A major league team filled with a roster of "replacement level players" would be expected only to win 48 games. In reviewing the Cubs 2018 season, let us look at a few key statistics.
The Cubs won 95 games. That is 47 games above replacement level.
The Cubs combined hitters had a 24.0 WAR.
The Cubs pitching staff had a 21.1 WAR.
Combined, the roster had a 45.1 WAR.
In the end, the Cubs wins was 1.9 above their collective WAR. So the Cubs won two more games than reasonably expected during the season. Is this the quantitative measure of Maddon's managerial skill?
If you look at the Cubs win total to actual WAR, the 1.9 WAR difference is 4.2 percent. That would equate to a projected seasonal impact in approximately 7 games (6.82).
The Cubs were 11th in the NL with 104 errors made. That means the Cubs gave their opponents 104 more outs, or the equivalent of 3.85 games. For a tired pitching staff, adding another 4 games to 163 regular season contests is a burden. They had to perform 2.4 percent more than the norm.
Errors create base runners which leads to more "highly leveraged" pitching situations. For starters, that means changing one's mechanic's to the stretch position. For relievers, it puts more pressure to get strikes with your best pitch. For relievers, the errors could have added an average hidden 4 1/3 IP to their work load, or 4 more appearances during the season. Cishek had 80 appearances for 70.1 IP. Wilson had 60 appearances for 52.1 IP.
The Cubs season could be summed up as being conflicted; there was inconsistent offense and tired pitching but it lead to a slight overachievement in the end.
Showing posts with label record. Show all posts
Showing posts with label record. Show all posts
October 12, 2018
September 19, 2017
THE MATH
It is crunch time in the NL Central.
Today's standings:
Cubs 83-66
Brewers 80-70 3.5 GB
Cardinals 77-72 6 GB
The Cubs and Cards have 13 games to play; Brewers 12.
The Cubs have a 97.1 percent chance to make the playoffs. The Brewers have 14.8%. The Cardinals only 4.0%.
But what will it take to win the division?
The Brewers are currently on an 8-2 streak. At that pace to the end of the season, the Brewers would win 88 games. So really, the mark to take the crown is 88 wins.
The Cardinals are currently on a 5-5 streak. They would have to win 11 of their last 13 games to reach 88 wins. That is highly unlikely.
The Cubs would have to go 5-8 to reach 88 games.Considering the Cubs have been good in their last ten games (7-3), they should easily reach 88 wins. The Cubs current winning percentage projects 90 wins which means the Brewers would have to win every remaining game to tie the Cubs.
The Cubs appear to be on the cusp of repeating their NL Central championship. The only potential spoiler remains the pesky Brewers.
Today's standings:
Cubs 83-66
Brewers 80-70 3.5 GB
Cardinals 77-72 6 GB
The Cubs and Cards have 13 games to play; Brewers 12.
The Cubs have a 97.1 percent chance to make the playoffs. The Brewers have 14.8%. The Cardinals only 4.0%.
But what will it take to win the division?
The Brewers are currently on an 8-2 streak. At that pace to the end of the season, the Brewers would win 88 games. So really, the mark to take the crown is 88 wins.
The Cardinals are currently on a 5-5 streak. They would have to win 11 of their last 13 games to reach 88 wins. That is highly unlikely.
The Cubs would have to go 5-8 to reach 88 games.Considering the Cubs have been good in their last ten games (7-3), they should easily reach 88 wins. The Cubs current winning percentage projects 90 wins which means the Brewers would have to win every remaining game to tie the Cubs.
The Cubs appear to be on the cusp of repeating their NL Central championship. The only potential spoiler remains the pesky Brewers.
June 28, 2016
BASEBALL SURPRISES
The game of baseball never ceases to surprise you.
A fan can never truly say "I've seen it all."
Last night in Cincinnati, Kris Bryant did something no other baseball player had ever done. And when you see what he accomplished, you are surprised that he was the first.
Bryant set career highs with three home runs and five extra-base hits on Monday to help the Chicago Cubs beat the Reds 11-8.
Bryant became the fifth player in the past 100 years to go 5-for-5 with five extra-base hits in a game. He joined Josh Hamilton (2012), Steve Garvey (1977), Joe Adcock (1954) and Lou Boudreau (1946).
According to Elias Sports Bureau research, Bryant is the youngest player in Cubs history to hit three home runs in a game. He is 10 days younger than Ernie Banks was when he accomplished the feat in 1955. Elias also notes that Bryant's 16 total bases on Monday are the most by a Cub in the modern era.
Bryant's box score included three home runs and two doubles. No one in baseball history had that combination of five hits in a game. And that is the surprising thing: we have seen four home run games, wild extra inning contests, 20 plus runs scoring days - - - but never a player hit 3 HR and 2 doubles in a contest.
Bryant was in a zone because none of his home runs were cheap. They were long, towering blasts.
In another oddity, according to research by ESPN Stats & Information, Bryant is the first player in at least 100 years to hit three home runs and play three different positions (third base, right field and left field). Joe Maddon changing his positions did not affect Bryant at the plate. There is a comfort zone Bryant has reached in his second full season in the majors. And for the Cubs, that may be the foundation pillar for more modern baseball firsts.
A fan can never truly say "I've seen it all."
Last night in Cincinnati, Kris Bryant did something no other baseball player had ever done. And when you see what he accomplished, you are surprised that he was the first.
Bryant set career highs with three home runs and five extra-base hits on Monday to help the Chicago Cubs beat the Reds 11-8.
Bryant became the fifth player in the past 100 years to go 5-for-5 with five extra-base hits in a game. He joined Josh Hamilton (2012), Steve Garvey (1977), Joe Adcock (1954) and Lou Boudreau (1946).
According to Elias Sports Bureau research, Bryant is the youngest player in Cubs history to hit three home runs in a game. He is 10 days younger than Ernie Banks was when he accomplished the feat in 1955. Elias also notes that Bryant's 16 total bases on Monday are the most by a Cub in the modern era.
Bryant's box score included three home runs and two doubles. No one in baseball history had that combination of five hits in a game. And that is the surprising thing: we have seen four home run games, wild extra inning contests, 20 plus runs scoring days - - - but never a player hit 3 HR and 2 doubles in a contest.
Bryant was in a zone because none of his home runs were cheap. They were long, towering blasts.
In another oddity, according to research by ESPN Stats & Information, Bryant is the first player in at least 100 years to hit three home runs and play three different positions (third base, right field and left field). Joe Maddon changing his positions did not affect Bryant at the plate. There is a comfort zone Bryant has reached in his second full season in the majors. And for the Cubs, that may be the foundation pillar for more modern baseball firsts.
May 14, 2016
4 SALE
Dan Plesac called Chris Sale the "most improved pitcher" in 2016.
Plesac, a lefty pitcher with 18 years of major league experience, was on point as he watched Sale mow down the Yankees Friday night in a 7-1 White Sox victory.
"He is on cruise control," Plesac said several times during the broadcast with Hawk Harrelson. "He is no longer a thrower, but a pitcher," Plesac said.
Plesac is one of the best analysts in the game. His opinion was correct as Sale cruised through a 99 pitch complete game against the Yankees.
He gave up a second inning home run, then got the next 15 batters out in the row.
Sale became just the third pitcher in modern history to win his first eight (8) decisions in a season.
In his 6 hit complete game, Sale threw 71 of 99 pitches for strikes. He continued to move pitches to both sides of the plate, taking velocity off his fast ball, then using a "slurve," a pitch that both drops down and side to side, to get batters out. He used a half dozen 96-97 mph fastballs as "out" pitches against batters who had seen balls from 88 to 93 all night long.
Sale was a power pitcher. He tried to strike everyone out. But this season, he has learned to pitch to contact, conserve energy, and got the distance in complete game efficiency.
It helps that the White Sox revamped its defense into a quality unit with the additions of Todd Frazier at third, Jimmy Rollins at short, Brett Lawrie at second, Austin Jackson in center and moving Adam Eaton to right. Sale admits that the pressure is off him with the defense behind him and the fact that the current line up can produce crooked numbers.
