Quantcast

junior lake battingYour regular Net Neutrality update: presently, the FCC is still on schedule to vote this Thursday on a new rule that would allow Internet service providers to create a “fast lane” of service for sites/services that are willing to pay to speed up their connections with consumers at that ISP. It’s a dangerous, scary proposition if you support ingenuity, smaller sites/services, and steady Internet access costs, and you can read more about it here and here. According to a TIME article, however, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is feeling quite a bit of pressure to delay that vote and/or change his proposal.

  • Travis Wood told Cubs.com that the first thing he did after last night’s start was give Jeff Samardzija a hug and said, “Sorry.” Wood just started a game in which the Cubs scored 17 runs – in Samardzija’s eight starts, combined, the Cubs have scored just 15 runs. Baseball, man.
  • Those 17 runs moved the Cubs into 9th in runs scored in the NL. The game also moved the Cubs’ run differential to -4 (the’ve scored just four fewer runs than they’ve given up), which obviously puts them right in the middle of the pack in baseball. Indeed, based on their runs scored and allowed, you would expect the Cubs to have a record closer to 18-19. That they are 11 games under .500 gives them, by far, the worst difference between actual and expected record in all of baseball. Bad luck? Something cosmic? Something explainable? If every team in the NL Central had its expected record, the Cubs would be just about two games out of first place. Baseball, man. (As far as actual answers to these questions at this point, I’m just going to say “small sample size,” and suggest that the Cubs’ true talent level is probably somewhere in between their actual and expected records. To my eye, this is, say, a 16-21 team. Not a playoff contender, but not a bottom two team, either. Of course, come the July sell-off, they could be.)
  • After yet another “one big game,” Junior Lake’s line is back up to .255/.282/.459 (96 OPS+), which marked a 71(!) point OPS increase from the day before. His BABIP on the year is up to .404, and his strikeout rate is still at 41.3%. I’m glad he had a huge game, at least.
  • The Cubs will be painting the marquee at Wrigley Field green with gold trim this week as part of the 1930s decade homestand at the Friendly Confines, back when that’s what the marquee looked like. They’ll be doing the painting on Wednesday, May 14 (i.e., tomorrow), and there will be a little event in the morning where you can watch the painting, get a free shirt, and do a little painting yourself (not quite on the marquee, obviously). More details on the painting here, as well as the upcoming homestand.
  • Jose Veras threw 32 pitches in his most recent rehab outing at Tennessee (only 18 strikes), which suggests he must be feeling pretty good with respect to his oblique strain. For now, the Cubs aren’t commenting on when he could be back (Cubs.com). If and when he’s ready to return, the Cubs are going to have a bullpen decision to make, because I really don’t think dumping Veras is going to be a realistic option. With eight in the pen already, the decision might not be too difficult, with Zac Rosscup and Brian Schlitter the last two to arrive. One of them could be optioned back to Iowa.
  • That Cubs.com piece notes that Justin Ruggiano (hamstring) could be getting close a rehab stint. He’s been out since April 23. Ryan Sweeney is also rehabbing his hamstring injury, though his came more than a week after Ruggiano’s.
  • Jason Hammel, for the win. Which is to say, he thinks the W/L pitcher stat is “unfair,” which I will take to mean “stupid.” I like the cut of your jib, Jason Hammel.
  • Tony Andracki on Nate Schierholtz and his struggles this year.
  • A very interesting read from FanGraphs on the baserunning component of WAR, and how it can – in my read – be a little unfair.
  • SenorGato

    I can’t enough of how it’s 2014 and the “W/L record for pitchers is dumb” thing is still going on. It’s such a dying belief that I’m sold this is the debate’s last hurrah (hopefully, seriously it was done a decade ago).

    I remain as optimistic as possible about 2014. So much time left that I haven’t even ruled out buying an OFer come trade deadline time. This team isn’t as humiliating as the past 3 or 4 or 5, thanks Rizzo/Castro!

    • Jason P

      In order for us to be buyers at the trade deadline, we’d need to be about 5 games above .500.

      In order for that to happen, we’d have to go 43-27 between now and July 30th. I’m sorry, but that just isn’t going to happen.

      • SenorGato

        Where’d the 5 over .500 rule come from?

      • JB88

        I think the Cubs should/could be buyers at the trade deadline no matter whether they are in contention or not. If they see a player available that fits their model, by all means, they should go out and get that player. Especially if they think that 2015 could be a surprise year for them.

