I definitely agree with that. Because of the two infield situations we used most often (Walker at second/Mabry at first, or Neifi at second/Walker at first) Lee's at bats would essentially come at the expense of Neifi/Mabry. If replacing one of the worst hitters in the game with one of the best hitters in the game only results in 2-3 extra wins, then how is a bad team ever going to become good? Well, Lee missed more time than we thought. Cub 1Bs, including Lee have hit .253./.337/.408 this year. Take out Walker's time at first and replace it with Perez' "production," gives us .247/.313/.406. That is about 4.3 runs per game. Lee at .290/.380/.550 is about 7.4 RPG. Cub 1Bs have used up about 14 games this year. So Lee would have been worth about mid 40s runs, or about 4 or 5 wins. How does a bad team become good? By having many players contribute. Do you realize how much dead weight the Cubs are carrying (and playing)? Cub starters besides Zambrano have a 5.84 ERA. The NL average is about 4.8. An average supporting cast for Zambrano would be worth another 6 or 7 games. Right there, a healthy Lee and average starters after Zambrano gets us to .500 and in the wild card race. I assume we'd still have Maddux and Walker making us look even better. We would still have Pierre and Cedeno making outs at an alarming rate. We would still have underproductive corner outfielders. And with average starters after Zambrano, we would be wondering how golden we would be with a healthy Prior and Wood who we assume would be above average. PECOTA projected the Cubs to win 85 games with Prior, Wood and Lee 115 runs above replacement. Given that when Prior pitched he was below replacement, and that the Cubs have gotten some pretty lousy performances from the rest of the replacements, a win total of about 70 makes sense.