During the broadcast, as the announcers marveled at Sale's command, Harrelson made an interesting point: he said the worst draft selection a team can make in the first round is a high school pitcher. They throw year round, Hawk said. They throw 150 pitches a game at times. "That is too much," he said, "they are throwing more innings than major league pitchers." That is a true statement. Also, Hawk said the worst thing ever to happen in the game was the advent of the radar gun. It puts undue pressure on young arms to hit high 90s on the gun instead of learning how to pitch, conserve energy and win baseball games.
Plesac said that Carlos Rodon of the White Sox was drafted out of high school. He had the big arm with the radar numbers. But instead of signing with a major league team, Rodon went to college. By going to college and getting more instruction, it made Rodon a better pitcher and helped him get to the majors quicker than signing out of high school.
High school and college players often get trapped in statistics such as number of strike outs or power of their pitches. They get to the mound thinking they have to strike out everyone they face. The great pitchers like Fergie Jenkins said when he got to the majors he learned quickly he had to "pitch to contact" otherwise he would have a short and meaningless pro career. You get the same result if you have a three pitch ground out vs. a six pitch strike out - - - the batter is out. But if you can "save" 2 or 3 pitches a batter, that is 60 less pitches per game which means you can pitch longer in games with less damage to your arm.
Plesac hopes that Rodon and the other young Sox pitchers will learn from Sale's development this year and learn to pitch rather than throw.
Plesac, a lefty pitcher with 18 years of major league experience, was on point as he watched Sale mow down the Yankees Friday night in a 7-1 White Sox victory.
"He is on cruise control," Plesac said several times during the broadcast with Hawk Harrelson. "He is no longer a thrower, but a pitcher," Plesac said.
Plesac is one of the best analysts in the game. His opinion was correct as Sale cruised through a 99 pitch complete game against the Yankees.
He gave up a second inning home run, then got the next 15 batters out in the row.
Sale became just the third pitcher in modern history to win his first eight (8) decisions in a season.
In his 6 hit complete game, Sale threw 71 of 99 pitches for strikes. He continued to move pitches to both sides of the plate, taking velocity off his fast ball, then using a "slurve," a pitch that both drops down and side to side, to get batters out. He used a half dozen 96-97 mph fastballs as "out" pitches against batters who had seen balls from 88 to 93 all night long.
Sale was a power pitcher. He tried to strike everyone out. But this season, he has learned to pitch to contact, conserve energy, and got the distance in complete game efficiency.
It helps that the White Sox revamped its defense into a quality unit with the additions of Todd Frazier at third, Jimmy Rollins at short, Brett Lawrie at second, Austin Jackson in center and moving Adam Eaton to right. Sale admits that the pressure is off him with the defense behind him and the fact that the current line up can produce crooked numbers.
During the broadcast, as the announcers marveled at Sale's command, Harrelson made an interesting point: he said the worst draft selection a team can make in the first round is a high school pitcher. They throw year round, Hawk said. They throw 150 pitches a game at times. "That is too much," he said, "they are throwing more innings than major league pitchers." That is a true statement. Also, Hawk said the worst thing ever to happen in the game was the advent of the radar gun. It puts undue pressure on young arms to hit high 90s on the gun instead of learning how to pitch, conserve energy and win baseball games.
Plesac said that Carlos Rodon of the White Sox was drafted out of high school. He had the big arm with the radar numbers. But instead of signing with a major league team, Rodon went to college. By going to college and getting more instruction, it made Rodon a better pitcher and helped him get to the majors quicker than signing out of high school.
High school and college players often get trapped in statistics such as number of strike outs or power of their pitches. They get to the mound thinking they have to strike out everyone they face. The great pitchers like Fergie Jenkins said when he got to the majors he learned quickly he had to "pitch to contact" otherwise he would have a short and meaningless pro career. You get the same result if you have a three pitch ground out vs. a six pitch strike out - - - the batter is out. But if you can "save" 2 or 3 pitches a batter, that is 60 less pitches per game which means you can pitch longer in games with less damage to your arm.
Plesac hopes that Rodon and the other young Sox pitchers will learn from Sale's development this year and learn to pitch rather than throw.
May 9, 2016
UNWORLDLY PACE
Never in the history of baseball has one town dominated the game.
The Cubs and White Sox have the best records in their leagues.
The Cubs have a 7 game win streak, beating top clubs in the Pirates and Nationals. The White Sox have a 6 game winning streak.
The Cubs are 24-6, an .800 winning percentage. They are on pace to win a record 130 games.
The White Sox are 22-10, a .688 winning percentage. They are on pace to win 111 games.
Combined, Chicago baseball is at a .741 winning percentage, or an average pace to win 120 games.
Even if the clubs come back down to Earth, and win only half of their remaining games, the Cubs would win 90 and the White Sox 87.
But as the rosters are constructed, the teams are expected to do much better than .500 down the stretch. The White Sox have a very good starting four rotation. The Cubs have a solid hitting core with an unbelievable run differential of +102 in only 30 games.
And the White Sox have $13 million in payroll to spend after Adam LaRoche left the club. The White Sox could spend that money on an outfielder (Jay Bruce) or a pitcher (Tim Lincecum who threw a show case event last week; he hit 88-92 on fastballs and showed some promise on 3 breaking pitches but he is not major league ready).
The only time the Cubs and White Sox met in a World Series was 1906, which marked the dawn of the modern baseball era. In that year, the Cubs had a record number of wins. The White Sox were the hitless wonders who won the pennant, and then on outstanding pitching, upset the Cubs for the championship.
There is an old principle that history repeats itself. We may be witnessing it.
SI reports the Cubs, at 24–6, equaled their 1907 squad’s record for their best 30-game start since the beginning of the 20th century; that team, led by the famed double play combination of Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers and Frank Chance, won 107 games and the franchise’s first World Series; the Cubs won again the next year and haven’t won since. The franchise’s only better starts date deep into the 19th century: In 1876, the inaugural year of the National League, they were known as the Chicago White Stockings and jumped out to a 25–5 record en route to the NL pennant, while in 1880, they went 27–3 (with a tie) en route to another pennant.
The Cubs and White Sox have the best records in their leagues.
The Cubs have a 7 game win streak, beating top clubs in the Pirates and Nationals. The White Sox have a 6 game winning streak.
The Cubs are 24-6, an .800 winning percentage. They are on pace to win a record 130 games.
The White Sox are 22-10, a .688 winning percentage. They are on pace to win 111 games.
Combined, Chicago baseball is at a .741 winning percentage, or an average pace to win 120 games.
Even if the clubs come back down to Earth, and win only half of their remaining games, the Cubs would win 90 and the White Sox 87.
But as the rosters are constructed, the teams are expected to do much better than .500 down the stretch. The White Sox have a very good starting four rotation. The Cubs have a solid hitting core with an unbelievable run differential of +102 in only 30 games.
And the White Sox have $13 million in payroll to spend after Adam LaRoche left the club. The White Sox could spend that money on an outfielder (Jay Bruce) or a pitcher (Tim Lincecum who threw a show case event last week; he hit 88-92 on fastballs and showed some promise on 3 breaking pitches but he is not major league ready).
The only time the Cubs and White Sox met in a World Series was 1906, which marked the dawn of the modern baseball era. In that year, the Cubs had a record number of wins. The White Sox were the hitless wonders who won the pennant, and then on outstanding pitching, upset the Cubs for the championship.
There is an old principle that history repeats itself. We may be witnessing it.
SI reports the Cubs, at 24–6, equaled their 1907 squad’s record for their best 30-game start since the beginning of the 20th century; that team, led by the famed double play combination of Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers and Frank Chance, won 107 games and the franchise’s first World Series; the Cubs won again the next year and haven’t won since. The franchise’s only better starts date deep into the 19th century: In 1876, the inaugural year of the National League, they were known as the Chicago White Stockings and jumped out to a 25–5 record en route to the NL pennant, while in 1880, they went 27–3 (with a tie) en route to another pennant.
April 22, 2016
A MONSTER
Jake Arrieta is better than just pretty damn good.
Arrieta has thrown 24 consecutive quality starts in the regular season.
He's 20-1 in those games, with an 0.84 ERA, 0.50 WHIP and 173 strikeouts against just 33 walks.
What changed since Baltimore traded the disappointing prospect to the Cubs for Scott Feldman?
