Much of the discussion on the site centers around whether the Cubs are contenders or not? While the discussion can be clouded with different definitions for the term "contender", I think we can all agree there are a handful of teams in baseball that seem to be contenders year in and year out. Over the last 5 seasons, five teams have made the playoffs in 3 of those 5 years: Philadelphia, St. Louis, NY Yankees, Boston Red Sox, and LA Angels. These teams have combined for 4 of the last 5 World Series and each of those teams has averaged right around or above 90 wins over the last 6 years. If we can all agree that these are the perennial contenders, let's dig in and assess what separates these organizations from the Cubs

I, as many others on the site, have been critical of the Cubs in a number of areas: 1) Developing from within 2) relying too heavily on FA's 3) overpaying in years and dollars 4) giving up too early on prospects, etc. But one of the things I don't think gets discussed enough is the lack of flexibility the Cubs allow themselves, both in payroll and roster construction.

Now all of these things tie in together, so let's take a look at how some the other contenders differentiate themselves from the Cubs.

The first thing I like to look at is how the 5 contenders and Cubs have constructed their rosters, so let's take a simplified look at how the clubs have built their 25 man rosters:

 

Cubs:

Traded for - 7, Signed as FA - 8, Developed from Within - 10

Total spent in years and dollars on Initial FA contracts (price to acquire): 21 years, $242.8 Million

Average Years: 2.625, Average Total Value $30.35 Million

Cardinals:

Traded For - 2, Signed as FA - 9, Developed from Within - 14

Total spent in years and dollars on Initial FA contracts (price to acquire): 9 years, $19.60 Million

Average Years: 1 , Average Total Value: $2.18 Million

Phillies:

Traded for - 5, Signed as FA - 11, Developed from Within -6, claimed off waivers/rule5 - 3

Total spent in years and dollars on Initial FA contracts (price to acquire): 19 years, $76.10 Million

Average Years: 1.72, Average Total Value: $6.92 Million

Angels:

Traded for - 4, Signed as FA - 6, Developed from Within - 15

Total spent in years and dollars on Initial FA contracts (price to acquire): 13 yrs, $145.5 Million

Average Years: 2.17, Average Total Value: $24.25 Million

Red Sox:

Traded for - 6, Signed as FA - 10, Developed from Within - 9

Total spent in years and dollars on Initial FA contracts (price to acquire): 25 yrs, $246.43 Million

Average Years: 2.5, Average Total Value: $ 24.64Million

Yankees:

Traded for - 6, Signed as FA - 8, Developed from Within - 11

Total spent in years and dollars on Initial FA contracts (price to acquire):   23 yrs, $431.25 Million

Average Years: 2.875, Average Total Value: $53.9 Million

Looking over those numbers, the first thing that stands out is the only team that outspends the Cubs based on years and total contract value is the Yankees. This isn't surprising given the high-priced talent they've pursued in FA. The Red Sox are in the same ballpark as the Cubs, but the other 3 teams take much less risk via free agency. The Angels have handed out a few big contracts, but they've developed 60% of their roster from within. While the Phillies haven't built with a lot of guys from within, their FA deals have generally been short-term and small dollar amounts. They've picked up guys off waivers, rule 5, and scrap heap guys signed to short-term deals. The Cardinals are a mix of the Angels and Phillies, developing from within but also relying on scrap heap FA's on short-term deals.

The common thread here is that the consistent contenders are keeping contracts short and/or not spending a lot in FA to build their team.Short-term commitments and low-dollar spending allows flexibility in both payroll AND roster.

 

The only teams that are in the same ballpark as the Cubs in terms of average dollars spent in FA and average years doled out are the Red Sox and Yankees. So that begs the question: what separates those two teams from the Cubs?

1) Developing elite Up-The-Middle players

2) Tactically spending in FA

3) Maintaining Roster Flexibility

All three of these concepts meld together and this is really the focal point of my post. If you look around in FA their are a few positions that elite players rarely become available and they have one thing in common: up-the-middle positions with defensive value. When's the last elite SS that hit FA? How about the last elite 2B? CF? C? When you think of these positions, players just don't hit FA consistently. Because when teams are fortunate to develop an up the middle star, they lock them up or if they're afraid they'll leave, they move them in a trade. 

Hanley Ramirez, Chase Utley, Joe Mauer, Jimmy Rollins, Derek Jeter, Brian McCann, Ian Kinsler, Robinson Cano, Ben Zobrist, Jose Reyes are all recent examples.

If you look at the Red Sox and Yankees they've developed elite up the middle talent in Pedroia, Cano, Jeter, Ellsbury, Posada and then locked them up with their financial resources. The Cubs... well we've just recently developed Geovany Soto as our lone qualifier.

The problem with not developing up-the-middle talent is two-fold, 1) as I've established you're not going to find it in FA, and thus 2) when spending in FA you're forced to spend on assets that are readily available and generally don't age well. Corner OF's or IF's that need to move down the defensive spectrum as they age. This is important because the structure of MLB free agency is that most players hit FA at their age 29-32 seasons, this is generally considered towards the end of a player's peak years. So if you sign a 31 year old to a 3 year deal not only are you likely receiving declining production than what you've paid for (paying on past production), but you'll have to maintain flexibility in order to move them down the defensive spectrum.

This brings me to my final point. The Cubs have tied their hands by not only relying on FA, but by leaving little flexibility to be able to tactically target FA's or leave room for players to develop. Since the Soriano signing, the Cubs have had 1B, 3B, and LF all tied up in long-term contracts. They left RF the last potential position open for exactly 1 year before filling it with Fukudome. Going into 2008 the Cubs had tied up the 4 positions you're most likely to find in FA for the next 4 years, all with players making at least $12 million annually. The Cubs had limited themselves not only from pursuing other FA's (either high priced front line talent, or low-cost values), but from developing players in any of those spots. None of those contracts were rolling off anytime soon and the Cubs were locked in. They then compounded this by signing Bradley in '09 and Byrd in '10. But that's besides the point, let's see how the other big boys handled those 4 positions during the last 5 years.

