A Pair of Fond Farewells

It's been a bad year for Cubs fans. Predictably, the Cubs have been out of the division race since Opening Day. Unpredictably, they've spiraled into the depths of the NL Central, with only the lowly Quadruple-A Pirates to break their epic fall. It seems like only yesterday when the Wrigley faithful watched the Cubs win 97 en route to the best record in the National League (though, to be fair, it also seems like only yesterday when we watched them lose 96 games en route to the worst record in the National League).

In light of this season's brutal doom spiral, it was no surprise when the fire sale began. First, Lilly and Theriot went west to the Dodgers for Blake DeWitt. Then Fontenot was off to San Francisco. But the big one, the one that really hurt this die hard's heart, was when Derrek Lee was traded to the Atlanta Braves on August 18th.

Obviously, Lee was having a down year. Actually, that's an understatement: Derrek Lee was on pace for his worst full season ever. His power and on-base skills seemed to evaporate completely during the early goings. His speed has long since abandoned him. And his strikeout totals were up. But it's tough for this fan to forget 2005, and 2009, and 2007. It's tough to see Derrek Lee walk up to the plate, a picture of class and calm, and not believe that this is the at-bat that will turn things around. But mostly, it's tough to lose such a great player and such a great man, regardless of the slump that has been his 2010.

* * *

I got the news from my friend Keith Larson:

lee to atlanta

Three simple words--short even by text message standards. But they hit me right in the gut. Sure, losing Lilly, Theriot, and Fontenot had hurt. Ted Lilly was, year-in and year-out, our most dependable (and best or second best) starter and a joy to watch if you're a fan of a good curve ball (I am). Ryan Theriot was exactly the sort of scrappy, 110% effort ballplayer a scrappy, 110% non-ballplayer like me can love unashamedly. And Mike Fontenot--well, Mike was a heartbreaker. His partial seasons made him look like the second baseman of the future, and the Theriot-Fontenot LSU connection was too good not to love. But Mike never seemed to be able to put it all together for a full season, and wound up being a good utility guy instead of the anchor at second many of us were hoping he'd become.

But Derrek Lee was my favorite Cub.

Keith knew this. We'd had the "favorite Cub" discussion early on. His was Aramis Ramirez. I certainly understand his position. I have never seen a human being swing one object at another object harder than Aramis Ramirez swings a bat at a ball when their are fewer than two strikes and runners on base. Keith often calls baseball a chess match, and I think there's a lot to be said for that analogy. But Aramis Ramirez brings a battle axe to a chess match. It's a joy to watch. But the beauty of Rami's approach is that, when he's on at the plate (which, over the course of his career, has been most of the time), he doesn't swing that axe at stupid pitches. He makes pitchers nibble (difficult) or come right at him (dangerous).

But my favorite Cub was Derrek Lee. When the Cubs signed him before the '04 season, I went nuts. Few of my Cubs fan friends knew why. Sure, they'd seen D-Lee "crush" in the '03 NLCS.* But Marlins, then as now, rarely attracted national attention, so where I saw a slick-fielding, hard-hitting big man with 20+ SB speed, they saw...some guy they'd never heard of until he helped transfer the misplaced loathing of the Cubs faithful from a billy goat and a black cat to a poor guy named Bartman.

*It's funny, because no matter how many times I look at Derrek Lee's ugly line from the '03 NLCS--.188/.235/.344 with a meaningless homer and a pair of doubles--I can't stop thinking and, sometimes, saying that Lee killed us in that series. That's the word I've used: "killed." And my Cubs fan friends never call me out on that statement. In fact, most of them agree with me! And yet, he did nothing of the sort. Our pitchers kept him off balance the whole series. He struck out eight times and hit into a pair of double plays. He only collected six hits, and half of them were in losing efforts. Derrek Lee didn't kill us in that series. But his two run double off of Mark Prior in that disastrous eighth inning of Game 6 killed us in a very real way, nonetheless, a way we're still feeling--and talking about--seven years later.