First, Arrieta said last year that when he came to the Cubs, he asked the coaching staff if he could revert to his old pitching style. This meant that he would be throwing across his body. Throwing across your chest is a serious "no no" for pitching coaches because normally it puts additional strain on the shoulder and elbow. Pitchers are taught to throw the ball downhill and not across.
But Arrieta grew up throwing the ball in the unconventional manner. The Cubs relented to have Arrieta find his own comfort zone.
Second, Arrieta went on a mediation/yoga/stretching/work out madness routine. He developed a core strength and flexibility. This goes hand in hand with making his unusual mechanics work.
Third, Arrieta's release point is very hard for batters to pick up. He stands on the right side of the rubber. Since he is throwing across his body, his shoulder makes a fuller turn away from the batter. As he comes through, the batter sees the ball release behind them (to a right handed hitter) then whip across the plate at 96 mph to the lower, outside corner of the zone. That split second "is the ball going to hit me" moment for batters is enough for Arrieta to control the count.
Fourth, Arrieta has a zen presence on the mound. Nothing seems to phase him. If he does not get a strike call, he does not growl or yell at the home plate umpire; he takes the ball and throws a better pitch. Some pitchers lose their cool on the mound (especially when they are struggling). If you maintain a professional demeanor on the mound, the home plate umpire will respect the pitcher more and give him the border calls.
So Arrieta has developed into a pitching monster. He is strong, reliable, consistent as the sun rising in the morning, and mentally tough. The Cubs know they will not have a long losing streak because Arrieta is in the rotation. He is the perfect compliment to Jon Lester's mound grumpiness or John Lackey's pitching anger.
Arrieta has thrown 24 consecutive quality starts in the regular season.
He's 20-1 in those games, with an 0.84 ERA, 0.50 WHIP and 173 strikeouts against just 33 walks.
What changed since Baltimore traded the disappointing prospect to the Cubs for Scott Feldman?
First, Arrieta said last year that when he came to the Cubs, he asked the coaching staff if he could revert to his old pitching style. This meant that he would be throwing across his body. Throwing across your chest is a serious "no no" for pitching coaches because normally it puts additional strain on the shoulder and elbow. Pitchers are taught to throw the ball downhill and not across.
But Arrieta grew up throwing the ball in the unconventional manner. The Cubs relented to have Arrieta find his own comfort zone.
Second, Arrieta went on a mediation/yoga/stretching/work out madness routine. He developed a core strength and flexibility. This goes hand in hand with making his unusual mechanics work.
Third, Arrieta's release point is very hard for batters to pick up. He stands on the right side of the rubber. Since he is throwing across his body, his shoulder makes a fuller turn away from the batter. As he comes through, the batter sees the ball release behind them (to a right handed hitter) then whip across the plate at 96 mph to the lower, outside corner of the zone. That split second "is the ball going to hit me" moment for batters is enough for Arrieta to control the count.
Fourth, Arrieta has a zen presence on the mound. Nothing seems to phase him. If he does not get a strike call, he does not growl or yell at the home plate umpire; he takes the ball and throws a better pitch. Some pitchers lose their cool on the mound (especially when they are struggling). If you maintain a professional demeanor on the mound, the home plate umpire will respect the pitcher more and give him the border calls.
So Arrieta has developed into a pitching monster. He is strong, reliable, consistent as the sun rising in the morning, and mentally tough. The Cubs know they will not have a long losing streak because Arrieta is in the rotation. He is the perfect compliment to Jon Lester's mound grumpiness or John Lackey's pitching anger.
April 15, 2016
500
The Cubs have rocketed to an 8-1 start. The team is scoring approximately 7 runs per game. Cub hitters have the patience of Jobe; opposing starters have thrown an average 88 pitches in 4 2/3 innings of work. The Cubs lead the league in walks.
Baseball is a stats driven sport.
But, as I have posted in the past, one worm in the ear hole is announcers, broadcasters or fans joyfully saying the today the Cubs are "7 games above .500."
Technically, that it is an untrue statement. But in the context of baseball slang, 7 games above .500 means "7 more victories than losses."
The Cubs have played 9 games. If they had evenly split their contests (thus having a fifty percent winning percentage), the team would be 4.5-4.5. That is the .500 mark: 4.5 victories. The Cubs are at 8 victories. So, the Cubs are actually only 3.5 games above the .500 mark.
But that does not have the same impact of having 7 more wins than losses.
Another way to look at it is that the Cubs are "on pace" to win 144 games. Eight wins divided by 9 games multiplied by 162 game season equals 144 games. Or for the blackboard inclined:
8 x
____ = _____
9 162
Solve for x.
The 1906 Cubs won 116 games (a .763 winning percentage) with a shorter regular season. To compare with the current team, the 1906 Cubs would have won 124 games in a 162-game season. So, the Cubs are on pace to shatter the major league record for victories in a season. No one really believes the Cubs will win 144 games this season.
But if the Cubs finish as they started by being 7 games over .500, then the final record would be have 88 victories which would be a disappointing 9 less victories than the 2015 campaign. That is a 9.3 percent decline in performance year over year. So as impressive the Cubs start has been this season, it is still not as well as the 2015 team's finish of being 16 games over .500.
Baseball is a stats driven sport.
But, as I have posted in the past, one worm in the ear hole is announcers, broadcasters or fans joyfully saying the today the Cubs are "7 games above .500."
Technically, that it is an untrue statement. But in the context of baseball slang, 7 games above .500 means "7 more victories than losses."
The Cubs have played 9 games. If they had evenly split their contests (thus having a fifty percent winning percentage), the team would be 4.5-4.5. That is the .500 mark: 4.5 victories. The Cubs are at 8 victories. So, the Cubs are actually only 3.5 games above the .500 mark.
But that does not have the same impact of having 7 more wins than losses.
Another way to look at it is that the Cubs are "on pace" to win 144 games. Eight wins divided by 9 games multiplied by 162 game season equals 144 games. Or for the blackboard inclined:
8 x
____ = _____
9 162
Solve for x.
The 1906 Cubs won 116 games (a .763 winning percentage) with a shorter regular season. To compare with the current team, the 1906 Cubs would have won 124 games in a 162-game season. So, the Cubs are on pace to shatter the major league record for victories in a season. No one really believes the Cubs will win 144 games this season.
But if the Cubs finish as they started by being 7 games over .500, then the final record would be have 88 victories which would be a disappointing 9 less victories than the 2015 campaign. That is a 9.3 percent decline in performance year over year. So as impressive the Cubs start has been this season, it is still not as well as the 2015 team's finish of being 16 games over .500.
August 28, 2015
THE PLAYOFFS
There have been more rumblings on the way baseball is organized
defeats the whole purpose of a long season.
the Cubs have the 4th best record in baseball, but are in third place
in their division. If the playoffs start today, Pittsburgh with the third best
record would play the Cubs while teams with lesser victory totals
get a bye.
I got it when the leagues expanded and broke into four divisions.
It was done for scheduling and to maintain rivalries.
When it last expanded and shuffled into three divisions, there
needed to have a wild card to balance out of the playoffs.
A divisional bridesmaid got an invitation to the party. OK.
It was still based on number of season victories, making the
162 game schedule meaningful.
I still don't really like the interleague play. It does not help the
scheduling of divisional games. It just tries to add new revenue
to home teams with different clubs fans don't see often.
The idea of eliminating the divisions and having one league standings
is a good one. In essence, that is what the "wild card" standings are now.
Get rid of interleague play and make each league team play each other
more to see who is the best AL and NL squad. The teams with the best
records get home field advantage throughout the playoffs (as the prize
for being the best).
The one true criticism of the wild card game is that is contrary to
how the regular season is structured: by series. A playoff should also
follow the format of a series contest, like best of 3 games.
Then if baseball wants to get greedy with its TV partners, expand the
playoffs to six teams.
The top 2 teams have a bye, and the next four teams play a one game
play-in. Winners play the top two teams in a seeded series, best of 5 or 7.
This helps distinguish the leagues which still have their own schedules and rules
(like the AL with DH). It would also return to having a pure "league" champion
that fans of other teams in the league could support in a playoff run.
defeats the whole purpose of a long season.
the Cubs have the 4th best record in baseball, but are in third place
in their division. If the playoffs start today, Pittsburgh with the third best
record would play the Cubs while teams with lesser victory totals
get a bye.
