User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5959 seconds
62 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I think we will see a lot of what we saw in the first few games. Some decent starting pitching (although I'll believe it when I see it from Samardzija), a powderkeg bullpen and a very weak lineup. The bullpen can likely be fixed, but the lineup is unlikely to get better.
I hesitated to make a prediction, but I would predict a win total in the low 70s. .500 is a possibility if the pitching gels. I can't see how the lineup is going to be anything but weak all season.
I'm hoping the Cubs stop going up there and hacking at the first pitch like they were doing all series long or else a lot of pitchers are going to look good against the Cubs.
Dale looks like he has absolutely no confidence in his bullpen this year and I'm not really sure he knows what he is doing out there with the pitchers. Regardless of the outcome of the 9th inning I wasn't crazy about keeping him out there for the attempted CG in his first start of the year. Let him throw 8 innings of great ball with a decent pitch total and hand it over to your pen.
Dale's shifting is probably going to annoy me all year long.
I'm suspicious, too, but he looked awfully good on Sunday... awfully good.
Marmol looks more lost than usual and if Wood is going to be so walktastic, hoo boy...
I'm excited to get a look at Reuschel II tonight.
I have three goals for this season:
1) More consistency from Castro
2) Someone from among Volstad, BPJ/SPJ, or Travis Wood -- hopefully even two of them - to emerge as legitimate mid-rotation starters that the team can pencil into the rotation for a couple years.
3) Fonsie to have a mammoth first half that makes him marginally tradeable to a desperate/stupid team.
Yeah - I'm almost always on the tender side of SP handling, but he's 27, coming off a good spring, and was absolutely cruising. I'd have let him try to finish it in that case, too -- and he would have, too, if not for Castro.
His two-seamer had some very nice movement but his off speed stuff is still a work in progress. Still, if he can avoid walking 4-5 per nine innings he will miss enough bats to be effective. I am cautiously optimistic here.
Yeah - I'm almost always on the tender side of SP handling, but he's 27, coming off a good spring, and was absolutely cruising. I'd have let him try to finish it in that case, too -- and he would have, too, if not for Castro.
He also has 35 more starts this year, has never been a full time starter, and hasn't thrown that many pitches at that level of velocity in maybe ever. There is really nothing to gain by having him go out there and pitch the 9th. For the most part all it can be is either neutral or a negative.
Sure, I get that - and like I said, generally speaking I tend to be cautious about early season starts.
But in this case, we WAS cruising, he still had good stuff, and not that there's a magic number, but he started the 9th at about 90 pitches. For a guy transitioning into the rotation full-time who has had some ups and downs, I think a complete game gem does have some confidence value. My POV is shaded by the fact that I don't have a good long-term feel for him; if it were a 22 yo well-thought of prospect, I might want to save him the wear-and-tear, but it's pretty much now or never for Samardzija. I'm not saying that's a license to be reckless with him, but given this season isn't likely to go anywhere, I'd be pushing him as far as I can reasonably push him to see if he really can be a longer term option for the rotation.
He wasn't laboring, his mechanics were sound, and he hadn't thrown a lot of pitches. You see no value, confidence wise, in letting a guy pitch when he still has it?
The big problem here is that Marmol is still the closer, and Marmol looks terrible. His spring training numbers were quite poor, also. I don't know what to do about this, because as of now he can barely get anyone out.
If he stinks in his second start what will that do to his confidence? Not pitching the 9th probably helps him pitch a better second game.
I'll set the initial line at 16.5 - here's the Opening Day roster for posterity:
Jeff Baker
Darwin Barney
Marlon Byrd
Shawn Camp
Lendy Castillo
Starlin Castro
Steve Clevenger
David DeJesus
Ryan Dempster
Blake DeWitt
Rafael Dolis
Matt Garza
Reed Johnson
Bryan LaHair
Paul Maholm
Carlos Marmol
Joe Mather
James Russell
Jeff Samardzija
Alfonso Soriano
Geovany Soto
Ian Stewart
Luis Valbuena
Chris Volstad
Kerry Wood
Barney, Castillo, Castro, Clevenger, Dolis, Russell, BPJ, Volstad, and Wood are the only locks I see. There are several more "likely's" - but there are a lot of cheap spare parts I see moving if Thed decides to go Trader Jack on us.
