Jump to content
North Side Baseball

champaignchris

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,681

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by champaignchris

  1. champaignchris
    The big difference being that where the Mets added Santana, the Brewers will be losing Sheets and Sabathia.
  2. champaignchris
    Ok, but they only lost the division by one game, so that 1.5 would have been huge. There's also the added factor of there needing to be at least two teams to pass the Cubs, rather than just one. There are only two ways for the Cubs to miss the playoffs: a. The Brewers and either the Cardinals or Astros pass the Cubs. b. The Brewers and both the Phillies and the Mets pass the Cubs. So, if the Cubs go 7-10 the rest of the way, the Brewers have to go at least 11-5 for any of the other scenarios to matter. Even then, one of the Cards or Astros would have to go 15-1 or 16-1, or both the Phillies and Mets would have to go 15-1 and 12-5. Even then, the Cubs would have the chance to make the playoffs with a one game play-in. Every single game the Cubs play for the rest of the year is against one of the five teams that matter in these scenarios. Essentially every win for the Cubs from here on out is worth two games on one of their magic numbers. The Phillies and Brewers start a four game series tonight. If one can go 3-1, it would virtually eliminate the other from being able to knock the Cubs out. The Cubs are going to make the playoffs. I just don't know what they'll do once they get there.
  3. champaignchris
    I think 11 wins will get us a playoff spot and 15 will clinch the division. While it's certainly not clinched yet, and really strange things have happened in baseball (last year w/ Mets and Rockies, 2004 w/ Cubs and Astros as just two recent examples), it would require both a historical collapse on the Cubs part and a historical run by at least two teams to keep the Cubs out of the playoffs.
  4. champaignchris
    I don't know what they percentage was, but it had to be pretty high. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/standings?date=20040924 There's the standings on Sept 24, 2004. We had nine games left against a 20 games under .500 Mets team, an 11 games under .500 Reds team, and a Braves team that should have already clinched by the time we were playing them. If we'd have gone just 5-4, the Giants would have to have gone 6-2 in their last 8 games or the Astros would have to go 7-1 in the same span to force a one game play-off. Of course, we go 2-7, losing to the Mets 4-3 in extra innings (the LaTroy Hawkins game) and 3-2, losing 4-3 and 2-1 to the Reds, both in 12 innings, and then 5-4 and 8-6 to the Braves. Houston, of course, goes 7-1 (the Giants went 5-3). The Cubs should have gone 6-3 against the schedule they were facing. The Astros hot streak shouldn't have even mattered. Even if they'd have managed to win three of the six close games they'd have gotten to the one game play off. Instead, they add another historical bed-crapping to the Cubs long line of bed-crappings. Oh well.
  5. champaignchris
    The author of the article I finally managed to link in my post above has Santo and Hack tied at #6. He says Hack had the marginally better bat and Santo had the marginally better glove.
  6. champaignchris
    More on Hack. http://baseballevolution.com/tony/hacksanto.html The writer basically plays the same game between Hack and Santo as we are between Ram and Santo. Hack gets a pretty raw deal historically because he was a lead off hitter playing what's usually considered to be a power hitting position. EDIT - somehow forgot the link. Fixed now.
  7. champaignchris
    In 1929, the Cubs had 5 players get to 90 RBI... Charlie Grimm (1b) - 91 Rogers Hornsby 2b) - 149 Hack Wilson (of) - 159 Riggs Stevenson (of) - 110 Kiki Cuyler (of) - 102 This was arguably the Cubs' greatest offensive team of all time, and amazingly they did it with Gabby Hartnett © out almost the entire year with an injury. (Gabby would hit .339 37 HR and 122 RBI in 1930.) They lost the Series 4 games to 1 to the Philedelphia Athletics. Those A's were a great team with Mickey Cochrane, Al Simmons, Jimmie Foxx, and Lefty Grove (and a way-way out of his prime Eddie Collins, who didn't even appear in the WS). I wasn't able to find any other Cubs team to ever have more than 3 guys with 90+ RBI in the same year. (As you can imagine, Banks, Santo and Williams did it a few times.) Right now, according to ESPN's website, Ramirez is on pace for 118, DeRosa 96, Lee 93, Soto 89, and Soriano 85.
  8. champaignchris
    Rolen's hurt (again) and they've got another IF on the DL, too. Bautista is better than anyone they could call up. He's under contract for next year. He's only 27 and could be a pretty decent player for a couple years. They still have a slim chance of making the playoffs (7 games out). They really, really, really, really want to finish in front of the Yankees for the first time in fifteen years (only a game behind).
  9. champaignchris
    Not that anyone here cares... I just needed to share with some folk that might understand... My wife just sprung tickets to the Saturday game of the Phillies series on me as an early birthday present. I'm so excited, I don't even care what section they're in. I'm going to take my daughter. It'll be her first big league game. She's 5. No better way to get her into liking baseball than to take her to Wrigley while the Cubs are in the middle of a great season. Looking at the schedule, it looks like it'll be Lilly. Hope he does better than the last game I was at. The only other game I've seen the Cubs this year was when he got shelled by the Reds right before the All Star break.
