This is getting a little tiresome. Great starting pitching, no hitting. The Cubs managed to split the remaining two games with the Reds. They almost blew the first one when Sveum brought in Marmol to relieve Villanueva in the ninth. It is hard to completely second guess this move in light of Marmol's prior success against Votto, but you knew deep down that Marmol would blow it. Another strategy would have been to walk Votto and let Villanueva pitch to Phillips.
Anyway they came back to win it in the tenth.
The same thing cannot be said of the Thursday game. The Cubs wasted a gutsy start from Samardzija that was marred only by a Frazier home run in the sixth. Here's the thing, though. Samardzija threw over a hundred pitches in six innings, partly because he tried to strike everyone out, but also because the Reds worked counts and got guys on base. Latos, the Reds starter, got into the eighth inning on roughly the same number of pitches.
Same old, same old. Jeff Hoyer had to fly in to assure Sveum he still had a job, which, in my experience of observing baseball for many seasons, probably means he is on pretty thin ice. Sveum did not do anything today to reassure fans of his strategic genius. The Cubs managed only one scoring chance when they got the first two batters on base to start the eighth inning and chased Latos. I suppose you cannot really question the Ransom sacrifice in that everybody does it even though there is no evidence to suppose the strategy gives you a statistical advantage. But Soriano?
I've written very often of how bad Soriano is with the game on the line. He proved it once again today by striking out swinging on four pitches without ever seeing anything near to being a strike. That was pretty much it for the Cubs. DeJesus battled Broxton before grounding out on a difficult chance. Chapman disposed of the Cubs in short order in the ninth.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
From Bad to Worse
I didn't think the Cubs could blow last night's game, but they came up with a way to do it in the bottom of the 13th after a Valbuena home run put them up by two runs in the top of the inning. The Reds rally hinged on two keys plays. The first was Sappelt not making a difficult play on a blooper earlier in the inning that resulted in a double. The second was the decision to allow Bowden to pitch to Jay Bruce with first base open.
Which brings one to the question of whether Sveum is watching the same game everyone else is watching. In the post-game interview, Sveum kind of blamed the implosion on bad luck and the Reds superior talent. Kind of like, hey, guys, we don't expect to beat a better team without getting lucky, so just step off, OK.
First Sveum said the Phillips bloop was a fluke hit. OK, maybe so, but Sappelt's approach was very tentative. You either play that ball on the bounce and try to hold Phillips to a single or you go all out to try to make the catch. Sappelt did neither, making a late dive for the ball that failed. Second, Sveum said he thought about intentionally walking Bruce, but that would put the winning run on base and Bruce was not swinging the bat well that night.
Wait a minute, Bruce hit a home run to lead off the seventh against arguably your best starting pitcher and each lefty Bowden had faced had hit the ball really hard. Since the Cubs had already used their only left-handed relief pitcher and no one was warming up, this looks to me to be a no-brain decision.
Another thing Sveum said in the post-mortem that bothered me is that with a little luck, the Cubs might have won the game earlier when Castro lined out to right field with the bases loaded and two out in the eleventh. Sveum thought that Castro had a great at-bat, battling to work the count to 3-2 and fouling off good pitches before he finally hit a screamer to right field that Bruce caught. I saw a guy who got himself in a hole swinging at bad pitches and taking hittable pitches, then took a big swing at a ball that was low and away at least a foot out of the strike zone. It's 3-2, so ball four potentially wins the game here. So it goes.
Actually Sveum got himself in trouble with some critical remarks he made over the weekend. He pretty much said he was fed up with the team's sloppy play and seemed to single out supposed rising stars Castro and Rizzo as being far from untouchable. I didn't see anything especially wrong with his remarks, other than that they are unlikely to result in real action or change.
There is a pretty good article at Cubs Den that focuses on the Cubs defensive woes and attempts to analyze Starlin Castro in particular. The writer actually gives a pretty good account of a couple of innings in Milwaukee that saves me from another diatribe about their performance.
Reading between the lines, you have to conclude that most baseball insiders pretty much know that Castro is not a major league shortstop and probably never will become one. I'd like to pitch in here with the opinion that Castro's offensive process is very much over-hyped as well.