        • fester30

          Problem with a losing team buying at the deadline is it tends to be more costly in money and/or talent than buying in the offseason. Buying at the deadline will cost you prospects that another losing team wants, and usually that losing team is only giving away a rent-a-player, aging veteran with little future upside. There are some gems out there (Aramis in 2003). There are also Sorianos. As good as the Soriano trade has been for the Yankees, we don’t want to trade high upside young guys for even highly producing old guys in the twilight until we know they could boost us over the top.

          • Darth Ivy

            I expect the Cubs to improve the big league team this off season via trade.

            Or maybe that’s more of a hope…

          • JB88

            All valid points and probably a more likely situation, but my point was more that, if a player is available that the Cubs want this summer, they should go get him (and I would expect a Theo-led FO would do that).

            • jp3

              Depends, does said player we’d want at the trade deadline cost money? If so then you can count us out

              • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

                All baseball players cost money, they aren’t indentured servants.

                • jp3

                  I was being sarcastic so I guess I’m not surprised that I was met by a sarcastic response. I guess to the statement we would think about a trade to being in an upgrade in mlb talent I should’ve just responded with… No. Because an increase in salary at the deadline isn’t going to happen, that has become painfully obvious that we are nowhere close to spending more money on player salaries.

                  • CubFan Paul

                    “Because an increase in salary at the deadline isn’t going to happen”

                    Not according to Theo

                    • jp3

                      I would bet a lot of money there is zero chance the cubs ADD salary at the deadline. I’m sure I’m not alone in that statement.

                    • ssckelley

                      jp3, I disagree….I think if the right deal came along that Theo thinks could help the team in 2015 he would add payroll. Probably not likely to happen but I would not bet against it and I definitely there is a better than zero chance of it happening.

                    • jp3

                      0.3% chance. I agree with you most of the time ssckelley but he says it best this time😃

                      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=238kiM8AOLs

                    • ssckelley

                      [img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLAGb-88e0qWHI3gxKWr9j1ROtjXJUER3DfgqMTh8ydRGj-mAn[/img]

                    • jp3

                      Dang, your meme is better than my video. I don’t think it’s theo’s fault but I hope you’re right

              • ssckelley

                I disagree, I think the Cubs having the ability to offer salary relief to a team wanting to improve their playoff chances is an asset to have at the TDL.

                • jp3

                  I just don’t see a potential player that a playoff caliber team would have that they’d want to dump his salary because his contract is hurting their pocket, plus if he’s not not on the upside of his career he wouldn’t fit what we’re trying to do anyways.

                  • Chad

                    Dodgers and Matt Kemp. Not sure I want, but just saying. Or Eithier.

                    • ssckelley

                      If Olt keeps hitting how about Olt for Kemp along with cash? Third base is a position of need for the Dodgers and an organizational strength for the Cubs.

                    • jp3

                      I’d be all for taking either player but it’s not going to happen. In the words of David Spade in tommy boy. theo and Jed “could sell a ketchup Popsicle to a woman in white gloves”.

                • Brocktoon

                  We thought that last year and then we had the Yankees pick up a chunk of sorianos contract and gave away Dejesus for the right to not pay him anymore

            • Noah_I

              Well, here’s the conundrum question on this front. The Rays keep struggling, and David Price is available. And I don’t care that his ERA is a 4.53, he’s striking out 9 batters an inning and walking 1. He currently has a HR/FB rate and BABIP way above career norms, and those two of the least predictable stats, especially in small sample sizes. As far as his peripherals are concerned, he’s having the best year of his career.

              So Price becomes available. And, based upon the teams that are in on Price, let’s say the Rangers, Blue Jays, etc., you’re looking at teams that COULD extend him. This might be the Cubs’ only shot to get Price, who won’t hit free agency until after 2015. I’d be perfectly fine with the Cubs using a good number of their prospects to get Price right now. Or if, say, someone like Stanton became available.

              But I’d rather not the Cubs be buyers if the usual assortment of players are on the market. In other words, I don’t want them trading for a 35 year old Cliff Lee, if the best pitcher on the market is a Matt Garza type I don’t want them trading for him, and I don’t want them trading for 30+ year old outfielders.

              • CubFan Paul

                “The Rays keep struggling, and David Price is available”

                He’s also making $18MM this year, so he’s definitely getting traded soon.

