Change the flags, baby!

In all seriousness--these are exciting times, but the Cubs need not to have any letdowns. Quick turnaround before today's finale against the Phils, and the pitching matchups in the Mets series (Duque/Maine/Glavine) won't be easy.

That said, I don't believe I've ever seen a Cub team make up this kind of deficit in the standings, at any point in the season, let alone in a span of 5+ weeks.

And the hits just keep on coming. Last night the issue wasn't the Brewers losing (honest), or Claudio Vargas imploding (disappointing). No, last night the issue became Ned Yost pushing Manny Parra to pitch the last 6 1/3 innings when Parra had just pitched on Saturday. So on three days the 24 year old lefty a year removed from serious injury (injuries more appropriately) was asked to do something Yost hasn't done to any veteran pitcher at his disposal since his arrival in Brewtown.

Look, I know this is a Cubs thread and feel free to ignore this comment as Cub fans chuckle, chortle, and giggle with glee.

But as a Brewer fan this is disturbing stuff. Yost coddles his veteran starters to the nth degree (I think he tucks Jeff Suppan into bed at night), but continues to press Gallardo and now Parra to "extend themselves". What that really means is "my veterans stink and you guys can get batters out so can you please pitch a few more innings before my bullpen collapses into dust?"

I would like the Brewers to put up a fight still this season. But I also want the team to live to fight another day. And trashing a promising young pitcher for the sake of a single game in early August just isn't aligned with what the Brewers have been trying to do the past few years. I hate to think that after all this work , after all this patience, after all the toil when the organization gets to the very CUSP of doing something significant they derail the program out of panic.

If Yost wants to "abuse" someone how about he line up Suppan, Capuano, and Dave Bush and proceed to kick them in their sorry *sses until he feels better. Or until I feel better. Just give the kids a break. It isn't their fault that the other guys are a bunch of pantywaists.

I don't think this deserves its own thread, but in this article about the ######### who ran on the field at Howry this year, I ran across this little tidbit:

In 1995, a Cubs fan named John Murray attacked reliever Randy Myers on the mound and was taken down by Myers. Murray was banned from Wrigley Field for one year, but now is trying to get publicity for his Cubs slogan, "It's Gonna Happen," which is printed on T-shirts, signs and wristbands.

The Cubs are aware of Murray's history and have asked Comcast SportsNet and WGN-Ch. 9 not to show Murray's signs during telecasts, according to team sources.

I thought those signs were pretty ####### stupid, and thus destined to be a success, but I had no idea about their history. Geez.

---

Oh, I'm pretty excited too. In this post, it says the Cubs have never been in first place this last in the season for the first time ever. And I can't believe it's only taken 6 weeks to trim an 8.5 Brewers lead. Unreal.

Harvey, do you think that Yost considers Parra to be expendable?

Pops:

If he does then Yost is a moron. Parra has a 93 mph fastball that moves, a decent curveball, and a change that makes an appearance every so often. In his two long outings Manny has handled the Cards and Mets to a standstill. He strike out 8 last night with a strike zone the size of a postage stamp.

No, I think Yost simply crossed his fingers knowing that if he put someone else in the game it was very likely that the game would get completely out of hand. So while I UNDERSTAND what he did he should NOT have done. The potential long-term impact to the club wasn't worth it.

Look, I know this is a Cubs thread and feel free to ignore this comment as Cub fans chuckle, chortle, and giggle with glee.

No, I'd say that unless and until the Cubs wrap up this division, comments on the state of the Brewers are completely on-topic.

In this post, it says the Cubs have never been in first place this last in the season for the first time ever.

Perhaps not, but in '84 they took over first place to stay on (you guessed it) August 1 against the Phillies. I remember it well, because I was there (only game I attended that year)--I even remember scoreboard-watching as the Cards pounded the Mets. Cubs overcame a 3-run deficit by homering to lead off 3 consecutive innings against Steve Carlton.

I'll go back and look to see if they were ever in first place before then that season.