Castro is now riding a 14 game hitting streak. Not that it makes much difference as the Cubs have lost most of those games. Castro is hitting around .300, actually a little below that mark after last night's game. His OBP, however, is .309. That is because he never walks. Until last weekend, he had not taken a single base-on-balls. I think he walked twice in Saturday's game. The league average for OBP, which includes everybody, usually hovers around .330, so, for a #2 hitter, this is pretty bad, downright awful.
If I were an opposing team, the one guy I would want to have up there with the game on the line is Castro. Well, maybe a tie with Soriano. These guys swing at everything all the time.
All this brings one to the conclusion that, as a baseball player, Starlin Castro is very much over-rated and very much under-productive. Castro has a lot of talent. However, to succeed in baseball, to realize one's full potential, you need more than just talent. You need skill and finesse as well, things that can be developed in a player, but things the Cubs seem rarely to be able to cultivate within their organization.
In evaluating the new Cubs regime, you need to consider how much they get out of the talent they have. How much they can develop. So far, I don't see much from the Epsteins and Hoyers and Sveums beyond talk.
Which brings one to the question of whether Sveum is watching the same game everyone else is watching. In the post-game interview, Sveum kind of blamed the implosion on bad luck and the Reds superior talent. Kind of like, hey, guys, we don't expect to beat a better team without getting lucky, so just step off, OK.
First Sveum said the Phillips bloop was a fluke hit. OK, maybe so, but Sappelt's approach was very tentative. You either play that ball on the bounce and try to hold Phillips to a single or you go all out to try to make the catch. Sappelt did neither, making a late dive for the ball that failed. Second, Sveum said he thought about intentionally walking Bruce, but that would put the winning run on base and Bruce was not swinging the bat well that night.
Wait a minute, Bruce hit a home run to lead off the seventh against arguably your best starting pitcher and each lefty Bowden had faced had hit the ball really hard. Since the Cubs had already used their only left-handed relief pitcher and no one was warming up, this looks to me to be a no-brain decision.
Another thing Sveum said in the post-mortem that bothered me is that with a little luck, the Cubs might have won the game earlier when Castro lined out to right field with the bases loaded and two out in the eleventh. Sveum thought that Castro had a great at-bat, battling to work the count to 3-2 and fouling off good pitches before he finally hit a screamer to right field that Bruce caught. I saw a guy who got himself in a hole swinging at bad pitches and taking hittable pitches, then took a big swing at a ball that was low and away at least a foot out of the strike zone. It's 3-2, so ball four potentially wins the game here. So it goes.
Actually Sveum got himself in trouble with some critical remarks he made over the weekend. He pretty much said he was fed up with the team's sloppy play and seemed to single out supposed rising stars Castro and Rizzo as being far from untouchable. I didn't see anything especially wrong with his remarks, other than that they are unlikely to result in real action or change.
There is a pretty good article at Cubs Den that focuses on the Cubs defensive woes and attempts to analyze Starlin Castro in particular. The writer actually gives a pretty good account of a couple of innings in Milwaukee that saves me from another diatribe about their performance.
Reading between the lines, you have to conclude that most baseball insiders pretty much know that Castro is not a major league shortstop and probably never will become one. I'd like to pitch in here with the opinion that Castro's offensive process is very much over-hyped as well.
Castro is now riding a 14 game hitting streak. Not that it makes much difference as the Cubs have lost most of those games. Castro is hitting around .300, actually a little below that mark after last night's game. His OBP, however, is .309. That is because he never walks. Until last weekend, he had not taken a single base-on-balls. I think he walked twice in Saturday's game. The league average for OBP, which includes everybody, usually hovers around .330, so, for a #2 hitter, this is pretty bad, downright awful.
If I were an opposing team, the one guy I would want to have up there with the game on the line is Castro. Well, maybe a tie with Soriano. These guys swing at everything all the time.
All this brings one to the conclusion that, as a baseball player, Starlin Castro is very much over-rated and very much under-productive. Castro has a lot of talent. However, to succeed in baseball, to realize one's full potential, you need more than just talent. You need skill and finesse as well, things that can be developed in a player, but things the Cubs seem rarely to be able to cultivate within their organization.