I got it when the leagues expanded and broke into four divisions.
It was done for scheduling and to maintain rivalries.
When it last expanded and shuffled into three divisions, there
needed to have a wild card to balance out of the playoffs.
A divisional bridesmaid got an invitation to the party. OK.
It was still based on number of season victories, making the
162 game schedule meaningful.
I still don't really like the interleague play. It does not help the
scheduling of divisional games. It just tries to add new revenue
to home teams with different clubs fans don't see often.
The idea of eliminating the divisions and having one league standings
is a good one. In essence, that is what the "wild card" standings are now.
Get rid of interleague play and make each league team play each other
more to see who is the best AL and NL squad. The teams with the best
records get home field advantage throughout the playoffs (as the prize
for being the best).
The one true criticism of the wild card game is that is contrary to
how the regular season is structured: by series. A playoff should also
follow the format of a series contest, like best of 3 games.
Then if baseball wants to get greedy with its TV partners, expand the
playoffs to six teams.
The top 2 teams have a bye, and the next four teams play a one game
play-in. Winners play the top two teams in a seeded series, best of 5 or 7.
This helps distinguish the leagues which still have their own schedules and rules
(like the AL with DH). It would also return to having a pure "league" champion
that fans of other teams in the league could support in a playoff run.
August 17, 2015
A MISNOMER
The Cubs are 67-49.
Most people say that the Cubs are 18 games over .500.
That's great.
But I believe it is inaccurate.
The Cubs have played 116 games.
If the Cubs played .500 ball, they would have a record of 58-58.
58 wins is the .500 mark at this point in the season.
The Cubs are better, at 67 wins.
67 wins - 58 wins = 9 games above the .500 mark.
UPDATE 9/2/15
A Cardinal fan gloats that his team is now "40 games over .500." Radio, television and print media are proclaiming the accomplishment.
By Cardinal's "math," the team has 86 wins this season.
They claim that if the team is at 46-46, they are at .500.
46+40=86, so everyone on radio and TV the past 24 hours says the team is 40 games over .500.
They will also tell you that the Cubs are 19 over .500.
"It’s not that difficult to understand; it’s common baseball language and math!"
Again, the statement is inaccurate mathematically wrong because it does not take in account total games played in the equation.
They are only looking at total wins not total games played which is the problem.
The Cardinals are only .500 team if record is 46-46 (after playing 92 games).
After 132 games, if the team is at .500 that means their record is 66-66 not 46-46.
86 wins - 66 wins (for a .500 club) = 20 games over .500.
Most people say that the Cubs are 18 games over .500.
That's great.
But I believe it is inaccurate.
The Cubs have played 116 games.
If the Cubs played .500 ball, they would have a record of 58-58.
58 wins is the .500 mark at this point in the season.
The Cubs are better, at 67 wins.
67 wins - 58 wins = 9 games above the .500 mark.
UPDATE 9/2/15
A Cardinal fan gloats that his team is now "40 games over .500." Radio, television and print media are proclaiming the accomplishment.
By Cardinal's "math," the team has 86 wins this season.
They claim that if the team is at 46-46, they are at .500.
46+40=86, so everyone on radio and TV the past 24 hours says the team is 40 games over .500.
They will also tell you that the Cubs are 19 over .500.
"It’s not that difficult to understand; it’s common baseball language and math!"
Again, the statement is inaccurate mathematically wrong because it does not take in account total games played in the equation.
They are only looking at total wins not total games played which is the problem.
The Cardinals are only .500 team if record is 46-46 (after playing 92 games).
After 132 games, if the team is at .500 that means their record is 66-66 not 46-46.
86 wins - 66 wins (for a .500 club) = 20 games over .500.
July 2, 2015
THE LOST ART OF THE STEAL
Baseball has become a station to station game.
It is rare to find an aggressive team using speed as a weapon.
Cincinnati Reds outfielder Billy Hamilton is single-handedly bringing back one of the most exciting feats in Major League Baseball, the stolen base.
It is rare to find an aggressive team using speed as a weapon.
Cincinnati Reds outfielder Billy Hamilton is single-handedly bringing back one of the most exciting feats in Major League Baseball, the stolen base.
On Monday night, Hamilton
stole four bases against the Minnesota Twins giving him 40 for the
season. The second-year outfielder is now on pace to steal 86 bases,
which would make him the first player to steal at least 80 bases in a
single season since Rickey Henderson (93) and Vince Coleman (81) both
did it in 1988.
But what is really amazing is
that 86 stolen bases may actually be a low bar for Hamilton. He has stolen more than 100 in the minor leagues. He's
getting better at stealing bases as the season goes on, and he is still
not very good at the most important aspect of base thievery: getting on
base.
On base percentage (OBP) is one of those sabermetrics that new wave GMs like on their roster. But without a corresponding recognition for the stolen base to move runners into scoring position, it still takes a walk or base hit to move them around the base paths. And considering the average team hits .250 or so, that is only a one in four chance to advance a runner from first to second.
Scouts will tell you the one thing teams cannot teach players is speed. You either have it or you do not. Speed on the base paths makes the opposing pitcher think about runners. Any distraction to a pitcher's concentration is a plus for the batting team. Small advantages can create big innings.
So why has the stolen base been downplayed by teams? Teams are looking for more rounded players. Normally a speed merchant is usually a good field, no hit narrow skill set player. Teams are looking for five tool players who can hit for average, power and drive in runs. In some ways, the Earl Weaver three run HR strategy is still in vogue, even when hitters are getting dominated by pitchers this year.
Manufacturing runs through steals, hit and run plays, taking an extra base on an outfield hit are all fading from the team's fundamental playbooks. Teams don't teach base running fundamentals. Look at how many stupid running plays you see in an average game. Players should never run themselves into an easy tag out. But it happens all the time. And players have no idea how to slide into a base, or to avoid a tag.
A base stealer is a valuable commodity. But no one seems to really care to exploit one of the game's rules, except Hamilton and the Reds.
June 20, 2015
3000 HITS
Alex Rodriguez became the 29th player in major league history to make it to 3,000 hits.
He hit a home run in his first at bat.
It is semi-ironic since A-Rod is going to be remembered throughout history as one of those who used performance enhancing drugs to power his way through the record books.
Many believe that it does not matter. Baseball history is filled with stories of players trying to get an edge, from scuffing the ball to taking uppers. Steroid use will only be a footnote in the Cooperstown history book.
The discussion usually centers upon how hard is it to get 3,000 hits.
From the standpoint of a full time starter, and qualification for a batting title (502 at bats), that means a career .300 hitter would get 150 hits per season. The simple calculation is that a player needs 150 hits per season for 20 years.
Is it harder to get 300 wins?
A starter will have 32 chances each season. Even if he wins half his games (16), he would need 18.75 seasons to get to 300. But pitchers rarely make all 32 starts, or average 16 wins a season for an entire career. Greg Maddux had 15 or more wins in 18 of his 23 seasons as a major league pitcher to total 355 career wins. There are only 24 players with 300 wins.
But now with pitch counts and specialty relievers in the bullpen, starters may not get the chance to gain wins if they are only required to pitch 5 or 6 innings per contest even in tied or close games.
The consensus is that it is harder to get 300 wins than 3,000 hits.
He hit a home run in his first at bat.
It is semi-ironic since A-Rod is going to be remembered throughout history as one of those who used performance enhancing drugs to power his way through the record books.
Many believe that it does not matter. Baseball history is filled with stories of players trying to get an edge, from scuffing the ball to taking uppers. Steroid use will only be a footnote in the Cooperstown history book.
The discussion usually centers upon how hard is it to get 3,000 hits.
From the standpoint of a full time starter, and qualification for a batting title (502 at bats), that means a career .300 hitter would get 150 hits per season. The simple calculation is that a player needs 150 hits per season for 20 years.
Is it harder to get 300 wins?
A starter will have 32 chances each season. Even if he wins half his games (16), he would need 18.75 seasons to get to 300. But pitchers rarely make all 32 starts, or average 16 wins a season for an entire career. Greg Maddux had 15 or more wins in 18 of his 23 seasons as a major league pitcher to total 355 career wins. There are only 24 players with 300 wins.
