RandallPnkFloyd

Let's forget the rough results recently--especially since they're mostly the offense's fault. When was the last time it was this much fun to watch the Cubs pitch, from a pure stuff and domination potential perspective? Image courtesy of © Jeff Hanisch-USA TODAY Sports For as long as I can remember – at least the last handful of years – I’ve had to go outside of the Chicago Cubs organization if I wanted to watch an exciting pitching performance. Whether it’s a stuff-based starter or a fireballing reliever, genuine excitement was to be found somewhere within the 29 other teams in Major League Baseball. That’s not to say that the Cubs haven’t had good pitchers in the last handful of seasons. They certainly have. Jake Arrieta wasn’t all that long ago, after all. Neither was prime Kyle Hendricks. Jon Lester and Pedro Strop provided some of my fondest memories in shorter-term Cubs history. And there have been interesting ones, too. Rowan Wick looked like a dude at some point. I enjoyed Scott Effross a lot. But there’s a certain watchability factor that Cubs pitchers have lacked in the last several years, even amid a solid collection of arms. The velo. The stuff. While the Cubs' overhauling their pitching infrastructure made such an outlook possible, we’d yet to see the fruits of that labor prior to 2024. Which is part of what made Ben Brown’s Tuesday start so special. It wasn’t only that he held the Milwaukee Brewers hitless across seven innings, mixing the fastball & curve to absolutely delightful effect. It was that the type of raw stuff he flashed – and has shown us all year – is something we’d typically have to seek elsewhere. A Brewers starter. Or a Dodgers starter. Or a Tampa Bay reliever. The tides are shifting, to a point where we don’t have to seek outside means in order to see special stuff. It doesn’t end with Brown. Shota Imanaga’s blend of upper-zone fastball against his splitter. Hayden Wesneski’s sweeper. The velocity of a Daniel Palencia or (now) Porter Hodge. Results notwithstanding in recent weeks, the watchability has risen when we’re watching the Cubs on the bump. Of course, there are more on the way. Cade Horton. Michael Arias. Brandon Birdsell. There are exciting arms in this system that offer far more of this type of energy than we’ve seen from inside the organization since the halcyon days of Kyle Farnsworth, Juan Cruz, Mark Prior, and Carlos Zambrano. That's to say nothing of the quality that you’re getting from Javier Assad and others who belong more to the previous era's outs-over-oohs-and-aahs ethos. But this isn’t about organizational quality. This is about the completely unquantifiable organizational excitement. You obviously want quality on the hill. But at some point, you also want flash. You want velocity and movement. Sure, there might be a bit more erraticism that presents itself as a result, – it’ll surely lead to some subsequent frustration when you’ve got a walk in a key moment – but you’re less liable to care, over an extended period, when your eyeballs are busy feasting on the physics-defying intensity of your own team's offerings. In the broader team context, it’s a small thing. It certainly doesn’t completely compensate for the struggles we’ve seen out of the collective roster over the past few weeks. But there is solace to be offered here, at the very least. Whether it’s Brown or Imanaga or Hodge, there’s at least a certain relief in acknowledging that the Cubs have finally done it. They’ve set themselves up such that, perhaps, it’ll soon be fans of other teams finding themselves tuning into the Cubs’ barrage of exciting arms for a change. View full article

The prerogative of the Chicago Cubs' front office has been to amass better depth and generate a stable, balanced big-league roster. Did they focus too much on that, at the expense of building one that can actually win? Image courtesy of © David Banks-USA TODAY Sports At this point, you won’t find many positive words in any quarter about the Chicago Cubs. They’re in the midst of a horrific May, and a smaller stretch in which they’ve lost eight of 10. While the pitching has largely held up – or even been outstanding – the offense has been anemic, and the defense has largely been below-average. To that end, Matt Trueblood published a piece regarding Dansby Swanson and his contract earlier this week. In Year 2 of his deal, it’s a contract already looking problematic on multiple fronts. This includes the offense – where Swanson was already visibly the weakest of the available shortstops last winter – and the defense, which has long been the hallmark of his game. I’ve long been a fan of Dansby Swanson. His process as a defender and commitment to discussing the mental side of sport is extremely admirable. When he signed in Chicago, I doubt that even those who were fine with the deal had any delusions about what he brings. At best, it’s excellent defense and an average bat. Of course, what we’re getting now is at the left end of the spectrum of possible outcomes. The previous regime under Theo Epstein caught a lot of flak for the Jason Heyward deal, in which you essentially wound up paying for presence and defense. With Swanson, the Cubs are, to our knowledge, really only getting one of those things. There’s plenty of opportunity for redemption from Swanson, of course. We know he had a knee issue that could impact the defense we’ve seen in 2024. Getting his approach in order could help him to at least reestablish some offensive value within the streakiness he brings, which would be a net positive (since expecting offensive consistency is a fool’s errand at this point in his career). You could also make that statement for most of the lineup at this point in the calendar. What’s important to note in the larger context of the Swanson conversation isn’t so much his value and his contract in a vacuum. That’s an important conversation, but a separate one to what Swanson’s struggles are bringing to my own mind. Instead, my focus is on the process of this front office in assembling offensive talent. Swanson was never expected to be an offensive catalyst. He’s been in the league since 2016. If you think there’s more to his bat, then you probably shouldn’t be making decisions at this level. But what he was supposed to be was a supplement. When he’s on – even with the frustrating streakiness – he’s an effective secondary piece on your lineup. Of course, the same could be said of Ian Happ. The same could be said of Seiya Suzuki, or this version of Cody Bellinger. Or Nico Hoerner. Probably Michael Busch, too. The Cubs have built their entire ship out of secondary bats, all while hoping that maybe someone like Christopher Morel could evolve into the gamebreaker that this lineup is dying for. But it’s hard to imagine that that bat is on its way. Morel has already outperformed what his skill set said he should be. On the farm, Pete Crow-Armstrong is a glove-first guy. Brennen Davis can’t