The '08 Cubs are the best Cubs team since?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I'm looking at the Cubs team stats. They are on pace to score 939 runs and give up just 677 runs. They are currently on pace for about 100 wins but their Pythagorean expected record has them on 107 win pace. Granted this may be just a hot start by the Cubs but they are playing very well. So how good is this team? And how far back do we have to go back to find a better Cubs team? I think this team is better than the '84, '89, and '03 team. Are they better than the '69 Cubs? The '29 Cubs? The '32 Cubs? Do we have to go all the way back to the Cubs great dynasty of Tinkers to Ever to Chance to find a better Cubs team? What say you Cubs' fans?

[nathanKent]

Compared to the '03 team ('03 was the first year I followed the Cubs), this team is considerably better offensively. We're getting stellar offensive production at seven positions, even from the backups. Cedeno finally looks legit, and Blanco is having a career year. Seven of our position players have an OBP over .400 and three more are over .350.

Pitching-wise, it's not as good as '03. There isn't a boat anchor in the rotation like there was with Estes, but the #2-#4 depth is not the same. Lilly, Dempster, and Marquis don't hold a candle to Wood, Clement, and Z. I don't see our 'pen as being particularly better either, but it's a moot point because it wasn't a problem then and it isn't a problem now.

But back to the rotation, I have zero expectation that we'll see three of our starters post an ERA of 3.20 or better.

[Whitesoxnut]

The Cubs are going to the WS this year.

[Thommy]

Lets see ... they will win at least the NL Pennant (I think) ... they won the last NL Pennant in 1945 ... so I say: The '08 Cubs are the best Cubs team since 1945!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Lets see ... they will win at least the NL Pennant (I think) ... they won the last NL Pennant in 1945 ... so I say: The '08 Cubs are the best Cubs team since 1945!

Weren't the '45 Cubs a war depleted team?

[wrigleybum]

Weren't the '45 Cubs a war depleted team?

Yea, pretty much every team was war depleted, so the 1945 Cubs really weren't very good, just good in comparison.

I am not old enough to remember 1984, so this is the best Cubs team I have ever seen. I talked to my Dad, and he thinks this team is better than the 1984 team, but not the 1969 team. The '69 had a horrible horrible September (black cat circling Santo, swept at Shea, ect. ect.), yet they still won 92 games. The 1969 Cubs major problem was durability, they faded at the end. We have no way of knowing if this Cubs team will do the same or stay strong, so we can't compare that aspect.

[cubmanjay]

1984 and 2003 were both solid teams and they both broke my heart. I think this years team has the potential to be the best. What made '84 and '03 such good teams was their complete rosters, no superstar carrying the team (Sandberg and Sosa respectively could be debated)

1984 http://www.baseball-almanac.com/team...p?y=1984&t=CHN
2003 http://www.baseball-almanac.com/team...p?y=2003&t=CHN

I look forward to making comparisons as the year goes along.

[Whitesoxnut]

One thing they are going to have to do is play better road ball.

That they are a hitting machine should surprise nobody.

What is very pertinent is how their pitching is stacking up with the other MLB teams. I believe the Cubs are 2nd in overall team ERA in the NL. The teams pitching as well as the Cubs Im not that worried about, Arizona and Atlanta. I dont think either team has either the talent or the bench of the Cubs.

We will see, in the end it will come down to pitching and I think Cub pitching, most of all starting pitching, is good enough to take the NL.

Lou is a very good manager. Yes he'll make mistakes but he uses his entire team and that bodes well for the end stretch.

I dont think any team in their division is even going to challenge them. The birds are already showing some cracks and I dont think the Astros have it. The Brewers have had injuries that they probably cant recover from. While a good team they have a depth problem.

Zambrano, Lilly, and Demp, have so far shown they have the right stuff. Having 3 solid arms in the rotation like that, in that division, is huge. I believe they also have enough depth to fill the other 2 spots well.

Remember when you can hit like that you can make an average pitcher look great. And the Cubs my friends are leading the entire MLB is runs scored a game. Scoring runs just plain gives your pitchers added confidence and loosness. They arent throwing around the edges as much and instead are throwing strikes.

Anything can happen in baseball but its my belief the talent is there to host a WS at Wrigley in 2008.

[Ubiquitous]

The 1989 team was a solid team. They played in a different era so there numbers are not gaudy but they had the league best offense, and had a good pitching staff.