  10. champaignchris
    For the record: In the 13 years since the wild card format started... The wild card team has represented the National League in the World Series 7 times. The team with the league's best record has represented the National League 5 times. (Those overlap once... the '07 Rockies were the wild card team and were tied for the best record in the league with the D'backs.) The team with the best overall record in the majors has won the World Series twice. While these figures scream "sample size," I also think it's true that who wins in the playoffs has more to do with pitching match ups, which players and teams are playing well entering the playoffs, and a little luck than playoff seeding and home field advantage.
  11. champaignchris
    24 of the next 34 are against teams with losing records. 22 of the next 31 are at home. It's time to put the pedal to the metal. I'd love to go into the last 19 games of the season with a magic number of about 12, and looking at the Cubs', Cardinals', and Brewers' schedules, that's not out of the range of possibility.
  12. champaignchris
    I'd keep the guy with the 2-something ERA and then trade the 16 win guy to the Twin's GM for some offense. Think he'd be willing to part with Morneau? But seriously, he could've restructured the argument a bit... For example, which would you rather have for a middle of the rotation starter? Pitcher A: 160 IP, 2.95 ERA Pitcher B: 220 IP, 4.55 ERA The answer probably depends on how deep your bullpen is and how good (and reliable) your first couple of starters are. But still, it's worth a discussion.
  13. champaignchris
    The accusation is at least as old as Leo Durocher, and if it were true and actually gave the Cubs a competitive advantage, you'd think they'd have won a World Series by now.
  14. champaignchris
    In my opinion, the problem with Marquis is not that he's our 4th or 5th starter or that he's a bad pitcher compared to other 4th or 5th starters. The problem is that he's being paid like a 2nd or 3rd starter. Compare: Marquis 6-4 84.1 IP 4.96 ERA $6.3 million Dave Bush 4-7 85.2 IP 4.94 ERA $2.5 million Shawn Chacon (before he tried to kill his GM) 2-3 85.2 IP 5.04 ERA $2 million Andrew Miller 5-6 81.2 IP 5.07 ERA $2.2 million Brandon Backe 5-8 89.2 IP 4.82 ERA $800,000 I suppose to be fair to Marquis, I could cite the performances of some folk like Randy Johnson, Brad Penny, Kevin Millwood, and Paul Byrd and their contracts. But then all those guys had a significantly better track record (except maybe Byrd) prior to this year.
  15. champaignchris
    The answer to the OP's question is Chipper Jones and A-Rod. The interesting thing is that A-Ram is still only 29 years old... 7 years younger than Chipper and 3 years younger than A-Rod. Over the next three or four years A-Ram is going to be one of the best two 3Bs in baseball. Chipper is inevitably going to start going through his end of (very good probably HOF) career decline and is probably only a couple years away from spending the rest of his career as a 1B or DH.
  16. champaignchris
    That was one of the more bizarre fights I've ever seen. Kemp swings at a ball in the dirt that the catcher just has to knock down. Kemp then dithers around the plate for a second before turning his back and slowly walking toward the dugout. Once the catcher gets the ball under control, he takes a step and tags Kemp out instead of throwing it down to first. Kemp then turns around and shoves the catcher. Fight ensues. It certainly didn't look like the catcher said anything to Kemp. So I don't know what Kemp's problem was. Generally you don't deck the defender after he tags you out (excepting when it's A.J. Pierzynski, of course).
  17. champaignchris
    I guess if you want to make the Moyer = longevity despite mediocrity argument, you could point out that he has the highest number of innings pitched for someone with a career ERA over 4. But still, I think Moyer's performance from '96 to '03 speaks for itself. The two really remarkable things about his career is how long he flailed around before really becoming a good pitcher in his 30's, and then how long he's been able to stick in the bigs into his 40's. Other candidates: David Wells Kenny Rogers Mike Morgan Terry Mulholland
  18. champaignchris
    The Cubs' record might be inflated due to where they've played, with 11 or 12 more on the road than at home. (Oddly though, if recent history is any indication, the Cubs' haven't had much of a home field advantage. During the last few seasons, they've had nearly identical home and road records -3 game difference last year, 6 games difference in 2006, 3 games better on the road in 2005, 1 game difference in 2004, same record in 2003 - that's a total of only 7 games better record at home over a five year period. That indicates to me that although their torrid pace at home is going to fall off, they are in all likelihood going to start winning more games on the road.) However, their record isn't inflated due to who they've played. The Cubs' opponents' win% is just under .500 and ranks 13th in the Majors. The Cardinals' opponents' win% is .489 and ranks 27th in the majors. There are legitimate reasons to suspect that the Cubs might not be as good as their record indicates. A good sportswriter would have written about them rather than made stuff up.