stay healthy. Alexander Canario can’t find an opportunity. Owen Caissie and Kevin Alcántara represent the potential for such a presence in the lineup, but you’re still talking about prospects. And within the prospect conversation, you’re talking about an organization who appears about as conservative in pushing their youth to the higher levels as any team out there. And that’s really the issue, isn’t it? Conservatism. Jed Hoyer won’t push the envelope on the trade market. Or in free agency. Or in graduating prospects. There’s some obvious oversimplification there, especially as it relates to prospect development. But, ultimately, you’ve spent this time rebuilding the organizational depth, but at what point do we see it activated and deployed in a meaningful way? Until that question has an answer, this is the type of offensive profile we should expect to continue to see on the North Side. Secondary bats are safe. They have a floor (for the most part). Can’t whiff if you don’t swing the bat. Therein lies the problem. The Dansby addition is something of a microcosm for a larger issue plaguing this organization in its current form. We obviously aren’t privy to the conversations happening behind closed doors, especially as it relates to trades and transactions. Maybe Hoyer is trying, and has been trying hard since last fall, and a bigger move just hasn't come together. Maybe there’s a character thing they like about this current group. For our eyes, though, it looks like a front office content to play it safe and bank on hope above all. Until Jed Hoyer is willing to shed safety and take a big swing, I fear we’re going to be stuck watching a whole lot of mid on offense for the foreseeable future. View full article

His sterling defense in a first season-long exposure to a new position was, in a sense, a good enough reason to keep a former first-round pick and valued trade acquisition for a year. When even that little value bump won't stick to him anymore, though, all that's left to say is goodbye. Image courtesy of © Jeff Hanisch-USA TODAY Sports I’ve written about Nick Madrigal – and the Cubs’ third-base situation, at large – several times over the past several months. With Madrigal, in particular, I’ve been on different ends of the spectrum. From generous about his future to questioning his purpose on the roster, I’ve been willing to maintain some flexibility when it comes to the team’s shortest position player. Let's dispense with that, in favor of something more concrete: Nick Madrigal should not be a member of this Chicago Cubs roster. It wasn’t one specific play that led to this idea taking root for me. That would be reactionary. Even if Madrigal’s error on a would-be double play proved to be the death knell for the Cubs on Monday afternoon, in the big picture, it’s the broader problem(s) with this team in recent days/weeks that make his ongoing presence untenable. They can’t score runs. An important function of baseball, you need to score more runs than your opponent to generate wins. And if you’re not going to score runs, you absolutely need to prevent them at an elite level to have any hopes of making progress in the standings. By that definition, the Chicago Cubs have outgrown any justification for Nick Madrigal’s presence here. Offensively, he offers you very little--maybe even nothing. There are 329 players with at least 80 MLB plate appearances thus far in 2024. Madrigal’s .037 ISO is one of the five worst. His 18.1 HardHit% is one of the six worst. It’s soft contact, while putting the ball onto the ground almost 60 percent of the time. When your skill set requires you to hit your way on base, it would behoove you to… hit your way on base. But with a player like Madrigal, there’s an excuse to be made for regular appearances if the defense is up to snuff. Especially when you’re coming off a strong defensive year at a position where the starter is still making a transition to full-time duty. It’s logical. However, even that has run its course to a pretty astonishing extent. Again, Madrigal had a nice 2023 in his first year at third base. He posted a FRV of 8, an OAA of 10, and a DRS of 8. Regardless of your metric of choice, he was great. There were those who were less sure of the metrics based on the eye test. Regression has largely proven those folks to be correct. Madrigal’s broad metrics include a -2 in each of FRV & OAA and a flat 0 in DRS. More troubling, though, is his success rate at the hot corner. At third base, he’s maintaining a success rate of 69 percent against an estimated success rate of 74 percent. It’s worse when he has to move in either direction. To his right, his success rate is 67 percent against an 83 expected figure. To his left, it’s 67 percent and 73 percent expected. So while he’s been fine in plays that don’t require movement (75 percent vs. 73 percent expected), he hasn’t offered any real upside there. Morel has shown improvement but has still struggled with adjusting profitably in the big picture. If you’re looking for a defensive presence for late situations, shouldn’t that instead be going to defensive whiz Luis Vázquez, who has toiled purposelessly on this roster for the better part of a week? Simply put, the defensive justification for Madrigal being a part of this roster goes out the window between the overall output and the more specific miscues like we saw Monday. When the Cubs hired Craig Counsell this winter, they positioned themselves as a serious baseball team. They didn’t follow that up with genuine roster upgrades that might have further cemented that mindset. I fear that continuing to roster Madrigal, in particular, unravels any hypothetical seriousness altogether. View full article

The Cubs are, to put it mildly, not where we thought they would be by now, based on where they were when this month began. What happened? And how (if at all) can they fix it? Image courtesy of © Kamil Krzaczynski-USA TODAY Sports On May 1, the Chicago Cubs were 19-12, just 0.5 games behind Milwaukee for the top spot in the National League Central. The St. Louis Cardinals and Pittsburgh Pirates scuffled out of the gate, sitting 14-17 & 14-18, respectively, and occupying the bottom two spots in the division. We’re close to a full month out from that, and things look somewhat the same, but also very different. The Cubs still sit in second place, but their 27-27 record looks much less impressive. They’ve fallen to 4.5 games back of the Brewers and are only a game ahead of St. Louis following their weekend mini-sweep. Pittsburgh remains in play, just 2.5 games back of the Cubs for that second spot. Suffice to say, things have not gone well this month. It isn’t a secret. The Cubs have struggled to compensate for injuries up and down the roster, in addition to massive slumps from a handful of key players. The plate discipline they demonstrated early in the year has waned, with consistently impressive pitching performances unable to compensate for