The 2008 Cubs team is not going to win 100 games. They are probably going to end up around 90 to 95 wins. There is no way 5 of their starters are going to continue to have a .400 OBP. Throw in Blanco and Cedeno in that statement as well. Dempster won't stay this good, Marquis will do his usual collapse and there is no way Marmol can keep up this workload.

Be happy the wins are in the bank so we don't have to get them later.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The 1989 team was a solid team. They played in a different era so there numbers are not gaudy but they had the league best offense, and had a good pitching staff.

I think the '89 Giants' offense was a match for he Cubs. Yes, the Cubs led the NL runs scored. Some caveats:

1) The Cubs only outscored the Giants by 3 runs.
2) The Giants hit more HRs, triples, and doubles, and had more walks.
3) Wrigley Field had a 108 Park Factor, Candlestick Part had a 97 Park Factor.

However, the Cubs had a higher BA, OBP (mostly driven by their higher BA, though), and many more SBs with a much better success rate..

[Yoda]

I love Lou's post game conferences.


I wish they made a DVD of them, like a best of.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The 1929, 1932, and 1935 Cubs are three mostly forgotten National League Champions. They did lose all three Word Series, winning just three games total.


1929 Chicago Cubs

98-54 (.645) won by NL 10.5 games
982 Runs (1st), 758 RA (2nd), 4.16 ERA (2nd)

-Rogers Hornsby: .380/.459/.679, 178 OPS+, 39 HR, 149 RBI, 156 R, 47 doubles, 229 H

-Hack Wilson: .345/.425/.618, 155 OPS+, 39 HR, 159 RBI, 135 R, 30 doubles, 198 H

-Riggs Stephens: .362/.445/.562, 147 OPS+, 17 HR, 110 RBI, 91 R, 36 doubles, 179 H

-Kiki Cuyler: .360/.438/.532, 139 OPS+, 15 HR, 102 RBI, 111 R, 29 doubles, 183 H

-Charlie Root: 19-6, 3.47 ERA, 133 ERA+

-Pat Malone: 22-10, 3.57 ERA, 129 ERA+

-Guy Bush: 18-7, 3.66 ERA, 126 ERA+



1932 Chicago Cubs

90-64 (.584) won NL by 4 games
720 Runs (4th), 633 RA (1st), 3.44 ERA (1st)

-Riggs Stephens: .324/.383/.443, 122 OPS+, 4 HR, 85 RBI, 86 R, 49 doubles, 189 H

-Johnny Moore: .305/.342/.470, 116 OPS+, 13 HR, 64 RBI, 59 R,

-Billy Herman: .314/.358/.404, 105 OPS+, 206 H, 102 R

-Lon Warneke: 22-6, 2.37 ERA, 159 ERA+

-Guy Bush: 19-11, 3.21 ERA+, 117 ERA+


1935 Chicago Cubs

100-54 (.649) won NL by 4 games
848 runs (1st), 597 RA (1st), 3.26 ERA (1st)

Gabby Hartnett .344/.404/.545, 151 OPS+, 13 HR, 91 RBI, 67 R

Augie Galan .314/.399/.467, 131 OPS+, 12 HR, 79 RBI, 133 R, 41 doubles, 203 H

Bill Herman .341/.383/.476, 128 OPS+, 7 HR, 83 RBI, 113 R, 57 doubles, 227 H

Bill Lee: 20-6, 2.96 ERA, 133 ERA+, 18 CG,

Lon Warneke, 20-13, 3.06 ERA, 129 ERA+, 20 CG

Larry French: 17-10, 2.96 ERA, 133 ERA+, 16 CG

[nathanKent]

The 1989 team was a solid team. They played in a different era so there numbers are not gaudy but they had the league best offense, and had a good pitching staff.

The 2008 Cubs team is not going to win 100 games. They are probably going to end up around 90 to 95 wins. There is no way 5 of their starters are going to continue to have a .400 OBP. Throw in Blanco and Cedeno in that statement as well. Dempster won't stay this good, Marquis has already done his usual collapse and there is no way Marmol can keep up this workload.

Be happy the wins are in the bank so we don't have to get them later.

I have revised your post for greater accuracy.

[Lipsander]

One thing they are going to have to do is play better road ball.

No doubt, I'm not sure I understand why they do not play better on the road though.

[Ubiquitous]

The Cubs are 9-11 on the road, for the most part that is pretty darn close to where you want to be on the road.

The Cubs are 2 under and the best team in the NL is 3 over. AT this point the difference between the two is not great. The road record right now is a minor quibble.