Joe Maddon Had a Bad Night

Last night, the Cubs lost Game 2 of the NLCS to the Dodgers and now head back to Chicago down 2-0 in the series. They lost on a Justin Turner walk-off home run, but the big story after the game was who threw the pitch that Turner drove over the center-field fence. John Lackey, a career starter who had never pitched on back-to-back days, was brought in to face Chris Taylor with a man on in the ninth inning. Wade Davis, the team’s best reliever, did not pitch.

Last year, Buck Showalter was excoriated for leaving Zach Britton in the bullpen to watch Ubaldo Jimenez end the team’s season, and given the drastic shift we saw in postseason reliever usage after that happened, it seemed like no one was in any hurry to be the next guy to lose a road game while holding his closer for a save situation that would never come. After a few weeks of pretty aggressive reliever usage — Maddon called on Davis in the seventh inning of Game 5 on Thursday, after all — this was a pretty surprising decision, and Maddon is taking a lot of heat for going to Lackey to face the middle of the Dodgers order in a situation where a run ends the game.

But of all the decisions he made last night, I actually think that one is one of the more defensible.

As he noted after the game, Davis’s 44-pitch outing on Thursday meant that he wasn’t available for a multi-inning appearance last night, and he would be asked to get no more than three outs in Game 2.

Within that context, bringing Davis into a mid-inning situation meant that he wouldn’t go back out to start another inning. Bringing him in to bail someone else out of a jam meant that Maddon might be trading three outs for only one or two. If Maddon had brought Davis in to get out of Brian Duensing’s ninth-inning jam but then relieved him after just securing the final out of the ninth inning, he would then be asking John Lackey to get three outs in the 10th, versus just getting that one out in the ninth and hoping Davis could protect a lead in the 10th by himself.

With Davis available as only a one-inning pitcher last night, it’s not entirely crazy to hold him for a save situation. What Maddon was clearly trying to avoid was using Davis in a game the Cubs would lose anyway, putting them in a situation where they were still down 2-0 in the series but had to then continue to manage Davis’s workload during the three games in Chicago. In this situation, Davis will now have had four days off after his seven-out stint in Washington, and you can bet he’ll be used heavily in the next three games against the Dodgers.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Maddon’s decision to hold Davis last night would have been more problematic if it were an elimination game, like Showalter faced last year. Going down 2-0 is obviously not ideal, but you can’t manage every playoff game as if it’s winner-take-all, and Maddon at least kept his team in a decent position to win games back in Chicago by avoiding using Davis in a game the team might not have won anyway. While I’m never going to advocate holding a closer for the save situation because of some rigid mindset of who can get saves, if you can only use your best reliever for one inning and you’d really prefer not to use him at all, holding him for a protect-the-lead scenario to end the game isn’t a terrible plan.

So if I don’t hate Maddon’s decision to not use Davis as much as many others, why did Maddon have a bad night? Let’s go through some of his other weird choices.

Starting Jason Heyward

With a lefty on the mound in Rich Hill, Maddon mostly went with his anti-left-hander lineup, starting the right-handed Albert Almora in center and using Jon Jay (and his very small career platoon split) in left field over Kyle Schwarber. But in right field, Maddon went with Jason Heyward over the switch-hitting Ben Zobrist. I’m a long-time defender of Heyward, believing his glove makes up for a lot of his offensive shortcomings, but he’s still a guy with a career 82 wRC+ against left-handers, and he was even worse than that (71 wRC+) this year.

Zobrist was awful against lefties this year, too, but that looks like a small-sample fluke: he’s recorded a career 122 wRC+ against LHPs. Despite the significant gap in defensive ability between them, I think the Cubs could have used Zobrist’s bat a bit more tonight. Jay and Almora are roughly average hitters, so throwing Heyward into the mix with mediocre bats like Russell and Baez, plus the pitcher’s spot, meant that this particular Cubs lineup could be shut down if Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo didn’t carry the load. And unsurprisingly, the Cubs managed just one run in the loss.

Ignoring His Pinch-Hitters

Did you know the Cubs, who started the game with Zobrist, Schwarber, and Ian Happ on the bench, didn’t pinch-hit one single time last night? Jon Lester batted for himself twice and Zobrist was double-switched into the ninth spot in the order when he replaced Heyward in right field in the seventh inning, after Heyward was allowed to make the final out of the sixth inning against a right-handed pitcher.

Letting Lester bat twice is somewhat defensible, given Maddon’s lack of trust in his bullpen right now and Davis’s limited availability last night. He batted having thrown 79 pitches. Hoping to get another four to six outs out of him wasn’t so improbable and would justify letting the pitcher bat for himself, especially since he came up with the bases empty and two outs.

But Maddon had plenty of other chances to use some of his bench bats. For instance, if Heyward was going to be swapped out in the seventh inning double-switch anyway, why not let Schwarber bat there instead, where a home run could give you the lead? Or send either Schwarber or Happ up to hit for Almora in the seventh or ninth innings, when he was sent up to try and get hits off tough right-handers Brandon Morrow and Kenley Jansen. Starting Almora because you want better defense and another right-handed bat is reasonable enough, but letting him make outs against elite right-handed bullpen arms in a tie game isn’t great, especially when two clearly better hitters sat and watched the entire game from the bench.

Riding Brian Duensing

In reality, the entire end-of-game situation occurred because Justin Wilson, the team’s big deadline acquisition, was left off the NLCS roster based on his lousy 18 innings since getting to Chicago. And make no mistake, he’s been pretty terrible since getting traded, running a 21% walk rate and allowing a .346 wOBA to opposing hitters as a member of the Cubs.

But Maddon’s decision to judge Wilson on his 18 recent bad innings and not on the 300 excellent innings that came before them, has left the team a bit shy in quality left-handed relief. So here we are in October, and the Cubs are now leaning heavily on a 34-year-old who spent most of last year in the minors. And not just as a match-up lefty.

Tonight, Maddon went to Duensing to start the eighth inning, a perfectly reasonable decision given that lefties Cody Bellinger and Joc Pederson were the first two batters due up for the Dodgers. Bellinger hit a weak grounder to first base, but reached when Duensing couldn’t handle the throw from Rizzo, which allowed Pederson to sacrifice himself and get a runner into scoring position for the right-handers to come. Hector Rondon, who had been warming behind Duensing, could have been called in to face Logan Forsythe and Austin Barnes. Instead, Maddon walked Forsythe and left Duensing in to face Austin Barnes.

With Kenley Jansen ready to come in, this was a potential game-deciding scenario, and Maddon stuck with his nondescript left-handed reliever to face a right-handed batter — one who has crushed lefties in his short career — with the go-ahead run in scoring position.

It worked: Barnes grounded into an inning-ending double play, but that was a pretty classic example of bad process and good results. If you don’t think Rondon (who ran a 30% strikeout rate against right-handed batters this year) is a better option to get right-handers out in a very high-leverage situation than Brian Duensing, then the team might as well have carried literally anyone else on their NLCS roster. I know he gave up a home run yesterday, but if you’re going to have him warming in that situation and then not use him when it’s left-vs-right with the go-ahead run on second base, then he doesn’t serve a legitimate function in your bullpen.

And the ground ball from Barnes only served to embolden Maddon, who sent Duensing back out to start the ninth, despite Yasiel Puig leading off the inning for the Dodgers. He walked Puig on four pitches, putting the winning run on base to lead off the inning. Maddon then stuck with him against two more right-handed batters — to be fair, Charlie Culberson and Kyle Farmer, so not exactly the ’27 Yankees — before going to Lackey to go after Chris Taylor.

