There was a point during Game 3 of the National League Division Series between the Cubs and Nationals at which I began to play out some extra-innings scenarios, wondering who would pitch for the Cubs in such a case. We discussed the possibilities a bit in the Live Blog. With Pedro Strop, Carl Edwards Jr., and Wade Davis having already appeared in the game, Mike Montgomery seemed the most likely choice. I suggested John Lackey, though someone commented that he would probably be saved in case Jake Arrieta didn’t go deep into Game 4.

The game never reached extra innings, of course, the Cubs coming back for a 2-1 win (box). The next day, though, some of our questions were answered when Arrieta failed to pitch deep into Game 4. It wasn’t John Lackey who relieved Arrieta, however, but Jon Lester. With three days of rest thanks to an earlier rain delay, Lester pitched 3.2 innings in relief to keep the game at a 1-0 deficit. Unfortunately, Carl Edwards Jr. and Wade Davis allowed the deficit to expand, and now the Cubs must win today to advance their season. And just like last year, it appears as though Joe Maddon has lost trust in his bullpen.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have to admit to a bias. I’ve been aware of Tanner Roark since he entered the major leagues a few years ago, but my evaluation failed to evolve. In my head, Roark was still the guy he was when he made his first impression, as a strike-throwing and hittable sort who seemed to pitch with the intent of beating his peripherals. It is my job to try to know as much as I can, and I concede that this is my own failing, but in my partial defense, Roark hasn’t been close to the most interesting member of the Nationals’ pitching staff. Why would I choose to concentrate on Roark, when I could focus instead on Max Scherzer or Stephen Strasburg?

I have to admit to another bias. I find it tempting to believe that the larger population perceives things in the same way that I do. I haven’t kept up with Roark; therefore, I bet no one has kept up with Roark. Sometimes this gut feeling is correct. Sometimes, I’m just out of the loop. In any case, I’m about to put you all to the test. This isn’t going to be about me anymore.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday, the Nationals lost Game 3 of their division series to the Cubs 2-1, and now trail by the same margin in the series. Despite a brilliant outing from Max Scherzer, the Cubs managed to plate a couple of runs against the team’s bullpen, putting the team on the brink of elimination in the first round once again. And because the Cubs got their runs with Sammy Solis and Oliver Perez on the mound, with Max Scherzer, Ryan Madson and Sean Doolittle all watching, Dusty Baker has come under fire for his bullpen management once again.

But on this one, I have to say that the criticism feels a bit unfair. If we look at the circumstances and what actually happened, it seems like Baker mostly made reasonable decisions.

Read the rest of this entry »

In Monday’s pivotal Game 3, the Cubs beat the Nationals because Anthony Rizzo hit a stupid little doink. The inning before, the game was tied up when Albert Almora came off the bench to rip an RBI single. Almora hit for Kyle Schwarber, who had opened the door for the Nationals in the top of the sixth when two errors on the same play gave Daniel Murphy three bases. Almora hit for Schwarber because Dusty Baker relieved Max Scherzer with Sammy Solis for some reason. Scherzer was relieved immediately after allowing his first hit of his entire game, which was 19 outs old.

For a game that had only seven hits and three runs, there’s an awful lot there for people to talk about. The Cubs now find themselves in a commanding position, after coming uncomfortably close to getting shut out. There’s resiliency to discuss. Baseball luck. Managerial second-guessing. There’s almost everything you could possibly want. I’d like to discuss a called ball in the top of the fifth inning that didn’t matter for beans.

Read the rest of this entry »

In Saturday’s game against the Washington Nationals, manager Joe Maddon allowed right-handed pitcher Carl Edwards Jr. to face left-handed dynamo Bryce Harper with a runner on first and one out, his Cubs leading by two in the bottom of the eighth inning. Harper hit a two-run shot to tie the game. Three batters later, lefty Mike Montgomery would allow a three-run homer to righty Ryan Zimmerman, giving the Nationals a decisive lead. Managerial decisions that lead to playoff losses tend to draw scrutiny, but this particular set of moves seems pretty defensible.

