, if you look at who's hitting with runners on base most often, you wouldn't be shocked to find that middle-of-the-order hitters are batting. Guys at the top of the order get on base more often, so guys in the middle of the order have more RISP opportunities. But, those aren't the main reasons. The biggie is this: Look at who is pitching with RISP. Who is pitching the most -- out of starting pitchers -- for the Giants with runners on? It's not Madison Bumgarner. He's not allowing runners to even get in scoring position. It's Matt Cain and Jake Peavy. The Giants are going to look better with no runners on, because when no runners are on, that means Madison Bumgarner is pitching. And they'll look worse with runners on, because that means Matt Cain is pitching. They don't perform that much worse in these situations, it's just that their shitty pitchers are taking up more of the sample. So, let's look at the Cubs. They've pretty much had the same five guys starting all year, save for a Mike Montgomery start here or there. And all five have limited offensive production at incredible levels. Take our top four starters: They rank 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th in batting average against, of all qualified starters in the major leagues. These guys have pitched nearly 55% of our total innings this year. So, if you just randomly pull out a RISP opportunity, you are likely to find a pitcher on the mound who has been one of the five best in the league at limiting hits. That's why we fare nearly the same with runners on base. We always have a great pitcher on the mound with an historically great defense behind them. We don't have a Matt Cain artificially inflating our RISP numbers. Our Matt Cain is Jason Hammel, who ranks 26th in the majors, with a .233 batting average against. So, sure, we've probably been a little lucky. Look no further than Travis Wood somehow turning into Clayton Kershaw whenever the bases are loaded, while being Travis Wood the rest of the time. But, that's only happened like twice this year. The larger reason why we don't give up more hits with RISP is because when we have runners in scoring position, Arrieta, Hendricks, Lester, Lackey, Rondon, Strop, or Chapman are most likely on the mound.

We're popping bottles tonight!