Getting Derrek Lee in the Great Marlin Fire Sale of '03-'04 felt like a form of closure for me, I guess. And when D-Lee put up a .278/.356/.504 line while digging enough balls out of the dirt to make Aramis Ramirez look like a Gold Glover to enough of my friends for it to be annoying, all while going about his business with a quiet dignity and professionalism that sometimes seems like a lost art in modern free agents (that's right, it's a "damned kids and their music" argument!), it was settled: #25 was The Man in Chicago as far as I was concerned.

* * *

Keith came to Chicago with his girlfriend Sara in the fall of 2009. They had moved together from Portland when Sara got into grad school in the Flatlands. Keith loves Portland. Whenever the city came up in conversation, he'd tell me about how perfect it is geographically: "90 minutes to the beach, 90 minutes to the mountains." Or how easy it is to get to Mariners games: "The Amtrak literally drops you off next to the stadium; you can't even park that close!" Within hours of friending me on Facebook, Keith had sent me links to local Portland farmers markets that "put anything here in Chicago to shame." Keith loves Portland.

But Keith also loved Sara, and he's loved the Cubs for as long as he can remember, so he came to Chicago to be with his lady.

Unfortunately for Keith, it was a rough year with both his beloveds. Things with Sara didn't work out, and the Cubs quickly spiraled into oblivion. But he decided that, while he was here, he'd nevertheless be sure to go to as many games at Wrigley as possible. Based on the number of Wrigleyville doormen and ticket takers who know him by name, I think it's safe to say that he was successful in that endeavor.

* * *

Keith and I didn't see much of one another this summer. I had quit my gig at the bar in his neighborhood that had given us a default hangout place and time every week, and had then spent most of the summer traveling from one wedding and/or miscellaneous adventure to the next. But on Thursday, August 19th, we found ourselves at Wrigley Field for only our second game together this season, a heartbreaking loss to the San Diego Padres. It had been a month to the day since we'd gotten together to talk baseball (our last--and first--game together had been on July 19th when the Astros were in town), and we spent virtually the entire game talking baseball, oblivious to the fans around us.

That is, until one of those fans turned around and said, "You two should host your own talk show."

Keith and I were mortified. In that instant, we'd both realized that we had basically spent an entire ballgame talking about the game we were watching, the game in general, the year so far (from rookie-of-the-year candidates to Griffey and his contemporaries' Hall of Fame cases/legacies)...you name it. And we'd done this while sitting directly behind a pair of 50-something women who probably just wanted to enjoy a Thursday afternoon game in peace.

But as it turned out, they had been enjoying our baseball talk almost as much as we had. "It's been very interesting," the first woman told us when we began to apologize. "I didn't know a lot of the stuff you were talking about."*

*Among that "stuff": that Derrek Lee had killed us in the '03 playoffs. I deserve to be slapped.

"Just don't talk that much when our friend [can't remember her name] is here," added the second woman. "She'll kill you." They laughed.

At the end of the game, we said goodbye to our new ballpark friends and made our way to the exits, sure of two things: that we would absolutely love to host a radio show together (Keith later told Sara the story, and she agreed wholeheartedly with the Wrigley ladies, so we'd have at least three listeners), and that we needed to return the next day for Derrek Lee's first game as an Atlanta Brave, and first game as a visitor in Wrigley since he killed us in '03.

* * *

The funny thing is, I'd never have been there for D-Lee's swan song if Keith hadn't wandered into the Bird's Nest after work on Tuesday, December 8th of last year. Keith had never been to the Bird's Nest, even though he'd lived down the street for over a month. But for whatever reason, he chose that night to wander in for a nightcap. And on that night, ESPN reported that Curtis Granderson, former UIC standout, reigning All-Star center fielder, and general class act (seriously, check out http://www.grandkidsfoundation.org/) would be going to the Yankees.

"Goddamned Yankees," I growled at a television for what felt like the thousandth time.

And that's how I met Keith. Keith is the sort of guy who can strike up a conversation with anyone at any time in any situation. It's admirable--and enviable. That night, he'd pulled up a barstool a couple seats down from me and was watching the report with equal interest. And he struck up a conversation. We spent the next few High Lifes lauding the merits (on-field and off) of Granderson, lambasting the Evil Empire in the Big Apple, and talking baseball, Chicago--the important stuff.

