Some Thoughts on the World Series

Now that the dust has settled and the celebrations are done, and the terrible election and terrible result is over, I thought I would set down some observations about this Cubs team.  Just to make people aware of my own prejudices and bias, I've always thought that in sports and really in so many other areas, management can only use their judgment to put together the best talent they can find.  Similarly, the coaches and field manager can only provide the kind of instruction and environment that allows players to develop and use their skills.  Ultimately, it is the players who win games, and, in the end, it is their skills and character that matters.  Such was the case with the Cubs this year and it was a great tribute to the team that they did not fold in the face of adversity as so many previous Cubs teams folded, and that they came back in Game 7 despite blowing a safe lead in the eighth inning.

That being said, I've always felt that field managers do not win individual games, but they can lose them.  Such might have been the case with Joe Maddon this year.  Maddon has always been criticized for this management of the bullpen, even with Tampa Bay.  This year, after the fact, he was the subject of some criticism by sportswriters in general for his management of the World Series games.  Mike Krukow, the former Cubs and Giants pitcher and current Giants broadcaster, even accused him of arrogance and egotism for his handling of the bullpen.  Not sure I would go that far, but Maddon certainly changed his style in the series and it may have just as easily have turned into disaster for the Cubs.

The most obvious change in tactics was the use of the starting pitchers.  A great strength of the team throughout the season was its starting pitching and the fact they usually pitched deep into the game, thus taking pressure off the bullpen.  The four starters the Cubs used during the playoffs had each averaged more than six innings per start, which meant they ordinarily lasted into the seventh inning.  In the playoffs, only Lester maintained that average, the others were removed on an average of an inning sooner than usual, with Lackey averaging nearly two innings less per start.

Granted the playoffs are rather more tense do-or-die games, and that Lackey pitched poorly in almost all of his starts, but especially with respect to Lester and Hendricks, these moves were rather questionable.  In Game 7 of the World Series, Maddon removed Hendricks in favor of Lester in the fifth inning with a comfortable lead after a dubious ball and strike call led eventually to a two out walk.  Ross botched a throw to first on a pretty ordinary swinging bunt and then Ross and Lester completely screwed up a wild pitch that let the Indians back into the game.  Taking Hendricks out after five innings was certainly a defensible plan, but putting Lester into an unfamiliar role with a man on base was, I think, a little unwise.

All this strategy of pulling guys early with low pitch counts put a lot of pressure on the bullpen.  Eventually, Maddon seemed to lose confidence in everyone but Montgomery, Edwards, and Chapman.  However, the rest of the bullpen was not that bad and in some cases, although inconsistent, pitched rather creditably.  Chapman really became the stopper, a role he was hired to perform, but at which, frankly, he did not deliver consistently.  In the playoffs, he saved four games and won two, but blew three save opportunities.

Actually, the Cubs were looking to build a kind of three inning fortress with Strop, Rondon, and Chapman, but the thing never really materialized in the regular season, largely because of injuries to the first two members of the triad.  These guys never really rounded back into mid-season form, so the bulwark of the pen came to be Chapman.  The problem was that Chapman has never seemed comfortable with extended saves and he was not stretched out during the regular season, largely because of this.

Anyway, a lot of the criticism of Maddon's moves relates to the way Chapman was used during the last three games of the World Series.  Again, the two plus innings in Game 5 were justified.  It was a tight game and the team faced elimination.  The attempt to stretch Chapman to seven outs in Game 6 made no sense.  Granted, putting him in to get out of a jam in the seventh was OK, even clever, but once the inning was over, the Cubs could reasonably expect to coast in with a comfortable lead.  Bringing him out to start the ninth with a seven run lead was tempting fate looking to Game 7.  As it is, it turned out he was not sharp in Game 7 and nearly blew the game in the eighth inning.

Another item of criticism for Maddon, besides not dropping Baez and Heyward down in the lineup sooner, was game strategy.  I'm not sure there is a lot there to second guess with the exception of having Baez bunt with two strikes and the bases loaded in the top of the ninth.  That was a head-scratcher and more than anything, probably prompted Krukow's outburst.

Still, they won, and I think largely based on character and determination in the end.  The players simply did not want to go down as another Cubs team that blew the big one, especially after coming off the mat to tie the series and force a seventh game.

They Did It!

What a game!  And what a struggle.  I cannot say it was fun, though, at least from a fan's viewpoint.  All night long I thought they had it sewn up.  Hendricks was terrific.  Klubel was not.  They got an early lead.  What could go wrong?

As it turns out, plenty.  I suppose that every manager plays things differently in the post-season.  Maddon, however, kept protesting in all the post-game interviews that they were just going to treat these games the same as those in the regular season.  That really seems to have changed with Game 5 when Joe brought Chapman in for the long save.  It seems he fell in love with a different style and, in retrospect, it almost cost the Cubs a champioship.

