Jason Ross

The Cubs have done great stuff with Pete, so I'm not sure what more they're supposed to do. As with Ballesteros, what's there to do? The Cubs have had tons of success with young players over the last few years. Pete, Shaw, Busch, and Amaya just to name a few. All have struggled initially, made swing and approach adjustments and made progress. PCA just went 0-3 the other day on three balls over 100mph and with the lowest xBA of .660. H's frustrated and trying to do much on the field, but they've lost 10 games in a row and he's 23. I'm not sure what else there is to do right now with him or Ballesteros. We have to remember, we only see the games. And it's unfair to both sit here and talk out of one side of the mouth about how much the things in the clubhouse matter that we can't see (like the attitudes and looseness of players off the field) and pretend we know what's happening the other 21 hours of every day we can't see on the TV with someone like Pete or Ballesteros and that work.

I didn't say coaching doesn't matter; coaching, especially in terms of player dev, matters a ton. You're putting words in my mouth. What I am arguing against is the idea that a managerial change is anywhere near the top-10 reasons why the Philadelphia Phillies, or any team, begins winning. Whatever slight psychological change it creates is entirely masked by things like data regressing to the means, schedules, etc. Don Mattingly didn't make Christopher Sanchez pitch 42 scoreless innings. Getting to pitch against SF, the As, the Reds, the Rockies and the Padres did that. Sanchez may tell you it's because Don has created a looser clubhouse, but it's almost assuredly because he's good and those teams can't hit water if they fell out of a boat on top of positive luck (anytime you go 42 innings pitched without a run you're getting the benefit of luck, too).

I've played 30 years of baseball. I'm about to play my 31st year of baseball. Attributing "everyone" is not a smart choice. I don't subscribe to that. I'm not an MLB player. Didn't come close to that. Let's assume you didn't either. Thus, we don't know. And frankly, listening to baseball players talk about what they think about the game isn't a great idea. The appeal to authority here isn't that good. There is a reason the nerds run the game and not the guys who hit the ball 450 feet. Because those baseball players would still be running teams based on batting average and RBI if we let them. I respect what they think they know, and respect the hell out of their baseball talent. But what they think what is happening and what is actually happening on a baseball field isn't always the same. And the reason a guy sucks one place and thrives elsewhere is not magic. It's not a uniform color. It's because that team used their data sheets and cameras and fixed something. They add a pitch. They change a swing. They do something tangible.

Yeah, meant Mattingly. Regardless, there is a whole lot of "I think" with nothing to support it here. What we have here is anecdotal evidence. We do know this: Playing 13 games against the Cubs (in their 10 game hot streaks) and Braves is a lot harder than the bottom dwellers they got right afterwards. We also know when players have ERA/xFIP disagreements that the x data eventually wins out. If we want to attribute some sort of new manager hokum? Fine. Maybe players are marginally looser or whatever. But whatever marginal looseness we think is occuring and want to add here it doesn't hold a candle to things we know.

I have watched exactly zero Bulls games in my life. I don't know. I don't care. The people in charge of the Bulls aren't in charge of the Cubs. Jed Hoyer didn't deserve to be fired 10 games ago; not only was the team winning, he had what looked like a successful off-season. Further more, the Cubs issues this year are injury related and beyond what likely could have been planned for at any given moment. Was it possible all of these players would get hurt? Sure. The likelihood they all went down before the middle May was not. Being on the 10th best SP on your org chart is not anything that could be really planned for. Nothing between 29-16 and 29-26 has been specifically a Jed issue.

Do we think the Phillies turnaround is because of Alex Cora? Because two things: 1. I don't think Alex Cora, the not pitcher, fixed Christopher Sanchez and made him throw 42 scoreless innings to set a franchise record 2. The Red Sox who fired Cora are 12-11 since and aren't seeing the same kind of results. It's much more likely a scenario in which the Phillies, who faced 13 straight games against the red hot Cubs and the first place Braves upon firing their manager immediately went on to see SF, Miami, the As and Colorado and won 11 of 14 against some bad baseball teams. As well, pitchers like Jesus Luzardo and Brad Keller, as two examples, had inflated ERAs compared to their xFIP, normalized and did what their advanced data said they would. Between magic new manager hokum and a favorable schedule and players regressing to the means, I'll take the latter as the correct answer.