And as the weeks went on and the 2010 season came closer, we lamented the lack of initiative the front office seemed to be showing (did Hendry & Co. seriously think we were that close to contending that they could sit on their thumbs?). We made grand plans for Opening Day (thwarted when we had the wrong day of the week and I had to work). And on a weekly basis, we raised our glasses and waxed poetical and statistical* about the game we loved.

*I didn't know it, but early on in our friendship, Keith was as amazed by my historical baseball knowledge as I was by his ability to keep up with Cubs farmhands I knew almost nothing about. When I met Sara for the first time, Keith did the standard introductions, then nonchalantly turned to me and said, "Hey, by the way, when was it that Hack Wilson had his crazy season again?" "1929," I told him. "The year he drove in 191 and set the RBI record. One of the three best hitting seasons by a Cub ever, right up there with Hornsby's '29 and Sosa's '01." Keith turned to Sara. "See?" It seemed I had been successfully shown off.

The fact is, we'd had our own radio show since the day we met. We just hadn't been told until those two ladies did so at the Padres game.

* * *

Aisle 36. Row 8. Seats 3 and 4. We'd never sprung for such good seats before (though Keith had found them for half the box office price). But this was Derrek Lee. This was a tribute to, as Keith put it, "a seven year love affair."

The couple next to us were season ticket holders. Like most season ticket holders, they were curious about the unfamiliar faces sitting next to them, and we struck up a conversation while we watched the Braves "warm up,"* hoping to spot Derrek before the game got going and get a gauge on his emotions. But when we finally spotted Big D, he was placid as always, and spent most of his time chatting with young phenom Jason Heyward. ("Listen to him, kid," I said to nobody in particular. "He's exactly what you can become, albeit sooner in your career and hopefully without a derailing wrist injury.") We should have known.

*Seriously, I hope Jair Jurrjens did his real warm up before we got to the stadium. Otherwise, that was the most half-assed warm up routine I've seen this side of a 13-year-old. Trust me: if you're capable of throwing a baseball--or any object, for that matter--you're capable of kicking above your waist while doing Frankensteins!

When the starting lineups were announced, Derrek Lee (hitting cleanup and playing first base for Atlanta) got more cheers from the Wrigley crowd than anyone on either team. "This bodes well for his first at bat," I said. Keith agreed.

When Omar Infante led off the inning with a double, it was tough (and confusing) not to be a bit excited. "Looks like we'll see Lee this inning," Keith said.

And when Derrek Lee stepped to the plate with two outs and a runner on third in the top of the first inning, 39,345 people, ourselves included, waited just long enough for the last syllable of his name to fill the stadium before the roar of Cubs fans thanking Derrek for 6+ years in blue and Braves fans welcoming their newest player became absolutely deafening. Keith was pointing at people who were still sitting and yelling at them to stand up; I'm not sure they could hear him. Ryan Dempster stepped off the mound.

Derrek Lee stepped out of the box. He put his bat under his arm, took off his helmet to wipe his brow with his forearm, and then tipped the helmet in an understated gesture of thanks to the crowd. It was classy all around. It was exactly the way Derrek Lee will be and should be remembered here in the Windy City.

When Lee flied out on a well-hit ball to left field, the crowd went just as wild on his trip back to the dugout (albeit the wrong dugout for most of us fans) as this did on his trip to the plate. Derrek Lee would go 0-for-4 in the game with 2 strikeouts, and only 1-for-11 in the series, though he walked three times and hit a 3-run double in a 16-5 Game 3 rout. And he would receive a standing ovation in his first at bat of each game.

* * *

Keith and I sat on his steps for the last time on Thursday, August 26th, 2010. I had his old (and my new) microwave at my feet, and we were trying to hail a cab so that I could get it home. I'd joked that it would look like I'd just robbed Keith's place. Keith joked that he'd chase the cab when I got in.