Again, Rondon should have been the obvious choice there, with two right-handers coming up and then the pitcher’s spot. Yeah, the third batter due up would likely have been Andre Ethier, meaning Rondon would have had to face a left-hander, but compared to letting Duensing face a bunch of righties, the Cubs would have been better off with Rondon against those guys and a 35-year-old pinch-hitter who missed most of the season and has had one plate appearance in the last two weeks. Or, if you were going to have Lackey pitch that inning in the hopes that Davis could pitch the 10th with the lead, just let Lackey start the inning against Puig.

The Cubs traded for Justin Wilson so they’d have him for situations exactly like last night, but the team’s decision to leave him off the roster means that Maddon is giving important work to Duensing. Last night, he asked a generic lefty reliever to pitch two innings of some of the highest-leverage baseball of the season. That’s just not a great plan for success.

So while Maddon probably is taking too much heat this morning for not using Wade Davis, he did enough other weird things to deserve to have his moves questioned today. The Cubs offense hasn’t hit enough to put the team in positions to win games in this series, so the losses can’t be solely laid at Maddon’s feet, but with some pretty odd decisions, he’s brought some of this criticism on himself.





Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

119 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
John W.
8 years ago

I said it in June and it’s still true, Cubs bullpen sucks.

Fatalotti
8 years ago

If your thought process for not using Davis because of his workload the night before, you probably shouldn’t be using a 38 year old starter for the second night in a row who hadn’t done that in over 15 years.

Rols1026
8 years ago
Reply to  Fatalotti

And it wasn’t even the night before for Davis! He was on 2 days rest!

Chaco ChickenMember since 2025
8 years ago

Maddon could be replaced with a mildly robust algorithm that alters the lineup each day and does unconventional things 10% of the time. If it had an endearing name then it wouldn’t matter if it did something stupid.

Dan GreerMember since 2018
8 years ago
Reply to  Chaco Chicken

Give the algorithm some nice hipster glasses and some indefensible old-school soundbites and it’d be a perfect replacement.

On the Buster Posey Rule and the Culberson/Conteras play:

“I think it’s wrong. I think there’s anybody that’s played major league or even minor league baseball will agree with me 100% on that.

I like Maddon, but he’s not some great tactical genius. He seems excellent at the people-managing and is an amusing character, but if someone accused him of trying too hard to look smart, I’d be hard-pressed to argue with them.

DBA455
8 years ago
Reply to  Dan Greer

This, exactly. I think the Maddon’s reputation as a forward thinker has been pretty well dismantled by his reaction to the Contreras play.

If his argument was solely that the throw brought the catcher into the line, so be it. He’s just wrong on the facts; I don’t expect him to have a fully objective opinion on the replay given his vested interest.

But that wasn’t his argument. It was, implicitly, (and explicitly with the appeal to authority of “anyone who has ever played major league baseball – or minor league ball” – perhaps remembering mid-sentence that he stopped out in A ball) that anyone who objects to armored men standing in the basepath without the ball is a giant wimp. To sanitize the language.

It’s completely inane.

Johnston
8 years ago
Reply to  DBA455

Maddon’s (and Darling’s) reaction to the Contreras blocking call was just flat ridiculous. The rule was put into place for very good reasons, and it was definitely enforced properly. Madden and Darling may want to go back to the days of collisions and injuries at home plate, but that’s just them being reactionaries. Baseball is not a contact sport, and it never should be.

OddBall Herrera
8 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

I just don’t appreciate the dis-ingenuousness of the way the media is talking about that play.

CBS, ESPN, Yahoo Sports, etc. These outlets pound the table about player injuries being unacceptable (look at today’s articles about new rules to protect Aaron Rodgers) and then once rules are implemented they again pound the table about the game being watered down by non-contact rules.

On a baseball level, I didn’t enjoy the call on Contreras, but I also have a long enough memory to appreciate why the rule was put there. Too many people are just going by ‘I’m outraged today! Forget tomorrow and yesterday!’ standard.

phpope
8 years ago
Reply to  DBA455

And we all know exactly what his reaction would be if Game 2 had ended with Puig trucking Contreras at the plate to score the winning run.

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  DBA455

Good point, though I would put it somewhat differently and in a way that I think makes Maddon look even worse. If he disagrees with the rule, so be it. You or I might think that’s inane on his part, but he can have his opinion.

What seems really crazy to me, however, is that Maddon is saying (at least in public) that he’d prefer for his catcher to follow what Maddon thinks the rule should be rather than what the rule is. That’s just completely illogical, since Maddon is hurting the team based on how the rule will in fact be called.

It gets even less logical since doing so puts his stud 25 year old catcher at additional risk of injury for no advantage. As I understand the rule, Culberson had the right to go through Contreras to the plate because Contreras wasn’t giving a path to the plate, so the expected outcomes are either (a) Culberson slides hard feet-first trying to go into and through Contreras’ leg to the plate, and is called safe or (b) Culberson does what he did on Saturday, and is called safe.

And, if I was part of the Cubs’ front office I don’t think that I’d want Contreras regularly blocking the plate even if the rules allowed him to do so. To be a bit cynical but bloodless about it, do you really want to set up plays where the downside for the other team is losing Charlie Culberson to injury and the downside to your team is losing Willson Contreras?

Wu-Bacca
8 years ago
Reply to  DBA455

Totally agree. Maddon will often drop opinions that don’t fit his image as a progressive hipster. I’m thinking of his not-so-veiled endorsements of Trump, his love of home plate collisions, his longstanding aversion to bat flips and pimped home runs. After a Junior Lake home run in 2015 he said, “I don’t want us to take a page out of ‘Major League’ and flamboyantly flip a bat after a long home run. I don’t want that at all… The touchdown celebration, all that stuff, pounding your chest after dunking a basketball, all this stuff that’s become part of today’s generation of athletes…”

Jim HMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  Chaco Chicken

What would playoff baseball broadcasters do with the 1.75 hours per game they allot to showing Madden’s reaction to every single mundane event that happens during a game?

AJ pro-Preller
8 years ago
Reply to  Jim H

so true, the only manager to ever get more screen time than Bobby Cox sitting down.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago
Reply to  Chaco Chicken

Okay, let’s not go too far. Maddon is one of the best managers in MLB for three reasons.

1) He is one of the best people at managing the emotional state of his team and communicating with players, getting them to buy into whatever it is he has planned.
2) He has a decent track record of innovations that pay off, like using shifts in TB and some better lineup construction decisions (which is not actually very good by itself, but…)
3) His people-managing skills, when combined with his innovations, means he can do a lot of good things and the players don’t fight him on it.

This was not a good game for him, but let’s not lose sight of the big picture that he’d be a fairly large upgrade for most teams as manager.

soddingjunkmailMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Re: #’s 1&3

How do we know this?

Seems to me that this sort of thing could only be known by people in the clubhouse. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this reminds me of the discussions on “great team chemistry”. Is it something that causes winning, or does winning cause it?

Similarly with Maddon – Is he really great at the soft skills and makes everyone happy, or are people just happy generally because they’re winning?

I’m fully willing to accept he’s awesome, I’m just wondering how we determine that.

BufordMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

After the 2016 World Series ended, this in Miguel Montero commenting on Maddon’s communication skills:

“I think the toughest part for me is they never communicated with me,” Montero said. “I’m a veteran guy. They talk about veteran leadership. I have 11 years in the game and two All-Star [appearances]. I expected to be treated a little better. I was expected to get communication. Just let me know. Put me in the loop. That was the toughest part for me because I never understood what my role was going to be.”

jiveballer
8 years ago
Reply to  Buford

And then Montero is cut the and team starts looking a lot more like a “team”…

thestatbook
8 years ago
Reply to  Chaco Chicken

Maddon is like a Summer Camp Counselor. He’s good at making it fun and getting the kids to buy in.

He’s not so great when he has to make crucial decisions.

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  thestatbook

I’ve also sometimes wondered about the camp counselor stuff, because the reaction to things like “wacky costumes for road trips” seems like it would be very player-specific.

I’m sure some guys like it, but I kind of wonder if a guy like John Lackey (and maybe Jon Lester) is left grumbling “I’m a professional, what is this corny BS?” Though in fairness I could see John Lackey (and maybe Jon Lester) not getting amped up for much other than pitching baseball games and then hunting and fishing in the off-season.

EonADSMember since 2024
8 years ago

I’ve said it often. Joe Maddon is a pretty good manager who does a good job taking advantage of unconventional ideas, but sometimes his spontaneity gets in the way of his good sense. This is amplified in the postseason.

thestatbook
8 years ago
Reply to  EonADS

It’s Les Miles/Mike Leach Disease. No one cares if you’re bat-shit crazy so long as you’re winning games.

Neils-Henning Orsted Joc PedersonMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  EonADS

Maybe I’m quibbling over semantics, but I wouldn’t describe Maddon as anything other than an elite manager, a guy roughly 75-80% of the way to a guaranteed and deserved Hall Of Fame spot. (Every eligible manager with 1,300+ victories and a .520+ winning percentage is in Cooperstown.)

The only five active managers I would put on Maddon’s level would be Bochy, Francona, Matheny, Girardi, and Showalter. Dusty would be just a sliver below, and for me it’s too soon to tell with Roberts, Lovullo, or Banister. Maddon has managed for 12 full seasons, during which his teams have beaten the Vegas number by ~3 wins per year, an outstanding per-season career average surpassed by only Showalter and Matheny among active managers with 4+ years of experience.

Maddon is a great manager who had a rotten night — like Showalter had last year in the Britton Game, or Matheny back in the 2014 NLCS in his notorious Wacha Game against San Fran.

ChippersJonesing
8 years ago

Matheny is widely considered to be one of the poorer managers in the gane.

Neils-Henning Orsted Joc PedersonMember since 2025
8 years ago

By every objective measure, Matheny’s 6-year record is elite. regular season wins, playoff wins, regular season record versus both computer projection models and the Vegas number, and same with October — his teams were underdogs in seven of nine playoff series, and won five.

In his least successful seasons, his teams have won exactly the numbers of games predicted by Vegas and the pre-season computer models. And in the two seasons when his team led the league in wins, they exceeded all forecasts by 10+ victories. It’s a very strong six-year record, better one could argue than Tony LaRussa’a first six years with the club.

Subjectively, of MLB’s more experienced managers, in October I’d rather have Francona, Bochy or Yost than Matheny. From April through September I’d prefer Buck Showalter. But that’s about it.

Any weaknesses in Matheny’s granular in-game decision making obviously haven’t hindered very much his teams’ ability to win ballgames over the past half dozen years — in either the regular or postseason. Many Cardinal fans are spoiled born whiners though, like Duke basketball fans or Nebraska football supporters. And in the Twitter Era, whiners get a lot of play.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago

Funny, I was sitting there reading this going, “yep, I agree, I agree…Matheny? Matheny? Noooooooo…”

But seriously, if you don’t like Maddon as a manager, you just don’t like managers. Everything we don’t like about him, other managers do twice as much.

Neils-Henning Orsted Joc PedersonMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Agreed, about Joe Maddon. Whatever his warts, Joe’s entertaining for the most part. In terms of the other, I provided my reasoning for including Matheny in that elite group. He’s won a lot of games, and a lot more than he was “supposed to,” in both the regular and postseason.

You however provided no reasons for excluding him. And I have never read anywhere a cogent argument for doing so.

(But if you do respond, please refrain from referencing Ben Lindbergh’s analysis of relief pitcher usage patterns from a year or two back. All that Lindbergh measured was the degree of *conformity* to lefty/lefty and righty/righty reliever/batter orthodoxy, rather than bullpen results. And in my opinion once a manager’s bullpens have faced 10,000+ opposing hitters, as with Matheny, the results are all you need know.)

j6takish
8 years ago

He also started Schwarber against Kershaw for some reason

nenrightMember since 2020
8 years ago
Reply to  j6takish

Because schwarber had good at bats against Sammy Solis is what I remember hearing on the TBS broadcast. Who knows if that’s the real reason.

BrockWasOverrated
8 years ago

As a Cub, Lackey has been known for giving up runs in the first inning and then settling doan and “gutting it out” for another 5-6 innings. In 2017, John Lackey’s opponent OPS for the first 15 pitches was .983. The only possible justification for putting him on the NLCS roster would have been if he was the emergency starter for Game 1. Montgomery is superior as a long reliever and even the bad versions of Wilson and Rondon have more value as late inning relievers. Under no circumstances should he have been allowed to come near the mound in the 9th inning of a tie game. Indeed, he shouldn’t have been on the roster.

I suspect that the real reason he was rostered is because he’s considering retirement and Joe didn’t want him to feel like he was being pushed out.

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago

I agree that was a poor situation for Lackey.

Not sure how much predictive weight I’d give to a 1-year sample of opponent OPS on first 15 pitches, though. And won’t those generally be pretty good hitters –
admittedly not .983 OPS hitters – because those pitches are to the first 3-4 batters of a lineup?

I think the bigger points are that Lackey may simply not be very good any more – 5.30 FIP and 4.59 ERA this year – and that every qualitative factor of “putting a player in a position to succeed” pushes against putting Lackey in that situation. He’s pitching on back-to-back days, which he never does. He’s a starter coming in to the middle of an inning with inherited runners on base, which is also something that he doesn’t do.

As for Lackey on the NLCS roster, I can see some value of a “break glass in case of emergency” innings eater for a long extra innings game or to soak up innings if a starter gets knocked out early in a 7 game series. The latter seems especially relevant when the starters for the first 2 games had to be used in relief late in the prior series (Wednesday and Thursday). I think the value of that spot is difficult to justify over Wilson (or Rondon, or Duensing), because one logical way to try to work through a lack of confidence in relievers is to manage for short appearances with platoon advantages. So my take is that the real question is whether having Lackey justifies bumping a position player (presumably Martin or La Stella) off the roster to carry 12 pitchers.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago

I was going to make some snarky comment about starting Jason Heyward in any situation was a bad idea, except that I checked over and it’s not like Ben Zobrist was great this year either.

So let’s just take a moment to pause and reflect on the fact that Theo Epstein–who is overall one of the best GMs out there–gave Jason Heyward a zillion dollar contract while giving a one year deal to Dexter Fowler, and then Heyward’s contract got in the way of giving Dexter Fowler a market rate deal the next offseason. Or really, any other good player a market rate deal.

The Cubs just don’t have enough great position players with Zobrist, Heyward, and Russell hitting noticeably below average. I kept thinking “they could move Bryant to the outfield” but Bryant can only play one position at a time, unfortunately. Moving Baez to third means someone else has to be second. And maybe Baez should move to short to replace Russell instead? Having all these great multi-position players is great if you have enough good ones overall to switch them around.