In evaluating the new Cubs regime, you need to consider how much they get out of the talent they have. How much they can develop. So far, I don't see much from the Epsteins and Hoyers and Sveums beyond talk.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Another Stinker
The Cubs wasted another excellent start from Travis Wood. This time he lasted until the eighth inning of a then 1-0 contest. Of course, master strategist Dale Sveum pulled him after he issued a one-out walk in favor of Sean Camp. Camp was apparently distraught over blowing Sunday's game, so Sveum rather thought it was necessary to get him back on the horse.
Of course, Camp proceeded to self-distruct again, throwing away a pickoff attempt against a runner who didn't even have a lead, etc., etc. So the table was set for another futile comeback attempt once they were down 4-0. With two men out, the Cubs did manage to score two runs and end the game on a spectacular catch by the Texas center-fielder that, had he missed, would have ended the game in the Cubs favor.
But lets not get too optimistic here. The Cubs rallied behind a weekly hit flyball that fell in, a walk, an infield hit that would have ended the game had the Texas third baseman covered third base. This was followed by a double that the Texas left-fielder, our old friend Jeff Baker, really misplayed. Then a hit batsman loaded the bases for Darwin Barney. Barney had the only really intelligent at-bat in the whole inning. He spoiled a bunch of close pitches before he hit a screaming liner that was caught to end the game.
So what the game proves is just that this is not a competitive team, especially against left-handed pitching. The Cubs made a series of strange roster moves this morning. Besides the obvious callup of Barney, we saw Lillibridge DFAed. OK, that makes sense. Lillibridge probably should not have made the team anyway. I think he had one hit all year and the only reason he made the team in the first place was that he was versatile, being equally bad at playing many positions. It should be noted, however, that he was really a pale substitute for the aforementioned Jeff Baker, who at least could hit right-handed pitching. Maybe this is a measure of how bad a team needs to get to improve?
The other callups are deeply puzzling. Cameron Loe - six home runs in six plus innings before Seattle cut him. Kevin Gregg - enough said. Didn't this guy fail hopelessly when he was the closer on the 2009 Cubs? To make room for these guys, the Cubs sent down Dolis and cut Takahashi.
Finally, to replace Lillibridge the Cubs called up 37 year old waiver claim Cody Ransom, who was 0 for 11 with the Padres. Hope is on the way.
Of course, Camp proceeded to self-distruct again, throwing away a pickoff attempt against a runner who didn't even have a lead, etc., etc. So the table was set for another futile comeback attempt once they were down 4-0. With two men out, the Cubs did manage to score two runs and end the game on a spectacular catch by the Texas center-fielder that, had he missed, would have ended the game in the Cubs favor.
But lets not get too optimistic here. The Cubs rallied behind a weekly hit flyball that fell in, a walk, an infield hit that would have ended the game had the Texas third baseman covered third base. This was followed by a double that the Texas left-fielder, our old friend Jeff Baker, really misplayed. Then a hit batsman loaded the bases for Darwin Barney. Barney had the only really intelligent at-bat in the whole inning. He spoiled a bunch of close pitches before he hit a screaming liner that was caught to end the game.
So what the game proves is just that this is not a competitive team, especially against left-handed pitching. The Cubs made a series of strange roster moves this morning. Besides the obvious callup of Barney, we saw Lillibridge DFAed. OK, that makes sense. Lillibridge probably should not have made the team anyway. I think he had one hit all year and the only reason he made the team in the first place was that he was versatile, being equally bad at playing many positions. It should be noted, however, that he was really a pale substitute for the aforementioned Jeff Baker, who at least could hit right-handed pitching. Maybe this is a measure of how bad a team needs to get to improve?
The other callups are deeply puzzling. Cameron Loe - six home runs in six plus innings before Seattle cut him. Kevin Gregg - enough said. Didn't this guy fail hopelessly when he was the closer on the 2009 Cubs? To make room for these guys, the Cubs sent down Dolis and cut Takahashi.
Finally, to replace Lillibridge the Cubs called up 37 year old waiver claim Cody Ransom, who was 0 for 11 with the Padres. Hope is on the way.
Monday, April 15, 2013
The Ricketts Plan?
That title is a little ambitious. My real intention is just to give a kind of impressionistic overview of the team's latest iteration so far, first in relation to the new owners, then, in a subsequent post, in relation to Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer and their strategy in building a baseball team.