Now the beauty of the Red Sox and Yankees is they inherently have the advantage of a 5th position (the DH) to allow them more flexibility, so while the Cubs only have 4 positions to play with down the defensive spectrum, The Sox and Yanks get 5. It's a big advantage and both those teams have used it widely.

Let's take a look at the Red Sox and Yankes in those 5 positions back in 2006:

Red Sox                                                                                                                  

1B - Kevin Youk (year-to-year team control)

3B - Mike Lowell (contract expiring end of '07)

LF - Manny Ramirez (contract expiring end of '08, 2- team options)

RF - Trot Nixon (contract expire end of '06)

DH - David Ortiz (contract expire end of '06, 1 team option)

So the Red Sox had three positions where they could cut bait after '06. This trend continued throughout the next 4 years as Youk remained under team control through '08, and Ramirez was on player options for '09 and '10. Every single year the Red Sox had at least 1 position they could be flexible with and 1 position expiring the next season. Thus if an elite FA who was entering or still in their prime came about. They could make a run at them.

How about the Yankees:

1B - Andy Phillips (team control)

3B - Alex Rodriguez (contract expiring end of '08)

LF - Hideki Matsui (contract expiring end of '09)

RF - Bobby Abreu (contract expiring end of '07, team option for '08)

DH - Jason Giambi (contract expiring end of '08)

The Yankees only had 1 commitment beyond 2008. This allowed them to be big-time players in FA over the years, as they tactically added a guy pretty much each year

In 2008, they signed Johnny Damon to fill a Corner OF slot, sliding Matsui to DH and Giambi to 1B. For that one season they were all tied up, but they had Giambi and ARod expiring + a team option for Abreu.

In 2009, they exercised the option on Abreu, extended ARod, let Giambi walk (opening DH back up). So they now had 1 spot open with Matsui/Abreu coming off the books in '09.

This is how they allowed themselves to be players in FA every year and eventually they waited it out and landed the big stud in FA, entering FA in his prime: Mark Teixeira. Few guys enter FA in their prime, but Tex had just finished his age 28 season, so while he got a massive 8 year deal, 3-4 of those seasons would be in the middle or towards the end of his prime. Unlike the Cubs who when they signed Alfonso Soriano to an 8 year deal it was at the end of his age 30 season, meaning the Cubs were likely to get 1-2 years of prime performance before 6 years of a decline.

This is why FLEXIBILITY is so important both in Payroll and in Roster. This offseason when the Yankees lost Hideki Matsui and Johnny Damon and had spots open in LF and DH, they decided to sign Nick Johnson to a 1 year deal and give cost-controlled Brett Gardner a chance. Continuing to leave them 2 spots available for next offseason. And looking ahead... we have the 2nd player in our generation coming to FA in their prime: Carl Crawford, who will be entering FA after his age 27 season. While the Cubs won't have the flexibility to pursue him, the Yankees are right their ready to pounce.

That's what a great organization does. They don't react year-to-year, they have a long-term plan and give themselves outs. A lot of people can talk about the Yankees outspending everyone, but they're winning because they're allowing themselves to outspend on the cream of the crop because they're keeping roster spots open ahead of time for them. The Cubs meanwhile look at what happened the year before and throw all their money and roster positions to fix the most recent hole, never leaving enough room to tactically take advantage of values in the market (like Bobby Abreu in '09 1 yr $5 million or scrap heap guys like Ryan Ludwick) or tactically prepare for the true stars who are entering FA in their prime.

So the lesson here is pretty simple. The perennial contenders do a number of things significantly better than the Cubs. They develop talent from within, specifically up-the-middle players. They allow themselves upside in contracts by taking chances on short-term contracts with scrap-heap and value players. And they allow themselves roster flexibility to be able to tactically plan ahead.

If the Cubs are going to become a perennial contender they need to change the organizational philosophy and learn from the contending teams around them. These  organizations aren't just outclassing the Cubs in scouting/development/fa signings, but they're constructing rosters and budgets that allow them the flexibility to change their strategy if something isn't working. When I complained this offseason of seeing the same mistakes being made (Grabow signing - waste of money, Byrd signing - tying up flexibility), this is why. It's an organizational pattern of tying their own hands and I hoped to see a change with the Ricketts family in charge. Now with all that being said... it's just been one offseason... and there's plenty of reason to hope things can change

Why there's hope (see I'm not always "pessimistic"!)

Tim Wilken's always placed an emphasis on up-the-middle athletes when drafting. As a result the Cubs have begun developing depth in up-the-middle talent. Castro and Soto are at the major league level and can be the foundation of an elite team in the near future. Brett Jackson is an athletic CF (up-the-middle again) and the team is deep with 2B/SS prospects Lee, Flaherty, Lemahieu, etc

In addition to starting to build depth in the premier positions, the organization has a chance to re-create roster flexibility in the next two offseasons.

At the end of this year, Derrek Lee comes off the books and Aramis Ramirez could potentially opt out. At the end of 2011 Kosuke Fukudome's contract comes off. In total over the next two years our salary commitments go from $144 million to just over $60 million.

It just so happens at the end of the 2011 season a plethora of big-time FA 1B are scheduled to hit FA. Prince Fielder (who will have concluded his age 27 season), Adrian Gonzalez (just completed age 29 season), Albert Pujols (completed age 31 season, but arguably greatest hitter of all time). Now mind you, it doesn't mean throwing a ton of money is necessarily the right answer, but the flexibility will be improving. After 2011 we'll only have commitments to Soriano at one of those 4 positions, so even if the 1B FA class isn't the one to target, the Cubs might be able to target other elite players that become available at corner IF or OF positions.

So there's reason for hope and the next two seasons (while they likely won't yield contenders) will be the seasons that determine whether the Cubs can become perennial contenders from 2012 on. If the organizational philosophy changes and the team begins to acknowledge the importance of developing up-the-middle talent and the value of not only payroll but roster flexibility, the Cubs can begin leveraging their financial advantages like the Red Sox and Yankees have (tactically spending on elite FAs, locking up their own to favorable terms, and pouring money into the draft)

If you've read through this much, I appreciate you taking the time. I've been wanting to get my frustrations and my solutions as to how to fix things onto the site for some time. A number of times I've been painted as a pessimist, but I feel very strongly that the organization has lacked a philosophy other than "hope to win the division because we can spend more than the rest of the incompetent organizations (other than STL) AKA win by being the tallest midget". This is the reason I complain that they're building 80-90 win teams, and not consistently 90+ win teams despite having the resources to do so. The fix won't be a quick one, but the pieces and opportunities are in place in the next few years and if the Cubs want to become an elite organization, they'll need to recognize and make the changes to their organizational philosophy as described above.