Heyward’s contract…oof.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Heyward did make a couple of good defensive plays though. Happ had a good year but doesn’t project all that differently than Heyward and maybe the Cubs don’t think whatever extra offense he might add would offset whatever Heyward’s defensive edge. Zobrist has had a good career against LHP but was terrible this year and it’s not unreasonable for the Cubs to lack confidence in his offense vis-a-vis Heyward’s defense.

Johnston
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

In Theo’s defense, no one expected Heyward to crater as badly as completely as he did

Dooduh
8 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

Says who? I assume then, that you supported the signing…

ChippersJonesing
8 years ago
Reply to  Dooduh

I mean, what evidence existed that pointed to Heyward’s suddenly becoming useless at the plate?

Dooduh
8 years ago

Uh, how about a 57% gb rate and 29% hard hit rate…?

How about nominal power for an OF corner?

How about an overreliance on defense for a guy who at 6’5″ and 245 is unlikely to be able to maintain his agility once he hits 30..?

How about that he was never the same hitter since Jon Niese hit him in the head..? But some people never stopped believing that he was going to return to his rookie phenom state bc he was “still just 27…”

Useless? No. A huge overpay at $180M? Most certainly. I don’t know if the archives are available but I said it then. DC was always a Heyward supporter however, as he says.

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  Dooduh

Niese hit Heyward in the head in 2013. Over the next two years Heyward posted a 109 wRC+ in 2014 and then 121 wRC+ in 2015. In those two years, ISO was down versus Heyward’s career numbers up to 2013, but Heyward also cut his K rate in 2014-15 while maintaining his walk rate.

I don’t see how there was evidence after 2015 to forecast that Heyward was going to crater to being a well below 100 wRC+ hitter each of the next two seasons.

Dooduh
8 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

The evidence was in the batted ball profile in 2015, as I said above. The rest I added for context.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

I think that the Heyward signing was defensible in a vacuum, e.g., no opportunity costs (Dave Cameron has a pretty good commentary defending the contract on this site from the date of the signing–it is worth a read).

But part of the story about the Heyward signing was that they might stick him in center field, since the team wasn’t looking to bring back Fowler after spending so much money on Heyward. And no one knew how his defense was going to be in center field. They lucked out at got Fowler to come back anyway, who was the guy they really needed.

If we think back to 2015, I guess it doesn’t matter that much on offense, since Heyward and Fowler at the time seemed to provide similar offensive value. But the Heyward contract was crazy because they had no idea what they were going to do with him when they signed him. I think they were even talking about batting him leadoff too…

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Right, I thought there was some doubt about “would something weird (and negative) happen to Heyward’s defensive value if he played a lot of CF.”

Said a bit differently, it could be something like an argument that the position adjustments for the OF are wonky because of the number of bad fielders stuck in corner OF spots. The calculation of position adjustments should pick that up, though, so I don’t think that there was great evidence for that claim.

Maybe a better argument is that you can’t really be certain that the average position adjustment applies to a particular player (e.g., Hanley in LF). While there was reason to think that Heyward would retain defensive value (after including position adjustment) in CF, it’s still a risk for a player who had played 233 major league innings in CF prior to 2016.

I don’t think there was a ton of doubt, however, that Heyward should remain something like a 110 to 120 wRC+ hitter. If there was any big concern on that note, my recollection is that it was pure “old time non-statistical scouting” from people who didn’t like that Heyward tended to make significant changes to his swing almost every year.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

I think the second point–that we can’t be certain the average position adjustment applied to a particular player–is definitely the key issue. The positional adjustment is designed to account for getting replacements who could play that position and not whether someone who plays a stellar RF can move to CF. So it’s designed to account for the value vs. finding someone to replace Jason Heyward in RF, not a counterfactual scenario where Jason Heyward moves to CF.

I admit I would have been curious to see it all go down, but Heyward produced incredible value in RF thanks to his glove, not his bat (which was above average in many ways but not outstanding in any). He averaged something like 16 DEF value since his lackluster rookie year. This year, the single highest CF DEF value went to Byron Buxton with 11.8 (Michael Taylor clocks in close behind with fewer PAs). The year before, Kevin Pillar had 23.6 with Hamilton, Inciarte, and Kiermaier clocking in between 13.8 and 14.9.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Heyward might be able to handle center, but there’s no guarantee he does and even in the best (reasonable) outcome he still loses defensive value. I mean, he’s not going to be 2016 Kevin Pillar or 2015 Kiermaier in center, is he?

AJ pro-Preller
8 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

I did…remember me: JUICEMANE

ChippersJonesing
8 years ago
Reply to  AJ pro-Preller

No.

AJ pro-Preller
8 years ago

Well I was also the one that said Swanson would suck ass and that came “more true” than I thought. LOL. if you didn’t remember before you will now. Good luck trying to draft and develop another short stop while Freeman is still in his prime hahha. Meanwhile we got Tatis Jr. screaming FTW!

Ukranian to Vietnamese to French is back
8 years ago
Reply to  AJ pro-Preller

Well, I was the person who said she’d suck on Swanson and became more accurately than I thought. Laugh to. If you don’t mind before you. I’m so excited to make a small apartment, while Freeman is still in his first haha. At the same time, we’ve had Shouting WTF Tatis Jr.!

Jeff Sullivan Salmon Feast
8 years ago

Shouting WTF Tatis Jr., you’re invited to the next salmon feast!

Beer
8 years ago

You mean there was a Shouting WTF Tatis Sr.???

Serbian to Vietnamese to French is black
8 years ago

Swanson still Sucks home doggie doggie dog.He looks like fresh fish! My life sucks…(cry for help).

OtterMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Re: Bryant to left… it’s funny that they might move him because their outfield has kind of, sort of fallen apart this season and need him to solidify it, rather than Bryant’s glove not being good enough for third (which everyone assumed would be the case).

For the rest of the series/next year, I think you stick with Russell at short because of his glove. I’m not as sure what to do with Baez, who is fine (if overrated by Cub fans), but I don’t think hits enough to play third, plus while I think his tagging ability is more flash than substance, it’s more useful at second than third. I’d put Happ in left and keep Bryant at third. Maybe in the spring, if you think Bryant would help the team more in left and Happ can play an okay third, then you do that. But I have no clue if Happ can play third. That said, an outfield of Bryant, Almora(?), Heyward should be able to track down a lot of fly balls.

John Autin
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

FWIW, Heyward’s degree of offensive decline in the last 2 years is unprecedented, given his age, prior track record, and good health.

I took the top 200 players by OPS+ who had 2,500 PAs through age 25, since 1901. Of those, 191 played at least 100 games during age 26-27. I compared those players’ OPS+ for the two periods.

Heyward’s net loss of -37 OPS+ is the worst of those 191, easily.
Next is Curt Blefary (-31), who got hurt and had just 475 PAs at 26-27.
Next is Grady Sizemore (-28), also hurt, 643 PAs at 26-27.
Then it’s Carlos Baerga (-26).

It was far more likely that Heyward would improve at bat in the early years of this deal. Firstly, for any large group of established hitters, their performance at 26-27 will exceed their earlier work. (The group above averaged +5 OPS+.) Secondly, Heyward is such a good athlete, and had already shown such a broad range of batting skills (albeit in different years), from patience to power to contact, so he had more possible paths to improvement.