But now with pitch counts and specialty relievers in the bullpen, starters may not get the chance to gain wins if they are only required to pitch 5 or 6 innings per contest even in tied or close games.
The consensus is that it is harder to get 300 wins than 3,000 hits.
May 25, 2015
HARPER's PACE
Bryce Harper comes into the Cubs series with 16 HRs and 41 RBI. He appears on record setting pace. But Harper does not get the positive accolades of a Mike Trout because Harper is a bit of a loose cannon. He was ejected twice last week from games. He is reckless in the field. He is animated on the bench.
As a result, his career high in games played is 139. On that pace, he would end 2015 with 51 HR and 130 RBI.
But there was some hint that he could challenge the big record: Hack Wilson's.
In 1930, Cub OF Wilson tallied an amazing 191 RBI with 56 HR. He did it in 155 games played.
If Harper plays 155 games this year, his pace would get him to the 56 HR mark, but only to 144 RBI.
Which again, shows how outrageous is Wilson's record.
As a result, his career high in games played is 139. On that pace, he would end 2015 with 51 HR and 130 RBI.
But there was some hint that he could challenge the big record: Hack Wilson's.
In 1930, Cub OF Wilson tallied an amazing 191 RBI with 56 HR. He did it in 155 games played.
If Harper plays 155 games this year, his pace would get him to the 56 HR mark, but only to 144 RBI.
Which again, shows how outrageous is Wilson's record.
February 24, 2014
THE OLD AND THE NEW
Theo Epstein is moving into his third year as Cubs chief operating officer. In his first two seasons at the helm, the Cubs record has been 61-101 and 66-96, the worst two year stretch in franchise history. Epstein inherited a 71-91 2011 team.
Many fans remember the end of the Jim Hendry era, but what was his early years like? Surprisingly better than memory serves.
In mid-July of 2002, Andy MacPhail decided to give up his role as General Manager and promoted Hendry, his protege, in his place.
In 2002, Hendry oversaw the final months of a struggling team that would finish 67-95. One of his first decisions as GM was to allow Bruce Kimm, an interim manager with the club to finish the season. Kimm was roundly criticized for granting Fred McGriff significant amounts of playing time so that the aging first baseman could achieve the 30 homerun mark for his fifth team. The Crime Dog was seen as taking valuable at-bats away from Cubs rookie Hee Seop Choi.
Following the 2002 season, Hendry began his rebuilding of the team. He hired Dusty Baker as the new manager after Baker's run to the World Series with the San Francisco Giants. He traded unpopular catcher Todd Hundley to the Los Angeles Dodgers in return for Eric Karros and Mark Grudzielanek. The trade was seen as a salary swap at the time, but Karros and Grudzielanek played a major role in the success of the 2003 team.
In mid-season 2003, Hendry would make another big trade. Hendry traded infielders Bobby Hill and Jose Hernandez to the Pirates for third baseman Aramis Ramirez. He also brought in Kenny Lofton and Randall Simon to shore up the bench.
On the last weekend of the season, the Cubs clinched the 2003 NL Central Division title, their first division title in 14 years. And, as the Cubs entered game 5 of the NLCS with a 3-1 series lead over the Florida Marlins, it appeared that the Cubs were on the verge of their first World Series appearance in 58 years. However, the Cubs dropped three straight and were eliminated from the post-season.
Entering the 2004 season, most pundits believed the Cubs had the best roster in the National League, and many fans believed Hendry was one of the premiere general managers in baseball. However, Sammy Sosa, Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Alex Gonzalez, Mark Grudzielanek, Kent Mercker, Tom Goodwin, and Todd Wellemeyer were all on the disabled list at the same time.
Despite their early season struggles, many Cubs fans still felt that a healthy squad would charge back in August and September to take control of the central division race. And, on July 31, 2004 Jim Hendry stepped up to the plate with another monstrous deal. Hendry sent away Alex Gonzalez, Brendan Harris, and Francis Beltran to various teams in exchange for Nomar Garciaparra, Matt Murton, and cash. Even with this infusion of new talent, the Cubs self destructed at the end of the season in a bizarre fashion. Broadcast personalities Steve Stone and Chip Caray had public spats with players including Kent Mercker and Moises Alou. The hostility included a phone call from Mercker (in the bullpen) to Stone and Caray while they were on the air, and reported threats against the broadcaster's on the Cubs plane. On the field, the team finished poorly, losing key games down the stretch and finishing 89-73 in third place in the NL Central.
After the disappointing end of the 2004 season, Hendry addressed his roster again. He traded disappointing prospect Hee Seop Choi to the Marlins in exchange for Derrek Lee, and later sent catcher Damian Miller to the Oakland Athletics for Michael Barrett. On the free agent market, Hendry signed veterans Todd Walker and Greg Maddux.
As a result, the first priority of the 2004–2005 offseason was unloading Sosa to the Orioles for getting utility player Jerry Hairston Jr. and 2B Mike Fontenot and pitcher David Crouthers. Hendry then signed veteran Jeromy Burnitz to replace Sosa in right field. He signed middle reliever Chad Fox and traded Kyle Farnsworth to the Tigers for Roberto Novoa and minor-leaguers Scott Moore and Bo Flowers.
Jim Henry's Cubs Record in the first three years of his GM tenure:
2002: 67-95 (half season)
2003: 88-74
2004: 89-73
2005: 79-83
One conclusion can be made from Hendry's first three years as GM was that he acquired good major league talent in his trades, including key long term starters like Ramirez, Lee, Barrett and Walker.
Hendry's focus was acquiring veteran players and major league ready prospects to field a competitive major league team year in and year out. Epstein has taken the opposite approach: acquiring low level prospects with large potential upside in exchange for veteran major league talent. At the major league level, the results between the two general managers is black and white.
Many fans remember the end of the Jim Hendry era, but what was his early years like? Surprisingly better than memory serves.
In mid-July of 2002, Andy MacPhail decided to give up his role as General Manager and promoted Hendry, his protege, in his place.
In 2002, Hendry oversaw the final months of a struggling team that would finish 67-95. One of his first decisions as GM was to allow Bruce Kimm, an interim manager with the club to finish the season. Kimm was roundly criticized for granting Fred McGriff significant amounts of playing time so that the aging first baseman could achieve the 30 homerun mark for his fifth team. The Crime Dog was seen as taking valuable at-bats away from Cubs rookie Hee Seop Choi.
Following the 2002 season, Hendry began his rebuilding of the team. He hired Dusty Baker as the new manager after Baker's run to the World Series with the San Francisco Giants. He traded unpopular catcher Todd Hundley to the Los Angeles Dodgers in return for Eric Karros and Mark Grudzielanek. The trade was seen as a salary swap at the time, but Karros and Grudzielanek played a major role in the success of the 2003 team.
In mid-season 2003, Hendry would make another big trade. Hendry traded infielders Bobby Hill and Jose Hernandez to the Pirates for third baseman Aramis Ramirez. He also brought in Kenny Lofton and Randall Simon to shore up the bench.
On the last weekend of the season, the Cubs clinched the 2003 NL Central Division title, their first division title in 14 years. And, as the Cubs entered game 5 of the NLCS with a 3-1 series lead over the Florida Marlins, it appeared that the Cubs were on the verge of their first World Series appearance in 58 years. However, the Cubs dropped three straight and were eliminated from the post-season.
Entering the 2004 season, most pundits believed the Cubs had the best roster in the National League, and many fans believed Hendry was one of the premiere general managers in baseball. However, Sammy Sosa, Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Alex Gonzalez, Mark Grudzielanek, Kent Mercker, Tom Goodwin, and Todd Wellemeyer were all on the disabled list at the same time.
Despite their early season struggles, many Cubs fans still felt that a healthy squad would charge back in August and September to take control of the central division race. And, on July 31, 2004 Jim Hendry stepped up to the plate with another monstrous deal. Hendry sent away Alex Gonzalez, Brendan Harris, and Francis Beltran to various teams in exchange for Nomar Garciaparra, Matt Murton, and cash. Even with this infusion of new talent, the Cubs self destructed at the end of the season in a bizarre fashion. Broadcast personalities Steve Stone and Chip Caray had public spats with players including Kent Mercker and Moises Alou. The hostility included a phone call from Mercker (in the bullpen) to Stone and Caray while they were on the air, and reported threats against the broadcaster's on the Cubs plane. On the field, the team finished poorly, losing key games down the stretch and finishing 89-73 in third place in the NL Central.