                • DocPeterWimsey

                  “The Rays keep struggling, and David Price is available”

                  However, luckily for the Rays (and the Sox and the Yanks and the O’s and the Jays), everybody in the ALE is scuffling. Basically, they are all about 0.500 teams so far, and they are all playing below expectations.

                  So, on one hand, almost all of these teams would be sitting in a bad place in the ALC or ALW; but because each team has had the good fortune to see every other team play mediocre ball, they are all still alive.

                  (This, incidentally, is the biggest source of luck in sports: what your rivals do in games against 3rd teams.)

              • Chad

                Holy crap 9K/inning, this dude is magic! I don’t see the cubs trading for Price. They could spend that money on Scherzer or Lester, or Shields or Shark and not have to give up the prospects. I also think there will be some concern over his arm health in the future. He has pitched a lot of innings.

                • Noah_I

                  LOL. Whoops, typo. I agree, the Cubs would be more inclined to bid on the starters who currently appear to be likely to be available this offseason, especially since there could be 2 who I consider true aces (Scherzer and Lester) and 2 who I consider 1A type pitchers (types I’d prefer as my 2, but you can more than live with as your 1, in Shields and Masterson). Especially since, based on the Cubs statements that they could have added Tanaka to this roster at 6 years/$120 million they should, even after arbitration raises, have about $25-$30 million extra to spend next season (Soriano comes off the books), the Cubs should be able to bid with anyone on the prospects.

                  My bet is that the Cubs let the Yankees and co. go crazy on Scherzer and focus on Lester, whom the organization knows very well.

                  I’m just saying I wouldn’t be opposed to the Cubs trading for Price, nor would I be surprised by it.

                  • Chad

                    I think the cubs could get Lester and Shields in their budget or Lester and Masterson perhaps, either way as much as I like Scherzer and Price, I think their price ($ or prospects) are too high. In Price’s case you get 1 or 1.5 years out of him and the right to pay him top dollar which will be in the Scherzer, Hernandez, Kershaw range. Plus his arbitration cost is going to be high.

                    I’d rather see Samardzija and Lester at the top followed by Wood, Jackson, Arrieta, but who knows. I will not be surprised by anything this FO does either.

                    • Noah_I

                      I’d be perfectly happy with your preferred result.

                    • Head and Heart

                      Trade Shark for a really good hitter then sign Lester and Shields. Pitching remains as good. Lineup improves. There aren’t many bats in free agency that excite.

                    • Brocktoon

                      I think its pretty unlikely we wind up with 2 of the top 5 pitchers on the market. After refusing to commit to anything but unicorns as Kyle put it, only to drop 35m/y in one offseason not only on guys in their 30s, but pitchers in their 30s??

              • Jon

                Using prospects to get David Price seems like a Jim Hendry(ish) move.

                • Noah_I

                  The only comparable-ish move would be the Garza one, and there would be a two big differences between those moves.

                  1) Garza was a mid-rotation starter with upside and strong playoff performances at the time of trade. Price is, and has been for some time, a legit ace.

                  2) Garza was a win-now move, a part of Hendry’s last ditch effort to make the team look competitive in 2011 to save his job. Price would not be brought in to make the team competitive now, but to get the ace in hand for when the team is competitve.

                  As I said above, though, my bet is that the Cubs pick up a free agent unless a bunch of them have extended before July, and focus on Lester. I just wouldn’t be surprised for them to be in on Price. There just aren’t that many teams with the prospects to get Price, and, once you get past the contenders, the Cubs are pretty much the only non-contender that both has the prospects to get Price and the money to keep him.

          • ssckelley

            This is true but I can see the Cubs being in the mix for a surplus outfielder (Dodgers perhaps?) or getting near MLB ready players in return. IMO, the Cubs don’t need a bunch of prospects, it is time for them to stack the MLB team.

            • Head and Heart

              Every team needs a bunch of prospects. All the time.

              • ssckelley

                The Cubs need MLB ready players a lot more than they need prospects, which was the point I was making.

                • http://deepcenterfield.mlblogs.com/ Jason Powers

                  Joc Pederson…not like we can afford or want to afford Kemp or Crawford…

                • Eternal Pessimist

                  Just as long as Theo doesn’t trade a mediocre now for a good to great future.