such offensive shortcomings. All this, while the bullpen was forced to find its footing with no margin for error. The story of the season to date is one of two very different offensive ballclubs. The April Cubs were ninth in the league in runs (149). They walked at the league's eighth-highest clip (9.6%) and reached base at the 11th-best rate (.318). There wasn’t a ton to be offered in the way of power (.150 team ISO), but they were creating problems for opposing pitchers through the grind--and winning games as a result. The May Cubs have been… well, not that. This month’s iteration ranks 27th in runs (76), with four games yet to play in the month. They're ahead of only the White Sox, Atlanta, and Cincinnati. They’re striking out at the league’s sixth-worst rate (23.9%), and while they’re still walking (Monday excepted), they aren’t maintaining any kind of on-base presence: their .300 OBP ranks 18th. The modest ISO has fallen further, at .128 for the month (25th). Their 75.1 Contact% also sits 25th, including the league’s worst contact rate within the zone for the month (82.4%). So while some of the approach elements do remain, the team has been entirely unable to parlay patience into anything of value at the plate. It’s hard to be surprised about where the Cubs are. It’s not as if they came out and set the world on fire on offense; it was a collective effort leading to early success. The rare impact they did get came from the likes of Michael Busch, Christopher Morel, and Seiya Suzuki. Apart from a brief homer-centric stretch from Morel, the pop has disappeared for each. Busch’s ISO is almost .100 lower this month. Suzuki’s is almost .150, albeit with fewer games played due to injury. Only Morel’s has increased, and that's as much because he's stopped finding singles as anything positive. In a general sense, it’s not a terrible formula. You have a collective approach centered around grinding out difficult at-bats and forcing your way on base. Then, the impact bats come through and do what they need to do. It’s a formula that many elite teams maintain. But then, the Cubs aren’t an elite team, and banking on upside above track record was never a surefire plan. For that reason, the Cubs’ offensive woes this month shouldn’t come as any sort of surprise. This was a team that did do some things well at the plate last year. They were eighth in walk rate, sixth in OBP, and actually ended up top-10 in runs scored. However, they were middling when it came to quality of contact and over-the-fence power. Their needs were fairly obvious. Instead of making proven, star-caliber upgrades, they banked on upside from the likes of Busch, Morel, and Suzuki. Last year’s Cubs team also hit well situationally. They were top-10 in average and OBP with runners in scoring position. This year, the Cubs are 20th in average with runners on and 22nd when they’re in scoring position. The steps back from players they hoped would jump forward have been glaring. While the Cubs may not be as bad offensively as they’ve been this month, they were never going to be a good offensive club. They simply weren’t built that way. They were constructed in much the same way they were last year: needing efficient pitching and high-level defense. I’m fine with building a team that way, in theory. If you do so, though, those elements must excel to compensate for the offensive shortcomings, both in the short and in the long term. They’ve largely been able to do that on the bump, but haven’t had the defensive efficiency to support such an infrastructure. When the offense can drum up a few runs, the other elements can’t hold it--and vice-versa. This is the team they built. It has to be excellent on the fringes just to have a chance. They paid Craig Counsell a lot of money to facilitate that process. Injuries haven’t helped him in Year 1, but neither has the roster construction. There are positions where the team is getting no production whatsoever. There is not a consistently lethal power threat. That this was foreseeable doesn’t make it any less frustrating from an outside perspective. There are probably solutions inside the organization--and outside, too. Either path, however, is going to require Jed Hoyer to step outside of his ultra-conservative comfort zone. Living there got the Cubs into this very predicament; he’ll have to vacate in order to get them out of it. Which doesn’t lend itself to a ton of optimism at this point. View full article

This was supposed to be the year for Seiya Suzuki. Image courtesy of © Matt Marton-USA TODAY Sports Seiya Suzuki's first two seasons were good. Maybe even above average. His second half of 2023 (149 wRC+, .254 ISO) was supposed to indicate another level to be reached. The front office appeared confident enough in such a breakout that they neglected to add much of anything on offense this past winter. That’s likely an oversimplification (and fails to acknowledge the other bats that were supposed to “take steps forward”) but does speak to the new level that was supposed to be reached in 2024. Suppose there’s any accuracy in that statement, though. In that case, it’s likely led to a fair bit of disappointment on the part of Jed Hoyer & Co. Because this season, to date, has been anything but the emergent campaign we had anticipated coming in. Seiya’s probably never been worse. The slash includes a .252 average & .316 on-base. The K% is 24.8 & the walk rate sits at only 6.8. ISO’s at .165. His wRC+ is at 109, while the OPS+ is at 107. Now, those numbers could obviously be much worse. There are regulars in the very same lineup that lend credence to that statement. But while there are certainly other depths to explore, each of those figures represents the worst we’ve seen from Suzuki in a Cubs uniform. The easy explanation for Suzuki’s woes lies in the approach. His Swing% is at the highest it’s been (41.6). He’s been much more aggressive on pitches outside the strike zone than last year, with an O-Swing% growing almost three percent (26.1). He’s whiffing much more as a result (10.6 percent). This is while pitchers are coming into the zone quite a bit less than they did last year. The contact rate has plummeted (74.5 after an 80.8 mark last year). Suzuki saw 4.19 & 4.18 pitches per plate appearance in his first two seasons. His P/PA thus far in 2024 is at 3.94. Suzuki has especially struggled with off-speed stuff. Despite being the pitch he sees the least, Suzuki is swinging at exactly half the off-speed pitches he sees and whiffing at 46.7 percent of them. He’s chasing them at a 32.4 percent clip. All of this just reads as someone who is at a comfort level of exactly zero at the plate right now rather than anything mechanical. There's just an aggressiveness here that reads, instead, as impatience. He doesn’t look comfortable. It looks like he wants the plate appearance over in an expedited fashion. Anecdotally, there have been a handful of times since his return from the IL when Suzuki steps to the plate. I take my eyes off the screen, and the three-hole hitter walks up. Which, unfortunately, isn’t something that we can necessarily quantify. Nor do we know the impact of his oblique injury on his current performance. Logic absolutely would indicate that any presence of discomfort is wrought by the worst type of injury a hitter can try to come back from during the season. But we’re outsiders here. Even more unfortunate, though, is that whatever discomfort Seiya Suzuki may be experiencing – physical or otherwise – is that it’s manifesting itself as a serious hurdle for the Chicago Cubs’ lineup at large. A team that made their bones early on the merit of a collective approach has lost all sense of it. As someone who consistently hits near the top of the lineup (he has hit second all year), there will be an onus on Seiya to rediscover some sense of discipline in hopes that it trickles down the lineup. View full article