As far as Ricketts goes, we seem to have concluded a new campaign to convince everyone that it is necessary to provide some financial incentives to the Cubs franchise so that Ricketts can make needed as well as cosmetic changes to the ballpark environment that most people think he ought to finance on his own or that he doesn't actually need in the first place.
Ricketts's initial plans were based on the notion that the city would kick back all or most of the amusement tax revenues the ballpark generates. When that unfortunate gambit didn't fly, he moved toward a kind of neighborhood reconstruction program modeled on the Fenway Park rehabilitation.
This is still the model, but on a more ambitious scale. Although a good deal more money is involved, it seems to be predicated on putting the screws to the rooftop owners by threatening to build signs and scoreboards that will impede their sight lines.
The existence and relative success of the rooftop enterprises has always rankled a bit with Cubs management. Rightly so from any fair-minded approach. Their development is a fairly recent phenomenon. Although they try to portray themselves as just a bunch of neighborhood guys who provide a valuable service to baseball-starved fans, they are in fact a big business.
This is not Mom and Pop dragging a couple of deck chairs up to their rooftop to catch a game and get some sun. This is a set of cantilevered stadium seating perched on top of a bunch of three flats and six flats that line Waveland and Sheffield across from the park. For years they operated without regulation and sold a product they did not produce.
That is, until Cubs former ownership, the Tribune, finally forced a crisis and entered into an arrangement that required the rooftop owners to kick back a portion of their profits to the Cubs, more or less in exchange for some implicit understandings that the Cubs would take no actions that would impact the rooftop owners fundamental interest. This interest boils down to one thing of paramount importance: that their patrons can actually see something of the game going on in the stadium.
I've actually been to one of the rooftop venues. They are pretty much of a joke as far as watching a ball game. The seats are what would be the fourth or fifth storey of their buildings and 500 to 600 feet from home plate. You cannot really follow the game from this vantage point.
When the Cubs were good, they provided a form of auxiliary seating that gave you the illusion of being at a game. Now that the Cubs stink, you can get cheaper tickets from Stub Hub and other legal scalpers on game day and enjoy the real thing. For the last two seasons, whenever I have gone to the park, I have looked up at the rooftops and found them virtually deserted.
What they really provide is a place to get drunk and stuff yourself with brats while pretending to watch an irrelevant spectacle take place too far away to actually involve you in its process. Plus the seating itself is an architectural eyesore that contributes nothing to the neighborhood ambiance, such as it is, despite protests to the contrary.
So judging from the latest reports, Ricketts has been successful and the rooftop owners were marginalized. I suppose this is, in general, a good thing, especially since it clears the table of at least one controversy and allows the team management to concentrate on maybe building a decent team for a change.
That is, if they are of a mind to do so. So far they seem to be obsessed with maximizing profits and minimizing expenses. This is OK. All businesses do so, but, according to Forbes anyway, the Cubs are the fourth most valuable baseball franchise and were the most profitable one last season. Pretty good for a team that has provided virtually no fan entertainment for four plus seasons.
Gordon Wittenmeyer claims a lot of the Cubs behavior can be explained by the high debt service costs that resulted from their purchase by the Ricketts family. Maybe that is true, but many sports franchises have been able to reconcile their business imperatives with building a successful product.
Their continuing act of crying poor and cutting costs is getting a little old to most fans, at least to this fan. Lets face it, these guys are going to reap another windfall when they renew or renegotiate their media contracts. It is about time they start thinking about fielding a winning team.
About which more in a subsequent post.
As far as Ricketts goes, we seem to have concluded a new campaign to convince everyone that it is necessary to provide some financial incentives to the Cubs franchise so that Ricketts can make needed as well as cosmetic changes to the ballpark environment that most people think he ought to finance on his own or that he doesn't actually need in the first place.
Ricketts's initial plans were based on the notion that the city would kick back all or most of the amusement tax revenues the ballpark generates. When that unfortunate gambit didn't fly, he moved toward a kind of neighborhood reconstruction program modeled on the Fenway Park rehabilitation.
This is still the model, but on a more ambitious scale. Although a good deal more money is involved, it seems to be predicated on putting the screws to the rooftop owners by threatening to build signs and scoreboards that will impede their sight lines.