With another scoreless inning this afternoon, Carlos Marmol extended his scoreless appearances streak to 6 games. During this span he's regained his form of previous seasons striking out 10 and walking just 3, while allowing just 5 base-runners in total. While everyone breathes a short sigh of relief to see the old Carlos back again, I'd like to investigate what the difference is between Marmol of late and the "erratic" Marmol we saw earlier in the season.

Before getting into it, I should preface this by saying while I've been a member of BCB I've probably been known best for two debates, which i've firmly entrenched myself on a side of. The first would be the pro-Felix Pie camp and the second would be the camp that was issuing warning signs about Marmol's usage. With regards to Marmol, I first raised concerns over this in a thread DGU posted last August (i believe), noting the abusive patterns in which Marmol was being used and the times a more diligent manager may have been able to avoid using Marmol. The second was a post earlier this year when things were actually going OK for the Cubs. I highlighted Marmol's alarming command issues and for the most part the poll I posted suggested there was nothing wrong and it was a short-term concern: A blip on the radar screen if you will.

Now as you'll have it there are arguments that can be made on both ends suggesting they were right. As often is the case with prognostication people can claim they weren't wrong, they were just "early". This is all fine and good the point of the site is to bring opinions to the table and talk about them in an educated and passionate fashion. I'm on board with all of this, I just happen to be more open to arguments I can see and understand. I have trouble seeing intangibles or some of the cliches others hold true about Marmol's confidence or his "comfort level" in his role, etc. As someone with a slight educational background in psychology, I'm not sure I understand how someone who has no interaction with the other human being is able to so plainly diagnose a mental issue like that. So, in general I lean towards numbers, because numbers can often give us insight into the problem and may offer a more reliable and less subjective way of assessing the problem. The numbers won't always tell the whole story, but they're usually a good entry point.

So this brings me to the point of this post: Why is Marmol's effectiveness so wildly different now?

Throughout the last year and a half much of my argument surrounding Marmol has revolved around his usage rates. My argument has largely been that the more frequently Marmol is used the less effective he is. This is contrary to popular belief and Lou's belief that Marmol needs to pitch more regularly to be effective.

To illustrate this point i've often showed these career numbers from Marmol:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=marmoca01&year=Career&t=p#dr

Marmol's effectiveness on Days of Rest as Reliever:

Days Rest           K/9          BB/9

0 Days Rest        12.4        6.6

1 Days Rest        11.0        5.2

2 Days Rest        12.7        5.7

3 Days Rest        12.3        3.9

4+ Days Rest      11.0        3.7

The chart shows that Marmol's ability to strike batters out is pretty consistent no matter the rest, but his command tends to falter the more frequently he's used (as evidenced by the declining BB/9 based on usage). It's a helpful entry point into the discussion, but I'm not sure it paints a full picture; so I wanted to investigate further.

Last year Marmol  had command issues at times, but they've were restricted to shorter spurts. In 2008, Marmol was awful in June/July. But this year those problems were there from the start and rarely subsided. There were blips of his old self, but then the command issues would quickly come back.

So I wanted to put a theory to test. My idea was that based on the opinion Marmol was more effective when pitching more frequently, people were mis-interpreting Marmol's usage patterns.

My idea was fairly simple. In the midst of an abusive pattern Marmol exhibits the same characteristics of his old self, but towards the end of those abusive patterns the fatigue sets in and things start falling apart rapidly. This then leads to a sustained period of decline that can only be re-set by an extended period of rest.

To test this, I simply took all the times Marmol had pitched in what I deemed "absuive patterns". The samples that were included were:

- times Marmol pitched 4 days in a row

- times Marmol pitched 5 times in 7 days

- times Marmol pitched 6 times in 8 days

- times Marmol pitched 4 times in 5 days

- times Marmol pitched 7 times in 10 days

and I compared these with the results directly after Abuse Patterns (the week following an abuse pattern) along with the results of Marmol's effectiveness after what i deemed "Rest periods". Rest periods were graded as the following:

- times Marmol went 4 days without an appearance

- times Marmol had just 1 appearance in 6 days

So I  put together a table of the results of the 11 data points i found for each sample:

 

 

	K/9	BB/9	IP	WHIP	ERA
Abuse	12.55	6.83	56 2/3	1.34	4.13
Post-Abuse	9.64	5.46	28	0.89	2.25
Rest	10.13	5.07	10	0.66	0.00
Post-Rest	12.40	5.51	35 2/3	1.25	1.93

 

There's a bit of overlap in some of the data, for example you can find a rest day that also is "post-abuse" and some of the post-rest days lead into abuse days because of the way Pineilla uses Marmol, but I thought this might be interesting.

It's actually not "as strong" a relationship as I was hoping/expecting to find. Post-abuse Marmol's K Rate declines, but so does his BB Rate and generally he's effective. But far and away the worst period for him is during these abuse patterns, as his BB Rate sky-rockets as do his WHIP and ERA. This disproves my idea that maybe the popular opinion that he was effective the more he pitched was due to Marmol pitching well through abuse patterns and then pitching poorly directly after. It turns out he does in fact pitch the worst while being asked to toe the mound the most often.

This is in line with the earlier link I posted (and have posted dozens of times on here) showing Marmol's career rates based on days rest. All of this seems to add up and suggest, Marmol's just a better pitcher the more time off he gets.

So how does this tie into what we're seeing now? Since Marmol's been moved to closer on August 18th, he's pitched far less than usual. He's pitched just 9 times in 23 days, an average of 2.7 appearances/week. Prior to August 18th his career average was 3.2 appearances/week. In addition as a closer he's pitched on back-to-back days just once and hasn't registered a single "abuse pattern" (as defined above).

This is why I think Marmol is getting back to the ways of old.