The Chicago Cubs lost another game on Saturday--something we’ve become rather accustomed to, in a nightmarish month of May. However, one element of this one stood out as being particularly difficult to stomach. Image courtesy of © Jeff Curry-USA TODAY Sports With two outs in the eighth inning, the Cubs held a 4-3 lead. St. Louis had runners on first and second. A Matt Carpenter single scored Alec Burleson from second--but that probably should not have happened, if it were not for the continued shortcomings of Cubs backstop Miguel Amaya manifesting in a crucial moment. Seiya Suzuki fielded the ball in right and made a perfectly adequate throw home. It wasn’t a great throw, really, but it should have done the job. After all, Amaya fielded the ball here: Now, these screenshots can be misleading. It doesn't just matter where each player is; it matters how fast they're moving. Because the throw took him to the first-base side of the plate, Amaya had to corral the ball, turn, and lunge, and there's no way to accelerate to match the speed of a diving runner in that situation. Still, a lot of catchers make the tag at the front corner of the plate here. Amaya, however, did not: In fact, although Craig Counsell did challenge the play based on the importance of the situation, Amaya clearly missed Alec Burleson at that front corner and got him only deeper in the slide, too late. He whiffed. The Cardinals would go on to add three more in the inning. If not for the broader context of the Cubs’ catching duo this season, this wouldn't feel as important and inauspicious as it does. After all, Amaya made great tags to seal wins on dramatic throws last July in Milwaukee, and last month in New York. But defensive miscues in matters of baserunners are an alarming element of what Amaya brings to the table, and that's starting to overshadow his scattered moments of heroism, while magnifying all his other weaknesses and missed chances. The Cardinals scored their first two runs in the third inning on Saturday, on a Paul Goldschmidt single with two outs. St. Louis had runners on second and third at the time. Lars Nootbaar stood on second, courtesy of an uncontested steal. It was one of two uncontested steals Amaya surrendered on the night, with Nolan Gorman adding one in the sixth. Amaya's inability to control the running game cost the team at least one run. The Cubs lost by one. The St. Louis Cardinals are not an aggressive running team. They ranked 26th in the league in steals coming into Saturday. So, for Amaya to allow a pair in an uncontested fashion – even if only one would go on to score – is a fairly egregious occurrence. But it's also one we have, unfortunately, become quite familiar with. In 577 innings behind the dish in his young career, Amaya has allowed 60 steals on 67 attempts, including 29 in 33 tries in 2024. Free bases cannot happen for a team that lives on the margins in the way the Cubs do. But not only are they happening, they’re happening at an astounding rate. Baseball Prospectus’s Throwing Runs (ThrR) metric essentially tracks catcher throwing in a run-based measurement. There are 77 catchers who have caught at least one game this year. Amaya’s ThrR (-0.4) ranks 76th, ahead of only Omar Narváez. His Swipe Rate Above Average (SRAA), at 0.027, is also ahead of only Narváez. As much improvement as we’ve seen from Amaya in the cumulative sense, the inability to control the running game remains a rather glaring component. To date, though, we haven’t seen consistency in the way the opposition attacks such a shortcoming, even if we’ve seen it in some spots (early this month against Milwaukee, most notably). That could change in the coming weeks, though. We recently talked about the Cubs’ upcoming schedule. That includes Milwaukee for seven, Cincinnati for six, and Tampa Bay for three across the next month. All three teams rank in the top five in the league in stolen bases. So while we haven’t seen it yet, in the consistent sense, it’s possible the real hammer is yet to fall on Amaya. No two tag plays are the same. Amaya failed to execute on a crucial one Saturday, but you can live with that. Teams racing around the bases as soon as they reach first is a different story, though, and it’s not one that ends well for the Cubs. View full article

Thursday marked the end of a long period during which the Chicago Cubs faced unusually fierce competition. Friday opens a stretch during which they'll play a lot of contests within their division. Image courtesy of © Kamil Krzaczynski-USA TODAY Sports As of this writing, the Cubs have only played 10 of their 51 games against their rivals from the National League Central. None of those were in April. May has seen three against Milwaukee and seven against Pittsburgh. They’re an even 5-5 in those games, with two wins against the Brewers and three scattered across their two series against the Bucs. Starting Friday, however, we’ll see a massive bump in their time spent with division rivals. The Cubs will head to St. Louis for three with the Cardinals this weekend. They’ll then move up to Milwaukee for four next week. Returning home, they’ll face the Cincinnati Reds for three. After a brief intermission against the White Sox, they’ll then head to Cincinnati for another four. There’s another three in there against each of St. Louis & Milwaukee before June meets its end. That’s 20 division games of the team’s next 36 tilts, including 14 of 16 early on in the next stretch. One likes to imagine such a schedule would be favorable for the Cubs, who have been a clear division frontrunner from the jump. Neither of the Cardinals and Reds have gained traction at any point. The Pirates started their swoon-after-good-start much earlier this year than last. And there’s no way the Brewers can sustain their shocking start. At least, that was the April mindset. Now, though, we’re not so sure. The Cubs are finishing up a May in which they’re 25th in team wRC+ (89), striking out at the sixth-highest rate in baseball (24.0%), and