The existence and relative success of the rooftop enterprises has always rankled a bit with Cubs management. Rightly so from any fair-minded approach. Their development is a fairly recent phenomenon. Although they try to portray themselves as just a bunch of neighborhood guys who provide a valuable service to baseball-starved fans, they are in fact a big business.
This is not Mom and Pop dragging a couple of deck chairs up to their rooftop to catch a game and get some sun. This is a set of cantilevered stadium seating perched on top of a bunch of three flats and six flats that line Waveland and Sheffield across from the park. For years they operated without regulation and sold a product they did not produce.
That is, until Cubs former ownership, the Tribune, finally forced a crisis and entered into an arrangement that required the rooftop owners to kick back a portion of their profits to the Cubs, more or less in exchange for some implicit understandings that the Cubs would take no actions that would impact the rooftop owners fundamental interest. This interest boils down to one thing of paramount importance: that their patrons can actually see something of the game going on in the stadium.
I've actually been to one of the rooftop venues. They are pretty much of a joke as far as watching a ball game. The seats are what would be the fourth or fifth storey of their buildings and 500 to 600 feet from home plate. You cannot really follow the game from this vantage point.
When the Cubs were good, they provided a form of auxiliary seating that gave you the illusion of being at a game. Now that the Cubs stink, you can get cheaper tickets from Stub Hub and other legal scalpers on game day and enjoy the real thing. For the last two seasons, whenever I have gone to the park, I have looked up at the rooftops and found them virtually deserted.
What they really provide is a place to get drunk and stuff yourself with brats while pretending to watch an irrelevant spectacle take place too far away to actually involve you in its process. Plus the seating itself is an architectural eyesore that contributes nothing to the neighborhood ambiance, such as it is, despite protests to the contrary.
So judging from the latest reports, Ricketts has been successful and the rooftop owners were marginalized. I suppose this is, in general, a good thing, especially since it clears the table of at least one controversy and allows the team management to concentrate on maybe building a decent team for a change.
That is, if they are of a mind to do so. So far they seem to be obsessed with maximizing profits and minimizing expenses. This is OK. All businesses do so, but, according to Forbes anyway, the Cubs are the fourth most valuable baseball franchise and were the most profitable one last season. Pretty good for a team that has provided virtually no fan entertainment for four plus seasons.
Gordon Wittenmeyer claims a lot of the Cubs behavior can be explained by the high debt service costs that resulted from their purchase by the Ricketts family. Maybe that is true, but many sports franchises have been able to reconcile their business imperatives with building a successful product.
Their continuing act of crying poor and cutting costs is getting a little old to most fans, at least to this fan. Lets face it, these guys are going to reap another windfall when they renew or renegotiate their media contracts. It is about time they start thinking about fielding a winning team.
About which more in a subsequent post.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Giants Series
The Cubs played the Giants pretty close throughout the series. Their starting pitching has been pretty solid with the exception of Feldman. Feldman gave up a lot of unearned runs in the first game of the series, though, to be honest, he never looked that good and his failure to cover first base adequately twice didn't help his cause. Feldman later reported he has been bothered by a sore back, which he might have told someone about before losing two games.
The first game was a pretty typical Cubs effort. Sloppy fielding, poor clutch hitting. They blew a big early lead. They came back late to make a game of it, but Castro and Rizzo struck out with DeJesus at second to end the game.
In the second game, the Cubs got an excellent starting effort from Villanueva, who has been a pleasant surprise so far this season. They took a 2-0 lead into the ninth, but Fujikawa didn't have it, so the save was blown.
Surprisingly, the Cubs came back in the bottom half to win it on a pinch homer by Navarro and a clutch double from Castro to plate the winning run. Fujikawa later reported he has been pitching with a sore forearm and was placed on the DL.
I was out at the Saturday game. Really cold, though I have to admit I have been colder there in April. Samardzija pitched well, but he seemed to lose his best command the second time through the order and left down 2-0 after six. They had a lot of chances to even things up, but first pitch double plays from Castro and Castillo didn't help much.
Navarro added another pinch hit homer in the eighth, this time from the right side, but the Cubs fell short 3-2. Clevenger ended the game with a furious swing and a miss that looks like it will put him on the DL for a while - sixty days - so it must be that oblique strain again.