In Game 6, Chapman was brought on early again, this time with a big lead and little necessity.  The opinion then was divided, of course.  You could justify it for sure, but it made you vulnerable to tired arms in Game 7.  I was really surprised to see Hendricks pulled in the fifth inning with a four run lead after an unlucky walk.  Lester eventually got the final out, but not without some uncharacteristic shaky defense from David Ross, a bad throw and a bungled up wild pitch that cut the lead to two.

Lester settled down after that until two outs in the eighth inning.  Maddon replaced him with Chapman after an infield hit.  I expect things just caught up with Chapman because he was just awful.  He could not get the third out if his life depended on it, eventually giving up a game tying homer to Davis.  Chapman is an interesting case as a closer.  He really is not all that reliable unless he starts an inning with a lead and no one on base.  I rather think that is beacuse he relies so much on the big fastball that he does not pitch.  In the bottom of the ninth with the score tied, Montero replaced Ross behind the plate and he called a different game, lots of sliders and curves.  The results were much better, extra innings.

Like most fans, I was cursing Maddon then for over-managing, especially when he had Baez attempt a squezze bunt with two strikes and the winning run at third base the following inning.  I mean, Baez just has to put the ball in play with one out.  That bunt is too cute.  Baez bunted foul, striking out.

Everything turned around with the rain delay before the beginning of the tenth.  Whether they were able to regroup or take stock of things, one does not know.  Supposedlly there was a team meeting.  In any case, they came out loaded for bear.  Schwarber singled.  Bryant hit a long fly to right that advanced the pinch runner Almora.  It turns out that took the bat out of Rizzo's hands because Francona had him intentionally walked.  It was still good strategy as getting a runner into scoring position put the Indians in a tough spot.  Zobrist came through with a double after a great at-bat and they got an insurance run on a Montero single.

I daresay the choice of Edwards to replace Chapman for the bottom of the tenth was eccentric.  He got two outs, but then gave up two hard hits that resulted in a run after the Cubs let the first guy take second because of defensive indifference.  Montgomery came on to induce a weak groud ball with his second pitch to seal the win.

You almost don't know what to say at this point.  The Cubs were undoubtedly the best baseball team all season long and their win was not just a reward for all their fans, but a fillip for baseball itself, a kind of vindication, as it were.  This Cubs team is qualitatively different from all their previous teams.  Every other year, faced with similar instances of bad luck or mistakes, they would and did fold.  Think back to 2003, for example.  This year, even down 3-1 against a determined opponent, and even sfter blowing a safe lead, they ultimately came through.  They are worthy champions.

I'm writing this in bed 3/4 of a mile from the ballpark and you can still hear the horns and fireworks and celebrations four hours later.  The firecrackers are driving my dog nuts, so I wish they'd stop.

Go Cubs!  I had doubts I would ever see this in my lifetime.

All Tied Up

What can you say?  Somehow the Cubs have lifted themselves off the mat and forced a Game 7, and it pretty decisive fashion at that.  Although the offense provided the highlights, three home runs including a grand slam from Addison Russell, defense was a part of the story as well.  Heyward  made two stellar plays, compensating for his truly awful at-bats.  Similarly Baez helped turn a spectacular double play.

On the pitching end, Arrieta turned in an excellent start.  He dominated the Indians when it mattered even though he gave them an inning after the Cubs had taken a commanding lead.  One thing I kind of wonder about, though, is the use of Chapman so early.  I know it makes sense to put your most intimidating pitcher in to cement a lead when there is trouble, but it seems that Maddon has lost confidence in everyone with the exception of Chapman and Montgomery.  That's kind of a shame, as there are some capable arms available who are certainly good enough to hold onto a five run lead.  So I get the statement Joe makes by bringing in Chapman in the seventh and having him pitch through the heart of the Indians batting order, but I kind of question letting him start the ninth inning with a seven run lead.

However, they have made it to Game 7 and that is the important thing.  Also, they have a rested Hendricks going against the Indians ace Kluber who pitches on short rest.  They are also likely to play in pretty balmy conditions, which greatly favor their hitters.

Some random observations:

MLB has been pretty lucky that the series has been played in two Northern cities with unreliable climates without seriously awful weather conditions such as happened last year in the NLCS between the Cubs and the Mets.  I mean, Game 7 occurring November 2 is really not a good thing, is it?

How come the Indians are the home team based on the result of a meaningless exhibition game that no one takes seriously?

Does MLB go out of their way to recruit the worst umpires they can for the playoffs and World Series?  These guys are almost always wrong.  Replays help, but, geez!  And the balls and strikes?  Joe West?  By all accounts, possibly the worst umpire available in terms of the accuracy of his ball and strike calls, not to mention his contentious demeanor and actions.

Tomorrow is the day (or night) of decision.  Go Cubs!