offering very little impact offense (.137 May ISO ranks 20th) or contact (35.2 HardHit% is 26th). They’ve become more active on the bases – 20 steals, perhaps out of necessity – but can’t capitalize on a third-ranked walk rate (9.9%) with any sustained on-base presence (.301 OBP). The pitching has remained… fine. They have a 3.30 staff ERA (9th), the third-best K% (24.7), and a top 10 GB% (43.8). Starters are top 6-7 pretty much across the board, and the bullpen has stabilized, thanks to better health of the staff at large. Despite very little offensive support, they’ve maintained what has been a strong start to the year. That, at least, makes this next stretch a promising one. The Reds remain one of the worst offensive teams in baseball. Their 67 wRC+ in May is dead last. Both they and the Brewers are in the 10 highest strikeout rates this month, with the Cardinals also in the top half. While the latter two teams can take a walk (8.8 and 9.0 BB%, respectively), the Cubs’ command of the zone should force them into contact. Lest we be worried about surrendering hard contact, the Brewers have spent May sitting 14th (39.9%) in HardHit%. That’s the best of the trio, with the Cardinals 23rd (36.0) & Reds 30th (32.8). Only Milwaukee is in the top half in ISO (.169). Also lending itself to at least some form of optimism is the fact that the Cubs aren’t going to run into nearly the type of pitching they have in recent weeks. None of those three teams have a Dylan Cease, Yu Darvish, Jared Jones, Paul Skenes, Chris Sale, or Max Fried. In fact, all three teams rank in the bottom half of the league in starting pitcher ERA, with Milwaukee and Cincinnati both sitting in the top half in BB% (in the bad way). St. Louis’s strikeout rate (20.6%) leads the way at 15th, with the 23rd-ranked Reds (18.5) and 24th-ranked Brewers (18.4) much lower. Cincinnati is also the only staff of the three that offers actual velocity (95.2 MPH average on four-seam), though with some command issues. It’d be nice to think that the next stretch offers the Cubs’ hitters, in particular, a window to get back on track. They’ll still face some quality arms, to be sure. But they appear to be clear of those that have given them so much trouble in recent weeks. This is an opportunity to re-establish the approach and get some of these bats moving, whether they’ve been injured or struggling from a pure performance standpoint. Regardless of that element, it’s hard to envision this as anything other than a crucial stretch for the Chicago Cubs. From July onward, the Cubs will only have 22 games remaining against division foes, with the next stretch accounting for almost half. If the team is serious about a division title, this is probably the stretch in which they need to prove it. View full article

The Chicago Cubs lost a game 9-2 on Wednesday. It was another in a long line of frustrating May losses, to say nothing of the fact that it was probably closer than that score might indicate. What is notable, however, is the fact that Atlanta starter Max Fried was perfect through five innings. It was just the latest instance of what seems to be a growing trend for these Cubs in 2024. Image courtesy of © David Banks-USA TODAY Sports The “trend” in question is the team’s recent habit of remaining entirely dormant offensively early in games. It’s led to three no-hit bids on the part of the opposing starter in the last few weeks. Before Fried, it was the Mets’ Luis Severino who flirted with one at the end of April. Paul Skenes didn’t allow a hit through six innings of his own, just last Friday. Given the Cubs’ offensive woes over the last six weeks, it almost seems more a matter of when than if they’ll allow a starter to finish the job. At the same time, I’m not attuned enough to the majority of major-league offenses (outside of my own sphere) to know if the Cubs are any kind of exception. They’re squarely in the middle of the league in plate appearances with runners on, so the general picture doesn’t indicate they’re doing anything alarming. Nonetheless, it is worth at least taking stock of those three particular outings to compare them to the Cubs’ own bigger picture. On Apr. 29, Severino threw eight innings against the Cubs. He allowed just one hit – a flare from Dansby Swanson – which turned into an earned run. He struck out five and surrendered a pair of walks. The Cubs made contact at a 75-percent clip when swinging against him. Even if they hacked at almost 35 percent of pitches outside the strike zone (51.5 percent of all offerings). The Cubs were able to elevate, with as many fly balls as grounders in the game. The issue was the quality of contact. Half the balls they put in play were categorized as Soft contact, and they didn't have any Barrels against the formidable former Yankee. Severino was fastball-heavy, getting lots of ground balls with his sinker. His average four-seam fastball sat at 96.2 MPH. The low slider earned him whiffs, at almost a 70-percent rate. The Cubs went on to win that game, but Severino was surgical for much of the evening. He induced hyper-aggressiveness, with ground balls and whiffs born of the Cubs not working to get their pitch. Paul Skenes represents a different case entirely. He threw six innings, struck out 11 against only one walk, and never did give up a hit. The Cubs swung at 54 percent of his pitches, including 42 percent outside the strike zone, and put the ball on the ground 85.7 percent of the time. Against that velocity, there wasn’t any soft contact to speak of, but also only one hard-hit ball. When you’re driving the ball into the infield grass, it doesn’t necessarily matter, anyway. Skenes primarily deployed his four-seamer and his “splinker” there. The Cubs swung at roughly 65 percent of the former and whiffed almost 45 percent of the time. The four-seamer averaged 99.3 MPH. It was hilarious, though not actually funny. The Cubs lost that one 9-3. In that case, it was more power than the Cubs’ lineup could handle at that juncture, especially considering the presence of both Nick Madrigal and Miles Mastrobuoni in the lineup on that particular day. That brings us to Wednesday night against Atlanta and Max Fried, who carried his no-hitter into the sixth. Fried was four-seam- and curveball-heavy, with the slider and sinker working their way in there, too. The 57.1 GB%, as such, comes as no surprise. The Cubs hacked at virtually half the pitches Fried threw and swung at 38 percent of pitches outside the strike zone. Contact was scarce, with a whiff rate of 35 percent. So if we take all three close calls, this is what we’re left with: 51.8 Swing%, 38.2 O-Swing%, and 66.8 Contact%. Their contact trends include a 22.2 HardHit% & a 61.6 GB%. It’s genuinely uninspiring. But is it out of character? The Cubs’ Swing% is ninth in the league, at 47.9. They’re more patient on pitches outside the zone, at 27.1%, but also feature one of the 10 lowest contact rates in the league (75.4%). They’re 