                • Head and Heart

                  If they are making trades they should get the best possible return of talent. Whether they are MLB ready now or not.

                  • ssckelley

                    [img]https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcirk4L6KjHEIJWMVG0jqs3CMd0nrx3Ou1dv6VKoyIb9Tyn4qi[/img]

    • Head and Heart

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

      Watch this but substitute pitcher wins for climate change.

  • Spriggs

    Is it true the Cubs have played only 8 games this year against teams with .500 or better records? 1-7 record against .500 teams if I read that right. They are playing teams at the right time if nothing else.

  • CubsFaninMS

    Well, Brett, it means that you see a picture of the Arizona desert and an eagle chirping on offense when Samardzija pitches… and a constant tug of war between creating runs on the offense and Edwin Jackson’s scientific, uncannily (word?) perfect formulaic success in matching those runs exactly, inning for inning, when he is pitching.

  • Jason P

    Also worth mentioning: before last night, our percent chance of making the playoffs according to ESPN was 5.1%. After the game? 10.9%.

    • Darth Ivy

      Oh, my

      • Edwin

        Fangraphs has the Cubs at .5%.

        • Jason P

          That’s probably more accurate.

          • Funn Dave

            No doubt.

    • Brocktoon

      That seems…flawed

    • DarthHater

      Before I read this, my respect for ESPN was 0.01%. After reading it: 0.001%.

      • http://deepcenterfield.mlblogs.com/ Jason Powers

        That is an over response: they only doubled the chances; you have to match it by halving your respect for them.

        I havent watched ESPN for 5 years. Aside from bar times.

    • http://deepcenterfield.mlblogs.com/ Jason Powers

      If beating the Cards doubles the chances of making the playoffs everyday, we should just do that…;)

  • CubChymyst

    The Cubs had a worse record last year when compared to run differential. It could be an trend for teams that have a decent pitching staff and a poor offense to under perform their run differentials.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

      That’s something that could be checked out, if anyone has the time to dive into it.

  • Jon

    One of my favorite quotes is from Bill Parcells:

    “you are what your record says you are”

    The Cubs are a 13-24 team and that’s the bottom line.

    • Edwin

      Football isn’t baseball. There is more variance in performance between good football teams and bad football teams compared to good baseball teams and bad baseball teams.

      • Eternal Pessimist

        …and he isn’t right. You could be a 4 and 12 football team with a positive point differential and have lost every close game…possibly with bad luck bounces or some magical wind suddenly pushing a field goal to the left…or you played a much tougher schedule then normal.

        Ultimately you have to overcome the barriers presented, but to say you are (as good as) what your record is inaccurate.

        • Edwin

          It does make for a better T-shirt though.

        • http://deepcenterfield.mlblogs.com/ Jason Powers

          Baseball – 10 times the ability to rectify the problem. Parcells was giving a sound bite but also a truism: “You can make excuses, and do analysis expertly post hoc, but you can’t undo what the result is. You are what happened.”

          I can say I was gonna be a X, but Y got in my way, and Z was the result. But A x B x C says X should happen R% of the time. Well, (1-R)% happened.

          “Shit happened.” that’s the T-shirt.

      • itzscott

        >> Football isn’t baseball. <<

        That may be true, but the one commonality is that once the game over it's in the books and it's either a win or a loss which can't be changed no matter the woulda, coulda and shoulda's.

        • Head and Heart

          Wait, really??

        • Edwin

          Nobody is saying differently.

        • Head and Heart

          Sorry to be so snarky. But I don’t think the point is to play the woulda, shoulda, coulda, game. I doubt that’s what Bret was doing. It’s more about understanding how good, or bad is more accurate, the team really is so far and what we might reasonably expect moving forward.

          • jp3

            I just think we’re “clutch” at losing. We do it almost better than anyone in baseball, Brett is saying that our team run differential is middle of the pack but some way we find a way to lose…TWTL

            • http://deepcenterfield.mlblogs.com/ Jason Powers

              In an analysis done, the Cubs were substantially bad in 1-run games over 16 seasons 98-13. Whereas the Yankees were of course, substantially better. Of course having the Sandman down there helped. Say what you will, the Yankees get mileage out of their guys. And keep them around long, long after the Cubs traditionally would have shipped them off.
              1-Run games – Projected Pythagorean is the last column…and you see the actual record in 3rd and 4th columns.