Did Jed Hoyer deserve to be fired when the Cubs were 29-16 this year?

You can paint whatever picture you want. Another way of saying is that the Cubs have had a winning record in 2023, 2024 and 2025. They most recently won 90 games and a playoff series. In terms of "what have you done for me lately?" they've done generally fine and are fresh off their best season. None of this necessitates an immediate firing of Counsell or Hoyer because of a ten game losing streak. We can be frustrated, annoyed and upset at the losing streak. Totally fair. I'm struggling to enjoy baseball right now. But it doesn't mean changing out Hoyer or Counsell for someone else with fix anything or solves the actual issues right now, either.

Last I checked the Cubs won 90 games last year, won a playoff series and were one game away from the NLCS. I'm not going to sit here and say "this is the end goal" but let's take a few moments and realize it isn't like the Cubs have been losing a lot of baseball games over the last couple of years.

Maybe. But there comes a point when you have to ask: what exactly is Jed Hoyer or Craig Counsell doing wrong the last 10 games? Neither have an IP or a PA. Counsell has: kept a similar lineup to let guys work out of it and gave guys day(s) off - neither have worked. Under almost any situation, having Jordan Wicks need to start a game with how he's performed in Iowa (mediocre-ish) before June 1st is a worst-case injury scenario. He's what, 10th on the "best case" depth chart right now? It isn't like Craig or Jed busted these guys arms. And we can say that the team always had guys who might get hurt, and that's a fair assessment, but there also isn't much you can really do when everyone gets hurt at the same time. Like I get we're frustrated but this just isn't really on Jed and Craig as much as it is the players who are struggling. And if we want to say it is on Jed and Craig, the then the bigger picture matters: they should get the same credit for winning 10+ games twice in just a handful of weeks, too. Firing Jed Hoyer isn't going to make the line drives that Pete Crow-Armstrong hit on Monday land (despite having xBA's over .600 on all three). Firing Craig Counsell isn't going to make Justin Steele or Cade Horton get healthier, or Dansby Swanson get out of a funk. The team is already pressing; you can see PCA try to do too much. This sucks, but it isn't as simple as "blame someone like a coach" or "pull the plug". They'd lose the games right now regardless of who the manager is.

Nothing says "guy who's going to break the losing streak" like the SP who's got the worst fWAR in baseball right now.

So, a few things: 1. Conrad's back injury has likely nothing to do with his shoulder injury. You can't blame them for this one. If we're going to exclude anyone who was hurt the season prior in drafting terms, then we wouldn't have taken Hartshorn, either. 2. The Cubs have done a good job, IMO, with pitching development. I know we want to see a steady flow of ace SP's, but let's really take stock, especially since Zombro arrived: - Cade Horton is hurt now, but he was so good last year that he finished second in RoY voting. Sucks he got hurt, but hey, that's what pitches do. His changeup development and sinker development at the MLB level especially was impressive. - Jaxon Wiggins was another pitcher fans universally complained about on draft day and developed big-time last year. Sucks he is hurt, but again...pitchers who throw 100mph do this. - Don't forget Daniel Palencia. He went from "guy who didn't make MLB Opening Day" to "Lockdown closer in WBC" in 365 days. - And this doesn't take into stock all of the development they did with guys like Drew Pomeranz, Brad Keller, and Jameson Taillon's kick changeup that seemingly bought him another year of MLB relevance. - Don't forget Kaleb Wing's solid start, Brooks Caple having a good year, Mason McGuire is popping with stuff... I get it, right now, it feels like the pitching is a dumpster fire, but I don't think it's fair to blame Tyler Zombro for that. And it isn't like this is a Cub-specific thing. Look around the MLB. Who isn't dealing with a rash of pitching injuries? Atlanta lost what felt like a full rotation in ST. Tarik Skubal and Zack Wheeler have both gone down. The Twins have had tons of injuries. Hunter Greene hasn't thrown a pitch...this is what high level velo guys do, It's what pitchers do. Jury will be out on exactly what Zombro is doing...but I don't see any reason to not have encouragement unless we are unfairly blaming him for injuries.

It's official: they're literally going to lose every game ever for the rest of time.

Hell yes Pedro.

Pedro Ramirez gets his first career start. Lets go, Pedro!