23rd in the league in Hard Hit% (37.0). The Cubs are also running one of the higher strikeout rates in the league, with a 23.2% clip that ranks 11th-highest. Their 26.7% whiff rate is 10th-highest. Perhaps the positive is that they’re generally better at elevating than we saw in two of these three instances, with a 41.8 GB% that aligns with their output against Severino. We aren’t really going to glean anything from three starts. We’d have to dig far deeper than even the Cubs hitters are digging themselves right now, examining velocity against breaking pitches, etc. The team has run into a plethora of upper-tier arms lately: Skenes twice, Jared Jones twice, Dylan Cease, Chris Sale, etc. That’s not going to help run production on a nightly basis or contribute positively to the peripherals. At the same time, while these starts may not indicate that a full, nine-inning no-hitter (or worse) is on the horizon, it at least does underscore some issues with this offense since the beginning of the year. The team's discipline has waned, and virtually every positive thing they were doing has wilted along with it. Health is a factor, sure. But one certainly starts to wonder, given the frequency at which the Cubs appear to be flirting with the negative end of history, how much of that early discipline was real versus a much more troubling offensive identity. View full article

The Cubs' newest starting pitcher has been a scintillating success so far in MLB. But what's made him so special isn't even the value he's produced; it's the magic within him to stir fans' blood. Image courtesy of © Matt Marton-USA TODAY Sports Shōta Imanaga is reviving me. As a non-impartial observer, it’s extremely easy to become jaded about the Chicago Cubs. Juxtaposed against their fellow big-market teams, the Cubs' lackluster results and passive roster construction make it a short trip to Cynical City. And yet, the rookie pitcher is rapidly helping to soothe such a mindset. The quantifiable stuff is obvious. He’s been objectively great across his first nine starts. A 0.84 ERA, a 27.8 K% against a mere 4.3 BB%, and an 8-1 record for the team are causes for celebration. He has not only surpassed expectations, but cemented himself as one of the game’s elite starting pitchers. To have no qualms about throwing around the ‘E’ word this early in his career says it all about his statistical performance. But the magic of Imanaga lies in the unquantifiable things around the actual performance--the things you don’t necessarily put down on the stat sheet, but you can see. You can feel them, even as someone well outside of the actual organization. It's his pitching philosophy manifesting as pitch mix from a conceptual standpoint. It's the emotion he demonstrates on the mound. It's his love of Dunkin' lattes. All of these work together to render Imanaga one of the more exciting players we’ve seen on the North Side, after the doldrums of the last handful of seasons. In a world of absolute gas from the pitcher’s mound, with pitchers physically destroying themselves in pursuit of more velocity, it’s legitimately refreshing to watch something like Imanaga’s approach. The level of confidence and intention there. Using a lower-90s fastball in setting up the devastating splitter. Of course, that should hardly be a surprise from someone nicknamed the “Throwing Philosopher.” The leaving of his self-authored “pitching bible” on the desk of Jed Hoyer was an early entrant into the Imanaga lore. There are pitchers who approach with means beyond velocity, but the paradoxically excitable and cerebral nature of Imanaga makes him a remarkable arm to watch each time out. The Cubs are, generally, a team short on big, public-facing personalities. Imanaga fills that gap in two ways. The first is with his genuine display of emotion on the field. We saw it against Pittsburgh. We saw it against San Diego. With the struggles (and now the absence) of Adbert Alzolay, we haven’t gotten quite the injection of emotion from Cubs pitchers in big moments. It makes sense, given the subtle personalities involved. But Shōta’s willingness to display such emotion stirs joy. The other is in his ability to drop a banger quote at any possible moment. Whether it’s quoting Steve Goodman at the introductory presser, citing Spider-Man as a means of establishing landmarks in New York, using the Wrigley Field crowd as his alarm, or acknowledging the sure frustration out of the Dunkin Donuts baristas, he’s allowing actual personality to shine through. We don’t get that much from these Cubs. Sure, Dansby Swanson and Ian Happ talk a lot on multiple platforms. But you’re not really getting anything more than stoic, generic insight. Because of his quotable nature, we’ve even heard a few that have gotten buried in the depths of the internet. He noted reaching a flow state during starts, speaking to his confidence. He’s mentioned not feeling like an established arm until he’s faced everyone. These are good things; they bespeak an awareness and the overall intellectual element that Shōta brings to the mix. And as someone with my tastes, this is what I’m here for. I want fun. I want to think. The incredible thing about Shota Imanaga is that he allows me to do both--even encourages me to. The Cubs haven’t had an arm so unique in recent memory. Sure, they’ve had good pitchers. But what Imanaga brings is beyond good. He has confidence and swagger, but the kind that you can tell is born of intensity, rather than ego. He’s thinking constantly, though not in any cumbersome manner. It’s one that seeks to benefit his persona and his skill set. We should all strive to live in such a headspace. It boils down to what Shōta said in his introductory press conference, in which he invoked Steve Goodman. Because when he’s on the mound, we certainly relax a bit, thinking that the Cubs are, indeed, going to win today. View full article

Little though he might match anyone's idea of a star-caliber player, the Cubs' 26th man keeps finding new ways to prove unexpectedly irreplaceable. On a team centered on defense, his glove and its ability to travel around the diamond make him worth keeping around. Image courtesy of © Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports My viewing relationship with Miles Mastrobuoni is not dissimilar from the previous assertions I made about Mike Tauchman. It boils down to some variation on: “A serious franchise, as the Chicago Cubs are purported to be, would not actively choose to roster a player such as this unless forced to do so.” Versatility can be valued, but not at the complete expense of the bat, given the team’s broader offensive shortcomings. Ignorant of the team’s positional circumstances, specifically on the infield? Probably. Unfair to the player? Perhaps. Entirely dismissive of my own personal history regarding the profile of the player I prefer? Absolutely. I’ve long maintained interest in two types of player profiles that I considered to