Rain

The Cubs were rained out Monday night and will play a double-header Tuesday.  This was one of those weird games where it was not raining at game time but rain was in the forecast.  The rain actually did not arrive until after 8, but when it let up, half the stadium was unlit owing to a power failure, so the game was rescheduled.  By virtue of the rainout and a Brewers loss, the Cubs moved into first place by 6 percentage points.

There was some controversy and second-guessing respecting Maddon's managing in Sunday night's loss to the Cards.  For what it is worth, I have to agree with the critics.  Most people are saying Maddon should have gone to Cishek instead of Bass when he removed Quintana in the top of the sixth with two men on base.  My thinking is why did he feel the need to make a move in the first place.

Quintana had thrown around 80 pitches at that point and had been in complete control, pitching a two-hitter until the top of the inning.  I have always thought that modern managers manipulate their bullpens and over-manage their starters in a fundamentally flawed fashion.  Starting pitchers are supposed to pitch out of trouble.  That's why they are starters.  They have at least three plus pitches, etc., etc.  Relievers are all failed starters.  They have one plus pitch if that and one middling pitch by and large.  In this case, Bass, Maddon's choice, is pretty much a failed reliever.

I know all the statistics suggest the third time through the order results in a greater chance of being hit hard, but lets not forget that this insight is based on all starting pitchers.  Good starting pitchers tend to fare a lot better.  Maddon really seems to have confidence only in Lester among his starters, which is bound to affect these guys in the long run.  In this case, Maddon chose to go with a journeyman reliever over one of the better starting pitchers in the division.  That's certainly a head-scratcher.  If Maddon had been managing St. Louis, Flaherty, who was in and out of trouble all night and had a high pitch count to boot, would have been out of the game in the fourth inning.

The Cubs were pretty much lost at the plate most of the game, so it is hard to say whether they might have won.  However, this is not the first time Maddon's eccentric style has cost the Cubs a chance to win.

A Disappointing Series

All in all the Cubs were disappointing to say the least in the Milwaukee series.  Sure, they came back to win big in the 14 inning opener, but, when you look at it, they scored only two runs in regulation through the entire series.  Not very impressive when you consider they got excellent pitching from Quintana and Montgomery, as well as the bullpen, and a not awful start from Chatwood.

I had kind of attributed the lack of run production even on the prior homestand to the cold weather.  In retrospect, something deeper is at work here.  These guys are very streaky and when they are not on their game, they are suckers for the high fastball and for changeups out of the zone.  I would not say the current stretch of games vs. the Brewers, Cardinals, and Dodgers are in any sense a make-or-break moment, but the Cubs need to get it together and at least hold their own.

A couple of peaves with Maddon's style.  The first and worst is pulling pitchers who are doing well too soon.  Maddon is obsessed with managing his bullpen and the Cubs, as usual, are keeping the Iowa shuttle going with constant reinforcements.  The thing is this, if you keep taking Hendricks and Quintana out in the fifth inning when they are pitching well, you are creating the problem you are moaning and complaining about.

The other thing is the lineups.  I don't mind seeing players get a day off or even the lineup shuffles, but their are some decisions that make little sense.  If you are playing an afternoon game after a night game with a day off coming, do you have to sit both Bryant and Contreras?  And it is OK to start Gimenez, but in a 1-0 game in the 9th inning, do you have to let Gimenez hit for himself with Bryant on the bench?

Actually, I'm kind of confused why Gimenez is even on the team right now.  The Cubs picked him up mainly, I suppose, because of his history of catching Darvish.  Darvish, however, is on the DL and is unlikely to pitch this month.  That's another question, I guess.

Well, on to St. Louis.  The Cubs need to start scoring runs, and they really need to win both the Cards series and the LA series back in Chicago to prove they are the team they think they are.

On a Roll

The Cubs are on quite a streak lately despite injuries to Darvish and Edwards and the underperformance of Chatwood.  They are 7-1 in June and have won 12 of their last 15.  The odd thing is that for a team that is built to score runs in abundance, they have been winning lately with pitching and defense.

I have to say that right now I cannot see any real weaknesses on this team, much as was the case in 2016.  Assuming Darvish returns to form and they figure out a way to keep Montgomery in the rotation, things can only get better.

The Cubs are poised right now to go into a crucial week that features road series with Milwaukee and St. Louis either half a game ahead or behind the Brewers.  The Cubs thus far have dominated the Brewers, winning 7 of 8.  Winning those series could put them in the catbird seat in the division though they have to play the Dodgers 7 times in the final two weeks of June.

Hitting Stride

After the recent road trip, I am actually pretty optimistic about the Cubs play recently.  Granted they struck out 24 times in the Saturday night marathon, but they did win the game with a 6 run explosion in the 14th inning. 

Looking at the bright side, though, they won 6 of 7 on the road, and the Brewers are coming down to earth, even losing 2 of 3 to the White Sox.  Moreover, the Cubs have performed well despite some serious injuries, namely, Edwards and Darvish, as well as some really disappointing starts from Chatwood in particular.

People are all bemoaning the fact the Cubs signed Darvish and let Arrieta slip.  At the time, I strongly supported management's decision to pass on Arrieta, who was never going to sign with the Cubs on the same terms he ultimately accepted in Philadelphia.  Arrieta was always, I think, more of a risk than Darvish even though events so far seem to refute that claim.  Sadly, I also thought Chatwood was a steal.  He may still turn things around.

I've always been a big fan of Mike Montgomery, though, and I thought he deserved a shot at a starting role.  His performance in the two starts replacing Darvish has been outstanding.  If you are going to second-guess Epstein and Hoyer, you can make a case that they gave in too readily to the notion they had to replace Arrieta with another superstar in Darvish, spending big bucks in the process when they had a superior option in house.