And, as always, we found ourselves talking baseball: Who's going to replace Lou? Where will Maddux and Sandberg be in the organization next year? How was it that we were 0-for-3 at Wrigley together and suddenly the Cubs had strung together a 3-game win streak?

And we also said our goodbyes. Keith continued to tell me about the food in Portland. I made him promise he'd get a beer at Bent River in Rock Island, IL on his way west. And Keith, ever the gentleman, chased down a cab for me while I hustled after him with a microwave in my arms.

* * *

It's been a bad year for Cubs fans. But this Cubs fan has had his share of sweet to go with the bitter thanks to comrades-in-arms like Keith. And so, to Mr. Lee and Mr. Larson, old friend and new, I tip my cap and bid you both a fond farewell from the Windy City.

Cubs All-Aught Team

Whether you think the decade ended last night or 364ish days from now, the twenty-aughts are over, which means I have a rock-solid excuse to do a bit of reflecting on the decade that was (and very technically still is). This reflection, unsurprisingly, has taken the form of a list, as I found myself wondering what an all-decade team would look like for the North Siders. Here's my attempt at answering that question.

Whenever possible, I tried to err on the side of seniority. In other words, 1-year rentals shouldn't make an All-Aught team in my opinion, because the All-Aught Cubbies aren't just about putting the best team possible on the field. They're also about putting the most representative team on the field. And sometimes, that means Corey Patterson gets to play (the abyss gazes also...).

I may decide to extend the All-Aught analysis to the other teams in the NL Central, though this took me quite some time to compile and, if Caleb and Steve are interested (hint, hint) ,they could certainly claim Milwaukee and St. Louis.

So without further ado...



STARTING LINEUP:



Catcher: Michael Barrett

If Geovany Soto had followed up his 2008 campaign with a similarly impressive 2009, he'd likely have taken this spot. As it stands, Cubs catchers haven't lasted very long in the aughts, and Barrett's 431 games behind the dish are easily the most by any backstop on the decade (Girardi and Soto are neck-and-neck behind Barrett, with 274 and 273 games, respectively). Barrett's defensive reputation wasn't exactly sterling, but he sure got things done with the bat, posting a .284/.343/.484 line with 57 HR, and 98 2B in 3+ years with the Cubs. He also led the Major Leagues with 1 punch to A.J. Pierzynski's face, which shouldn't be underestimated. We'll just make sure to keep him away from Zambrano in the All-Aught dugout.

Other Cubs catchers.



First Base: Derrek Lee

You were expecting someone else? D-Lee absolutely owned the also-rans at first base this decade. He may not get a lot of press (2005 excepted) playing in a division that claims Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder, but sweet Lord has Lee ever had a fantastic career in Chicago. In five full seasons (and parts of 2006), Derrek Lee has hit .304/.384/.539 with 163 HR and 218 2B, and he's done it all while playing Gold Glove caliber defense. Just to put things in perspective, his nearest competition, Fred McGriff, trails Lee by over 500 RC and was nowhere near the defensive player D-Lee is.

Other Cubs first basemen.



Second Base: Mark DeRosa

Second base is a three horse race between DeRosa, Eric Young, and Todd Walker. There is no iconic choice at second like there is at first, and there's little seperation between the top candidates like there is at catcher; DeRo, Young, and Walker are all within 3 RC of one another (176, 177, 174, respectively). But Walker had an extra year on the North Side to put up those numbers, which makes me skeptical that he'll really be able to hang with the other two upon more careful analysis.

Dipping into WAR data confirms this: DeRosa was worth 6.4 WAR in his two seasons with the Cubs, Young 4.0 WAR, and Walker only 2.9 across 3 seasons. DeRo, with his .289/.373/.451 line (plus 31 homers and 58 doubles) beats out Young due to slightly better fielding numbers (though neither was a defensive wizard and it's worth noting that DeRosa was all over the diamond at times), and better OBP and SLG skills.

Other Cubs second basemen.



Third Base: Aramis Ramirez

Another easy choice, Ramirez and his .300/.364/.546 line, 188 HR, and 200 2B annihilate the rest of the field (Bill Mueller? Ron Coomer? Willie Greene?). He may be a bit of a statue at third, but his bat more than makes up for his lack of range, making Aramis Ramirez a very, very good baseball player.