be my “favorite,” above all others. The first is the elite defender who just can’t hit. “The bat will come around eventually,” I’ve declared on more than one occasion, regarding players like Nick Ahmed. The other is the super-utility type who may or may not be a zero at the plate. Ben Zobrist resided on one end of the spectrum. Chone Figgins was largely on the other. Josh Harrison sat somewhere in the middle, though he’s certainly at the Bad Figgins end now. While I’m not ready to work Mastrobuoni into such a prestigious line of previous sentimental favorites, I can acknowledge that there’s at least a conversation to be had. In the absence of Dansby Swanson and (more recently) Nico Hoerner, Miles Mastrobuoni has been a saving grace—of sorts. Acquired from Tampa Bay ahead of the 2023 season, Mastrobuoni has appeared at five different positions for the Cubs: second base, third base, shortstop, and each of the corner outfield spots. Most of the work has come at the hot corner, where he’s logged over 200 innings. Everywhere Mastrobuoni has played for the Cubs, he’s come in as at least average defensively. He’s been worth 3 Defensive Runs Saved (DRS) across 75-ish innings at second, one in right, and zero at third (indicating average). The Fielding Run Values everywhere also come in at 0. So, while he’s not offering stellar defense, he’s at least providing stability in those instances where his participation becomes necessary. At shortstop, though, Mastrobuoni has notched 2 DRS in just 17 innings of work in 2024. That’s, uh, roughly 162 DRS across a full season. Sometimes, numbers are fun, or just funny. Samples this small with metrics as noisy as defensive ones all are carry no real weight. It would at least appear he can hang, though. This play on Wednesday in Atlanta (even with a Michael Busch assist) showed us that. This one on Tuesday showed us the same. It’s not so much the performance at shortstop that is showcasing Mastrobuoni’s value to the Cubs, though. It’s that it’s happening at all. Without Swanson and Hoerner, the Cubs are in desperate need of an actual shortstop on the roster. That’s especially problematic for a team so heavily predicated on good defensive performance. As there isn’t a ton of clarity regarding Hoerner’s short-term health or where the team stands on calling up Luis Vázquez, it’s a crucial defensive development. Mastrobuoni’s last real run at the spot came in 2021, when he was in Double-A. It seemed to fade as part of his skill set, with the corners and keystone serving as spots where you could viably place him. The series in Atlanta could very well indicate Mastrobuoni’s place as a legitimately valuable part of this roster. It’s somewhat bereft of versatility; any player who could theoretically move around is limited to just two or three clearly defined spots (Cody Bellinger, Nick Madrigal) or pinned to the bench altogether (Patrick Wisdom). Mastrobuoni offers actual versatility. Of course, the bat represents something of a problem, even if we’re just getting a pinch of Mastrobuoni in the mix on a more indefinite basis. His wRC+ sits at 53, he’s reaching base at a .290 clip, and he offers almost no power (.051 career ISO). Even if he’s been a touch unlucky (.190 BABIP, .280 xBA), the upside isn’t there for a super regular role. Nevertheless, it’s becoming more difficult to deny the value that Miles Mastrobuoni provides, given the defensive stability he offers at short. If this was a team built to provide more offense and sacrifice some defense in that pursuit, then this is a different conversation. However, given the team’s philosophy and subsequent roster construction, we should probably get used to appreciating exactly what Mastrobuoni adds to the roster. View full article

What if I told you that there is a Chicago Cubs player on the current roster slashing .310/.429/.655, walking at a 17-percent clip, with an ISO of .345 and a wRC+ of 212? And what if I told you that Craig Counsell isn’t putting said player on his lineup card every day? Image courtesy of © John David Mercer-USA TODAY Sports In that instance, my hope is that your first inclination would be to ask about the sample size. Because in the case of Patrick Wisdom, it’s only 35 plate appearances deep. Nonetheless, the early returns (in conjunction with some of the struggles from various points throughout the Cubs’ lineup) have me thinking about the benefits of more Wisdom in the starting nine. This thought comes with the obvious caveat of having a space to regularly feature the team’s backup bopper. His “natural” spot, third base, is sealed up by Christopher Morel and Nick Madrigal. First base is largely held down by Michael Busch. The corner outfield spots belong to Ian Happ, Seiya Suzuki, and (occasionally) Mike Tauchman. It makes sense that Wisdom’s playing time distribution looks like it does thus far: four positional starts (two in right field, two at first base), three starts as the designated hitter, and four pinch-hit appearances. Even with injury issues scattered throughout the roster, it’s a lot of bodies in spots where you might otherwise put Wisdom. At the same time, the numbers are at least interesting enough to consider an expanded role. The production is there, in about as minuscule a sample as you can have in mid-May. He’s mashing, in a way that's hard to ignore (if also hard to fully trust). The peripherals look decent, as well. Wisdom has reined in his approach a bit, cutting his swing rate to a hair under 40%, against 46.8% last year. His out-of-zone swing rate, in particular, stands out, as it’s been cut by a full seven percentage points, down to 20.2%. The whiff rate has come down just a bit with the checked aggressiveness (11.8% of all pitches). He hasn’t parlayed it into a wealth of overall contact, but he’s at least walking at a strong pace, on top of hitting the ball hard. Power potential has always made Wisdom a tantalizing player, and that continues to ring true. Five of his nine hits on the year have been of the extra-base variety, and Statcast has him making hard contact exactly half the time. Hard contact is nothing new, but his launch angle is. Wisdom’s 24.7-degree launch angle this year is the steepest of his career. For a lineup bereft of home run power outside of Morel (and Busch’s five-game stretch in April), more Wisdom in the lineup starts to become an alluring notion. Of course, there’s a reason Wisdom is used sparingly. His career K% is closer to 40 than you’re probably comfortable with. His defense isn’t particularly inspiring, no matter where you try to squeeze him in. He’s likely best kept in a small, selective role. At the same time, the Cubs are 23rd in hard-hit rate (37.4%). They’re 12th in ISO (.151). With Busch being inconsistent since mid-April and the complete – and I cannot stress this enough – absence of power from Ian Happ in one outfield corner, it could behoove Counsell to examine the idea of more opportunity for Wisdom. Perhaps