Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There is still hope

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There is still hope

    Saturday, we draw the very hittable Hernandez. It was good for us that Melvin chose to start Owings on Sunday, who is the better pitcher of the two (presumably, he chose to go with experience over talent). Owings has been inconsistent this year, but at times has looked great even without the bat, so I like the fact that it will be Zambrano against Owings and not Hill. These are 2 very winnable games at Wrigley, and Diamondbacks play significantly worse on the road (40-41 versus 50-31). If there is a game 5, we get Webb, although it helps that game 5 comes after a day off, so the bullpen will be rested, and can also be used early in the game. Also they won't have a game the following day, so Lou can pull all the stops against their ace.

    I'm going to be pissed if we lose to Arizona. I don't care what happens, I'm just not drinking the Diamondback kool-aid; this is not that good of a team (at least not yet).
    To offset some of the pain of being a diehard Cubs fan, I've learned to also be a moderate Yankees fan.

  • #2
    Yeah, there's hope, but not much. Our bats need to catch fire, but our pitching staff has given up big hits and big runs. How many times are our guys going to swing at pitches 12" out of the strike zone?

    Comment


    • #3
      It's not over until it's over. But, the Cubbies aren't swinging the bats very well. It's one thing to get shut down by Brandon Webb, but to let Doug Davis have his way with you is not a good sign.
      Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by KCGHOST View Post
        It's one thing to get shut down by Brandon Webb, but to let Doug Davis have his way with you is not a good sign.
        Davis gave up 4 runs in 5.2 innings for a 6.35 ERA, so I don't classify that as having his way. During those innings, he gave up 5 hits and 4 walks, for a 1.6WHIP as well. He did strike out a lot, but that doesn't make it a good outing.
        To offset some of the pain of being a diehard Cubs fan, I've learned to also be a moderate Yankees fan.

        Comment


        • #5

          Comment


          • #6
            Doug Davis' line looked pretty good until after that second out in the 6th inning.

            Up until that point it was 5 hits, 2 walks, and 2 runs in 5.2 innings. He wasn't overly dominant in that nobody got on base but accept for that floater thrown at Soto he was never in trouble and the Cubs never looked good against him

            Juan Cruz giving up the double bloated his ERA for the game but if the score was closer I doubt Cruz comes in and I doubt the Cubs score.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
              Doug Davis' line looked pretty good until after that second out in the 6th inning.

              Up until that point it was 5 hits, 2 walks, and 2 runs in 5.2 innings. He wasn't overly dominant in that nobody got on base but accept for that floater thrown at Soto he was never in trouble and the Cubs never looked good against him

              Juan Cruz giving up the double bloated his ERA for the game but if the score was closer I doubt Cruz comes in and I doubt the Cubs score.
              Even through 5 innings, he had a whip of 1.4. A WHIP of 1.4 isn't good and usually translates into an ERA somewhere around low to mid 4s. Therefore, I don't think his performance was dominating during even the first five innings. I was responding to the post that he was having his way with the lineup. Even if you ignore Cruz, during all the innings he pitched, his WHIP was 1.6, which usually translates to an ugly ERA.
              To offset some of the pain of being a diehard Cubs fan, I've learned to also be a moderate Yankees fan.

              Comment


              • #8
                He threw 5 innings of ball in which except for the Soto hit he did not allow the Cubs to bunch any of their hits or walks. He allowed few players to put the ball in play or to put the ball in play hard. His WHIP ratio is practically meaningless on a game by game basis. At the game level it matters what kind of hits he was giving up and when he was allowing baserunners. 3 of the 7 baserunners allowed until the 6th were in one inning. The inning in which Soto homered. Even then after the homer he struck out 3 players while allowing one walk to end the inning. It wasn't a dominating performance on the level of Koufax or anything like that. But Davis shut the Cubs down rather well yesterday. He gave up 4 singles and a homer.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
                  He threw 5 innings of ball in which except for the Soto hit he did not allow the Cubs to bunch any of their hits or walks. He allowed few players to put the ball in play or to put the ball in play hard. His WHIP ratio is practically meaningless on a game by game basis. At the game level it matters what kind of hits he was giving up and when he was allowing baserunners. 3 of the 7 baserunners allowed until the 6th were in one inning. The inning in which Soto homered. Even then after the homer he struck out 3 players while allowing one walk to end the inning. It wasn't a dominating performance on the level of Koufax or anything like that. But Davis shut the Cubs down rather well yesterday. He gave up 4 singles and a homer.
                  Sometimes I think you just make up new theories as you go along to prove whatever point you want to at the moment. He was charged with 4 runs, he allowed 9 baserunners, he threw 112 pitches before finishing the 6th inning, yet you want to argue that he shut down the Cubs because he spread the number of hits over innings and didn't allow extra base hits, and he stepped up his game at the right time. However, he did have 2 innings when things did get bunched up and he did allow a home run, and somehow, we're supposed to discount those innings, which are inconvenient to your argument.