              CHC 2002 18 36 197 215 .460
              CHC 2012 15 27 151 163 .465
              CHC 2006 15 26 157 168 .469
              CHC 2013 20 33 180 193 .468
              CHC 2004 19 30 177 188 .472
              CHC 2010 22 32 175 185 .475
              CHC 2009 16 22 139 145 .481
              CHC 2011 25 28 183 186 .493
              CHC 2000 27 30 270 273 .495
              CHC 2007 23 22 170 169 .503
              CHC 2001 26 24 190 188 .505
              CHC 1999 26 24 242 240 .504
              CHC 2008 24 22 179 177 .505
              CHC 1998 30 27 270 267 .505
              CHC 2005 26 20 165 159 .517
              CHC 2003 27 17 164 154 .529

    • bbmoney

      The bottom line for what their record is as of May 12th? Absolutely. But it’s not the bottom line for how they’ll play moving forward, which is really all that matters at this point. Granted…..it makes them more likely to trade guys and sooner, but it’s not the bottom line.

      That quote will ring more true to me after game 162.

  • Orval Overall

    Re: Run Differential and Expected Wins.

    I’m far from an expert statistician, but it always seems to me these kinds of observations are misleading when they only look to total runs. A bad opponent pitching performance or ideal hitting whether can help you pile up bunches of runs in a single game, lifting your total runs as well as your average (mean) runs per game.

    It seems to me a different type of average is probably more useful – median runs scored per game. That’s going to be a better measure of your typical game than the mean precisely because it isn’t as influenced by an aberrational 12 run game (5 days ago) or 17 run game.

    The Cubs median runs per game this season? 3. Median runs allowed? 4. (And of the two numbers, the median for runs allowed was closer to a higher number – a 5 run game is just one spot off the median – than the runs scored was to a higher number – the first 4 run game is two spots off the median).

    That to me doesn’t say “expected record 18-19.” It might point to your more reasonable 16-21 estimate, but I’d even say it’s a bit worse than that.

    • JB88

      This strikes me as the right way to look at things too.

      The question I have, though, is there anything statistically significant that we can draw from the Cubs’ random outbursts of runs scored in a game? It seems to me that the Cubs offense has the potential to be better than in prior years, but it has been really hit or miss. I wonder if there is anything to glean from those games in which the offense does explode and is there a trend that could be found.

    • Noah_I

      In a 37 game sample size, Pythagorean record is much less accurate than it is in a 162 game sample, for the reasons you state. What Pythagoran record assumes is that, over the course of a season, runs will be evenly distributed. Of course they aren’t, but it’s fairly likely that, over time, a team that is capable of scoring 4 runs in a whole series then 17 runs in one game will even out a bit. In other words, the Cubs’ ability to have enough huge wins to make their run differential so close indicates a meaningful possibility of an ability to score runs generally.

      Personally, I think the Cubs’ current run differential is currently more positive than the Cubs’ actual talent, and the Cubs’ record is more negative than their actual talent. I’m sticking with my prediction that this team wins 69-75 games this season.

      • Brocktoon

        They’ve dug quite a big hole with the games that have already taken place such that preseason predictions should be scaled downwards. I csnt ikagine them okaying a game under 500 from here on out to hit your 75 win total. I had them at 69 wins preseason, I’ll say another 66-96 now

  • Pauly68

    I’m as big of a Cubs fan as there is, but this team will lose at least 100 and possibly 110 games. 100 is my optimism bleeding through.

    • JB88

      The Cubs have lost 100 games three times in their history. A history that spans 138 seasons. They likelihood that they lose 100 games is pretty small, actually.

      • 1060Ivy

        Cubs are currently on pace for 57 – 105 and are expected to again trade away MLB talent for prospects prior to July so while it may be unlikely from an 100+ year history it plausible to likely based on current history

        • Edwin

          That’s exactly why looking at run differential can be helpful in this situation.

          • Eternal Pessimist

            And the replacement parts may be better than the trade parts in some cases (bryant, alcantara, baez coming in for barney, schierholtz, bonificio). Could be addition by subtraction, with the exception of shark and hammel.

            • 1060Ivy

              Addition by subtraction?

              Cubs are expecting to trade MLB talent – Shark and Hammels – and receive prospects which most likely won’t be MLB ready so the MLB roster talent level decreases but you are expecting September call ups and other MiLB talent will more than offset this decrease to this loss of talent.