a reshaping of the outfield in order to garner more time at the DH spot? Not that we should expect Wisdom to sustain anything like these production rates when stretched out over a longer sample. He is who he is, and who he is is the reason we’re not talking about this with more alacrity. But that hypothetical impact he provides at the plate is something that this team is lacking, over a stretch in which their pitching (especially the bullpen) can’t compensate. The possibility of additional offense seems almost more likely than hoping the current relief corps stabilizes enough to protect leads in the near term. Sure, you might have to compromise a bit on the contact-oriented end of things if it means staving off yet another late-inning disappointment. If the Cubs were getting consistent contributions from other key regulars (Happ), perhaps it’s not a worthy sacrifice. But continued injury and lackluster output start to make it at least a legitimate idea to consider. Let's hear your thoughts on this. Should Wisdom be part of the lineup on a regular basis, at least while Dansby Swanson is injured and the team's lineup is at less than full strength? How would you balance his playing time against that of players like Busch, Happ, and Pete Crow-Armstrong? Join the discussion by commenting below. View full article

Thanks to the tech whizzes inside MLB's official stat site, we have access to a whole new box of analytical toys this week. Let's get familiar with them, and hone in on the Cubs. Image courtesy of © Kamil Krzaczynski-USA TODAY Sports Over the weekend, Statcast brought us to a new frontier in the advancement of knowledge about baseball via data: bat tracking. Therein, we’re getting insights on bat speed (measured in MPH), “fast” swing rates, squared-up contact, and swing length. There are some nuances to this; “Blasts” & “Swords” are included as part of the picture, on either end of the spectrum. And while we still have a ways to go in examining this over a longer period of time within the 2024 context, there are at least a few places where insights are already coming into focus. For starters, Mike Petriello did a comprehensive write-up on the new tools here. Perhaps what is most important for our everyday purposes lies in the general breakdown provided in that piece. As far as bat speed goes: 80+ mph swing speed: .321 BA / .665 SLG / .419 wOBA 52% hard-hit rate / +2 run value per 100 70-79 mph swing speed: .274 BA / .477 SLG / .322 wOBA 46% hard-hit rate / -1.5 run value per 100 0-69 mph bat speed .202 BA / .254 SLG / .205 wOBA 29% hard-hit rate / -4 run value per 100 Regarding squared-up contact: Squared-up: .372 BA / .659 SLG / .439 wOBA 59% hard-hit rate / +11 run value per 100 Not squared-up: .127 BA / .144 SLG / .125 wOBA 1% hard-hit rate / -6 run value per 100 And as for swing lengths: Shorter-than-average swings: .258 BA / .359 SLG / .268 wOBA / 19% whiff rate Longer-than-average swings .235 BA / .422 SLG / .282 wOBA / 30% whiff rate What’s nice about this new information is that it isn’t particularly difficult to understand. Harder swings lead to better results. Squaring up the baseball leads to better results. Shorter swings mean more contact, but less power. Blasts and Swords within the data are relatively self-explanatory. Blasts happen when a hitter achieves high swing speed and squared-up contact. Swords are (sort of) the opposite: awkward, incomplete, or extremely slow swings. Obviously, there is an extensive amount of variation within hitters' mechanics, but this at least gives us some usable insight into the quality of various swings around the game. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert here. I have imposter syndrome in discussing well-established analytical tools to begin with. But there is plenty to glean from the first run of this information as it relates to the Chicago Cubs, even if it isn’t all especially surprising. Here are where all of our North Side friends sit in terms of swing speed & squared-up contact: Unsurprisingly, you’ve got Christopher Morel all the way out there by himself. In fact, Morel’s average bat speed is tied for the fifth-highest (76.7 MPH), while his fast swing rate sits fifth (71.0%). Given his propensity for whiffs, it makes sense that he isn’t higher up the squared-up side of things. But he ranks 29th overall in blasts (32), with one of the longer swing paths in baseball (his 8-foot swing length ranks 11th). Nothing surprising there. We know Morel has a long, aggressive swing. Seeing it reflected in numbers, though, is pretty neat. Somewhat adjacent to Morel in the discussion is Cody Bellinger. With his famously long swing, I’m somewhat surprised his swing length actually comes in a touch lower than his infield counterpart (7.8 feet). It is, however, one of the 25 longest swings in baseball. Equally surprising is that his long stroke isn’t necessarily a detriment to his game, as he’s still squaring up on 29.5 percent of swings--even though his 70.3 MPH swing speed is actually below league average. Nico Hoerner is another interesting quantity among Cubs hitters. He’s on the slower end of bat speed (69.2 MPH), but is doing an excellent job of making squared-up contact. In fact, his 36.4 percent of swings in which he’s squaring up the ball ranks ninth in MLB, among qualified hitters. And he’s doing that without a shorter swing, as his 7.3-foot swing length is middle-tier. More than anything, it’s just a nice way to see Hoerner’s elite contact ability. Representing the antithesis of… most of baseball, is Nick Madrigal. He has one of the slowest swings in baseball (65.8 MPH) and one of the shortest (6.4 ft.). But he’s actually managed to use the latter in squaring up a fairly healthy share of his swings (33.8). What he hasn’t done is parlay that into anything but soft groundball contact (an issue for another day). Some other quick observations: Mike Tauchman leads the Cubs in swords, with six. That’s interesting, given how deliberate his approach seems most of the time. I do suppose, though, that working deep counts makes you somewhat susceptible to a bad decision late in the at-bat. His ability to foul the ball off and extend at-bats might be related to the tendency to look bad now and then. Dansby Swanson has one of the Cubs’ longer swings (7.5 ft). In my head, I’ve always thought of Swanson as someone with a short, inside swing. I think we have a lot of learning ahead in terms of what swing length is really telling us, though. Michael Busch is only squaring up 21.9 percent of his swings. It’s not necessarily surprising, but does speak to the whiff that Busch still needs to work out of his game (as impressive as he’s been). Again, there’s a lot of depth and nuance still to be explored within this new information. But as much as we might want to rely solely on the eye test to give us some insights about hitters’ mechanics, this is a new step in doing so in a much more tangible fashion. View full article