To briefly review, a few relevant facts:

• In Game 1 on Friday, Kyle Hendricks pitched seven strong innings. Carl Edwards followed with a perfect eighth inning, striking out Trea Turner, inducing a weak blooper (for an out) from Bryce Harper, and then striking out Anthony Rendon. Wade Davis pitched the ninth.
• The Cubs bullpen has four right-handers: Wade Davis, Carl Edwards, John Lackey, and Pedro Strop.
• The Cubs bullpen has three left-handers: Brian Duensing, Montgomery, and Justin Wilson.
• In Game 2, Jon Lester pitched six innings, and Pedro Strop pitched the seventh inning.

Based on both the first game and then the first seven innings of Game 2, it seems as though Joe Maddon had established a pretty clear pecking order for his bullpen, featuring Wade Davis at the top of the depth chart and Carl Edwards just below. One might place Pedro Strop third on that list, although an argument could be made for Mike Montgomery, too, depending on the matchup. In any case, if there was any doubt regarding Maddon’s feelings about Edwards, his decision to use the the right-hander in the eighth inning of Game 2 erased it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tonight, the Chicago Cubs begin their attempt to become the first team to repeat as champions since the New York Yankees won three in a row from 1998 to 2000. Since free agency really took hold about 40 years ago, the only other team to win consecutive titles has been Toronto in 1992 and 1993. Since integration, the A’s, Blue Jays, Reds, and Yankees are the only franchises to repeat — and the runs by Cincinnati, Oakland, and (in one case) New York all occurred in the 1970s. While parity seemingly drives the game, a repeat isn’t impossible, and the Cubs have passed the all-important first step of making the playoffs.

That’s not to say it was easy. The Cubs dug themselves a hole early this season, going 43-45 before the All-Star break, about eight wins shy of where the projections thought they’d be at that point. In the second half, however, they produced a 49-25 record, about six wins better than the projections called for. In the end, the club fell just a few games short of their preseason forecasts and made the playoffs without much trouble.

As I wrote in September, it’s hard to characterize this Cubs team as one that’s underachieved. While some have attributed the club’s early-season difficulties to a “hangover” effect from last year’s championship, there’s not much evidence that the club actually underperformed reasonable expectations, receiving strong campaigns from a number of their stars and good production from unexpected sources. There’s also little evidence that World Series hangovers exist in the first place.

More on that second point in a moment. First, let’s consider the team’s most important players. We begin with Kris Bryant. The Cubs’ third baseman might not be clutch, but he recorded his third consecutive season of six wins or better, finishing sixth in the majors by WAR. And about his clutch performance: while it might be fair to say he hasn’t been clutch, that’s obvious different than being clutch. Keep in mind that the 150 wRC+ Bryant has recorded in low- and medium-leverage situations has occurred over 1,801 plate appearances; the 87 wRC+ he’s produced in high-leverage situations, meanwhile, is the result of just 213 plate appearances.

A sample of 213 PAs is obviously subject to considerable variation. For example, did you notice when, in the 197 regular-season plate appearances between September 2 of last year and April 23 of this one, that Bryant recorded an 82 wRC+? Probably not. (Especially since he recorded a 148 wRC+ in the middle of it during last year’s postseason.) Those 197 PA where Bryant wasn’t so good obviously don’t represent his real talent level. They occurred over an interval of two different seasons and he actually played well in the middle of that span. So naturally, if those somehwat disjointed 200-or-so plate appearances don’t reflect the real Bryant, it’s possible that the other 200-or-so high-leverage plate appearances — spread out over three years and inclusive only of regular-season play — likely don’t, either. Probably best not to make a big deal over them.

Read the rest of this entry »

This season, 144 players reached the 502-plate-appearance threshold necessary to qualify for the batting title. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there were 190 position players who tallied between one and 99 PA for the season. In between, there were 291 position players. Some of these were starters who simply missed time due to injury (Bryce Harper, for example) or the nature of their position (Salvador Perez) or because they weren’t major leaguers yet at the start of the season (Paul DeJong), but some of them are what we’d call true part-time players. At this time of year, we generally focus on the very best players. It’s awards season, after all. Part-time players get less shine. So let’s focus on them today, at the very least.