I'll go back and look to see if they were ever in first place before then that season.

Well, they started out the year 2-0, so yeah.

Yeah, and there were various other points throughout the season where they led, which I expected; they were pretty much in the thick of it all year.

From talking to the guys that know him, Murray sounds like a real prick.

I'm not going to celebrate ANYTHING unless the Cubs are in First on October 1. Until then, anything's possible and the Brewers STILL scare me.

For those of you who don't understand how little one-thousandth of a point is, here is Harry Carey to explain it for you.

Link

Until then, anything's possible and the Brewers STILL scare me.

As they should. Sure, the Brewers just finished a 4-9 skid, but they've been streaky all year and have had some significantly long stretches of outstanding baseball. You are generally going to see some very serious flaws in a team in a bad stretch, and recall that in late May and early June the Brewers were stinking it up just as bad as the Cubs. The Brewers went 4-13, and followed that up with a 19-10 stretch. It may be that the Brewers don't have another streak like that (or their 24-10 start) in them, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them go on a tear again. Harvey has good points about the sources of the current problems not being likely to change, but if their hitting starts running on all cylinders again, it can make up for some serious pitching problems.

Demoting Weeks will signal an on-field improvement. His replacement could hardly hit worse.

As they should. Sure, the Brewers just finished a 4-9 skid, but they've been streaky all year and have had some significantly long stretches of outstanding baseball. You are generally going to see some very serious flaws in a team in a bad stretch, and recall that in late May and early June the Brewers were stinking it up just as bad as the Cubs.

Absolutely. The division, including the Cubs, is flawed enough that the race could turn on who has a well-timed hot streak or cold streak, and certainly the Cubs and Brewers have both shown that they're capable of both.

But to reiterate a sentiment I expressed earlier--I believe the "division," as far as the race is concerned, boils down to the Cubs and Brewers. I don't care that the Cardinals are only 6 back--there is no way in hades a team with that starting staff is going to the postseason, even out of this craptastic division.

I think he tucks Jeff Suppan into bed at night

Don't worry, Harvey, Jeff Suppan will be a Pirate in two years.

Don't worry, Harvey, Jeff Suppan will be a Pirate in two years.

Actually, he *was* a Pirate, when he was pretty useful and not over the hill. Very un-Piratelike, I realize.

In this post, it says the Cubs have never been in first place this last in the season for the first time ever.

No offense Moses, but is this English? What the hell does this mean?

This is the first time all season that the Cubs have led the division. It is August - late in the season.

It is, in fact, the latest point in the season the Cubs have ever gained first place for the first time in that season.

I tried, but there isn't a very clear way to write this.

How good is this, though? Let's look at the past Cubs teams who led their division/league at the end of August 1:

2001 -- Finished 88-74, 3rd place, 5 GB
1984 -- Finished 96-65, 1st place, lost in NLCS
1977 -- Finished 81-81, 4th place, 20 GB
1969 -- Finished 92-70, 2nd place, 8 GB
1945 -- Finished 98-56, 1st place, lost in WS
1937 -- Finished 93-61, 2nd place, 3 GB
1936 -- Finished 87-67, 2nd place, 5 GB
1929 -- Finished 98-54, 1st place, lost in WS
1927 -- Finished 85-68, 4th place, 8.5 GB
1918 -- Finished 84-45, 1st place, lost in WS
1911 -- Finished 92-62, 2nd place, 7.5 GB
1910 -- Finished 104-50, 1st place, lost in WS
1907 -- Finished 107-45, 1st place, Won WS
1906 -- Finished 116-36, 1st place, lost WS

Any graphic will make the Cubs look bad after 1908

Good lord, what happened in 1977? I don't remember hearing about that.

Even if the Cubs do make the playoffs...does anyone really think they have a good chance of winning the series? I'm no genius but I don't think they have a chance. I'll probably end up eating these words in about three months though...

