So what were the situations in which Ward got the IBB?

2 times in the 7th
3 times in the 8th
2 times in the 9th

All 7 times first base was open.

3 times runner on third
3 times runner on second
1 time with a man on second and third


So we are not talking Barry Bonds fear here. All 7 times he was facing a righty with first base open and a righty coming up to bat after him.

2nd entry done is the DBacks lineup for tomorrow. Good info to have.

Wow, amazingly weak lineup for a playoff team:

Chris Young, .237/.295/.467, 88 OPS+
Stephen Drew, .238/.313/.370, 71 OPS+
Eric Byrnes, .286/.353/.460, 101 OPS+
Conor Jackson, .284/.368/.467, 109 OPS+ and Tony Clark, .249/.310/.511, 102 OPS+
Mark Reynolds, .279/.349/.495, 109 OPS+
Jeff Salazar, .277/.340/.394, 84 OPS+
Chris Snyder, .252/.342/.433, 94 OPS+
Augie Ojeda, .274/.354/.354, 80 OPS+

The Cubs lineup is not stable, but here's a rough outline (it may not look like this even once):

Alfonso Soriano, .299/.337/.560, 123 OPS+
Ryan Theriot, .266/.326/,346, 72 OPS+
Derrek Lee, .317/.400/.513, 131 OPS+
Aramis Ramirez, .310/.366/.549, 129 OPS+
Matt Murton, .281/.352/.438, 100 OPS+ or Cliff Floyd, .284/.373/.422, 102 OPS+
Mark DeRosa, .293/.371/.420, 102 OPS+
Jacque Jones, .285/.335/.400, 87 OPS+
Geovany Soto, .389/.433/.667, 175 OPS+, or Jason Kendall, .270/.362/.356, 84 OPS+

Not particularly strong, but the Diamondbacks make it look like the '27 Yankees on paper.

Of course, this means that they will average 7 runs per game against the Cubs...

To pull it together, here's the final 25 for the LDS:

C--Soto, Kendall
IF--Lee, DeRosa, Theriot, Ramirez, Cedeno, Fontenot
OF--Soriano, Jones, Floyd, Murton, Pie, Ward
SP--Zambrano, Lilly, Hill, Marquis
RP--Dempster, Howry, Marmol, Wuertz, Wood, Eyre, Hart

Monroe, Marshall, Ohman, and Trachsel (duh) out.

Job well done, I'd say. I'd have taken Marshall over Marquis, but that's my only quibble. Keeping Soto gives them the best lineup they're capable of fielding, and Ward's apparent health combined with keeping Murton over Monroe probably gives them an optimal bench.

And keeping Hart instead of Ohman gives them a ready option in the not unlikely event that Marquis craps out early in the event they have to start him.

Wow, amazingly weak lineup for a playoff team:

Geez, thank you, Captain Obvious.

The Dbacks lost two of their best hitters (Hudson & Tracy) before the playoffs, and RJ would've arguably been their second best starter. But them's the breaks.

The Cubs haven't suffered any season ending injuries to key players, and have lined up their rotation the way they like it. So they're looking solid on paper.

Of course, they are the Cubs...

I checked the Bill James World Series Prediction System. The Diamonbacks won solidly. That system doesn't know about injuries, of course.

106: where can I find that?

I guess I'm a bit late for the trip down memory lane - but back to the intro and the opening posts, I wholeheartedly agree that I like this edition's chances better than the '98 team... probably about on par with the '84 team (playoff architecture differences aside) and the '03 team. '89 was something of a special case (in my mind, at least). Of course - my liking of our chances has an awful lot to do with the vulnerabilities of their competition.

It's strange, but I spent nearly the whole first half not caring much for the 2007 Cubs... I don't know that I'd call myself an anti-Barrett-bigot, but my affinity for this team seemed to turn around about the same time and with the same event that turned around their on-field fortunes.