Who's ever said "every single of one Cousell or any managers' decisions are the correct one"? I certainly haven't. I think Craig Counsell is right far more often than Cub's social media and anyone who thinks other wise is living in fantasy land. A manager isn't going to bat 1.000, but let's again go back to the initial premise here: his decision today to keep his elite defensive SS in the game when his second highest GB% is on the mound isn't a bad one as you made it out to be. It's a perfectly defensible one. Maybe Swanson makes an error today, or goes 0-for as well! It doesn't change that with the information Craig had at the start, it's a perfectly fine choice. Much like if you put you life's savings on a bet with poor odds and actually won, it doesn't mean that at the decision point you made a statistically sound choice.

As someone who has seen every corner of Cubs' fans on social media platforms (reddit, facebook comments. X/Twitter, Bluesky) there are tons of situations where the majority of Cubs' fans aren't anywhere close to the right answer. There is a reason the Chicago Cubs don't crowd source decisions.

You're the one bitching about Craig Counsell like he's the idiot for not considering who's pitching. Stop digging a hole. What you really want is just to see Pedro Ramirez. I get it. So just say that. Your "justification" for it is silly, dude. You can just say what you really mean. "I want to see Pedro Ramirez". I, too, would like to see Pedro Ramirez in a Cub uniform. I also understand pulling Swanson when your ground ball pitcher is on the mound might not be the best choice. Here was Craig Counsell's quote. "Maybe a different look in the lineup. Maybe a day off". Let's see...is the lineup order different? Yep! Is someone getting a day off? Yep! So what did he say that he didn't do? And yes. Everything is statistics when it comes to baseball; sorry, it is. There is a reason team's don't hire random fans to run horsefeathers and instead hire people with analytical backgrounds. Because "being bold for a couple of games to shake things up" isn't a real thing. Fans think it is, but that's not how it works. Colin Rea gives up a lot of ground balls. "Being bold" doesn't change that, for example. Players are more or less likely to do things. Can low-chance outcomes happen? Yeah, they happen all the time! But that's not "bold" that's "going against the grain". Think of it this way: if you're running out of money, you could "be bold for a few days" and gamble all of your money on lottery tickets. Statistics say "you're probably not going to win" (there's odds on the back of the scratchers...or...statistics). Maybe you'll be the lucky winner; someone will be! But it doesn't change the idea that statistics are real, and that "being bold" in the face of statistics, or ignoring that the odds aren't still there - reality still exists. So, again, just say what you really mean: "As a fan, I'd like to see Pedro Ramirez".

I addressed that in the post. So to recap your plan: 1. When your 2nd highest GB% pitcher on the roster is on the mound weaken your defense both at SS and 2b by taking out the 6th best defensive SS in baseball and shift over your starting 2b 2. To make way for a rookie with zero PA's ever in the MLB Don't act like this is some genius plan. You're actively making the team worse defensively for a big "who knows?" offensively. This isn't on "Craig Counsell is a big dummy". This is "I want to see the new shiny toy". So just say that. Don't act like the smart baseball guy is all of a sudden incompetent. Just say "Man, as a fan, it'd be fun to get to see Pedro Ramirez". I'd respect that; that's a totally normal thing. What I cannot stand is when you act like this is some oversight on Craig's end. It's not.

Pedro Ramirez isn't a shortstop. Not to mention Colin Rea throws 50% ground balls, so if you mean "move Hoerner to SS and pull your +4 OAA SS for a rookie" that seems not like the ideal situation to do that. This is a day in which you'd prefer an elite defensive INF. Maybe if Shota was on the mound this would work. But he isn't. But yeah, Counsell is the issue. 🙄

Not entirely shocked. Pedro Ramirez is a switch hitter who really doesn't hit LHP that great. He loses a lot of power against them. So while he can soak up the positions Shaw did, he isn't a 1:1 for him in the lineup. Alcantara can crush LHP. So I think there's some fit and finish here that makes sense. The Cubs have made it clear over the years that unless there is a major swing change needed they work with their young players through struggles at the MLB level. As fans clamored for PCA, Busch and Shaw to get demoted they almost always kept them around. I wouldn't expect them to demote Ballesteros through a struggle unless it's as major as the original Shaw swing change.