1977: Bruce Sutter spent the month of August on the DL, Cubs collapsed

Even if the Cubs do make the playoffs...does anyone really think they have a good chance of winning the series? I'm no genius but I don't think they have a chance. I'll probably end up eating these words in about three months though...

Look at last year. Anyone has a chance, although I'd admit the Cubs chance wouldn't be great.

Even if the Cubs do make the playoffs...does anyone really think they have a good chance of winning the series? I'm no genius but I don't think they have a chance. I'll probably end up eating these words in about three months though...

Look at who they'd be playing. Zambrano's got as good a shot as anybody at being the best pitcher in the NL playoffs. If they can set up their schedule, that's two games in the opening best-of-5. Then they just need to win one of three games started by Lilly, Hill, and I guess Marshall. I'm not saying they're Cy Young candidates, but Lilly and Hill are certainly above-average starting pitchers.

If they're healthy, I could see the Cubs being favorites in the first round; hell, maybe favorites to even make the World Series.

1977: Bruce Sutter spent the month of August on the DL, Cubs collapsed

Yeah - I remember during the 84 season, it was '77 - not '69 - I remember some fans talking about.

I think it's one of the more 'minor' collapses (in comparison to things like '69).

1977 was probably to previous Cub fan generations what 2004 will end up being to us. A painful collapse overshadowed by bigger collapses.

If they're healthy, I could see the Cubs being favorites in the first round; hell, maybe favorites to even make the World Series.

Is Pedro coming back at all? The Mets would probably sweep the Cubs, and the Braves a good bet to beat them in 4 or 5. It's looking a lot like an NL East Championship Series, with Chipper Jones hitting five home runs in four games to beat the Mets (as usual). A Tigers-Braves or Red Sox-Braves series could be good, but a Red Sox-Mets series would be a classic.

The Mets would probably sweep the Cubs

Hey, I'm not running down to Wrigley to buy World Series tickets or anything, but are you nuts!?

The Cubs are ahead of the Mets by 3-1/2 in Pythag and I'd take Big Z over any starter the Mets would throw against him. If the first round was Cubs-Mets, I'd expect it to go 5 and I'd give the edge to whichever team had home-field advantage. So, as of today, I guess that'd be the Mets by 2-1/2 games but it'd certainly be a tossup.

I think it's one of the more 'minor' collapses (in comparison to things like '69).

1977 was probably to previous Cub fan generations what 2004 will end up being to us. A painful collapse overshadowed by bigger collapses.

Minor? The Cubs were 62-42, and finished 81-81. That's minor? Good god, what's MAJOR?

Good lord, what happened in 1977?

Well, it started as the flukiest team ever -- really, look at that roster. But they were dominating ... playing 650 ball as of July 1 (22 games over), still 598 ball by the end of July (20 games over). Looking at the splits, the entire staff posted a 2.49 ERA in June.

Then August. The Phils got blistering hot (from 16 to 31 games over) while the Cubs were 8 games under that month ... and the Cubs were now 9.5 games back and completely toast.

The offense was much better than I remember that August. The pitching was pretty bad but not that awful.

Anyway, if memory serves, they were 25 over at one point and finished the season at 500. But look at that roster and it's kind of amazing they finished 500. A 89 OPS+? And it's not like a lot of those guys were underperforming expectations exactly. Even Steve Swisher's 35 OPS+ was about right. :-) Reuschel (252 IP, 157 ERA+) and Sutter (107 IP, 327 ERA+ ... one of the greatest relief seasons ever) had great years, Willie Hernandez was excellet (110 IP, 145 ERA+) and those three are the reason the staff posted a 109 ERA+.

So the Cubs were trotting out a lousy lineup and most of the time a below-average pitching staff.

Minor? The Cubs were 62-42, and finished 81-81. That's minor? Good god, what's MAJOR?

I wasn't a Cubs fan in 1977, but in retrospect, the 81-81 looks pretty normal with the flukiness being the 62-42 start. In the four years before 1977, the Cubs won 77, 66, 75, and 75, and followed up with 79 and 80 wins in 1978-79 before collapsing a bit further in 1980-81.