The 1984 Cubs will always occupy a warm spot in my heart as the team that both infected me with this disease of Cub fandom and for giving me a picture perfect initiation into the heartbreak that it is. A 10 year-old, in an era when Bill James was still a relatively obscure writer putting out those glorious abstracts, didn't really recognize that the '84 team was a patchwork quilt of acquisitions and savy vets mustering up a final swan song -- I thought the Cubs would always be Moreland, Mathews, Cey, Sutcliffe, Eckersly, Durham, Sandberg, and company. In reality, the Cubs rode timely hot streaks and borrowed time --- Bob Dernier all but disappeared after June. Keith Moreland had a smoking hot August - but spent most of the first half either on the bench or complaining about playing time (or both), while Gary Mathews got his cranky knees to cooperate for a few early fall weeks to put it away. Sutcliffe, everyone remembers, but Dennis Eckersly had a pretty good 2nd half, too. The lineup featured 6 players driving in 80 or more runs (back when 80 RBIs - or RBIs generally - meant something) and the rotation looked good enough.

The 1989 Cubs were probably the most fun playoff team I've experienced - from Mitch Williams walking the bases loaded before striking out the side on opening day to the 9-0 comeback against Houston to the Les Lancaster improbable double game - it seemed like a team of destiny. With a young, not-yet-cliched Mark Grace, the effervescent Shawon Dunston, Mitch Williams, the consumate pros, Ryne Sandberg and Andre Dawson--- together with the out-of-nowhere kids and also-rans like Dwight Smith, Lloyd McClendon, Jerome Walton, and Doug Dascenzo -- and the likewise pre-cliched Don Zimmer at the helm, they were a fun bunch. The loss to the Giants still seems unfair.

The 1998 Cubs felt like mostly Sammy - with timely contributions sprinkled in where needed. Sure, they got solid work from Kevin Tapani and there was the meteoric rise of Kerry Wood -- and solid contributions from Morandini, the by-now-cliched Mark Grace, and the surprising Jose Hernandez -- but it was clear the '98 team would only go as far as Sosa could carry them. Unlike '84 and '89, the playoff loss didn't really hurt because it felt so inevitable even before the first pitch.

The 2003 Cubs have probably replaced the 80s versions in the disappointment category - especially after the debacles in 04 and 05. After they got by the Braves, it really felt like THIS was the team. I remember sitting at Mullens in Wrigleyville, telling a friend (as the Cubs were just 6 outs away in game 6) "they'll find a way to blow this" -- then after the Gonzo error, reversing course with a "that's OK - this team is young, they'll be back." As much as the game 7 loss hurt (and to be honest, it felt anticlimactic -- they might as well packed it in in 6) - I spent the whole offseason comforted with the thought that they'd be back... Choi would get healthy and become the 40 HR threat from the left side. Sosa would squeeze out another year or 2. Aramis would finally be the answer at 3B. And the rotation -- ahh yes, the rotation -- I eagerly awaited seasons where the Cy Young would be a pick 'em between Wood, Prior, Zambrano, and Cruz (whom I STILL hadn't given up on).

To some extent, the 07 Cubs almost seem like something of a hodge-podge of the 84 and 89 playoff teams. They've got the 'Trader Jack' patchwork element of the '84 team -- every lineup starter with the exception of The Riot is an import. Many of those acquisitions (Lee and Aramis especially) were every bit as one-sided as the Cey for Lovelace deal. They've got a bit of the '89 team's improbable, temporary heroes who found just the right time to get hot -- The Riot, Fontenot, the first few weeks of Kendall, Marmol, etc.

In the end, though -- I like the 2007 team's chances because I see a deeply flawed round 1 opponent, and neither the Rox nor Phils frighten me should we get to the NLCS. One series at a time, though.

I have it in the 1984 B James Abstract. I don't know if it's been published elsewhere. It gives points to each team based on answers to stat questions. Some are counter-intuitive, such as the team with fewer doubles, or the lower BAvg, getting more points. To be clear, in my previous post 106, I used the system on the Chi/Ari series--not on Ari to go all the way.

The Cubs haven't suffered any season ending injuries to key players, and have lined up their rotation the way they like it. So they're looking solid on paper.

Well, losing Soriano for a month sure wasn't a good thing - but yes, he's back in time for October.

Personally, as a Cubs fan, rather than taking comfort in the lines sported by the DBacks lineup -- I'm more concerned that one of the kids (Drew or Young, mostly) picks October to put it all together. I don't think we'll see OPS+ numbers in the 70s from either in the future -- I just hope they wait until 2008 to prove me right.

