SB Nation User Blog: DartmouthCubsFan

Darren Oliver on verge of signing with Rangers

DartmouthCubsFan — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:24:14 -0000

Darren Oliver on verge of signing with Rangers

For those who questioned "what other lefty" relievers the Cubs could have pursued that would have been as good as Grabow, I present you Darren Oliver

Oliver's been about a 1.0 WAR level reliever for the last 3 years

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=206&position=P#value

Compare that to Grabow who has been basically replacement level or very slightly above the last 3 years

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1848&position=P#value

The Rangers were able to sign Oliver to a 1 year deal with a vesting option for a 2nd year, total contract value potentially $6.25 million

The Cubs gave Grabow two firm years for a total cost of $7.5 Million

Now I know many will say "What's the big deal over an extra $1.25 Million over 2 years, its no big deal" and to some that's fine.

But the answer remains, there were alternative options who were not only better but cheaper and could have limited the commitment to 1 year instead of two. Or in the best case scenario we could've done this while also offering arbitration to Grabow and perhaps received a pick or just gotten him for 1 year

Its a small thing, but the small things the Cubs fail to do well do add up over time. Each year we're paying other teams to take on small mistakes (Marquis last year, Bradley/Miles this year) and generally were overpaying FA contracts based on the production we can get out of them, both in dollars and years. All of these small things add up. Whether its too many dollars, too many years, or handing the player control of the contract with player options and NTC's, I feel the front office often overlooks the small things and over time the small things have a real impact on our roster.

Welcome Back the Marmol of Old

DartmouthCubsFan — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:49:37 -0000

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.

Don't look now, Felix Pie is a major league hitter

DartmouthCubsFan — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:57:34 -0000

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.

Pie hits for Cycle

DartmouthCubsFan — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 01:59:34 -0000

Pie hits for Cycle

While the Cubs put up 17 a former Cub farm-hand got into the action tonight with a cycle!

Congrats to Felix Pie on the accomplishment. He was a controversial subject here at BCB but as a guy who always thought Pie would eventually figure it out, it's nice to see some of the talent transition into production (at least for a night).

Congrats Felix, wishing you the best

Wilson Betemit: The Short Term Solution

DartmouthCubsFan — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:52:22 -0000

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

The Elephant in the Room - Carlos Marmol's Declining Command

DartmouthCubsFan — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:57:41 -0000

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?

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

34 votes

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

116 votes

150 votes | Poll has closed

Tremendous Story on Matthew Cerda

DartmouthCubsFan — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:30:46 -0000

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

Dolphins Stadium Entertainment during Cubs-Marlins Series

DartmouthCubsFan — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:42:58 -0000

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.

Eyre traded to the Phils

DartmouthCubsFan — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:47:58 -0000

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.

What's the Difference?

DartmouthCubsFan — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:41:49 -0000

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?