It's been an up and down season for Felix Pie as he disappointed early and found himself firmly entrenched on the Orioles bench once again typecast as 4th OF. He was sitting at .195/.271/.310 through May but had just 87 AB's through his first 36 games with the Orioles. The lack of playing time continued in June and July with just an additional 34 AB's, but Pie's fortune turned around as more balls started finding holes. But the real turn-around came on August 17th when Aubrey Huff was traded to the Tigers. This opened up 1B for Luke Scott and allowed the Orioles to give Pie playing time as an OF while DHing some of the other OF's; the opportunity was later expanded when Adam Jones went down with a hamstring injury.

Since that point in time Pie's started 10 of the last 12 games and gone 13-33 with 3 2B's, 1 3B, and 3 HR's  raising his season line to .271/.332/.442

Sure it doesn't seem like a lot, but he's basically providing league average production (his OPS+ is right around 100), but this comes with the move to the league's toughest division in the AL East. His extra base hit rate has jumped to 8.8% after posting just a 6.9% XBH Rate with the Cubs. This is much closer to his 10% rate in the minors. His .40 BB Rate is mirroring the .39 BB Rate at the minor league level and his BABIP at .315 is very normal.

He's not likely to be a star because of the poor plate command, but at 24 he's already become a competent league average CF in the toughest division in baseball while continuing to play good defense. For $10 Million less a year he could've produced somewhat similar overall value than Milton Bradley had the manager and organization had a little more patience and some willingness to give Pie consistent playing time.

Instead of focusing on all the holes in his swing and weaknesses in his game (the glaring lack of plate command), the Orioles have just let Pie play and use his strengths (good gap power) to become a pretty solid young ballplayer.

The Cubs went out of there way this offseason to get more LH and in effect by diversifying the types of bats we had, decreased the flexibility of the roster; largely based on the loss of Mark DeRosa. An injury-free season may have covered up this hole, but such was not the case and when Aramis Ramirez went down (the most indisposable Cub piece), the Cubs lack of depth was exposed immediately.

Since that time we've been pining for solutions and now one may have just fallen into our hands. The White Sox decided to designate Wilson Betemit for assignment yesterday in order to promote uber-prospect Gordon Beckham. Congrats to Sox fans for getting to watch a young talented player who can play all over the diamond, best of luck to you and Mr. Beckham, I for one think he's going to be a very good player.

But today, I want to focus on Betemit. Betemit is a switch-hitting utility player that has never really been given consistent playing time at any major league stop, despite showing good skills. He strikes out too much (28% career rate), but he draws walks (10% rate), hits for power (9.7% extra base hit rate) and has played every position on the diamond except C and CF. He's the PERFECT solution for us right now based on his skill set and now his availability. The only seasons he's gotten more than 250 PA's, he's posted an OPS over .780 and he's just 27 years old.

Go get him Jim Hendry, like.... NOW

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/betemwi01.shtml

There's been a lot of discussion about the bullpen this year with some of the struggles we've had at the front-end of the pen and the constant roster turnover we've seen in those areas, but something I haven't seen discussed at length is the drastic loss of command from Carlos Marmol.

I believe this is the Elephant in the Room no one wants to discuss. Last year Marmol was a huge point of discussion with most of the talks focusing on Marmol's extreme usage patterns and the effects in Marmol's effectiveness after the break. Perhaps the best analysis done on this matter came from harbdall times writer Josh Kalk, in this article: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/anatomy-of-a-player-carlos-marmol/

The article was posted in early July just prior to the All Star Break and just prior to Marmol's most memorable meltdown last year on July 12th (Rich Harden's debut) in which he blew a 7-2 lead in the 9th allowing 5 Runs (1 ER) on 4 hits and 1 BB. The article focused mainly on the contention that Marmol was fatigued and the effects of overuse were readily available in the pitch F/X data. Fortunately for us, Marmol got some much needed rest during the all-star break and closed out the year exceptionally strong, posting a 35:10 K:BB Ratio in his final 29 innings

The question now is: are we paying the price this year for the effects of last year or is this simply a bout with command Carlos has had throughout his career?

Because no matter how we look at it, the numbers suggest Carlos' command has been worse this season than at any other point in his career. In order to create an assessment, let's take a look at his statistics and his pitch F/X data.

First, the stats:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/marmoca01.shtml

Marmol's K/9 is in decline for the 3rd straight season from 12.5 down to 10.1, still elite but a pretty steep decline nonetheless. At the same time we see a significant increase in the BB/9 up to a career high 9.0 (heading into today's spectacular performance). This is a swift change in direction as Marmol had been steadily improving his command.

Now the Pitch F/X data:

http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfx.aspx?playerid=2790&position=P

Note, I'm not an expert with Pitch F/X data so please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but here are things I notice:

1. Marmol's Fastball velocity is down .5 mph after peaking last season at 94. Conversely, the average velocity of his offspeed pitches are each higher this year. Part of this may be the idea that Marmol is "overthrowing" and as such losing command on his breaking balls.

2. In terms of movement, Carlos is seeing more tail on his 4 seam fastball (a good thing), but losing significant amounts of movement in all of his off speed pitches. To me this suggests instead of being able to "break off" or "snap off" his offspeed stuff, the pitches are hanging a bit more.

3. This is on another FanGraphs page, but Marmol's Contact rates are also up, meaning he's missing less bats.

So here's what we know:

- Marmol's command has been significantly worse this season

- He's lost movement on his breaking pitches, but generally velocity has been fine

- Marmol's been far more hittable this year getting less swings and misses, which has led to an increase in his H/9 and a decerease in his K/9

- since the beginning of 2008 no reliever in baseball has appeared in more games than Carlos Marmol

 

I've been of the opinion Marmol's been overused for some time and a lack of any semblance of confidence in any other players in the pen has lead to an abuse of one the organization's most prized possessions. With that said, I'm certainly open to other viewpoints or explanations. The one thing we know for sure is we need more outings like the one we got today from Carlos.

So what does everyone think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poll

Why has Marmol's control evaporated?