                  Although Cruz came in and gave up a double, how do we know that Davis would have done better had he been left in? Melvin didn't want him to continue because he thought he'd get a better result with Cruz--it wasn't to save Davis for game 6.

                  Well, at some point, the law of averages catches up to someone, and "timely" outs suddenly don't come. People bother to measure things such as WHIPs and BABIP, precisely because when they are out of whack with runs allowed, it indicates that a pitcher may have been lucky. Things tend to get out of whack especially in a small sample sizes, so I don't agree that it's irrelevant on a game by game basis.

                  By the way, the argument that pitchers should be evaluated based on whether they induced outs at the right time is often used to justify why wins matter as a stat. I'm not saying there's no such thing as timely pitching, but I wouldn't put too much weight to it, because more often than not, it's just dumb luck.
                  To offset some of the pain of being a diehard Cubs fan, I've learned to also be a moderate Yankees fan.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I might also add to this that after two postseason games, nobody has a postseason AVG or OBP or ERA or WHIP. Those are measures of a player's overall ability, and thus require a larger sample size to be accurate. It's just like at the beginning of the year when batters are 2 for 5, not .400. Any sample size smaller than 5 games, you might as well be making up numbers.
                    Senior Editor/Featured Writer for Home Of The Chiefs

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by nathanKent View Post
                      I might also add to this that after two postseason games, nobody has a postseason AVG or OBP or ERA or WHIP. Those are measures of a player's overall ability, and thus require a larger sample size to be accurate. It's just like at the beginning of the year when batters are 2 for 5, not .400. Any sample size smaller than 5 games, you might as well be making up numbers.
                      That's not the point. If Derrick Lee goes 0 for 4, in game one, I wouldn't say he's a bad player because his playoff average is .000, but I would still say he had a bad game unless he was really robbed of some hard hit balls.
                      To offset some of the pain of being a diehard Cubs fan, I've learned to also be a moderate Yankees fan.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        its not over until we say its over!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Scartissue View Post
                          That's not the point. If Derrick Lee goes 0 for 4, in game one, I wouldn't say he's a bad player because his playoff average is .000, but I would still say he had a bad game unless he was really robbed of some hard hit balls.
                          I agree, but what I'm saying is calculating a player's ERA from a single game (or less than that) isn't a reflection of much of anything. It's like the stat I always tout out about Dempster's ERA against the Mets this year (39.something) and how it artificially inflates his season ERA because of a couple of bad innings. If Dempster pitches a complete game (try not to laugh at the absurdity of that idea) against the Mets, he's not giving up 39 runs.

                          Likewise, saying a guy has a 1.4 WHIP over 5 innings is pretty meaningless. That's an indication of one not-so-great inning, not a reflection of how the guy consistently pitches from inning to inning, which is what WHIP is designed to tell you. It roughly translates into a guy who pitched 4 innings of 1.0 WHIP baseball but also had one inning where he allowed three baserunners.

                          Finally (and only because I don't believe in subtlety), to verify what I'm talking about, which measure is closer to accurately describing Kevin Hart's capacity as a MLB pitcher--the 11.0 innings of 0.82 ERA baseball in the regular season or the 2.0 innings of 18.00 ERA baseball in the postseason? Neither. Obviously a 0.82 can't be maintained, even by the best pitchers, and the 18.00 is an indication (again) of one bad inning. He's probably more of a 5.00ish ERA kind of guy in real life.
                          Senior Editor/Featured Writer for Home Of The Chiefs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If we don't look at how many runs a pitcher gives up or how many baserunners he allowed, I don't know how else you would fairly measure a pitcher's performance for a given game and conclude he did or did not dominate. I just don't buy the idea that you look to whether the outs came at the right times.

                            Webb dominated. Zambrano dominated. But Davis? No way.
                            To offset some of the pain of being a diehard Cubs fan, I've learned to also be a moderate Yankees fan.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Scartissue View Post
                              If we don't look at how many runs a pitcher gives up or how many baserunners he allowed, I don't know how else you would fairly measure a pitcher's performance for a given game and conclude he did or did not dominate. I just don't buy the idea that you look to whether the outs came at the right times.

                              Webb dominated. Zambrano dominated. But Davis? No way.
                              I didn't say that. I said a larger sample size is needed. A 1.4 WHIP sounds pretty bad. Four singles and a homer sounds pretty good (Zambrano, BTW, gave up three singles and a homer).

                              Now, do I think Davis put on as dominant a performance as Zambrano? Absolutely not. All I'm saying is there's a disparity between what you'd expect from a guy with a 1.4 WHIP and what Davis did to our offense.
                              Senior Editor/Featured Writer for Home Of The Chiefs

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X