Other Cubs third basemen.



Shortstop: Ryan Theriot

The knock against The Riot is that he's a woefully inefficient base stealer and he absolutely does not hit for power (his career SLG is only 13 points higher than his career OBP: 369 vs. .356). But he gets on base and plays adequately at short (some years a bit above replacement, sometimes a bit below). And from a fan perspective, I have to say that he's a hell of a lot of fun to watch, and even more fun to yell silly things like "The Quiet Riot!" at. Bonus.

Other Cubs shortstops.



Left Field: Alfonso Soriano

This one hurts me a little, because I very much want to pencil Moises Alou into the All-Aught lineup. But although Alou was better offensively (mostly because his down year, 2002 was so much better than Soriano's godawful 2009, and his best year, 2004, was crazygonuts), Soriano's defense is much, much better than Alou's ever was. And it's not just Soriano's amazing outfield arm; his range in left is better, and even with the silly little hop, he's better at reeling in balls hit his way. He's also better on the basepaths (no surprise there). Add all those "little" things together and Soriano has a massive 4.9 to 2.5 WAR advantage over Alou despite Moises's superior batting line.

None of this is to say that non-2009 Soriano is a slouch at the plate, of course. Sure, the guy will not take a walk, and sure, right handers with sliders make him look absolutely ridiculous, but Soriano has one very, very valuable tool as a hitter. He hits the ball hard. Really, really hard. The end result? A terrible OBP as a Cub (.328) coupled with a fantastic slugging percentage (.508). Add that to his fielding numbers, and non-2009 Soriano is a very valuable (albeit very overpaid) player.

Other Cubs left fielders.



Center Field: Corey Patterson

The Cubs just couldn't seem to figure out center field in the aughts. Sure, they had solid single season efforts from the likes of Jim Edmonds and Kenny Lofton, but few players lasted longer than a year or two in center. As a result, Corey Patterson and his .252/.293/.414 line make the cut, mostly on the strength of solid 2003-2004 campaigns.

Patterson actually is a pretty good fielder, and was worth 2.8 WAR during his five year tenure with the team. But outside of '03-'04, he never showed an ability to get on base consistently, and the Cubs ultimately gave up on their former top prospect. But he played more (and contributed more) than any other center fielder during the decade, so he gets the nod here.

Other Cubs center fielders.



Right Field: Sammy Sosa

Another ridiculously easy choice, Slammin' Sammy hit .295/.390/.612 (that's a 1.002 OPS!) as a Cub from 2000-2004. In that time, he slugged 238 home runs and 134 doubles. He played an above average right field, with decent range and a cannon of an arm (which actually hurt him, as it was an incredibly inaccurate cannon). His 2001 was one of the greatest single seasons ever by a Cub (along with Rogers Hornsby's 1930 and Hack Wilson's 1929). All in all, he was worth 27.7 WAR for the Cubs during the aughts, and was the face of the franchise until things got silly in '04. Pencil him in.

Other Cubs right fielders.



STARTING ROTATION:



#1 Starter: Carlos Zambrano

Turn back the clock six or seven years and Big Z was overshadowed by the next two pitchers in my All-Aught rotation. But in the end, no Cubs pitcher started (and won) more games, threw more innings, struck out more batters, or was worth more wins than Carlos Zambrano. The ace of the Cubs staff for the past few years emerged as the [f]ace of the rotation on the decade as a whole, throwing 1551.1 innings with 1324 K, 698 BB, and an ERA+ of 127, all good for 28.4 WAR.



#2 Starter: Kerry Wood

Oh, what might have been. After pitching one of the greatest games in history (and there's an argument to be made that it was in fact the greatest pitching performance in history) in '98, Wood started the aughts strong as the Cubs' recently repaired ace. Obviously, things didn't work out the way we all thought they would. But Kerry Wood was still a dominant pitcher for the first half of the decade, and is second only to Zambrano in games started, IP, Ks, and WAR with 152, 1052.2, 1174, and 19.9, respectively. Some of those numbers came in '07 and '08 when Wood worked out of the bullpen, but nevertheless, no All-Aught rotation would be complete without Kerry.