Then why pitch him in the 8th?
I don't think that's probable at all.
It was a close call -- the idea of easing starters into the season predates sabermetric ideas about the pitch counts. I really doubt that Samardzija suffered any ill effects from throwing 110 pitches, but at the same time, calling it a day at eight innings would have been reasonably cautious. Did Sveum have another bullpen meltdown in mind? Maybe, and yeah, showing them some confidence might be as helpful as showing it for Samardzija. Anyway, I don't fault him for going the way he did.
And before it happens: I think the probability of Samardzija screwing the pooch in his next start is pretty decent whether he threw 90 or 110 pitches yesterday.
12.5
As the guy who set the line, naturally I'm not sure which way to lean. Probably over. By the way, when I said "season's end" I meant game 162, just to clarify.
The thing is, like you say, there aren't many guys who are locks. I don't even think a lot of guys on your list are locks, frankly. Barney, Dolis, Russell and Volstad could all be lousy and get packaged as trade filler or outright released (e.g., Volstad if he's crappy). BPJ could get traded if the front office doesn't like his longterm projection, especially if he remains a passable starter; he does have a 5.0 BB/9 career walk rate to this point, and that's not going to fly with this regime if it doesn't come down dramatically.
THAT'S MY STORY AND I'M STICKING WITH IT!
I also think 70 wins would be a nice number to get too. Anything higher, I'll be pleasantly surprised; anything lower wouldn't be that shocking or disappointing (well, 50 would be pretty damn upsetting).
And yes, zonk, you can just take the under. I'm just taking the over.
I probably got to see a cumulative two innings from this series, so I don't really have much to add other than I can't recall two games to open a Cubs season in recent history where the set-up guy and closer both #### the proverbial bed in both games.
And just because I'm as interested in the performance of Carlos Zambrano and Aramis Ramirez in their new laundry as I am with anything relating to the Cubs: Aramis had a weak opening weekend and Zambrano has a spiffy 6.00 ERA.
Lets' say ... 120.5
I'll take the over, but I feel a little tentative about it. They're the only team in the majors that doesn't have one yet.
Why indeed.
Valbuena is in Iowa, correct?
No, Valbuena's still in the organization, playing for Iowa.
Near-lock sticks: 1 of Baker/DeWitt/Barney, Castro, Clevenger (or is he out of options?), 1 of Volstad/Maholm, Soriano, Stewart, K Wood (7)
Probables: Soto, DeJesus, LaHair, Marmol, Samadzija (5)
Unlikely: 1 of Baker/DeWitt/Barney, Byrd, Dempster, Camp (he might not survive April)
Coin flip/who cares: 1 of Baker/DeWitt/Barney, pretty much any reliever, Johnson, Mather, Valbuena
Big question: Garza
So we'll call it 11 of the first three goups and 5 out of the next group and a Garza coin flip ... damn 16.5 which is quite unlikely to be the correct answer. OK, don't know the options status on Clevenger, Castillo and Dolis but probably all 3 still in the org at the end of the year so I guess I'll take the over.
I'll take the over on 16.5 wins too. :-)
I'd be fine with trading Marmol the moment he regains any semblance of form, but I don't think he's gonna fetch all that much... he's just not the type that a bona fide contender dreaming of title is going to be after.
I dunno. He wasn't very good last year, either, and he looks broken now. His velocity isn't what it used to be, either.
He's always a pitcher for whom there's a thin line between dominant and disastrous, because he can't get the ball over the plate with any consistency and hasn't ever been able to. I'm not saying he'll always be this bad, but if his stuff has slid even a little, there's no guarantee that he'll return to dominance.
He seems to have completely lost that slider... I don't know if he's overthrowing it or what, but it either seems to get away from him or just sort wounded duck its way up there like a big, looping curve.
He was lights out during his 2007 stint, great in 2008 aside from that brief stretch of ineffectiveness*, a white-knuckle ride of wildness in 2009, amazing in 2010, and often hittable in 2011. I think the unsettling thing is that his ineffectiveness last year wasn't so much because of his command issues. They were still a contributing factor, but we saw more hitters square up Marmol's pitches last year than ever before.
As much fun as Marmol has been when he's on, I wouldn't lose any sleep if Theo found a way to move him for anything fungible.