22%

He's been overworked and may be showing signs of fatigue or injury

34 votes

77%

He's battling short-term command issues and he'll be fine

116 votes

150 votes | Poll has closed

I have to say this is one of the better pieces I've read on .com and it's one that moved Matthew Cerda up my list of favorite Cubs prospects. For those that aren't familiar with the name he's our 4th rd pick out of Oceanside, CA as a high school SS who we're working on converting to C. The prospect guys (hi Josh) can talk about him a bit more in depth, but this is a wonderful story that I hadn't seen posted anywhere else around here. I've posted the link below:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=cerda&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos1

I'm not usually one who concerns myself with what others think or do. I don't think ESPN has a ridiculous East Coast Bias that prevents them from showing the Cubs and I could care less that they'll refer to "the curse" or different things like that in the past, because I feel for the most part their decisions are all made with the idea of how to generate the most ratings and I don't particularly find their coverage of the Cubs to be one-sided in a negative way or suffocating. Joe Morgan in particular is another story though..

I digress, my point is I don't generally get worked up by what others think or how others approach the Cubs. I also seem to have a different viewpoint of fandom than a lot of others, since I don't particularly care what any of the Cubs "rivals" do. I root for the Cubs because I love the Cubs, and if they're in direct competition with another team I'm obviously rooting against the other team, but i've never understood why people actively root against rivals as if a "rival" losing makes you feel better because their fans feel worse. The ideal doesn't resonate with me and it's one that quite frankly disgusts me.

So where am I going with all of this? Well if you happened to attend any of the Cubs-Marlins games this weekend you'll notice that the Marlins seemingly made a conscious effort to create an aggressive environment between Cubs and Marlins fans. The "jumbotron" whenever Cubs players came up had a picture of the 1908 Cubs behind them with a moving Goat and any time a Cubs player struck out or the Marlins made a good play they'd play a loud Goat noise. The Jumbotron also routinely rewarded Marlins fans making derogative signs towards the Cubs. A fan who brought a big picture of a Goat was routinely shown as well as a fan with a Marlins Jersey which he had written the number '03 on and written the name "Bartman", and fans who brought signs saying "This isn't the year", etc. It struck me because I've been in South Fla for over 20 years and of late (since '03) the environment at the stadium between Cubs fans and Marlins fans has become more aggressive and confrontational. I've seen FAR more altercations in Cubs-Marlins series than any other series i've ever attended and it's not particularly close. I'm not saying the Marlins fans are more wrong than the Cubs fans, because there were certainly plenty of bafoons in Cubs paraphanelia looking to start trouble, but I guess what I don't understand is why an organization would go out of their way to antagonize and create an aggressive, confrontational atmosphere through their in stadium entertainment.

I decided to ask those questions to the Marlins team president who I was able to get an email address from his local radio show down here. I've yet to get a response, but I'll post the email I sent below. If anyone else was at the games and felt the same way and felt compelled to question it David Samson can be reached at D.Samson@Flamarlins.com. As I said before, I'm generally not one to complain and make a big deal about episodes like this, but I felt the Marlins campaign was suffocating and antagonizing and wanted to find out if others who attended the games felt that way as well.

Here's my email to Samson:

 

Mr. Samson,

First and foremost let me preface this email by saying I've become a big fan of yours and Dan Le Batard's by listening to the show. I enjoy the candor each of you bring to a number of conversations. I also admire the Marlins organization and baseball operations for all the success your group has had and I honestly wish more people in the South Florida area appreciated it as much as they should.

I am a Cubs fan who grew up in South Florida and has lived here for over 20 years. I've attended Cubs-Marlins games for the last 10 years and I've attended a number of Marlins games over the years as I'm a baseball fan in general who has an appreciation for the talent your organization puts on the field.

With that said, I have to say I'm disappointed in the way your organization has chosen to approach the Cubs-Marlins series this year from a stadium entertainment perspective and from a broadcasting perspective when on the road. It seems the focus of the campaign is to hammer home the pitfalls of another organization rather than celebrate the successes of your own.

In the road broadcasts earlier this year the TV crew went out of their way to remind the viewer of the "Bartman" incident and went out of their way to suffocate the viewer with information on "the curse". After each of these mini-segments it was reminded to the viewer that the reason this is covered is because its "a part of the history", in almost an apologetic way to Cubs fans for the suffocating coverage.

This focus has continued into the stadium as the stadium scoreboard has shown the 1908 Cubs when Cubs players bats and shown a moving Goat. When the Marlins make a big play a "Goat" voiceover echoes the stadium. In between innings fans who bring in paraphanelia disparaging the Cubs are rewarded by being shown on the "Jumbotron".

I can't understand why the organization's focus is so much on the pitfalls of another team and the suffering of another fan-base rather than celebrating their own (while limited in time) successful tradition. This is an organization that has won Two titles in the last 11 years, why does the focus need to be on what another team hasn't been able to accomplish?

As a Cubs fan clearly I'm biased in the fact that I've had enough suffering and I don't need to be reminded of it every 10 mins. But as a fan of your organization's operations as well I can't for the life of me think of the benefits it brings to the Marlins.

It creates an atmosphere in which fans are rewarded for disparaging the other team and their fan base. This atmosphere resonates into the stands where Cubs-Marlins games seem to have more confrontations than any other Marlins games i've been to. Routinely arguments are breaking out in the stadium and just in these last two games I've seen at least 7 people escorted out for poor behavior. Certainly I'm not pointing the finger at either fan base, because there are clearly bafoons on each side who "have a few too many" and become a bit too involved in the confrontational aspects of fan-dom. What I am confused about is why an organization would want to fuel this type of attitude towards one another by creating an attacking ad campaign on the opposing team's fan base. It becomes apparent that fans are going to be rewarded for disparaging Cubs fans. This creates an environment where Cubs fans feel defensive and battered by the stadium experience and Marlins fans feel encouraged to behave in a way that the Jumbotron operators will reward.

It comes off from an outsider as a classless stunt and one that I can figure out what the benefits are. The crowds the Cubs-Marlins series are some of the biggest of the year and I don't understand why your organization would want to intentionally remind another fan base of their suffering, encourage a divisive and aggressive tone for each of the two fan-bases, and instead ignore the positive tradition of both fan-bases.