#3 Starter: Mark Prior

Oh, what might have been: round two. Prior followed up his fantastic 2002 rookie campaign with a season for the ages in 2003: 211.1 IP, 245 K, 50 BB, a 1.103 WHIP, and a 178 ERA+. Cubs fans saw the best young rotation in baseball in Prior, Wood, and Zambrano. And then the injury bug hit: Prior pitched well the next two years but missed starts due to nagging injury issues. And then 2006 happened and everything went to hell. The Cubs eventually gave up on Prior, and he's bounced around a bit since, but has never thrown another pitch in a Major League Baseball game. But good Lord was he amazing for the North Siders in those few short non-2006 years, during which he piled up 13.1 WAR (6.2 of those wins in '03 alone).



#4 Starter: Ted Lilly

It's easy to forget Ted Lilly's contributions sometimes because he pitches alongside flashier (see: Big Z) starters. But Lilly has been solid-to-excellent in all three of his years with the Cubs, throwing a total of 588.2 innings with 509 Ks against 155 BBs, a WHIP between 1.06 and 1.23, and an ERA+ of 124, good for 10.4 WAR. I remember thinking that we were overpaying for a mediocre pitcher when the Cubbies picked up Lilly prior to the 2007 season, but he's proven me wrong by pitching far better in Chicago than he ever did in Toronto (or anywhere else, for that matter).



#5 Starter: Jon Lieber

It's also easy to forget that Jon Lieber was a top-of-the-rotation starter for the Cubs in the early aughts and instead remember him as the journeyman long reliever/spot starter who rejoined the club in '09. But from '00-'02, Lieber was a reliable workhorse who didn't strike many batters out but also didn't walk many, and who threw 671 innings (including some relief innings in 2009) with 454 Ks, 113 BBs, a WHIP that hovered between 1.14 and 1.20, and an ERA+ of 107. He was also worth 9.2 WAR, 9.0 of those as a starter. And so as much as the sentimental fan in me would like to give Maddux's Chicago swan song the fifth spot in the rotation, I have to give the nod to Lieber here.

Other Cubs starters.



BULLPEN:



Spot Starter/Long Reliever #1: Ryan Dempster

True, Dempster has been much, much better (and of course, much more valuable) as a starter, but he was also the Cubs closer for a while. He certainly deserves a spot on the All-Aughts team due both to his longevity with the team and value at both ends of the ballgame, but because of the names ahead of him, he'd be a spot starter at best. But it's worth noting that Dempster has contributed 1.5 WAR as a reliever and 8.1 as a starter, so he didn't miss the rotation by much.



Spot Starter/Long Reliever #2: Greg Maddux

Maddux's best years were behind him when he returned to Wrigley in 2004, but his homecoming was still both celebrated and valuable. Maddux was a roughly league-average pitcher by this point in his career, but he was good for 200+ innings per year (he never missed a start) and was every bit the control artist he'd been in Atlanta (only 92 BB in 574 IP with Chicago). He didn't really strike many guys out anymore (only 368 Ks), but his K/BB ratio never dipped below 3.1 (though he gave up his fair share of home runs), and he was worth 6.9 WAR to the Cubs over 2+ seasons..



Middle Reliever #1: Joe Borowski

An All-Aughts team without Borowski would feel so very, very wrong to me. Of course, an All-Aughts team with Borowski as the closer would feel even more wrong. But frankly, the numbers don't match up with my memories. Sure, Borowski's 2004 was horrible beyond words. But I remember Borowski as the master of the "scary save."