On Sunday, Jackson opened up with his usual awful first inning, but Castro put the Cubs on top with a two run shot and Schierholtz added another two run homer later in the inning. Not sure what is wrong with Lincecum, but he sure doesn't look like the guy who won the Cy Young a few years ago.
After the first, things settled down. Jackson was dominant through five. Lincecum good enough to get the Cubs out even when he got himself in trouble. Then Jackson seemed to lose his command, then started getting hit hard, finally letting the Giants get within one on another wild pitch. Everything this inning was down in the dirt with the exception of the pitches the Giants ripped for hits.
Bowden wasn't much better in relief, uncorking two more wild pitches. Honestly, though, Navarro isn't much of a defensive catcher. All these wild pitches and passed balls were hard chances, but he seems to want to play everything one-handed and off to the side. He never uses his throwing hand to try to control the ball.
To make a long story short the Cubs managed to tie the game and actually go ahead in the eighth inning with some timely hits and a lot of patience at the plate, something they need to work on more than once or twice a week. All was lost when they went to Camp to close the game. A homer to Pence in the ninth tied it. Then Camp was left in to pitch the tenth inning. Big mistake. He actually gave up the winning run on a balk created by a futile attempt to execute the famous fake to third, throw to first pick-off move. Or something like that. Give me a break. That endgame was just awful.
After the game, Sveum was encouraged by the team's performance. They might have won all four games. Heck, if it weren't for a couple of bad breaks, they might be 9-3 now instead of 4-8. Come on. The fact is they are 4-8 and there is no denying they deserve to be 4-8. Watching the Cubs play this year is a lot like watching them play last year and in 2011 and 2010 and 2009. Even worse.
And by the way, Sveum was outmanaged throughout the Giants series. This showed up in sharp relief when Botchy was able to keep his closer in reserve until the bottom of the tenth when he needed him and to keep his best player, Buster Posey, ready to pinch hit in a game situation. Now granted that Sveum has less talent to work with, but I think he finished the game with only James Russell left in the bullpen and with one of his better hitters, Castillo, unused. Along with the useless Lillihridge, of course.
The first game was a pretty typical Cubs effort. Sloppy fielding, poor clutch hitting. They blew a big early lead. They came back late to make a game of it, but Castro and Rizzo struck out with DeJesus at second to end the game.
In the second game, the Cubs got an excellent starting effort from Villanueva, who has been a pleasant surprise so far this season. They took a 2-0 lead into the ninth, but Fujikawa didn't have it, so the save was blown.
Surprisingly, the Cubs came back in the bottom half to win it on a pinch homer by Navarro and a clutch double from Castro to plate the winning run. Fujikawa later reported he has been pitching with a sore forearm and was placed on the DL.
I was out at the Saturday game. Really cold, though I have to admit I have been colder there in April. Samardzija pitched well, but he seemed to lose his best command the second time through the order and left down 2-0 after six. They had a lot of chances to even things up, but first pitch double plays from Castro and Castillo didn't help much.
Navarro added another pinch hit homer in the eighth, this time from the right side, but the Cubs fell short 3-2. Clevenger ended the game with a furious swing and a miss that looks like it will put him on the DL for a while - sixty days - so it must be that oblique strain again.
On Sunday, Jackson opened up with his usual awful first inning, but Castro put the Cubs on top with a two run shot and Schierholtz added another two run homer later in the inning. Not sure what is wrong with Lincecum, but he sure doesn't look like the guy who won the Cy Young a few years ago.
After the first, things settled down. Jackson was dominant through five. Lincecum good enough to get the Cubs out even when he got himself in trouble. Then Jackson seemed to lose his command, then started getting hit hard, finally letting the Giants get within one on another wild pitch. Everything this inning was down in the dirt with the exception of the pitches the Giants ripped for hits.
Bowden wasn't much better in relief, uncorking two more wild pitches. Honestly, though, Navarro isn't much of a defensive catcher. All these wild pitches and passed balls were hard chances, but he seems to want to play everything one-handed and off to the side. He never uses his throwing hand to try to control the ball.