Did Cubs fans / baseball fans really think the Cubs were that good when they were 62-42 or could they kind of tell that the team had an '03 Royals feel to them?

Minor? The Cubs were 62-42, and finished 81-81. That's minor? Good god, what's MAJOR?

Heh... you're not very familiar with Cub fandom, are you?

I was only 4 in 77 -- so Walt certainly does a better job explaining the season than I could.

You have to remember, too -- in 1977 -- no one knew who Bill James was, much less what ERA+/OPS+, Pythag records, and what not meant.

My very limited familiarity with '77 comes from 1)what I've read, and 2)a lecture I got in the stands in '84 during August from a grizzled old fan when I was asking when World Series tickets went on sale.

Did Cubs fans / baseball fans really think the Cubs were that good when they were 62-42 or could they kind of tell that the team had an '03 Royals feel to them?

I was 16 at the time, so naturally I assumed they were actually good, rather than the team-wide fluke (outside of Sutter and Reuschel) they really were.

Looking back, Herman Franks was an effing genius to win 81 games with that team.

Oh, and Bruce Sutter threw 81.1 innings in the first half with a 1.11 ERA. No wonder his arm fell off in August.

So the Cubs were trotting out a lousy lineup and most of the time a below-average pitching staff.

I think you're exagerrating. That year NL starters as a whole had an ERA of 4.08 while relievers had an ERA+ of 3.56. I don't have a calculater handy, but my hunch would be an average ERA+ from a starting pitcher in the 1977 NL was 97 or so. The Cubs had four pitchers who combined to start 143 games:

Rich Reuschel, 157 ERA+, 37 GS
Bill Bonham, 101 ERA+, 34 GS
Mike Krukow, 100 ERA+, 33 GS
Ray Burris, 93 ERA+, 39 GS.

Lousy, the 2-4 were decidedly average, with an amazing ace at the front. And they had a tremendous bullpen keep thme in close games - Sutter wasn't just insanely brilliant, he was insanely brilliant while tossing over 100 innings. Willie Hernandez threw even more. Donie Moore also threw some solid innings, though not as many.

This team was designed to win when Reuschel started, and when the others took the hill, they were supposed to be down by a run after 7 innings, while the bullpen shut down the opposition giving their hitters a chance to win late.

Looking back, Herman Franks was an effing genius to win 81 games with that team.

He won 79 with the same bunch in 1978.

And won 78 in 1979 before the team fired him at the end of the season. So it wasn't just a fluke - he constantly had them winning about that many. The highest compliment you can pay a manager is that you can't imagine his teams performing any better than they did. That's Herman Franks.

He managed the Giants for four years. Until 1989, he had their winninges, second-winningest, and third winningest squads to play 162 games.

And won 78 in 1979 before the team fired him at the end of the season.

He wasn't fired; he resigned and later returned as interim GM until Dallas Green replaced him.

Well, I was 16 in 77 too, but even then I knew that wasn't a very talented team. But, yeah, obviously when they were 25 games over (or whatever the peak was) and playing 650 ball, you believe that somehow this team is better than the talent. Reuschel was great, Sutter was great, Buckner was clutch, Trillo was (probably really was) the best 2B in the NL, Murcer was cranking them, Ontiveros was hitting 300, etc. Teams who "fluke" into that kind of record even over half a season are pretty damn rare. It was a hell of a run. Maybe the most "dominant" Cubs team of my life.

And I didn't mean to demean the pitching staff before, but you take out Reuschel, Sutter and Hernandez and you have 999 IP with 523 ER for an ERA of 4.72. And that's below average (about a 93 OPS+). Now I'm sure you take out the top 1/3 of any teams IP ad they look not so good. But that was basically a team with 1 outstanding starter, one great reliever, one excellent reliever ... and otherwise below average pitching and a crappy offense.

This race is making things difficult between my Cub-loving g/f and me. Need to tread carefully here.

Polish:

Ditch the girlfriend, keep the canolis.......