  19. champaignchris
    And which is worse? The years where they're competitive and then fold? Or years like 2000, 2002, and 2006 (arguably the worst team in Cubs history) where they simply aren't competitive in any respect?
  20. champaignchris
    I was 11 for the 1985 season. I think that's the year I first really realized what it meant to be a Cubs fan. All five starting pitchers on the DL at once? Unreal. That 1999 season was also brutal. The 1998 team was back, basically intact except for an injured Woody. And they just fell apart with the Sox series. I think it was a case of too many old guys who couldn't repeat the previous year's performance. They went 6-20 during one stretch, falling from a game back to 8.5 back. 2001 was another one. They just fell apart in San Diego and never recovered. 62-43, 4.5 games up at the end of July. Go 22-32 the rest of the way to finish 5 games out. If anyone really needs to relive the 2004 season, Gene Wojciechowski's book, Cubs Nation, is an exhaustive game-by-game retelling of the most bizarre season I've ever lived through.
  21. champaignchris
    Yes. This is right. What the Cardinals are doing is unfathomable. Through the first third of the season they have the 3rd best record in baseball with a starting rotation that is playing way above their collective heads, a closer with an 8.00 ERA, really only 2 or 3 proven commodities in their starting line up, and a super star whose arm may fall off at any minute. You figure those starting pitchers have to eventually regress to their career norms. Especially as the innings pile up. Wainright is the only guy to pitch 200 innings in a season since 2003 and Wellemeyer will surpass his career high in IP in his next two or three starts. Eventually the non-performance of the back end of their bull pen has to catch up to them, and eventually teams are going to be able to start pitching around the holes in their starting line up. That the Sox are 7 games above .500 isn't as surpising as the fact that neither Detroit or Cleveland are doing better and are actually doing substantially worse. If either Detroit or Cleveland play to expectations, the Sox are a nice story, but not that big a deal. The Sox had a bunch of players that simply didn't perform to career expectations last year. They were due for a rebound this year.
  22. champaignchris
    I just had to highlite that because after Santo, Quisenberry is my pet "veterans committee really should put that guy in the HoF" candidate. He had a 5-year run in KC that was just unbelievable.
  23. champaignchris
    We certainly got more than one year of Sutcliffe. He won 82 games with the Cubs from '84 to '91 and was our top pitcher on two division champ teams. Carter was only on Cleveland until '89 and they never made the post-season with him. They did get Sandy Alomar and Carlos Baerga from the Padres when they traded him, though. I'll certainly concede that the Mitch Williams deal was horrible. Don't forget that in addition to giving up Palmeiro we also gave up Jamie Moyer in that deal, without getting anything else of consequence from the Rangers. That Williams deal was in the midst of a four or five year spree of bad closer moves. In '87 we gave up Lee Smith (298 more saves before retirement) for Calvin Schiraldi and Al Nippur (both out of baseball by 1992). Also in '87, we gave up Dennis Eckersley (387 more saves before retirement) for three whodats, none of whom ever played an inning in the bigs. In '88, we signed Rich Gossage to be our closer. 289 saves prior to signing, 21 saves with six different teams after signing. Then the Williams deal in '88. Only on the team for two seasons before being traded for Bob Scanlon and Chuck McElroy, neither of whom were on the Cubs for more than 3 seasons. Then we signed Dave Smith in '90. 199 saves prior to signing, 17 saves after signing. Out of baseball in 1992.
  24. champaignchris
    I think the issue's probably been more scouting and talent-level than anything. It's not like the guys that get out of the organization young are blowing up with other teams. Glanville and Hinske are the only two that I can think of that have really done anything after leaving the Cubs. Even assuming the Cubs are grossly incompetant in developing their players, you'd think in 20 years you'd get one player talented enough to become a starting quality major league player at least once.
  25. champaignchris
    I'm not trying to rag on Pie, Theriot or anyone else. I'm thinking more long term than that. In the mid- to late-eighties the Cubs actually did a pretty good job of developing major league starter caliber position players, highlighted by Shawon Dunston, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark Grace, and Joe Girardi. Since 1990 they have managed to develope nobody. I'm not exaggerating. Nobody. All of their good position players have been acquired through trade or free agency. Seriously, take a look back at the rosters... Rey Sanchez, who came up with the Cubs in 1991 (but was actually a Rangers draft pick) is pretty easily the best of the bunch. After him, you have Corey Patterson and Doug Glanville. And then who? Rick Wilkens? Derrick May? I can't even think of anyone that came up through the Cubs system and then went on to be good for another team. As it stands, Soto, Pie, Cedeno, Fontenot, Theriot and Murton are probably the most impressive group of position prospects the Cubs have had in close to 20 years (to the extent that Fontenot and Murton can even be considered Cubs' prospects). How sad is that! CHUMP EDIT - 1993>1991
×
×
  • Create New...