To make a long story short the Cubs managed to tie the game and actually go ahead in the eighth inning with some timely hits and a lot of patience at the plate, something they need to work on more than once or twice a week. All was lost when they went to Camp to close the game. A homer to Pence in the ninth tied it. Then Camp was left in to pitch the tenth inning. Big mistake. He actually gave up the winning run on a balk created by a futile attempt to execute the famous fake to third, throw to first pick-off move. Or something like that. Give me a break. That endgame was just awful.
After the game, Sveum was encouraged by the team's performance. They might have won all four games. Heck, if it weren't for a couple of bad breaks, they might be 9-3 now instead of 4-8. Come on. The fact is they are 4-8 and there is no denying they deserve to be 4-8. Watching the Cubs play this year is a lot like watching them play last year and in 2011 and 2010 and 2009. Even worse.
And by the way, Sveum was outmanaged throughout the Giants series. This showed up in sharp relief when Botchy was able to keep his closer in reserve until the bottom of the tenth when he needed him and to keep his best player, Buster Posey, ready to pinch hit in a game situation. Now granted that Sveum has less talent to work with, but I think he finished the game with only James Russell left in the bullpen and with one of his better hitters, Castillo, unused. Along with the useless Lillihridge, of course.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Cubs Rally
Tuesday's game against the Brewers was played in appalling conditions, temperature in the thirties, 25 mph winds blowing in. The Cubs looked awful early in the game despite getting a good outing from Travis Wood. Castro almost threw and bobbled away the game in the third inning, botching up two throws and muffing a chance for a force play after a good stop. He sort or redeemed himself later on by driving in a run with a ground out in the seventh, but when you look at that at-bat, you realize he saw five pitches, all balls, swung at every one of them, and was pretty lucky to pick up the RBI. He did keep the inning going for Rizzo, who finally stayed on the ball against a lefty and delivered a nice double to tie the game.
The thing about the Cubs that is frustrating to watch day in and day out is the seeming lack of progress by a number of their more talented players. Starlin Castro is entering his fourth season in the majors and he still seems to be unaware of who is running the bases, how much time he really has, and what a strike looks like with men on base. You wonder why he continues to play out of control almost every day.
As for the Brewers, they have a real problem with their bullpen. Almost no one out there can get the job done. The Cubs won today because they got into the Milwaukee bullpen late and turned in some good, patient at-bats to turn things around. Still, a win is a win whatever the circumstances.
The thing about the Cubs that is frustrating to watch day in and day out is the seeming lack of progress by a number of their more talented players. Starlin Castro is entering his fourth season in the majors and he still seems to be unaware of who is running the bases, how much time he really has, and what a strike looks like with men on base. You wonder why he continues to play out of control almost every day.
As for the Brewers, they have a real problem with their bullpen. Almost no one out there can get the job done. The Cubs won today because they got into the Milwaukee bullpen late and turned in some good, patient at-bats to turn things around. Still, a win is a win whatever the circumstances.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Live Blog - Ninth Inning
This game cannot end too soon. Michael Bowden on the hill. Brewers go quietly. Aoki finally out on a close play at first.
Too much to hope the Brewers would go to the struggling Axford. Soriano singles. Soriano takes second, scores on a solid single by Scherholtz. Castillo singles. Henderson in to pitch.
Valbuena gets a lucky hit off the third baseman's glove. Can they come back? 7-4. Clevenger bats for Lillibridge, strikes out. Hairston bats for Bowden, gets on base on an error.
Is this bad baseball or what? What a strange game today!
Sappelt gives Henderson a battle, but strikes out. He should have taken a couple of those borderline pitches. Castro up, quite a battle. Castro spoils some good pitches, but Castro eventually flies out deep to right.
Too much to hope the Brewers would go to the struggling Axford. Soriano singles. Soriano takes second, scores on a solid single by Scherholtz. Castillo singles. Henderson in to pitch.
Valbuena gets a lucky hit off the third baseman's glove. Can they come back? 7-4. Clevenger bats for Lillibridge, strikes out. Hairston bats for Bowden, gets on base on an error.
Is this bad baseball or what? What a strange game today!
Sappelt gives Henderson a battle, but strikes out. He should have taken a couple of those borderline pitches. Castro up, quite a battle. Castro spoils some good pitches, but Castro eventually flies out deep to right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)