PVG

I read Matt's article this morning that left me thinking not so much about baseball, but about how differently two people can look at the same events. The Brewers may very well win the division. The Cubs may very well have blown whatever chance they had to catch them. Randy Arozarena did have a spectacular game against them, culminating in a walk-off home run that sailed over Pete Crow-Armstrong's head. Those things happened. What I disagree with is the meaning the article assigns to them. The article begins with the idea that sometimes you discover that what is happening is not really about you. You are merely a secondary character in somebody else's story — a foil, a plaything, even a punching bag. That is where I lose the author. Why does someone else's success make me a secondary character? Arozarena had a wonderful game. Good for him. Mariners fans got to watch something memorable. A few days earlier, Crow-Armstrong had one of those games himself, hitting two home runs and seemingly taking over a game against the White Sox. But why does one of those performances have to turn the other team into scenery? That seems to me an unnecessarily bleak way to look at baseball, and perhaps at life. One person's accomplishment does not require another person's diminishment. I am a Cubs fan. I want the Cubs to win. I would very much like them to catch Milwaukee. I would like them to win the World Series. I am disappointed when they lose, particularly when they lose games they seemed capable of winning. But there is a difference between wanting my team to win and needing them to win in order for the experience to have value. Baseball, more than almost any sport, ought to teach us that. A very good baseball team still loses sixty games. A very good hitter makes an out most of the time. A great pitcher gives up home runs. A Gold Glove outfielder occasionally watches a ball sail over his head. Failure is not some unfortunate intrusion into baseball. It is part of baseball. That is one reason the sport is so compelling. You don't know who will be great today. Sometimes it will be Crow-Armstrong. Sometimes it will be Arozarena. Sometimes Jacob Webb will get the big out. Sometimes he will give up the home run. None of those moments requires us to decide who is the protagonist and who has been reduced to a supporting role. The article says, rather definitively, that “the division is lost.” Maybe it is. Seven games in late August is a lot. Milwaukee is a very good team. But even if the division is lost, I don't understand why that means the season has somehow become Milwaukee's story and the Cubs have become secondary characters in it. The Cubs still have games to play. Crow-Armstrong is developing into a remarkable player. Alex Bregman is hitting. Injured pitchers may be coming back. The team appears headed toward October. There will be good games and bad games, players who surprise us, moments that are exhilarating and others that are painful. Those aren't consolation prizes. Those are the season. I think this is where my disagreement with the article becomes less about baseball. I don't think life is divided into protagonists and supporting characters. If somebody else succeeds, I have not become smaller. If another person is better than I am at something, I have not become scenery in his story. If someone else's child accomplishes something wonderful, that does not diminish what my child has accomplished. And if the Brewers have a wonderful season, that doesn't somehow make the Cubs' season meaningless. There is a strange assumption underneath the idea that someone else “owns the story.” It assumes that meaning is scarce — that for one person or team to possess it, somebody else must lose it. I don't think that is true. And I don't think being positive means pretending that everything is wonderful. The Cubs lost two painful games in Seattle. The bullpen has problems. Milwaukee has a substantial lead. All true. Positivity doesn't require denying any of that. It means refusing to turn every disappointment into a verdict. A loss is a loss. It does not mean you have discovered your true place in the universe. Arozarena's home run was not evidence that the Cubs are mice being toyed with by a cat. It was a home run. A very dramatic one. Tomorrow somebody else may hit one. Maybe that is part of what I love about baseball. It continually gives you opportunities to be disappointed without becoming despairing. You can care deeply. You can want desperately to win. You can complain about the bullpen. You can second-guess the manager. You can be miserable for ten minutes after a walk-off loss. And then there is another game. For a Cubs fan, maybe that isn't a consolation. Maybe that's the point.

Hey Matt, Thanks for another incedible analysis . How about this meta-factor - do you think Swanson is helped by batting in front of PCA which began more or less in late May when PCA was moved to leadoff (and then became so hot himself)?

220 IP? Heck I grew up in the Fergie Jenkins era - 300+ IP in 5 different seasons. I think a possible solution would be to change pitcher usage. Instead of a starter who pitches 5+ innings, and then a passel of specialist relievers, load the staff with 10-3 inning pitchers and a couple of fill-in specialists. Let them pitch every 3-4 games. Maybe there would be less wear and tear on the pitchers. You're looking for 140 IP per pitcher maybe a bit less. Plus the advantage of only having to go 1+ times thru the order. Plus you don't need to have a such a large repetoire when you only face batters once.

Jason, My apologies. But you completely misunderstood me. I’m a casual baseball fan. You’re an expert. I’ve been waiting for someone on this website to talk about “the Brewer’s Magic” – because that’s exactly how I see it. So when it got a casual mention in your article I jumped on it. I wanted to encourage you to share your insight on what’s happening. I think it’s truly amazing. And I brought up the payroll just to emphasize that point. Just to repeat – I didn’t think you were denigrating the Brewers achievements in any way – and I’ve been totally impressed by their results.

"Milwaukee has used what can only be called "Brewers magic" for years to do this to other teams; they seemingly manifest pitchers out of thin air and do just enough offensively to get wins" . Can you talk about Brewers magic a bit? How are they so good year after year? and they dont just "do enough" offensively - they are a top 5-6 team in scoring the last 2.5 years. and their payroll.(!) The Cubs nabbed their manager - but that clearly wasn't the secret.