To me, the risk in the deal was whether his elite defensive numbers would hold up. I never dreamed he’d become a bad hitter.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I would tend to agree with this. But it’s also that it is the 14th (or 15th, depending on how you count it) largest MLB contract ever. Ever. Their theory was that he’d play well and opt out, and they wouldn’t have to pay Heyward’s decline years.

There are just so many things that can go wrong when you tie up that much money in one player. The Cubs thought they had figured a way out, but they got burned hard.

Mahoney
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I really hoped that wasn’t their theory, because the downside is that they decline too fast and you’re stuck with an albatross.

(see: Wells, Vernon)

Dooduh
8 years ago

Great analysis. Players on the bench would have made a better lineup than the one Maddon actually wrote out.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
8 years ago

If Davis was really tired and wasn’t coming in that inning, why was he warming up? If he has to warm up again in the 11th or whenever the Cubs hypothetically got the lead, isn’t that even worse for him?

Richie
8 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

Thisthisthisthisthis. If you’re worried about arm fatigue, you don’t warm up Davis without using him. (barring the Cubs scoring 5 runs in the top of an inning while he’s warming up) You just don’t.

chuckbMember since 2016
8 years ago

Their use of Duensing was the most perplexing to me. He makes a lot of sense against the Dodgers’ lefties but not against their righties and there’s no way he should’ve pitched to Puig. It’s that decision that forced Maddon to bring Lackey into the game in the middle of the inning rather than letting him start the inning as he’s accustomed to.

mikejuntMember
8 years ago
Reply to  chuckb

Puig has had a reverse platoon split all year and Arizona also consistently used lefties against him.

It’s the 2nd year in a row of Puig having a reverse platoon split and it’s likely the result of some overcompensation. He used to get wrecked by that low/away slider and has worked so hard to be good against breaking stuff that he’s now elite against it and weak to elite velocity.

Over 20 of his home runs were off breaking pitches, right on right.

He’s been good vs lefties in the postseason but that’s a very small sample. He’s keeping up with the velocity in ways he wasn’t in the regular season.

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  mikejunt

I’m skeptical of reverse platoon split arguments, largely because of analysis from people who understand the time for statistics to stabilize better than me (e.g., Mitchell Lichtman) about how these stats should be regressed. I used to read some arguments about how Justin Turner was the poster child of a player who truly has reverse platoon splits, and then this year he sure enough showed a normal (and in fact fairly extreme) platoon split.

As for the “Puig can’t handle velocity” argument, that scouting report calls for Rondon (96.8 mph average fastball velocity this year, thows 52% four seam fastballs) over Duensing (92.4 mph average fastball velocity this year, throws 28% four seam fastballs).

dl80Member since 2026
8 years ago
Reply to  mikejunt

You are right about the huge reverse split this year, but it’s not the second year in a row of one.

Last year vs. righties: .265/.329/.386 for a 97 wRC+
Last year vs. lefties: .261/.313/.471 for a 110 wRC+

Given that Puig had a fantastic 24:18 walk to strikeout ratio against lefties this year, it seems entirely possible that the .198 BABIP against them is going to regress going forward, though the 10 GDP against them is very concerning.

I have no problem with Duensing facing Puig if Maddon trusted that Puig’s numbers vs. lefties this year are legit and indicate his true talent against them going forward (which is at least plausible).

But there is no good reason to leave Duensing in to face Culberson and Farmer (and potentially Chris Taylor). Yes, neither of them are much good and Duensing has pretty neutral splits THIS YEAR, but Deunsing has been bad against righties before this year. Going to Rondon would seem to make sense. If Rondon can’t even get soft-hitting righties out, then why is he on the roster?

Since Taylor kills lefties, you’d need someone different by then anyway. Rondon allows a fair amount of power to righties, but not many baserunners. And before this year, he was great against righties.

Lackey was worse against righties this year than Rondon, and bad to terrible overall.

So Maddon believed this year’s numbers vs. career numbers for Puig (defensible), Duensing (maybe defensible) and Rondon (maybe defensible), but not for Lackey (totally indefensible).

There is no reason to believe that Lackey was better against a righty than Rondon was. None. Either you go with career numbers and Rondon gets the edge, or you go with this year’s numbers and Rondon gets the edge.

That’s the mistake Maddon made with regards to the bullpen.

mikejuntMember
8 years ago
Reply to  dl80

I think the answer is almost certainly that Rondon, who wasn’t on the roster in the NLDS, is on the roster to pitch when the Cubs are losing by 4 in the 8th inning so that a real pitcher doesn’t have to.

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  mikejunt

Rondon’s Game 1 usage, coming into the 6th inning of a tie game to face good RH hitters (Taylor due up, then Turner) says that is most definitely not why Rondon was put on the NLCS roster.

In fact, it was Lackey who stayed in to pitch the 8th inning in Game 1 after the Cubs were behind by 3 runs, and he’d come into the game down two runs with 1 out in the 7th inning.

dl80Member since 2026
8 years ago
Reply to  mikejunt

That should be Lackey’s role.

bbmoney
8 years ago

Most appropriate times to use Wade Davis last night, a list:

#1. To start the bottom of the 9th.
#2-19 – after each pitch of the bottom of the 9th before the game ended.

Did it necessarily cost the cubs the game? No. Davis isn’t a lock to give up no runs. Duensing and Lackey aren’t a lock to give up runs. Cubs bats aren’t sure to ever score against the dodgers, BP. Whatever. But it was a bad managerial move to not pitch Davis at all if he was available for an inning. C’mon Joe.

OddBall Herrera
8 years ago

I think his under-usage of Happ in general this post season is a story . Five plate appeareances for a switch hitter who had a 113 wRC on the season (well above Heyward and Zobrist), and who can be moved around the field as needed? I get that he’s a rookie and the other guys are well paid veterans, but that seems crazy.

Even worse when you think that Schwarber and Heyward probably have no business starting against Kershaw. I could see the logic a bit more with Hill, who has some wacky reverse splits on the season.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
8 years ago

I was thinking something similar, but I don’t know how h’d do in right field. Has anyone has seen Happ play in right field? He seems like he could do it, but who knows (and if he hasn’t, why haven’t they tried it?).

mikejuntMember
8 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Bryant RF, Baez 3B, Happ 2B. That’s what Happ over Hayward looks like.

dannm
8 years ago
Reply to  mikejunt

I’d like to see Jay – Happ – Almora in the OF, Bryant – Russell – Baez – Rizzo in the infield against a LHP (sub Schwarber for Jay against an RHP). Happ has a better average but less power and fewer walks against lefties as a RHH, compared to his LHH vs RHP numbers.

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago

I agree with your broad point, though I’ll note that Heyward didn’t start in Game 1 vs. Kershaw. Schwarber did start that game (LF), but it was Almora in CF and Jay in RF.

I fully agree that Schwarber had no business starting Game 1 vs. Kershaw, as he’s obviously a defensive liability compared to other options and has shown big platoon splits. I’m pretty dubious of any “but Kershaw shows reverse platoon splits” claim, as that’s a 1 year, relatively small sample phenomenon. Kershaw has normal platoon splits (i.e., better against LH hitters) for his career.

robhuff
8 years ago

I love the site (I spend a lot of time on here) and I’m a big fan of yours, Dave. This article, however, not so much.