This wasn't the way Cubs-Marlins series were approached in the past where the positive traditions of each fan base were celebrated. I remember the Marlins celebrating Harry Caray with a 7th inning stretch and the overall environment was much more cordial.

If you could provide some sort of reasoning or forward this to the person who could provide reasoning behind this campaign, I'd appreciate some insight. I just can't figure out the benefits to the Marlins organization of such a campaign and I feel the negatives are apparent in the aggressiveness brought out by both fan-bases in ballpark altercations.

Thanks for any consideration and attention this email receives. I hope this is taken into consideration in the future and Cubs-Marlins games can be more about the game and less stirring up aggressiveness between the two fan-bases.

 

I was just listening to the Phils-Marlins broadcast and heard the PA announcer had just announced that the Phillies acquired Eyre for a minor leaguer Brian Schlitter.

Here's our newest Cub!

 

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=34300

 

minor league reliever, good K Rates and a good job limiting HR's, walks a few too many, but a decent return for the bullpen jester

 

Apparently I need seven more words. Sigh.

 

 

I haven't read through "all" of the recent posts, so forgive me if this isn't post worthy or if this was addressed in a game thread I missed, but can someone explain to me what the difference between Friday and Sunday night's games were from a starting pitching standpoint? Because as we know the end result was much different, as one pitcher is in Iowa and the other is still in the rotation with no threats to his spot.

Let's take out names (although i'm sure they'll be relatively obvious) and just focus on the performance of the two individuals in question.

Friday night vs. Sunday night:

Through the first 5 batters:

Pitcher A:  2/3 IP, 1 K, 3 BB's, bases loaded 2 out, score 0-0

Picher B: 2/3 IP, 1 K, 3 BB's, bases loaded 2 out, score 0-0

In both instances a mound visit from the pitching coach came, but in one instance the bullpen began warming.

Each pitcher was allowed to face the next batter and each had differing results. Pitcher B gave up a 3-2 BB that walked in the first run of the game, making the score 1-0. Pitcher A gave up a rocket line-drive that would've scored 2 runs but was snared by our glorious gold glove 1B, ending the inning with a 0-0 score.

While it would seem those results are fairly similar, Pitcher B was immediately removed from the game and handed a plane ticket, while Pitcher A was allowed to work through the inning and last deeper into the game.

Pitcher A's night continued on, as he allowed 2 runs in the next inning, squandering a 2-0 lead. The damage could've been worse but he was saved by a rocket line drive that turned into a DP because of some slick fielding at the SS position. Despite allowing 2 more runs and a rocket that could've resulted in another run and a bigger inning, Pitcher A was allowed to stay in the game. Pitcher A then settled down in the 3rd inning, walking one but ultimately getting through unscathed. However the next inning things unraveled again when Pitcher A yielded his 5TH walk of the game just before Albert Pujols, who promptly doubled in the winning 2 runs.

So here's my question? What was different between these two situations that led to completely different results? Maybe it was how the two pitchers had pitched coming into their starts? Let's take a look:

Pitcher A: 1-1, 4.45 ERA, 1.62 WHIP, K/9 = 5.4, BB/9 = 3.18, IP/S = 5.66

Pitcher B: 1-0. 3.79 ERA, 1.42 WHIP, K/9 = 6.6, BB/9 = 6.6, IP/S = 4.75

Both pitchers were clearly ineffective heading into these starts. While one pitcher had immense struggles with his control, the other pitcher was getting raked around the park. Neither pitcher was lasting deep into games.

So if there wasn't much difference between their previous 2008 results, maybe it has to do with how these players have performed further in the past. So let's check out how they each performed for this manager last season:

Pitcher A: 12-9, 4.60 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, K/9 = 5.12, BB/9 = 3.57, IP/S = 5.79

Pitcher B: 11-8, 3.92 ERA, 1.19, K/9 = 8.45, BB/9 = 2.90, IP/S = 6.09

So if anything Pitcher B has a better track record of delivering performance under this manager's regime.

So why is Pitcher B in Iowa and why is Pitcher A still in the rotation?

Note: I'm not trying to suggest Marquis should be in Iowa, I'm just trying to understand what the difference between these two situations is, other than the way the manager has handled them. Both Pitchers have struggled and pitched well under the Cubs expectations, but one was sent packing and the other was left unscathed (No suggestions of skipping him, no threats to his job status, no suggestion of a trip to the bullpen or the minors)

So what the heck is going on here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of the stuff I post on this blog tends to get ripped by a certain select few, so I'm fully expecting that to happen again while I post another "contrarian" viewpoint, but here goes anyways.

As everyone writes about their feelings about the actions and reactions of Zambrano yesterday I can't help but feel that something significant has changed since 2003 for Cubs fans.

Now I'm not that old (only 25) nor have I had the chance to grow up in Chicago for any portion of my life as a Cubs fan. I was born and raised in FLA by a father and grandfather who were from Chicago. They raised me to be a Cubs fan and they raised me to be the person I am today, largely influenced by what I've learned growing up from being a Cubs fan.

See the Cubs taught me about humility when the Bulls were running off championships. They've taught me about heart ache plenty of times, but most of all they've taught me about two specific things: 1) Loyalty and 2) Family.

I always thought the best thing about being a Cubs fan was that loyalty and heart ache were lessons learned and that no matter the struggles, fans would fall in love again with this team every Spring. It taught me about what it means to be loyal and it always made me feel like being a Cubs fan meant you were part of a family. A family that got together every spring and celebrated a new season and a new hope.

When I listen to older Cubs players I didnt get the chance to see live talk about their relationship with the fan base and their relationship with city, I always gushed at how much they fell in love with the fans. Whether it was Santo, Williams, Fergie, or Mr. Cub himself, they always talked about how we had the best fans in the world and the word LOYALTY always came up. Many times they'd talk about family and how they felt this city and this team had adopted them into that family.

And when I heard all those things before, it would create a warm feeling inside that let you know that being a Cubs fan was about just a little bit more than anything that happened on the field.

It was about what happened in the stands or in the homes of people watching nationwide to know yourself that no matter how frustrating the season was or how poorly things were going, there were millions of other people out there feeling those same things, and that one day... one fateful day when it DID happen, all those people would be their celebrating with you (whether in person, or from a far, or even in spirit).