*Remember how that was such an anomaly at the time that many of us in the chatters were genuinely in shock?
Lendy Castillo seems to throw awfully hard... but then, I think all you have to do is imagine a younger Kerry Wood to get the same results.
Would anyone give me 3-1 odds on the team losing 100 games?
I know it's early, but it's awfully hard to say things have gone especially poorly -- yes, the bullpen (and specifically, the two best relievers) have been crappy, but you had to be concerned about them coming in. The offense hasn't impressed, but there's no real reason to expect that it would have. The rotation has been pretty good - Maholm tonight aside - but I thought it would be the most underrated part of this team.
If Garza or Dempster miss 10 starts -- I think the odds of 100 losses are close to 50/50.
All guesswork of course but what makes it more challenging is "in the organization." Sure Rizzo will almost surely be up for the second half of the season. That doesn't make trading Soriano any easier though. Soriano could stink bad enough they just cut him outright of course but if he's decent, he'll stay on the ML roster at least (barring the miracle trade). LaHair would be out of a starting job but it's not clear to my why they wouldn't stick him on the bench -- not a great option but he can take Mather's job. Even if they outright LaHair (or is it designate for assignment), there's no reason for the Cubs to not offer him an assignment to Iowa and he might not have a better offer.
Somewhat similarly Samardzija -- if he stinks, nobody will want him and the Cubs can still use him to eat innings in the rotation or pen; if he's surprisingly good then (a) they don't believe and will try to sell high or (b) they believe it and now he's a decent, cheap, young starter and they won't want to move him. Anyway, the only way I see him not in the organization is if he's traded which, for almost any player, has to be a reasonably low likelihood.
And Soriano is simply an untradeable contract. I know, Hampton and Wells and others prove there's no such thing as an untradeable contract, but I called those contracts untradeable so really the only hope we have for him being traded is me saying there's no way it can happen. :-)
Marmol is an interesting question. I'm not going to be upset if he gets traded at this point but it's a somewhat similar situation to Samardzija -- if Marmol rebounds, the Cubs might well want to keep him; if he doesn't, nobody will want him.
Then there's the DL. Camp could blow out his elbow in his next appearance and he'll be "in the organization" for the rest of the season. Marmol's probably as likely to need surgery as he is to get traded.
Now, if the question was what number would still be in the Cubs org on opening day next season, I'd see a lot more bodies heading out the door.
I'm sure some will disagree but I see no point in having Matt Garza try for a CG with the Cubs leading 8-0.
It's no huge deal, but it's early in the season and this is a time to give your bullpen a little work and maybe not burn out your starters. If the Cubs are going to do anything this season (I know this is questionable on its face) then they are going to need results from their starters and bullpen. Trying to avoid using the bullpen and stretching your starters out is not a very good strategy in mid-April.
I can't say I'm too impressed with Sveum so far in this regard. I know, it's early, and he may have his reasons...
On the brighter side Starlin Castro now has 6 stolen bases through 8 games. That's a nice 120 stolen base rate.
I like Soto as a player but if the Cubs can get some value for him in trade, I wouldn't mind if they pulled the trigger. Both Castillo and Clevenger project to be around a .700 OPS (per ZiPS). Sure, that's a clear downgrade from Geo but a team in their position should take the risk that one of their .700 OPS catchers will improve and freeing up some major league playing time for them is a good way to do that.
The bottom line is that the Cubs have three catchers who look MLB-competent. They're not going anywhere this year, so why wait until next year to try to trade Soto, when he'll be worth less then?
Because I don't think he is worth much on the FA market, probably could be signed to a cheap extension, and his two possible replacements haven't proven yet that they can play at the major league level.
And Cub pitchers are now a combined 0-21 at the plate. Meanwhile Z is 1 for 4! Also 7.5 K/9! Also 6 BB/9 but that doesn't fit my storyline so we'll skip that.
Alas at this point it seems the Cubs would be better suited playing arb clock games with Rizzo and Jackson but Soriano and Byrd are at least making it easy to make the move when the time comes (LaHair to LF). Unfortunately at this point I think the Cubs would find it hard to trade Byrd for anything, even Lincecum. :-)
On the plus side -- well, maybe it's just the offensive decline but the Cubs' peripherals look a lot better than an 84 ERA+.