              Beyond financial rationale, there’s another reason why Bryant, Baez, Alcantara aren’t on the MLB squad. These guys aren’t ready. Hopefully, they will be and they will be soon but July and August of this season is premature.

              • Eternal Pessimist

                Disagree on Alcantara and Bryant. Baez is lookin baffled now but we know how hw rolls (eventually). Wether they are up or not probably will have less to do with wether they are ready (except Baez who clearly isn’t right now) and more on whether they are willing to burn up control…but if they trade pieces someone will need to fill in so maybe.

                I deliberately excluded shark and Hammels in my comments.

      • Brocktoon

        Cubs history had no bearing on the current team. Its also incredibly misleading to use 138 years when the 162 game schedule didn’t cone into being until 1961 and pre 1900 was a disorganized mess when it came to schedules

    • itzscott

      Just my feeling that as the season progresses with hopefully Lake & Olt settling in as major leaguers and maybe another prospect or two coming up, the offense will perk up significantly and the Cubs will not lose 100 games.

  • DarthHater

    The significance of small sample size is diminished, in my opinion, by the fact that this is the second season in a row that the Cubs have outperformed the record predicted by their run differential. Two explanatory hypotheses come to mind: (1) the Cubs are better than their record but mysteriously underpeforming; (2) the Cubs are a crappy team with pitching that is decent enough to prevent a lot of blow-out losses but offense that is so horrendous that they still can’t win very many games. Hypothesis (2) seems more fact-based and preferable to “bad luck” or “it’s baseball, man.”

  • ThePope

    Don’t look now, but Mike Olt is leading all MLB 3rd basemen in home runs with WAY less at bats. He does have a lot of room for improvement in many areas, but his HR/AB is right at the top in MLB. Time to play every day???

    • Edwin

      Sure. And he has been lately.

    • ssckelley

      I think Olt is earning his playing time. I really liked how RR has eased Olt into the lineup. I know many disagreed with the April platooning but I think it has paid off.

      I get giddy thinking of the power potential the Cubs lineup could have if Olt sticks at 3rd, Bryant ends up in left, and possibly Baez at 2nd. Get us a healthy Soler in right and this Cubs offense could be pretty darn good next season.

  • 5412

    Hi,

    I picked up on the run differential and I thank Brett for mentioning it.

    It would make sense to couple that stat with how poorly they do with RISP.

    I ASK THIS QUESTION. How much difference would one more decent bat in the middle of the lineup make in the team record?

    I hate to use this example, but you just knew that Molina was going to drive in a run with two out last night, even when he had two strikes. A good #5 and #6 hitter in the lineup would likely make a hell of a difference in our record.

    My concern is just what would be be trading our chips for at the trading deadline? If we could find another Aramis Ramirez it would make more sense to me than a bunch of kids who might be good in 3-4 years.

    regards,
    5412

    • Brocktoon

      Yeah you just know Molina is going to drive that run in except for when he doesn’t LIKE THAT OTHER AB HE HAD LAST NIGHT

  • Medicos

    Isn’t it amazing how just a few hours after beating the crap out of the Cardinals changed so many BNers perceptions of the 2014 Cubs. This is not an MLB team that is going to turn its season around like the Rockies, As and Dodgers have amazingly done in the past few years.. Even for the Cubs to achieve their 66 Win- 96 Loss average over the past 3 seasons they’d have to go 53-72 .424 % for the rest of the year. If HOYSTEIN starts “flipping” starting pitching, the team’s greatest strength, it’s gonna be difficult to even play .424 winning baseball.

    • 5412

      Hi,

      My opinion did not change last night after the lit up the scoreboard. They were 12 games under with a -16 run differential. To me that signifies that they are one or two hits away from winning most of the games they lost.

      I am sick of the 1-9 or 0-7 RISP stat. If they could just hit anything close to their team BA with RISP they would be close. When they were 12-24, a four game difference would make them 16-20. For the last couple weeks I have felt they are one impact hitter and one good hitter away from being semi-decent. I did not say contenders but they sure as hell would not be the second worst team in baseball.

      regards,
      5412

    • DarthHater

      Who’s perception of the team has changed based on last night’s game? We can wait…

  • Pingback: Dude, the Chicago Cubs Always Underperform Their Expected Record | Bleacher Nation | Unofficial Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+