But since 2003, I cant help but feel this has changed. Players have been "booed" out of town from Corey Patterson to LaTroy Hawkins to almost Jacque Jones and now Big Z??

Expectations have risen since we were so close in 2003 and the fans have gone into a win now mentality. As I read through this board I continuously see the calls for players to be benched or sent down or outright released after cold streaks. I think every pitcher this year has been told by fans that they should be skipped once or sent down. Every time someone goes through a cold stretch people are calling for them to be benched. We've gone from "absolutely MUST SIGN Z" to "we should trade him" to "thank god we signed him, it had to get done" to "booing him off the field" in a 6 month span the group opinions on Z have changed 4 times! The same things can be said of people's reactions on Jacque Jones and even Derrek Lee

When you listen to players give interviews about what its like to be a Cubs player today, you don't hear the same feelings of joy and admiration shared by Banks and Santo. Instead you hear about "expectations" and "they'll let you hear it", etc. Even after DLee's HR on Sunday, his comments about the fanbase were tempered a bit and cautious. Players today talk more about how its something they've come to expect and something they have to deal with. You don't hear the players gush about the fans like they used to, instead you hear players very aware of the expectations placed on them

Maybe its always been this way and I just haven't been exposed to it growing up so far away from Chicago, but I had always hoped fans were "better than this". I'd listen to Santo and Banks and Fergie and even Milt Pappas recently talk about Cubs fans in such a great light and when I turn on the games or log onto discussion boards I don't see what they're referencing. I see emotional, thoughtless, self-indulgent people looking to ridicule and be pessimistic at every turn. I see growing impatience with the organization and the players.

Maybe its a new era and its because of the rising salaries, ticket prices, etc but my vision of what is to be a Cubs fan never included this...

I never thought we were the best fans in the world, but I did think loyalty was one of our strong suits (given the history), unfortunately since 2003 with the White Sox, Red Sox, and Cardinals winning titles in succession its seemingly made the fan base a rabidly impatient group just dying to have their own needs fulfilled.

Their own need to stop worrying about this "curse" or the long history of losing. Their need to secure the "bragging rights" or whatever it is has that's intensified and become THE REASON they're fans. I always thought being a Cubs fan was about something different, I thought it was about being a part of a family. A family of Cubs fans that all shared the same high points and low points together as fans, and together with the team. Players became enshrined in fans hearts forever like Santo, Williams, Fergie, and of course Ernie, but now the fan base is acting as if anything less than a championship is a failed season.

While yesterday may have been a low point for fans because we lost an opportunity to gain a game on the Brewers and the Cardinals, yesterday was a low point for me, as a Cubs fan, because the dream I had of what it is to be a Cubs fan crumbled a bit

Side Rants:

Let the name-calling and bashing ensue... For some of you I'm sure i'll be the type of fan that embraces losing and helps perpetuate the Cubs stereotype. For some of you I'll be supporting Zambrano's play or his behavior

but let me make sure to say right now those things arent the case. I hate losing as much as the rest of you and I want this team to win as badly as the rest of you, i really do. But I also want my kids to grow up listening to Cubs stars of this decade talk about the same things Ron and Ernie talk about.

I also don't condone Z's behavior in the press conference or his play on the field yesterday, but I don't see the need for booing. His struggles yesterday were not from a lack of effort, if anything they were from trying "too hard" to make things happen. Booing should only be reserved (in my opinion) for a lack of effort, and there wasn't a single time Big Z wasn't hustling out there. The results were poor and the response after the game was also poor, but the effort was not.

I'm almost speechless to think i'm sitting here on August 2nd and seeing the Cubs in 1st place. It's almost like a dream after the nightmarish start to this season, but its happened.

Jim Hendry's offseason plight to save his job has brought about a quick turn around in the team's fortunes and combined with a weakening NL on the whole (thanks to limited offseason activity by the top teams and a lack of impact prospects spread throughout the league), the Cubs have a legitimate shot to get into the playoffs and do some damage. It's a beautiful thing and while i'm aware of the $72 million in committments we have to 6 players come 2009 (DLee, Aramis, DeRosa, Marquis, Lilly, Soriano) and openly terrified of this clubs future, i'm living in the moment and loving 2007.

I questioned this plan all off-season while all the way suggesting if it brings a championship run in the next 2-3 years it'll be worth it and with Tim Wilken at the helm restocking the farm system we could still have a chance to be successful further down the road but it would ultimately be severely dependent on his ability to restock the system quickly.

Regardless i'm really happy right now and am looking forward to a pennant chase down the last 8 weeks of this season.

As i've learned when i've gotten older, the journey is often more important than the end result. The 2006 Bears brought me one of the most unforgettable seasons of my sports fandom life capped off by watching the Hester kick return next to my dad in person at the Super Bowl. The 2003 and 2004 Cubs brought me two great years of pennant chasing and while they came with a lot of heartbreak, they also came with a lot of memories of watching games with my father or sitting alone in my fraternity room rocking Leo Mazzone style hoping for something good to happen. Every day i'd wake up with a smile on my face and looked forward to every game, while i've done this pretty much my whole life with the Cubs, Bears, and Bulls its a different feeling when those games are being played in a playoff run. And I cherish all those feelings that come along with it, because its not every season you get to enjoy those feelings. When I was younger, i took for granted the Bulls run and thought it was more important for bragging rights than anything else. Now as i'm older, the important things are the memories i have from those days, not the trash talking of friends and rivals, but the cartwheels i tried to do on the lawn after MJ hit the game 6 winner in Utah or the feeling i felt getting on a plane during the Bulls letdown against Portland, only to find by the time i had gotten off the plane they had another victory and were on their way to another championship

So today and for the next 2 months i'm going to soak in every moment of this pennant chase and enjoy everything it brings.

While i'll be rooting as hard as i ever have for a happy ending and god do i hope there's a happy ending behind this.. i'm going to make sure to enjoy the journey

think again

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pkimQBCeCjbhlRcEb9PBbfw

The spreadsheet in the link above is used for "Ultimate Zone Rating" and is considered one of the most "cutting edge" fielding metrics

I came across this link while reading an article on hardballtimes.com

(http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-i-didnt-know-last-week38/)

Right now as a team we're #1 in all of baseball with +41 Runs. The team leader is Soriano in LF with +9 Runs and Pie has already been +6 runs in CF in limited time.