Image courtesy of © Mark J. Rebilas-Imagn Images On Friday afternoon, the Chicago Cubs called up infielder Pedro Ramirez to the major league roster, rewarding the youngster's breakout season. Ramirez has enjoyed one of the best starts to the system of any Cub, regardless of level, and now he'll take his talents to the North Side. But what are the Cubs getting in their newest addition? Pedro Ramirez Strengths The first thing that stands out for Pedro Ramirez is his contact rates. His "worst" strikeout rate was 17.1% and came in his first real taste of Myrtle Beach. Since then, he's hovered in the 15-16% range regardless of where he hit; this is a massive green flag for the infielder. What's even better is that despite Ramirez clearly adding more pop to his game in 2026 (he's already set a career high for home runs through May), he's done so while maintaining a really excellent 16.3 K%. More home runs and all the same contact ability are a great start. Another positive is that Ramirez has some excellent batted ball data. He's on the small side; however, he maintains some strong exit velocity data as he sits around the 75th (or better) percentile for things such as his exit velocity and max-EV. Even his barrel rate and pull-air% are strong for a hitter who swings more than average, as many times, players who tend to make a lot of contact and swing a lot have a tendency to make more weak contact. As it pertains to pitch-level data, Ramirez has excelled at hitting many different types of pitches, none more so than his ability to mash fastballs on the season. He has just a 10.9 whiff% on the pitch to go along with a .377 wOBA. Because he's a switch-hitter, he's capable of taking away pitchers' offerings that would normally neutralize a hitter who can only hit from one side of the plate. We can see this in how much damage he's done on sinkers and sliders; both pitches he's currently got a wOBA over .400 against. He has very few pitch-level weaknesses currently, giving him a more rounded approach at the plate. While Ramirez is a switch-hitter, it's his left-handed swing that carries the day. When facing righties, Ramirez shows off much more pop in his bat. He's just more athletic from the left side and is able to hit the ball better. This isn't anything that is special about the infielder, as most hitters have a "better" side (i.e., Ian Happ is much better left-handed than right-handed most years). While the right-handed swing is fine, it's his ability to hit RHP that will likely be the carrying factor. Defensively, Ramirez won a minor league gold glove as a third baseman last season and has been showing some versatility lately as the Iowa Cubs have given him some work in the outfield. It's unlikely he's a capable shortstop, but second, third, left, and right field all seem on the table, giving him solid versatility and multiple pathways into being a successful MLB player. Pedro Ramirez Weaknesses Pedro Ramirez is a bit of a free swinger, and will likely face some "hyper-aggressive" adjustments not dissimilar to issues Matt Shaw and Moises Ballesteros have faced upon their callups. Ramirez has a tendency to chase pitches while still making a lot of contact, and MLB pitchers are far more capable of attacking this weakness than Triple-A arms. It shouldn't surprise anyone if he "gets himself out" on some weak ground balls for a while as he learns "just because I can hit it doesn't mean I should". If there's one pitch he's seemingly struggled on this year, it's the sweeper. He has his lowest batting average (.182) and wOBA (.301) on this offering. He tends to expand the most on sweepers (with an o-swing% over 30%) and his highest whiff% on the year. No one is perfect, but this seems like a pitch potential veterans may look to exploit more. As noted earlier, Ramirez tends to struggle more with his right-handed swing. He doesn't hit the ball nearly as hard, doesn't pull the ball nearly as much, and doesn't appear to have the natural feel for it. The positive is that he makes up for a lack of power with a lot of contact and a bit better zone-awareness, but continuing to refine his right-handed swing would make him go from promising to downright dangerous. Ramirez's Fit With Cubs Pedro Ramirez is being called up to take Matt Shaw's position for the time being, though his fit will be a little different. Swinging better from the left side means that he won't so easily fit Shaw's best offensive aspect, his ability to hit left-handed pitchers, but will provide much of the same versatility in defensive positions and base running that will be lost. This is an exciting call-up and one that probably wasn't on many people's radar a few months ago, but it's well deserved. Ramirez has hit at every single level he's been at and been young for his competition, and we all (myself included) have likely slept on him. With him breaking out due to his increase in home runs, he's gone from a prospect who was likely slept on to someone who looks like he could be a true MLB regular, and it will be exciting to see him get his first taste of the Show this weekend in Wrigley. View full article