1. I’m with you that starting someone over Heyward made sense (Heyward is 7-for-63 as a Cub in the playoffs), but Schwarber isn’t much of an offensive upgrade (career wRC+ of 57 against lefties) while being a massive defensive downgrade and Zobrist’s struggles against lefties this year are the result of a gnarly left wrist injury that his sapped his hitting ability against opposite-handed pitchers, rendering his career line mostly irrelevant. Happ is the only guy that would’ve made sense, in spite of how awful he looked against Gio in Game 2.

2. The pinch hitter argument in the ninth makes sense to me, especially if Martin was coming in for Almora anyway.

3. The Duensing section – I don’t get it. Barnes did crush lefties this year, as you noted (136 wRC+)…but you left out that he was slightly better against righties (147 wRC+). That’s relevent.

Duensing stayed in to face Barnes for two pretty obvious reasons. First, Duensing was solid against righties this year (3.74 FIP), almost identical to Rondon (3.50). Against righties, their ground ball rates were identical (if Joe was fishing for a double play) and Rondon had a higher home run rate. Second, if Dave Roberts wanted to play the platoon matchup, he could’ve used Yasmani Grandal against Rondon, locking in a lefty to face Rondon (5.29 FIP). Joe certainly doesn’t want that.

That reasoning also applies to not letting Rondon face Ethier.

Not carrying Justin Wilson is dumb, as you noted. Carrying Lackey in the bullpen is also dumb. Now that the roster decision has been made and given the roster that the Cubs have, riding Duensing made more sense than going to Rondon, a move which likely would have accelerated Lackey’s arrival into the game as well.

4. “…just let Lackey start the inning against Puig.” What?

Puig v. LHP: .183/.317/.275
Puig v. RHP: .288/.355/.554

Lackey’s FIP v. righties is nearly a run higher than Duensing’s, too.

Having Lackey pitch to Puig instead of Duensing would have been almost as bad as using Lackey to face Chris Taylor and Justin Turner with the game on the line while Wade Davis waits warm in the bullpen.

dl80Member since 2026
8 years ago
Reply to  robhuff

I agree with a lot of what you say here, but the answer, as I noted in a comment above, was to bring in Rondon to face Culberson, Farmer, and potentially Taylor.

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  robhuff

I’ve got a tough time buying Duensing’s one year platoon splits (on 153 RH batters faced) versus a career during which RH hitters have hit him pretty well – http://www.fangraphs.com/statsplits.aspx?playerid=4064&position=P&season=0&split=0.2

Demiurge
8 years ago

Really surprised Dave didn’t mention it but I thought the biggest mistake last night, by far, was allowing Lester to face Turner for a third time with 2 outs in the 5th and the tying run on 3rd base. You immediately bring in Edwards to face the lefty Bellinger but you won’t bring him in to face Turner, their most dangerous hitter? And with 2 outs? And with Lester right around 100 pitches? Well, the last one isn’t so important I don’t think as the fact of having to face Turner a third time.

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  Demiurge

I agree we can question letting Lester face Turner, but Lester did stay in to pitch to Bellinger. The hook was after Lester walked Bellinger. Edwards then came into the game with Hernandez (137 career wRC+ vs lefties, albeit his career vs. lefties totals 442 PA’s) scheduled to hit. Roberts countered by having Utley pinch-hit for Hernandez, but Lester clearly would have faced Hernandez.

I can see a line of thinking there for Maddon, even though I agree with you that it has its flaws. Let Lester face Turner, hoping that he get out of the 5th inning, and then come out in the 6th to face Bellinger. After that, go to the bullpen (Edwards and/or Strop) with a series of 5 RH hitters due up from Hernandez through Culberson. You really probably don’t want Strop or Edwards to face Bellinger with a runner (or runners) on base if Turner gets a hit or walk, and you also probably don’t want to start burning your thin, somewhat depleted bullpen one hitter at a time in the 5th inning.

The counter to all that is of course that Lester on the third time through the order is worse than the middle relievers, even if you don’t trust them, so roll with it. It’s maybe also just another reason that you should have Wilson on the roster to have more left-handed bullpen arms to use to play platoon match-ups.

Twitchy
8 years ago

One to two outs from davis to get you into the 10th is more valuable than not getting to the 10th at all. It’s the same excuse used before, when elite closers couldn’t be brought in before the 9th, it’s not a save situation, and you’re waiting for the save that never comes.

Same deal here. Can’t save Davis for an opportunity that will never come.

dl80Member since 2026
8 years ago
Reply to  Twitchy

Your post made me realize a key point: Davis used in the 9th means maybe the Cubs score 3 or 4 in the 10th and Lackey (or anyone) gets an easy save. By never using Davis, you don’t even give your team a chance to score.

ascheffMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  Twitchy

But because this game isn’t a winner take all elimination game, you also have to consider the fact that losing while not using Davis is much, much better than losing while having used Davis (as Dave points out in the article). Now Davis can be used in all three games in Chicago, or two longer appearances as needed. If the Cubs had used Davis last night and lost, then their backs would be up against a much worse wall, because they could end up in an elimination game without Davis or Edwards available.

The reason Maddon was saving Davis for if they have a lead had nothing to do with the save statistic and everything to do with the fact that the Cubs could not afford to both use Davis and lose.

dl80Member since 2026
8 years ago
Reply to  ascheff

I think that’s fair. But getting him up and then not using him in the game (if they were up by a ton) or for just a batter or two surely wouldn’t make him unavailable for all three games in Chicago after a day off.

I would take using him last night for an inning with a 30% chance of that helping them win even if it means he misses the first game in Chicago.

shampain
8 years ago
Reply to  ascheff

There was a scheduled off day today, which presumably Maddon was aware of. Davis had had two full days off since pitching on Thursday. I have no idea why anyone would think that if he threw 1 inning last night that his usage would have to be curtailed moving forward. He’s a relief pitcher. He can be used 3 times from Thursday-Tuesday without breaking.

Jason BMember since 2017
8 years ago

Without getting into the specifics of “letting x pitcher face y batter”, I think Maddon seems to have a very quick hook with his starters this postseason, which in turn leads him to burn through his most trusted relievers and then leaves him with some sub-optimal options in very key situations.

Lester was lifted at the first sign of real trouble in the 5th; if you can’t get 5-6 innings out of your starter then you’re either

(a) stretching relievers out beyond their typical usage (not that they’re incapable of pitching longer, as Davis showed the night before, but the postseason is an odd time to tinker with usages), or

(b) using them with more typical innings limits or based on lefty/righty matchups but leaving yourself with middling options “D” or “E” after you burn through your best options A, B, and C.

I guess what I’m saying is (in the Cubs’ case) I would lean on my starters a bit longer. This bullpen is not the Yankees’ bullpen of this year (very clear strength) or the Indians of last year. In fact I would venture to say that this long deployment of relievers is really coming into vogue after it worked so well for Cleveland last year, specifically. Not every team is capable of that.

Richie
8 years ago
Reply to  Jason B

The postseason with its extra off days and so much higher stakes is exactly the time to tinker with usages.

mikejuntMember
8 years ago
Reply to  Jason B

Lester threw 103 pitches. How many more do you think he should throw?

Maddon didn’t have a quick hook. The Dodgers ground Lester into the dirt and ran him out of bullets.

In 5 postseason games the Dodgers are averaging over 20 pitches per inning. It is insane.

Jason BMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  Jason B

Ye gads, you guys are right! Didn’t look at pitch counts, was just looking at innings pitched. He didn’t exactly breeze through the first 4+. Carry on!