The worst fielder on the team.....

Caesar Izturis -3 Runs (thoughts BlueMike?)

on top of that we've had the best OF defense in all of baseball.

for those JD Drew supporters out there this past offseason he's near the bottom of the list with -13 Runs.

When you think about some of the pitchers we have with low BABIPs (Hill, Lilly, Marquis) all come to mind as pitchers that had been having more early season success than their peripherals suggested, this would make quite a bit of sense that our fielding had been superior to this point in the season in terms of covering ground and getting to balls.

One of the more prevalent themes of the threads around here has been the incessant "need" to bash Dusty Baker in some form or another. Now I understand the frustration with a lot of the moves Baker made during his tenure as a Cubs manager. I, myself, will never understand the affection he had for Neifi Perez.

I understand the frustrations but why can't we just let it go and move on. All the comparisons between Lou and Dusty are nauseating. Lou essentially gets a free pass with everything on this site just because he's NOT DUSTY. That's ridiculous. Dusty was 256-230 (.516) as a manager with the Cubs before his final season in which he was essentially managing a AAA ball club. Seriously no manager could've won with the AA staff we were throwing out there (Marmol, Mateo, Guzman, Marshall, O'Malley, Hill, Walrond, Jerome Williams, Ryu, etc) and the AAA level talent in the position players (Cedeno, Hairston, Mabry, Neifi, Womack, Bynum, etc).

Dusty was the manager of a team that got as close to the World Series as most of us have ever seen a Cubs team get. So why can't we just let all the negative things about Dusty go just as easily as all the positive things we seem to have forgotten?

All i'm saying is I understand the frustration with Baker, i was there too. I just don't understand why he gets ZERO credit for the positives he brought to the organization and why we continue as a fan base to make snide after the fact comments about him. All the "dude i'm just saying" quotes, etc are immature. Let's just get past the fact that he's not our manager anymore, which many of us wanted. While he was here, he accomplished more in one season than any Cubs manager has in the last 60 years and then had 3 VERY average seasons after that. I can think of plenty of Cubs managers that have contributed less to the organization than Dusty. The guy went through enough with all the racially evoked threats he received, can't we just close the book on Baker and focus on what we have now? And how about just evaluating what we have now on their own and not as a comparison especially when their records so far are nearly identical (Baker's career win % with Cubs = .496, Pineilla's so far = .476)

in other news... cubs website is reporting Wade Miller will rejoin the club on Tuesday.... what more do we need to see from him? UGH

I'm trying to plan a trip to bring my Dad back to Wrigley Field for his Birthday and am looking for tickets for June 29 and June 30. I've tried Stub Hub and some other options and only been told that single tickets are available with nothing together. Does anyone have any other suggestions on where I can find tickets or have any available for either days?

Ideally I'm looking for 5 tickets for the Friday afternoon game and 3 for the Saturday afternoon game

If anyone's got any though that are together, i'm interested

Since i've seen Al post a thread suggesting RotoAuthority's prowess in helping with fantasy baseball and other self-promotions on the site within signatures, I thought I'd dabble in the shameless self-promotion arena.

Anyways, I write part-time for a fantasy baseball website called FANTISTICS that I honestly feel is one of the most unique and impressive services with regards to fantasy baseball that you can find anywhere. I begged to become a writer for this site after being a subscriber for 2 years and I can honestly say it is useful for EVERY level of fantasy player.

The entire package for the year is 50 bucks. This includes daily email write ups and reccomendations on players along with analysis of statistical trends, access to fantistics database of player charts, 14 day pitcher rotation charts updated daily, and the most important of all.... their draft day software which is unrivaled. (it allows you to keep track of your draft easily by enabling you to customize your league parameters and then adjusting the player rankings for the league type and updates each players value as the draft progresses)

If you're a fantasy baseball fan, Please take a look at the site if you get a chance and if any on here use the site please feel free to post your opinions.

www.insiderbaseball.com or www.fantistics.com for more information

I've never posted a diary but figured this might be a worthy topic to discuss since things have been slowing here a bit with the end of the winter meetings.

I've heard a really wide variety of reactions to this Cubs off-season and I wanted to get a feel for what people's expectation of the off-season was and what they view as a successful off-season because I think there's confusion amongst us due to our differing expectations.

So let's take a look at 10 general scenarios in how the off-season could've played out and let me know which matches up most with where you feel we ended up and which matches up most with what you were hoping for coming into the off-season?

1. We have improved over last season and not sacrificed our chances for being competetive in the future
2. We have improved over last season
3. We have improved to the point where we'll likely be above .500 and not sacrificed our chances for being competetive in the future
4. We have improved to the point where we'll likely be above .500
5. We have improved to the point where we're a legitimate Division contender and not sacrificed our chances for being competetive in the future
6. We have improved to the point where we're a legitimate Division contender
7. We have improved to the point where we're one of the top NL contenders and not sacrificed our chances for being competetive in the future
8. We have improved to the point where we're one of the top NL contenders
9. We have improved the point where we're a world series contender and not sacrificed our chances for being competetive in the future
10. We have improved the point where we're a world series contender

I myself feel that we're currently at #3 and since we play in a weaker division we're at #5 as well. I think we've improved our team to the point where we should be in the 80-87 win range depending on health. Unfortunately I also believe we've inhibited ourselves a bit in the future by committing approximately $65 Million to 6 players for the next 3 seasons(Marquis, Ramirez, Lee, Soriano, Lilly, & DeRosa). Throw in a Carlos extension in the 16-20 million range and we're suddenly at $80-85 Million on just 7 players, which leaves (if we estimate a budget at 140, being generous here) 60 million for the remaining 18 players on the roster, or a little over 3 million per player, which in this market gets you Henry Blanco.

Anyways, thought this might be a good way to understand each other's viewpoints of the off-season as well as our expectations or hopes for the off-season coming in.

Obviously the off-season isn't over so there's plenty of time for things to change.