And Castro's SBs. I knew we didn't have much to pay attention to this season so Castro's drive for 100 steals is a completely unexpected and welcome diversion. Probably not as much fun personally as Dawson's pointless run at 50 or Sammy's pointless 30/30 but cool nonetheless. Cubs' all-time record is 84, 20th century record is 67, liveball/postwar/21st century is 58 (Pierre).
It's the Drive for 85
EDIT: whoa, the Cubs grounded in 4 DP? C'mon, we only had 11 baserunners.
I think the real "watch" for Starlin Castro will be whether he ends up with more steals or with more errors. Currently sitting on 7 steals and 4 errors. As the season wears on I assume that Starlin will slow down a bit on the stolen base front while his error rate might just go up. Joe Tinker has the 20th century record with 72 errors while Todd Burns has the all time Cub error total with 96.
Or the incredibly consistent and consistently bad 1987 Red Sox. Five guys made 91% of their relief appearances, and all five had bad seasons. They won 78 games with only 16 saves.
By ERA, it's the 1930 Phillies: 8.15. And in UER & it's over 9.
By ERA+, it's a tie: 1938 Phillies and the 1920 Cubs: 60. Tiebreaker to the Phillies as their 'pen tossed 286.1 IP vs. 202 for the Cubs.
Since WWII worst ERA+ is the 1953 Tigers: 66. Yes it was a long time ago, but they did throw 402.1 IP. And allowed 40 homers, 203 walks, while fanning 183 for a 6.17 ERA.
Since 1953: 1967 Astros, ERA+ of 70. 427.1 IP, 4.70 ERA in the Astrodome during the New Deadball Era. 43 HR, 164 BB, 318 K.
Since 1967: 1971 Yankees: ERA+ 72 in 288 IP. (Ralph Houk didn't like using his 'pen in general and certainly not with this one). That's tied with the 1980 A's, famous for never being used. No wonder why - they had an ERA+ of 72 (in just 210.1 IP).
Since 1980: with an ERA+ of 74 between the 2010 Diamondbacks. However, that's tied with the 1975 Cubs.
The 2007 Tampa pen deserves a mention too. 497 IP, 6.16 ERA. 77 HR, 251 BB. 605 H.
I doubt it. They're brutal now but not historically bad, and it's not going to get worse than this. It's early and they'll make personnel changes. I wouldn't be surprised if Dolis's next bad outing gets him and his 0.20 K/BB sent back to AAA, especially since Beliveau's off to a good start for Iowa and they could use another lefty. Lopez certainly won't be around long the way he's going either. They'll probably stick with Castillo, but he looks halfway decent and, his bad results notwithstanding, possibly worth the trouble.
It's also worth pointing out that, because the rest of the team has been so crummy, that their worst pitchers have gotten the most work; the top four relievers by IP are Dolis, Lopez, Camp, and Castillo (Sveum really should have gotten Marmol in the game tonight, he hasn't pitched since last Friday).
And at any rate, by OPS+ against, the Cubs pen this year hasn't been worse than Boston, Tampa Bay, or Atlanta.
On the other hand, he's hitting .273/.385/.545, so he's picked up right where he left off last season.
I pegged them at 67 wins on another site and I still think they'll be around that mark.
I didn't realize this was the place we recap minor league daily performances.
Nothing, I was just trying to get more action in the game chatter thread. But your unnecessarily defensive response reminds me that I should have kept my mouth shut, lest you actually start showing up in the game chatters.
So is a baseball season really 172 games long? If the Cubs win 77 games are they 9 games under .500? 76 wins misses a .500 season by 5 games not 10 games.
Let's put this to bed, shall we?
1) If the Cubs had won 4 more games, they'd be over .500 this year.
2) The Cubs are 7 games under .500 this year.
Both statements are true.
Freaking out? I don't think anyone is freaking out now about the Cubs sucking.
If a baseball season was only 14 games long then, yes, the Cubs would have missed being a .500 team by 4 games. Since a baseball season is longer than 14 games the Cubs will need to go +8 wins over X amount of games to get to .500. One is looking to the future and one is looking to the past. This is pretty simple stuff here. I'm not sure why there is a need to quibble on it.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main