Jay_B
8 years ago

It’s asking a lot of anyone to just ignore the entire production someone has put up for your team over the last two months, and just assume they are going to be great again like they were three months ago. We all know streaks are impossible to predict, but the fact that Justin Wilson was bad – and only bad – for the Cubs is a pretty understandable reason not to trust him. At some point, you gotta stop going to M.Night Shyamalan movies.

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  Jay_B

This talk of Wilson being “bad, really bad” is over 6.2 innings in September, when he had a 4.21 FIP and 8.10 ERA. In August Wilson posted a 3.43 FIP and 3.27 ERA, which isn’t shutdown but suggests a player who can be just as useful (in the right situation) as options like Edwards, Strop, Rondon, Montgomery, and Duensing. So, as people often do with relievers, a guy is being written off as useless because of a sample size of innings that’s barely more than 1 start from a starting pitcher.

If you want to make a claim that there are some underlying reasons of mechanics, velocity, etc. to think that Wilson has changed and is therefore fatigued, hurt, and/or broken, that’s a claim that one could make. It should take more than a few rough outings to make that claim, however.

More broadly, if you’ve got a lot of middle relievers who you don’t really trust and a closer who is gassed to start the NLCS after a 2+ inning outing in Game 5 of the NLDS, one good thought is to try to have the relievers available to play the platoon match-up game if you’ve got high leverage situations where your closer won’t be available. That would argue for adding Wilson to carry 3 LH pitchers rather than 2 in the bullpen.

OddBall Herrera
8 years ago
Reply to  Jay_B

Hooold on a second, are you saying you didn’t enjoy a movie about the power of love overcoming suicide plant gas?

Them’s fighting words.

Johnston
8 years ago

Sure, Maddon was outmanaged, but more importantly the Cubs were outpitched and outhit by the Dodgers.

As for Maddon’s lineup choices, the Cubs had enough more than enough talent in the game to win it and still could only come up with one lousy run.

If the Cubs’ hitters had plated the runs they could have and should have, then Maddon looks like a genius.

Wu-Bacca
8 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

I don’t understand this kind of thinking. Yes, you’d like for the Cubs to score more than 1 run. But they won 7 games this year scoring 1-2 runs, and, with better managing, this could’ve been another. After all, through the first 26 outs the Dodgers had scored only 1 run as well. This was a game the Cubs could’ve won despite getting paltry returns from their offense.

ToddMember since 2016
8 years ago

Anyone advocating for Hector Rondon to pitch in a high leverage situation is, to steal from Keith Law, “scouting the stat line.” I’d rather run through a burning building with molotov cocktails in both hands than trust Rondon to get a crucial out.

dl80Member since 2026
8 years ago
Reply to  Todd

Then you’d rather have Lackey and his 37 home runs allowed? If you aren’t going to trust the numbers, what’s even the point? Just guess randomly?

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  Todd

I’ll pretty obviously agree with that statement if my other option for that out is someone like Davis or one of the top several bullpen arms on a team like the Yankees or Indians.

Unless Davis is used, however, that isn’t the option. It’s Rondon versus a meh LH reliever who doesn’t have the platoon advantage or a 38-year old starting pitcher (who may, BTW, not be a very good starting pitcher any more) pitching on back-to-back days for essentially the first time in his career.

Also, I think Law would say that this point on “not scouting the stat line” is intended for minor league players (especially below AAA), where the idea is that some projection of future development is required for performance in MLB. I don’t think Law would say to employ that idea for major league stats (beyond the obvious point, often made at Fangraphs, of not believing that results will continue when they’re driven by unsustainably outlier peripherals).

Dooduh
8 years ago

I have a better question…. where is Yasmani Grandal?

DavePomerantz
8 years ago
Reply to  Dooduh

The way Barnes has been playing the last several months, I’m not sure we really need to ask that question at all (He’s probably still the 1st left handed bat off the bench, and will only bat right-handed after the rest of the bench has been emptied).

mikejuntMember
8 years ago
Reply to  DavePomerantz

He’s been last odd the bench in these games due to there being almost no RHB on the bench with them all starting, he’s used Farmer before grandal as a right (including last night in the 9th!).

careaganMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  Dooduh

I think Grandal will get the start in one of the first two games in Chicago, probably against Arrieta since he’s had success in that match up before. Barnes had a 50/50 time share with Grandal to end the regular season and he’s proven he should be the primary option with the quality of his at bats (double play yesterday notwithstanding) in the post season.

Michael K Woods
8 years ago

I believe wRC had the Dodgers wining 5-0. So stop blaming Maddon and blame the players.

Wu-Bacca
8 years ago

Why not both?

RadermecherMember since 2018
8 years ago

Conteras blocked the plate.
I could care less who wins this series.
Still when given and endless checkbook.
Who is surprised to see big boys still playing.
Small market fan!

alpha309
8 years ago

I wouldn’t have used Davis or Lackey in the 9th. I think you have to trust Rondon to do it. He had that job 2 years ago, and was quite good until late last year. If you are rostering him, you have to trust him. Edwards had a terrible NLDS, but he is still trusted. It also isn’t last year when Rondon was still suffering from lingering injuries.

Lackey should have been the last man out of the pen. Davis should have been maximized and either pitched the full 9th, or held for the 10th. Once Turner came up however, I think you could argue to get him in there to get that out, plus 3 more, but based on existing knowledge, I don’t think you do that.

The issue was the bullpen usage in games 4 and 5 of the NLDS, much that it was the issue in the WS last year.

kevinthecomic
8 years ago

Anyone else remember that Brian Duensing pitched for the Orioles in the “Zach Britton” game? The guy is a bullpen Grim Reaper!

bawfuls
8 years ago

Tie game, bottom of the 9th, with Taylor-Turner-Bellinger due up and a fast runner on 2B, you could hardly invent a more ideal time to use Wade Davis. Particularly once Lackey walked Taylor, now you’re facing Justin Turner who has to be the absolute last Dodgers hitter the Cubs want to see in that spot.

AJ pro-Preller
8 years ago

“Starting Jason Heyward”
Been saying that for 2 years…remember all the articles you guys posting defending him? How he should be a starter not a 4th outfielder? Saying his defense was reason enough? ALL THOSE ARTICLES DO NOT APPLY NOW. LOL

robhuff
8 years ago
Reply to  AJ pro-Preller

Jason Heyward, 2010-15: .268/.353/.431, 118 wRC+, stellar defense
Jason Heyward, 2016-17: .243/.315/.353, 78 wRC+, stellar defense

2010-15 Heyward was a superstar. He was a free agent at 26. So if you’ve been saying that he shouldn’t be a starter for two years, well, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

AJ pro-Preller
8 years ago
Reply to  robhuff

you just listed his horrible numbers and then you say it doesn’t make sense, he sucks, does it make sense now?…listen I would of started him for the first half of the season in 2016 but after that it was obvious he was just cashing in on his contract. If you actually watched the games…which you obviously didn’t…Heyward was sooo lost at the plate in 2016 it was almost comedic. hey if I played baseball my entire life I would be ready to move on at 30 with a fresh 100 mil. that was his plan isn’t obvious????

Wu-Bacca
8 years ago
Reply to  AJ pro-Preller

If his plan was to sit back and count his money, why did he work so tirelessly over the winter to revamp his swing?

AJ pro-Preller
8 years ago
Reply to  Wu-Bacca

Lol you will believe any crap narrative that is thrown your way. “Tirelessly” lol omg that is so rich…you can’t dream of better sheep than you. Baaaaa

Adam SMember since 2016
8 years ago

“But Maddon’s decision to judge Wilson on his 18 recent bad innings and not on the 300 excellent innings that came before them, has left the team a bit shy in quality left-handed relief.”