Hi Matt, Regarding the pitching injuries, is it the gods or is it also a combination of the pitchers that they choose and how the Cubs train, develop and what they ask their pitchers to do (spin, velocity, something else? ) which is beyond their physical capabilties that is contributing to this seemingly annual glut of injuries?

I wonderif Happ's LH/RH splits have something to do with his season splits. Anyways looking at his OPS(career & 2025) splits .791/.687 & .818/.708, shouldn't he sit against LHs in favor of Matt Shaw, .649/.808 last year ? Can Shaw play LF? And I sure hope the guy from Japan can hit in the US and play CF, PCA was brutal last year, .838/.594. It would also be great if Happ could still play some 2nd base, Hoerner is .702/.788 & .699/.935. They also need a RH 1b and DH - there is somebody out there who looks very good. Enough with the pitching already.

This article once again highlights the common desire for the Cubs to acquire "top-line" pitching, but I would argue the data points to a much different priority. The Cubs already have 7 or 8 viable starters and anyhow, pitching was not the primary reason for the Cubs' struggles in 2025. A surface-level look at Cubs' full-season averages (4.90 R/G scored vs. 4.01 R/G allowed, league avg=4.45) suggests a perfectly balanced team. However, the season was really a tale of two distinct halves: Pre-All-Star (96 Games): The offense was dominant, scoring 5.33 R/G against a league average of 4.38. Post-All-Star (66 Games): The offense collapsed to 4.26 R/G (below the 4.56 league average), while the pitching actually improved to a stellar 3.88 R/G allowed. The second-half offensive drought can be traced to key injuries and specific regressions, e.g. Kyle Tucker, the catching duo, and Pete Crow-Armstrong. PCA saw his OPS drop from .846 in the first half to a nearly unplayable .634 in the second. His season-long struggle against left-handed pitching (.593 OPS) highlights a dire need for a right-handed centerfield platoon partner. While Alex Bregman’s arrival is a significant boost over Matt Shaw, one player alone may not bridge the gap back to a 5-run-per-game average. If the front office focuses on offensive consistency rather than redundant pitching, the math is in our favor: pairing 5.0 R/G with our current pitching staff yields a 98-win Pythagorean expectation. The pitching is fine; it's time to ensure the bats show up for all 162 games. (All metrics ared based on Retrosheet data; all errors are mine.)

Here's a list of CHC starting pitchers from this past year. Everyone was on the IL this past year(except I think Colin Rea). Some for months at at time. Mathew Boyd Colin Rea Shota Imanaga Jamesom Taillon Cade Horton Javier Assad Justin Steele They all have injury history and many are 30+. We know most of them will end up on the IL this year. That's the nature of MLB. The Cubs should stockpile and stash. A 6.5M pitcher, possible 1 or 2 - the Cubs need to sign him. With apologies to REM - Don't let your (pitchers) go 'Cause everybody cries Everybody hurts sometimes

I can’t argue with MT’s stats re Kyle Tucker- .747 (home) vs .923 (away) – why would he want to come back? on top of that, he seems fragile. And I know correlation isn’t causation – but didn’t it seem, didn’t it feel like that when he was hitting the entire team was hitting – and when he stopped they did too. How do you measure that? Is it leadership, did he take the pressure off of his teammates? – that first half was magical. How do we recapture that?

MT, Is there a way to measure this - a player's susceptibity to injury? And so I guess Kyle Tucker a bigger gamble than we thought - and so Is particpating the whole free-agent market - after all, most of those guys are 30+. And finally is Miguel Amaya now on the injury-prone list? What about Owen Caissie?

What do you do with him? In August in 112 PA, he hit .446 (OPS)! (To put that in perspective for us old-timers, Fergie Jenkin in 1010 PA for his career, hit .452!) How good does he have to be in CF to justify this bat? He's an incredible athlete. For the rest of the year, can you make him a contact hitter? You know, have him bunt at least once a game (sorry, JR), pull the infielders in and let him shoot some grounders thru an out of position infield. Foucs on OBP and do your thing? (and by the way, why can't Suzuki hit anymore - .608 since the break?)

KC, that's fair. I'm making a claim that the Cubs organization is/has been underperforming the Brewers organization. So let me go back to 2015. That's now 10+ years and the height of the Cubs success. So from 2015 thru today the Cubs have won about 8 more games than the Brewers. Call it even. In the same time period, per the numbers I saw, the Cubs had an avg salary of about 150M and the Brewers about 92M - better than a 1.5::1 ratio. I don't think that the advantage that small market teams get with the competitive advantage pick (the Brewers have had 10 since 2015) nearly makes up for the extra 50% the Cubs have spent. I don't know what you mean by - the benefits of being a small market club which allows them to have adequate talent throughout their roster/farm. But when you say -do a great job of trading away guys before they hit FA -a smart org overall with evaluations and mechanical tweaks you're making my case. You're saying that as an organization, they understand baseball better - dollar for dollar, they're better at baseball. And all the Cubs can do is hope to outspend them That's sad for us Cub fans. And - doesn't it seem remarkable that today, with widespread analytics, that one team could have this advantage over another? What is it that they see that others don't?

It's great that the Cubs can hang with the Brewers this year. But I've got to ask again- is it the system, or what? Since 2019 the Brewers have averaged about 8 more wins per year than the Cubs - while spending about $70M less per year. The Cubs payroll averages more than 150% of the Brewers! Any theories as to why that should be - what secret sauce do they have?

Isn't the real question : The Brewers payroll is about 100 Million and the Cubs' is double that - so how come the brewers are so good every year?