I’ve done this exercise once before, back in 2012. Now, as then, I’ve parsed the list to give us a clear picture of who is really a part-time player. My favorite tool for this exercise is the “Lineups and Defense” pages on Baseball-Reference. When they redesigned the website recently (I think it was recently? Maybe it was last year? I don’t know, I don’t even remember what I had for dinner on Thursday.) I experienced a few panicky minutes when I couldn’t find the pages, but fortunately they’re still there. Phew.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jon Lester pitches tonight against the Cardinals in St. Louis, and how he performs in that start may have some impact on his postseason rotation spot. The 33-year-old lefty is in the middle of his worst season by most metrics, and he’s had an ERA over 5.00 in the second half, so it’s only gotten worse. There are plenty of reasons to be worried about the pitches the Cubs starter is throwing right now. Even more worrisome might be the pitches he’s not throwing anymore, though.

Read the rest of this entry »

With still roughly two weeks left in the regular season, the divisional races across the major leagues have sputtered and nearly died. Three divisions have already been clinched. The Los Angeles Dodgers have already guaranteed themselves a playoff berth and should secure the National League West in short order. Beyond the Wild Card races, then, the NL Central and AL East remain the only hope for meaningful baseball over the season’s closing weeks. The Cubs have a four-game lead in the former and 96.6% odds of taking the division. The Red Sox, meanwhile, possess a three-game lead in the latter and 89.6% odds.

The Cubs have four games this week with the Brewers in Milwaukee. That series has a chance to facilitate some of the season’s most consequential games, provided Milwaukee can remain within striking distance of Chicago in the meantime. As for the Red Sox, though, don’t play the second-place Yankees again, which will make it tougher for the latter club to make up ground.

The bright side of having these races more or less decided is that we can start to look at the potential rosters for the League Division Series a little sooner. I’ll begin today with the American League. For the purposes of this exercise, I’ll proceed by the odds and regard the Red Sox as the presumptive winners of the East. If that turns out not to be the case, feel free to come back here in October and squawk at me.

Read the rest of this entry »

All things being equal, the Chicago Cubs find themselves in a very good position at the moment. They’re three games ahead of the Cardinals and 2.5 ahead of the Brewers in the NL Central. And while 11 of their final 17 games feature either St. Louis or Milwaukee, our playoff odds give Chicago an 87.5% chance of qualifying for the postseason, with the club avoiding the Wild Card game in almost every scenario. Last year’s World Champions, it appears, will have an opportunity to defend their title.

Yet the season seems slightly disappointing. The Cubs are likely headed to 88-90 wins instead of the 95-96 for which they were projected at the beginning of year — and well short of the 103 victories they recorded last season when they clinched the division on September 15. Given the expectations, it’s fair to wonder not only if the Cubs are underachieving but also, further, if we could have seen this coming.

Heading into the season, the Cubs were projected for around 49 WAR. Simply adding that total to the 47 or so wins a replacement-level team should garner gives you 96 wins. Right now, the Cubs are “on pace” for 88 wins. The FanGraphs model calls for 89 wins because it integrates projections (which are generally strong for Cubs players). In either case, though, Chicago will almost certainly fall short of their preseason forecast.

Let’s try and figure out where those eight wins (or, really, seven wins because 10% of the season remains) went. We can start by simply consulting the BaseRuns standing, which indicate that the Cubs would have 82 (and not 79) wins right now if the sequencing of all their hits and homers and outs was more evenly distributed. So of those seven aforementioned wins, we can account for three of them right away — unless we somehow believe that this Cubs team, composed mostly of players who won three playoff series last year, is fundamentally “unclutch,” that is. But that’s unlikely.

So, based on performance, the Cubs are at 81 wins instead of 85, essentially within 5% of their projection from the beginning of the season. That seems pretty good, not really the look of an underachiever.

Read the rest of this entry »