This seems like selective logic. If Maddon put Wilson on the NLCS roster and he came in to face two lefties and walked them, you (or someone) would be talking about how Maddon ignored his recent struggles. I’ve watched dozens of Cubs games and since the trade Wilson has been terrible. It’s not just a 20% walk rate, it’s that the pitches aren’t close. Half the time he looks like he has no idea where the pitches are going. I saw several outing where he walked two batters and retired none or one. I don’t know if he’s hurt of the Wrigley mound is bad for him or what, but Maddon is right not to trust him.

That said, using a career starter on back-to-back days was a recipe for disaster.

soaktherichMember since 2016
8 years ago

Thank you, Dave, for calling it like it is and not succumbing to the national media’s collective crush on Genius Joe. I get that he’s an amusing interview and he’s knowledgeable about wine and stuff but it’s well documented (esp. in these pages) that the Cubs won the WS last year pretty much in spite of Maddon’s repeated head scratchers and forehead smackers in the playoffs. If there’s one thing he’s truly great at, it’s calling attention to himself, so when he drops the ball the spotlight should stay right on him.

Mooondog
8 years ago

I think the criticism on not using Davis is spot on. Once Dodgers got a man on second, I’m bringing in Davis to get 2 outs. I don’t see how it’s that big of a deal. You get to the 10th inning and hey, who knows? Davis comes in, throws maybe a dozen pitches and that’s it. He’s ready for Tuesday. I agree you don’t play every game like it’s a game 7, but bringing in Davis was okay. Only rational explanation is that something is going on with Davis that we don’t know about.

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  Mooondog

I tend to agree with you, and I suppose I can understand why Maddon wouldn’t the story to become “after 44 pitches in Game 5 of the NLDS, Davis is fatigued, or has dead arm, or is hurt”. I’m ordinarily inclined to give the manager some benefit of the doubt in a situation like this one.

One challenge I’m having, though, is some of the other head-scratching moves. Schwarber started vs. a LH starting pitcher in Game 1.

In this game, he never got PA’s for Schwarber or Happ (or any bench player except Zobrist), and Maddon’s post-game explanation for letting Almora bat against Jansen was that “I thought he [Almora] would have moved the baseball, and he did.”

It’s true that Schwarber and Happ have much higher K%’s than Almora, but the situation was 2 outs in the 9th with a runner on 1st and Jansen on the mound. There’s obviously no move that gives a team a great chance to score in that situation, but making contact hardly seems like a big consideration there. Realistically, your slim hope of scoring is probably an extra-base hit of some sort. Or, even if you’re just hoping for any sort of baserunner to extend the inning, Jansen’s career wOBA allowed is .256 vs LH hitters compared to .199 vs. RH hitters. Both are excellent, but at least take a shot with a LH hitter (and one who also has more power than Almora).

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago

It’s certainly not the biggest criticism, but I find it curious that Maddon has now on three occasions brought in starting pitchers during the middle of an inning in the playoffs. There were also inherited runners on base in each situation. To be clear, I’m not including Lester’s Game 4 NLDS appearance or Lackey’s 2nd inning in Game 1 of the NLCS, because in those instances the pitcher came out to the mound to start a clean inning.

Quintana came into the 7th inning Game 4 of the NLDS with a 9-6 lead and a runner on first base. He threw 12 pitches of which only 6 were strikes.

Lackey came into the 7th inning of Game 1 of the NLCS trailing 2-4 and with runners on 1st and 2nd base. In that inning, he threw 13 pitches, including a wild pitch, of which only 7 were strikes.

Lackey also of course came into the 9th inning of Game 2 of the NLCS with the game tied and runners on 1st and 2nd. He threw 8 pitches, of which only 3 were strikes.

The sample size is small, and I’m generally inclined to defer to managers on questions like “can starters psychologically break from routine and enter the middle of an inning with runners on base.” Just looking at how few strikes these pitchers are throwing in these situations, though – 17 called balls on 33 pitches – you’ve got to wonder if there is something to the idea that this situation isn’t a great way to put starters into the middle of games. It’s only 9 hitters across 3 appearances, but they’ve walked two, gotten no strikeouts, and allowed 3 hits while getting 4 outs on balls in play.

shampain
8 years ago

I think a lot of Maddon’s rep as a savvy manager is actually due to managing rosters constructed by savvy general managers. I.e., Tampa Bay is a progressive organization, and Maddon was the manager for Tampa Bay, ergo Maddon must be a progressive manager. Double-down on the narrative when Theo “Wonderboy” Epstein pays out a ton of money to buy him from Tampa Bay.

So people try to create some N-Dimensional Chess story when we see things like an “offensive” lineup with Schwarber and Jay against Kershaw, because while it seems pretty obviously better (both offensively *and* defensively) to play Happ and Zobrist it must not actually be. Joe must know something that we don’t.

In all likelihood, of course, he doesn’t. He’s just taking gambles from his gut like every other old-school manager.

Mahoney
8 years ago

Fun John Lackey Fact: Teams using John Lackey as a reliever in the post-season have won the World Series 100% of the time.*

*through 2016 😉

John Autin
8 years ago

I think all of these choices are debatable, but none is a clear mistake.

Starting Heyward or Zobrist … I see little to choose. Heyward can’t hit a lefty, but he’s still a great fielder. And I don’t know if Zobrist’s bat makes a net plus over the defensive drop. At 36, off a bad hitting year, I’m not sure how much his career stats against southpaws matter now. Maybe he was BAbip-unlucky, but his power and walks were down, too, and he’s moving more slowly. The old-age truck can come suddenly.

Batting Schwarber for Heyward in the 7th … He wouldn’t have faced a righty. Morrow had gotten 5 outs, and Roberts was ready to go batter-to-batter (see the 8th). And since Schwarber stinks against LHP, he would have been wasted in that spot. The best chances to use Schwarber were for Almora, starting the 7th against Morrow (though Roberts still might have subbed) or in the 9th against Jansen. Happ might have been a better choice for Almora in the 7th. But their numbers vs. RHP aren’t that far apart; Morrow had a reverse split this year (SSS); and there’s the PH penalty. It’s not obvious.

Using Lackey … I might have gone Davis, but it wasn’t a stretch to think Lackey could retire Taylor to end the threat. Lackey vs. RHBs in the last 2 years had a .214 BA with 25% SO and 5.6% BB; and since any hit to the outfield there scores the winning run, his HR problem isn’t really a factor. The blunder was walking Taylor, which made the subsequent choice much more complicated.

johnforthegiants
8 years ago

Managers with great bullpens tend to look like geniuses. Managers with mediocre bullpens tend to look mediocre.

acpea
8 years ago

Would you also count Maddon starting Jay and Schwarber in the same lineup vs Kershaw instead of Almora?

timmer
8 years ago
Reply to  acpea

Almora started that game and hit a HR

Dominikk85Member since 2020
8 years ago

Is maddon making post season roster decisions? Wouldn’t that be more on theo?

Dave TMember since 2025
8 years ago
Reply to  Dominikk85

For most organizations, post-season rosters for each round are chosen in a collaborative process between the front office and manager/coaches. I haven’t read any articles detailing how the Cubs make this decision, but it would be very strange if Maddon didn’t have a lot of input into the choice of players for each round’s postseason roster.