After the disappointing end of the 2004 season, Hendry addressed his roster again. He traded disappointing prospect Hee Seop Choi to the Marlins in exchange for Derrek Lee, and later sent catcher Damian Miller to the Oakland Athletics for Michael Barrett. On the free agent market, Hendry signed veterans Todd Walker and Greg Maddux.
As a result, the first priority of the 2004–2005 offseason was unloading Sosa to the Orioles for getting utility player Jerry Hairston Jr. and 2B Mike Fontenot and pitcher David Crouthers. Hendry then signed veteran Jeromy Burnitz to replace Sosa in right field. He signed middle reliever Chad Fox and traded Kyle Farnsworth to the Tigers for Roberto Novoa and minor-leaguers Scott Moore and Bo Flowers.
Jim Henry's Cubs Record in the first three years of his GM tenure:
2002: 67-95 (half season)
2003: 88-74
2004: 89-73
2005: 79-83
One conclusion can be made from Hendry's first three years as GM was that he acquired good major league talent in his trades, including key long term starters like Ramirez, Lee, Barrett and Walker.
Hendry's focus was acquiring veteran players and major league ready prospects to field a competitive major league team year in and year out. Epstein has taken the opposite approach: acquiring low level prospects with large potential upside in exchange for veteran major league talent. At the major league level, the results between the two general managers is black and white.
February 17, 2014
WAR ZONES
Spring training is here. Columnists will soak in some sun and make in the next few weeks bold predictions on the success or failure of baseball teams.
In 2013, the Cubs record was 66-96. It's Pythagoean record was calculated (by a formula that takes in account runs scored and runs allowed) to be 71-91, which represents to some that the Cubs underperformed their projected record. When we look at the WAR for both hitters (15.6) and pitchers (10.5), one would have calculated the Cubs having 75.1 wins.
In 2012, the Cubs record was 61-101. It's Pythagoean record was calculated to be 65-97, which represents to some that the Cubs underperformed their projected record. When we look at the WAR for both hitters (13.6) and pitchers (2.3), one would have calculated the Cubs having 64.9 wins.
In 2011, the Cubs record was 71-91. It's Pythagoean record was calculated to be 70-92, which was only a game off. When we look at the WAR for both hitters (14.0) and pitchers (7.5), one would have calculated the Cubs having 70.5 wins.
In 2010, the Cubs record was 75-87. It's Pythagoean record was calculated to be 73-89, which represents to some that the Cubs overperformed their projected record. When we look at the WAR for both hitters (7.4) and pitchers (15.9), one would have calculated the Cubs having 72.3 wins.
In 2009, the Cubs record was 83-78, the last above .500 record. It's Pythagoean record was calculated to be 84-77, which represents to some that the Cubs underperformed their projected record by a game. When we look at the WAR for both hitters (10.8) and pitchers (24.2), one would have calculated the Cubs having 84.0 wins.
Charting the win totals:
Real Wins Pyth Wins WAR Wins
66 71 75.1
61 65 64.9
71 70 70.5
75 73 72.3
83 84 84.0
356 363 366.8
It appears that the Pythagoean record is a 2 percent deviation from Real Wins. The WAR win calculation is higher at a 3 percent deviation. A 2 to 3 percent deviation calculates to a difference of 3.24 to 4.86 wins per 162 game season. This number is interesting because it can explain many things. First, the deviation falls within the general discussion of what is the "value" of a manager to the performance of his club. A great manager can improve his team's record by a few games. A bad manager can cost a team a few games. Since the Cubs underperformed by 3 to 5 wins on average, is this proof that bad managers cost even a bad team wins? Second, this could also show that the players themselves did not play well as a team (the sum of their individual parts, i.e. stats was greater than the the team record). This could show a lack of collective baseball IQ, the ability to manufacturer runs or give a team less second chance opportunities to score runs. Bad teams have a tendency to fail in the basic game fundamentals.
If one would want to predict the number of Cubs wins in 2014, I would suggest taking the final 25 man roster, average the last two seasons players' WARs, minus 2.5 percent. That figure should be close to the last five year average track record for the Cubs.
In 2013, the Cubs record was 66-96. It's Pythagoean record was calculated (by a formula that takes in account runs scored and runs allowed) to be 71-91, which represents to some that the Cubs underperformed their projected record. When we look at the WAR for both hitters (15.6) and pitchers (10.5), one would have calculated the Cubs having 75.1 wins.
In 2012, the Cubs record was 61-101. It's Pythagoean record was calculated to be 65-97, which represents to some that the Cubs underperformed their projected record. When we look at the WAR for both hitters (13.6) and pitchers (2.3), one would have calculated the Cubs having 64.9 wins.
In 2011, the Cubs record was 71-91. It's Pythagoean record was calculated to be 70-92, which was only a game off. When we look at the WAR for both hitters (14.0) and pitchers (7.5), one would have calculated the Cubs having 70.5 wins.
In 2010, the Cubs record was 75-87. It's Pythagoean record was calculated to be 73-89, which represents to some that the Cubs overperformed their projected record. When we look at the WAR for both hitters (7.4) and pitchers (15.9), one would have calculated the Cubs having 72.3 wins.
In 2009, the Cubs record was 83-78, the last above .500 record. It's Pythagoean record was calculated to be 84-77, which represents to some that the Cubs underperformed their projected record by a game. When we look at the WAR for both hitters (10.8) and pitchers (24.2), one would have calculated the Cubs having 84.0 wins.
Charting the win totals:
Real Wins Pyth Wins WAR Wins
66 71 75.1
61 65 64.9
71 70 70.5
75 73 72.3
83 84 84.0
356 363 366.8
It appears that the Pythagoean record is a 2 percent deviation from Real Wins. The WAR win calculation is higher at a 3 percent deviation. A 2 to 3 percent deviation calculates to a difference of 3.24 to 4.86 wins per 162 game season. This number is interesting because it can explain many things. First, the deviation falls within the general discussion of what is the "value" of a manager to the performance of his club. A great manager can improve his team's record by a few games. A bad manager can cost a team a few games. Since the Cubs underperformed by 3 to 5 wins on average, is this proof that bad managers cost even a bad team wins? Second, this could also show that the players themselves did not play well as a team (the sum of their individual parts, i.e. stats was greater than the the team record). This could show a lack of collective baseball IQ, the ability to manufacturer runs or give a team less second chance opportunities to score runs. Bad teams have a tendency to fail in the basic game fundamentals.
If one would want to predict the number of Cubs wins in 2014, I would suggest taking the final 25 man roster, average the last two seasons players' WARs, minus 2.5 percent. That figure should be close to the last five year average track record for the Cubs.
December 27, 2013
THE BOTTOM SEASON
We all know how bad 2013 was for Chicago baseball.
Comcast SportsNet published just how bad this baseball season was in Chicago:
• The 195 losses are the most combined by both teams. The previous high was 191 in 1948.
• The .398 combined winning percentage trailed only that 1948 season (.376).
• Cubs and White Sox fans saw 94 home losses in 2013, which eclipsed the previous high of 90 in 1948.
• The Cubs set a new franchise record for home losses in a season with 50. They had 49 in 1962, 1966 and 1974.
• The White Sox set a new franchise record for road losses with 55. Their previous mark was 54 in 1969.
• The Cubs finished with a .238 team batting average that was their lowest since 1981 (.236) and their lowest over a full season since 1965. They scored 602 runs, their lowest total over a full season since 1992.
On a futility scale, Chicago baseball hit a 9.9 in badness. Only the Houston Astro's pitiful performance keeps Chicago from getting a perfect futility score.
But as bad as 2013 was, what does 2014 hold?
The Cubs continue to interchange spare baseball parts for bad baseball roster spots. There appears to be no change in operating plans for 2014, despite the rumor that the Cubs will win the Tanaka sweepstakes. The Cubs will more likely trade a few veterans at the deadline for more prospects, and waddle through another 90 plus loss season.