Thanks, DD.

I'd normally start a Dbacks thread here, but nobody cares about the Dbacks anyhow, so I'll hi-jack this thread instead.

A word on AZ's lineup...

At 1b, Clark will get the starts against Zambrano. Clark's splits (home vs. road and lhp vs. rhp) are so extreme, and he's really a no brainer to start at homer vs. a rhp. Additionally, Salazar will start vs. Zambrano tonight because he's left handed hitter. Lefties have hit against Z a lot better than righties, and the Dbacks will have four lefties in the lineup (Drew, Clark, Salazar, Ojeda).

Against Lilly and Hill, the Dbacks will go with Jackson at 1b and Upton in RF. There were some concerns about Upton's wrist (he was hit by pitch in COL), but right now, it appears he'll be on the roster. If he can't go, Quentin will be inserted in the lineup. Additionally, Montero has always caught Livan, so we'll most likely see him in Livan's start, even though the Dbacks are facing Hill then.

In short, the Dbacks don't have a great lineup. They don't even have a good lineup. This is not intentional, this is just the best they've got right now. If teams with better lineups wanted to be facing the Cubs instead, those team should've won a few more #### games.

If teams with better lineups wanted to be facing the Cubs instead, those team should've won a few more #### games.

Heh. Well said.

It's probably been said enough (and I'm sure the D'Backs have heard it a lot more than us Cubs fans), but no matter how bad the DBacks look they somehow managed to win 90 games in the best division in the NL. They're not a fluke, and it won't be an easy series. I'm just hoping for well played games on both sides without any controversy (on the field or otherwise).

every lineup starter with the exception of The Riot is an import.

Well, Soto will be the catcher for at least game 1, so that's 2. And the pitching staff has some decent home cooking: Z, Hill, Wood, Marmol, Weurtz. But I know I'm rooting for the laundry anyway, so I don't care that much.

I would have bumped Wuertz for Ohman. They both scare me but Ohman is more likely to scare me for only one hitter...

The Cubs need Marquis on the NLDS because he has to make the start if something happens to one of their other three pitchers.

I'm glad to hear that Marshall is still under consideration. That's an extraordinary amount of flexibility shown by a playoff club.

Levski,
Are they really going to start Hernandez in game 3? This makes no sense.

Clark's splits (home vs. road and lhp vs. rhp) are so extreme, and he's really a no brainer to start at homer vs. a rhp.

Your Freudian slip's showing.

Are they really going to start Hernandez in game 3? This makes no sense.

OMG TEH VETREAN LEAD3RSHIPP11!1!!1

I'm not making any predictions for this or any other series, but I agree that starting Hernandez in Game 3 is silly. It'd be hilarious if the D'Backs got swept while Owings was left holding the bag looking to start a potential game 4. (OK, if the D'backs were facing elimination after 3 games, they'd start Webb on short rest, but still.)

Excuse me, I meant game 4.

Are they really going to start Hernandez in game 3? This makes no sense.

The Diamondbacks don't make any sense. But in short, they don't want to start Webb on short rest in Chicago, so they have no choice. Plus, Livan is a "fiery competitor"...

Your Freudian slip's showing.

Heh heh. 2 homers by Clark vs. Z tonight. Mark it.

It'd be hilarious if the D'Backs got swept

Yeah, it'd be a zoot suit riot.

Excuse me, I meant game 4.

No, I think their plan really is to start Livan in game 3.

Heh heh. 2 homers by Clark vs. Z tonight. Mark it.

How many by Z vs. Webb?

No, I think their plan really is to start Livan in game 3.

That is great news. The team might bump a game 4 starter on further consideration but they probably won't bump the game 3 starter regardless of their situation.

How many by Z vs. Webb?

Z did better against Webb than Clark did against Z, so you got the last laugh. Enjoy.

Wow, amazingly weak lineup for a playoff team

:)

Wow, amazingly weak lineup for a playoff team

:)

Was I wrong? They hit wonderfully, but the stats at the time when I posted that speak for themselves.