The White Sox have made several moves, via free agent signings and trades. The Sox have improved their offense if Eaton is healthy, Davidson can play at third and Abreu can adapt to American baseball. The Sox rotation is still one of the best in the AL so they could bounce back toward an 81-81 season.
Comcast SportsNet published just how bad this baseball season was in Chicago:
• The 195 losses are the most combined by both teams. The previous high was 191 in 1948.
• The .398 combined winning percentage trailed only that 1948 season (.376).
• Cubs and White Sox fans saw 94 home losses in 2013, which eclipsed the previous high of 90 in 1948.
• The Cubs set a new franchise record for home losses in a season with 50. They had 49 in 1962, 1966 and 1974.
• The White Sox set a new franchise record for road losses with 55. Their previous mark was 54 in 1969.
• The Cubs finished with a .238 team batting average that was their lowest since 1981 (.236) and their lowest over a full season since 1965. They scored 602 runs, their lowest total over a full season since 1992.
On a futility scale, Chicago baseball hit a 9.9 in badness. Only the Houston Astro's pitiful performance keeps Chicago from getting a perfect futility score.
But as bad as 2013 was, what does 2014 hold?
The Cubs continue to interchange spare baseball parts for bad baseball roster spots. There appears to be no change in operating plans for 2014, despite the rumor that the Cubs will win the Tanaka sweepstakes. The Cubs will more likely trade a few veterans at the deadline for more prospects, and waddle through another 90 plus loss season.
The White Sox have made several moves, via free agent signings and trades. The Sox have improved their offense if Eaton is healthy, Davidson can play at third and Abreu can adapt to American baseball. The Sox rotation is still one of the best in the AL so they could bounce back toward an 81-81 season.
October 1, 2013
CITY LOSS RECORD
The Cubs and White Sox crushed Chicago's worst baseball season ever.
Chicago teams combined for 195 losses this season - - - the most in Chicago baseball history. The previous record number of losses was 191 in 1948, during a 154-game season.
However, a city with 195 baseball losses ranks only 17th in baseball history. Philadelphia still holds the record at 208.
It is still mindboggling that the White Sox would dump 99 losses after being in contention for most of the 2012 season. And the Cubs also slightly improved to reach the 96 loss mark.
White Sox GM Hahn said there will be changes in 2014. There has to be; the Sox only draw if they win. The White Sox are a small market team playing in a big city, in the shadows of the more popular Cubs.
But the popularity of the Cubs is starting to wane. 2013 was the 5th consecutive season of declining attendance on the North Side.
Now, the realization that the Cubs "Plan" was to lose for several seasons in order to build up the farm system with high draft choices, may be the accelerator on the declining attendance trend. Many fans gave up watching games on television because who really wants to invest three hours knowing that your team only has a one in three chance of winning the game. The whole idea for cheering your team is to see them "win."
And next season may just be as bad. Starlin Castro said after the last game it may take two or three more years before the Cubs are competitive. That puts the time line out to 2016. And the White Sox are terrible on offense and in the field, but have no consensus stars in AAA to fill the gaps at 3B, SS, 2B, 1B or C.
The early off-season will be the axe watch to see which players, managers or coaches get cut to appease ownership or the fan base.
Chicago teams combined for 195 losses this season - - - the most in Chicago baseball history. The previous record number of losses was 191 in 1948, during a 154-game season.
However, a city with 195 baseball losses ranks only 17th in baseball history. Philadelphia still holds the record at 208.
It is still mindboggling that the White Sox would dump 99 losses after being in contention for most of the 2012 season. And the Cubs also slightly improved to reach the 96 loss mark.
White Sox GM Hahn said there will be changes in 2014. There has to be; the Sox only draw if they win. The White Sox are a small market team playing in a big city, in the shadows of the more popular Cubs.
But the popularity of the Cubs is starting to wane. 2013 was the 5th consecutive season of declining attendance on the North Side.
Now, the realization that the Cubs "Plan" was to lose for several seasons in order to build up the farm system with high draft choices, may be the accelerator on the declining attendance trend. Many fans gave up watching games on television because who really wants to invest three hours knowing that your team only has a one in three chance of winning the game. The whole idea for cheering your team is to see them "win."
And next season may just be as bad. Starlin Castro said after the last game it may take two or three more years before the Cubs are competitive. That puts the time line out to 2016. And the White Sox are terrible on offense and in the field, but have no consensus stars in AAA to fill the gaps at 3B, SS, 2B, 1B or C.
The early off-season will be the axe watch to see which players, managers or coaches get cut to appease ownership or the fan base.
April 23, 2013
PACE YOURSELF
A quick calculation from today's standings shows that the Cubs are on pace to lose 117 games.
WHY IT DID IT TAKE SO LONG?
After the Cubs found a new way to lose last night in Cincinnati, the pressure was mounting on the Cubs manager, Dale Sveum. He finally realized that the poor talent assembled on his roster is going to RUIN his career. And he is not happy about it.
Paul Sullivan quoted the steamed manager in the Chicago Tribune:
“Yeah, I’d be lying if you didn’t think about yourself through some of this stuff too,” Sveum said. “But that’s stuff you don’t have control over. I’ve got control over my job and the coaching staff to prepare everybody every day in spring training and this and that, and that’s all I can do.”
Sveum realizes that other teams (potential employers) will look at his Cub win-loss record as a barometer of his managerial abilities. With the losses piling up quickly, and the Cubs players making the same mistakes over and over again, Sveum's personal frustration is coming to light.
Sveum admits that it’s up to him and his coaching staff “to get (the players) to respond to all of us.”
But Sveum fails to answer WHY his team is not responding to his coaching instructions. The reason is simple: there is no pressure on the players to perform because there are no ramifications for poor play. For the starters, there are no prospects ready to take their jobs from them. And maybe that's why Sveum is angry; he has been boxed into a corner with no exit.
Sveum's tenor began to percolate over the weekend when he was asked whether some of the position players could be sent down to the minor leagues "to send a message." Reporters inferred that they were discussing Rizzo (for his offensive woes) and Castro (for his defensive lapses).
“You guys asked me if those guys couldn’t get sent down. I said nobody was exempt (from) it. They're not the only ones.”
Sveum added: “That’s all basically what (I’m) talking about. I’m not pointing fingers at them or anything. I’m just (saying), 'Hey, we’re all (culpable for) this. I’m (not) exempt (from) being fired, and so is my coaching staff. We’re all in this together as a team.”
Except, there is a perception that is reality with the 2013 Cubs. Rizzo, Castro, Valbuena, Barney, and the rest are not going to be sent down to the minors (barring injury rehabs) because the Cubs have no ready replacements in Iowa. The only shuffle continues to be pitchers, but that deck of cards is so thin that the Cubs are playing waiver wire roulette just to find arms for the bullpen. The team, as constructed, is flawed. When Sveum tries to motivate by playing the demotion to the minors card, he has no clout to pull off such a move. And the players (and their agents) know it. It is an idle threat.
Instead, Sveum has the only weapon in his arsenal that professions do understand: playing time. Sveum could bench underperforming players to "send a message" to focus more, train better and play harder. Which would be fine on a competitive team. But the idea that Castro will be benched for whom? The Cubs roster has no true back up shortstop. The same goes for Rizzo at first; there is no competent back up on the roster. And the front office is pushing to keep the "young stars" in the line up because, frankly, why else would any fan buy a ticket to see this Cub team play.
The dogma of the Cubs history is that losing teams breed the acceptance of losing. Even if managers do their best to get their players focused on playing "winning baseball," i.e. handling the fundamentals of the game by instinct and making the correct situational decisions, if the locker room has accepted losing as a way of life with no accountability for poor play, the team will have another lost season.
Paul Sullivan quoted the steamed manager in the Chicago Tribune:
“Yeah, I’d be lying if you didn’t think about yourself through some of this stuff too,” Sveum said. “But that’s stuff you don’t have control over. I’ve got control over my job and the coaching staff to prepare everybody every day in spring training and this and that, and that’s all I can do.”
Sveum realizes that other teams (potential employers) will look at his Cub win-loss record as a barometer of his managerial abilities. With the losses piling up quickly, and the Cubs players making the same mistakes over and over again, Sveum's personal frustration is coming to light.
Sveum admits that it’s up to him and his coaching staff “to get (the players) to respond to all of us.”
But Sveum fails to answer WHY his team is not responding to his coaching instructions. The reason is simple: there is no pressure on the players to perform because there are no ramifications for poor play. For the starters, there are no prospects ready to take their jobs from them. And maybe that's why Sveum is angry; he has been boxed into a corner with no exit.
Sveum's tenor began to percolate over the weekend when he was asked whether some of the position players could be sent down to the minor leagues "to send a message." Reporters inferred that they were discussing Rizzo (for his offensive woes) and Castro (for his defensive lapses).
“You guys asked me if those guys couldn’t get sent down. I said nobody was exempt (from) it. They're not the only ones.”
Sveum added: “That’s all basically what (I’m) talking about. I’m not pointing fingers at them or anything. I’m just (saying), 'Hey, we’re all (culpable for) this. I’m (not) exempt (from) being fired, and so is my coaching staff. We’re all in this together as a team.”
Except, there is a perception that is reality with the 2013 Cubs. Rizzo, Castro, Valbuena, Barney, and the rest are not going to be sent down to the minors (barring injury rehabs) because the Cubs have no ready replacements in Iowa. The only shuffle continues to be pitchers, but that deck of cards is so thin that the Cubs are playing waiver wire roulette just to find arms for the bullpen. The team, as constructed, is flawed. When Sveum tries to motivate by playing the demotion to the minors card, he has no clout to pull off such a move. And the players (and their agents) know it. It is an idle threat.
Instead, Sveum has the only weapon in his arsenal that professions do understand: playing time. Sveum could bench underperforming players to "send a message" to focus more, train better and play harder. Which would be fine on a competitive team. But the idea that Castro will be benched for whom? The Cubs roster has no true back up shortstop. The same goes for Rizzo at first; there is no competent back up on the roster. And the front office is pushing to keep the "young stars" in the line up because, frankly, why else would any fan buy a ticket to see this Cub team play.
The dogma of the Cubs history is that losing teams breed the acceptance of losing. Even if managers do their best to get their players focused on playing "winning baseball," i.e. handling the fundamentals of the game by instinct and making the correct situational decisions, if the locker room has accepted losing as a way of life with no accountability for poor play, the team will have another lost season.
October 2, 2012
THE THUD
On a night in Chicago when vast majority of the city was watching the Bears easily handle the poor Cowboys on Monday Night Football, the Cubs set off on a mission. For a week the team and its coaches have put out the simple goal: don't loss 100 games. No player wants to be a part of a 100 loss team.
The final series of the season is against the lowly Astros, the worst team in major league baseball. The Astros are expansion team bad.
So the Cubs had a simple task: win against the worst team in the league.
The Cubs fell like a thud; shut-out 3-0 on two hits.
So much for player pride and team focus. For the third time in franchise history, the Cubs have lost 100 games. Even for a team with the personality of the "Lovable Losers," a 100 loss season is a rare feat of bad.
This means that the new Epstein-Hoyer management will be at least 10 percent worse this season than the last season under Jim Hendry. The 2011 team lost 91 games. The 2012 team has lost 9 more games, with two to play. Remember, these executives were brought in with big money contracts to turnaround the franchise. Instead, it has crumbled to rock bottom. If the 2011 season was deemed a failure by ownership, then 2012 has to be also considered a failure.
The words are excuses when they will say that the new front office has "started" to rebuild the organization from the low minors up. The rebuilding does not start today. It started almost a year ago, with only one of Epstein's pick ups (Anthony Rizzo) showing any major league promise.
GM Hoyer says the rebuilding process will be slow. Painfully slow it seems if 100 loss seasons are the new normal.
The final series of the season is against the lowly Astros, the worst team in major league baseball. The Astros are expansion team bad.
So the Cubs had a simple task: win against the worst team in the league.
The Cubs fell like a thud; shut-out 3-0 on two hits.
So much for player pride and team focus. For the third time in franchise history, the Cubs have lost 100 games. Even for a team with the personality of the "Lovable Losers," a 100 loss season is a rare feat of bad.
This means that the new Epstein-Hoyer management will be at least 10 percent worse this season than the last season under Jim Hendry. The 2011 team lost 91 games. The 2012 team has lost 9 more games, with two to play. Remember, these executives were brought in with big money contracts to turnaround the franchise. Instead, it has crumbled to rock bottom. If the 2011 season was deemed a failure by ownership, then 2012 has to be also considered a failure.
The words are excuses when they will say that the new front office has "started" to rebuild the organization from the low minors up. The rebuilding does not start today. It started almost a year ago, with only one of Epstein's pick ups (Anthony Rizzo) showing any major league promise.
GM Hoyer says the rebuilding process will be slow. Painfully slow it seems if 100 loss seasons are the new normal.
September 11, 2012
100
With 21 games left in the season, the Cubs sole goal is not to lose 100 games. The "magic" number is 8 more wins. Playing the Astros helps that goal.
The Cubs have the reputation of being the Lovable Losers. But how many awful 100-loss seasons have there been in the franchise history? Surprisingly, only two.
In 1966, the Cubs went 59-103. In 1962, the Cubs also went 59-103.
Now, if those are rock bottom falls from grace, what happens in the next season? In 1967, the Cubs rebounded with a 87-74 record. In 1963, the Cubs improved to 82-80. In the financial world, one could call the next season success like a stock's "dead cat bounce." It does not last very long.
On the flip side, how many 100 win seasons for the Cubs? The answer is five. But you have to go way back in a time machine to find them.
In 1935, the Cubs went 100-54, losing the World Series 4-2. The next year, the Cubs faded to 87-67.
In 1910, the Cubs went 104-50, losing the World Series 4-1. The next year, the Cubs went 92-62.
In 1909, the Cubs went 104-49.
In 1907, the Cubs won a record 107 games (107-45) and the World Series. The next year, 1908, the Cubs repeated as World Series champions with a record of 99-55.
In 1906, the Cubs went 116-36 but lost the World Series 4-2).
It is clear that a team that wins 100 games is more likely to continue its success in the next year. That makes sense since a team that wins 100 games must have a wealth of talented players performing well. When a team loses 100 games, there is also a rebound but for a different reason. Players are a 100 loss club are not very good, and management needs "real" change in order to get fans into the stands. Roster turnover is probably the main reason for improvement for 100 loss clubs.
So when Cub players focus in on NOT losing 100 games, they are fighting against the perception of being on a 100-loss team (and probable loss of employment for the next season). But in order to improve a club, it must hit rock bottom.
The Cubs have the reputation of being the Lovable Losers. But how many awful 100-loss seasons have there been in the franchise history? Surprisingly, only two.
In 1966, the Cubs went 59-103. In 1962, the Cubs also went 59-103.
Now, if those are rock bottom falls from grace, what happens in the next season? In 1967, the Cubs rebounded with a 87-74 record. In 1963, the Cubs improved to 82-80. In the financial world, one could call the next season success like a stock's "dead cat bounce." It does not last very long.
On the flip side, how many 100 win seasons for the Cubs? The answer is five. But you have to go way back in a time machine to find them.
In 1935, the Cubs went 100-54, losing the World Series 4-2. The next year, the Cubs faded to 87-67.
In 1910, the Cubs went 104-50, losing the World Series 4-1. The next year, the Cubs went 92-62.
In 1909, the Cubs went 104-49.
In 1907, the Cubs won a record 107 games (107-45) and the World Series. The next year, 1908, the Cubs repeated as World Series champions with a record of 99-55.
In 1906, the Cubs went 116-36 but lost the World Series 4-2).
It is clear that a team that wins 100 games is more likely to continue its success in the next year. That makes sense since a team that wins 100 games must have a wealth of talented players performing well. When a team loses 100 games, there is also a rebound but for a different reason. Players are a 100 loss club are not very good, and management needs "real" change in order to get fans into the stands. Roster turnover is probably the main reason for improvement for 100 loss clubs.
So when Cub players focus in on NOT losing 100 games, they are fighting against the perception of being on a 100-loss team (and probable loss of employment for the next season). But in order to improve a club, it must hit rock bottom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)