We all know a "scary save" when we see one. My favorite was on June 8, 2003, when the Yankees were in town and I'd scored a seat in the first row of the upper deck, just above first base. Borowski took over in the bottom of the ninth with a 3 run lead and promptly struck out Alfonso Soriano before walking Derek Jeter, giving up a double to Giambi, and then a 2-run single to Jorge Posada. Robin Ventura then flew out to right, after which Posada was pulled for the speedier Charles Gipson...who Borowski picked off to win the game as Wrigley went wild. I'll never forget poor Gipson, though; I was directly above the play, celebrating with everyone else while he just lied there, face down, as if he couldn't believe what he'd just done and was hoping that perhaps the infield dirt near first would take pity and swallow him up. It's one of the most poignant baseball memories I have.

But that's the funny thing about memories: it's the really extraordinary happenings that stick with us much of the time, and as such, I remember Borowski as the guy who gave up a leadoff hit, walked a couple guys, maybe let a run or two score, but in the end held on long enough to get the save. And yet, his 198.0 innings, 192/67 K/BB ratio, 113 ERA+, and WHIP that, outside of that abysmal 2004 campaign, never strayed north of 1.18 stare me accusingly in the face these many years later.

Mea culpa, Joe.



Middle Reliever #2/ROOGY: Michael Wuertz

In four seasons with the Cubs, Wuertz and his signature slider saw 262.1 innings of relief work with 270 Ks to 128 BBs, a WHIP that hovered a bit dangerously in the 1.2-1.4 range, but a solid ERA+ of 127. I'm sure I'm not the only Cubs fan who wishes Wuertz's 2009 line of 78.2 IP, 102 K, 23 BB, 166 ERA+, and 0.953 WHIP had helped Chicago rather than Oakland.



Middle Reliever #3/LOOGY: Mike Remlinger

Remlinger pitched 2+ solid years for the Cubs, mostly as a setup man/LOOGY, and he pitched quite well, particularly in 2003 when he struck out 83 batters in only 69 innings. While with the team, he threw 138.2 innings, struck out 148, walked 67, and maintained an ERA+ of 112 and a WHIP that consistently hovered in the 1.3's.



Setup Man: Bobby Howry

228.2 IP. 202 K. 49 BB. 118 ERA+. Sure, his 2008 wasn't pretty, but for two years, Howry was the man in the seventh. On the whole, he sure seems like a good choice to be the man in the eighth.



Closer: Carlos Marmol

Last year wasn't pretty. But Marmol was the man in '06 and '07, and has thrown 307.2 innings for the Cubs with 362 K, 200 BB, a 134 ERA+, and a WHIP of 1.284. He walks too many guys, sure. But when the league hits .181 against you, you can afford an extra BB or three. The fact is, Marmol's slider feeds on human suffering, and I have every confidence that he'll bounce back next year. Maybe I'm too high on Marmol. Maybe I'm letting his recent success ('06-'07) blind me while blinding myself to his recent lack of success ('08). But when I think about Cubs bullpen aces of the aughts, the first name that comes to mind is Carlos Marmol.



BENCH:

Backup Catcher: Geovany Soto (.264/.348/.461, 3.9 WAR)
Outfield/DH (interleague play): Moises Alou (.283/.353/.484, 2.5 WAR)
Infield/Pinch Runner: Eric Young (.288/.351/.396, 4.0 WAR)
Utility Infielder: Todd Walker (.286/.353/.487, 2.9 WAR)

And rounding things off (though not part of the official roster):

Enforcer/Historian: Kyle Farnsworth (348.2 IP, 397 K, 172 BB, 92 ERA+, 2 confirmed kills)



Obviously, there are some potential snubs. I'd love to find a spot for Fred McGriff and Mike Fontenot. Mark Guthrie and Will Ohman should probably be in the bullpen, but I'm still scarred from the 2003 playoffs. Even still, the All-Aughts opening day lineup would look something like this:

1.) 2B Mark DeRosa
2.) 1B Derrek Lee
3.) 3B Aramis Ramirez
4.) RF Sammy Sosa
5.) C Michael Barrett
6.) LF Alfonso Soriano
7.) SS Ryan Theriot
8.) CF Corey Patterson
9.) SP Carlos Zambrano

Not too shabby.

And now, cheers to 2010. "Next year" has arrived once more (though not yet for baseball fans). Perhaps the twenty-teens will finally bring us Next Year.

The Game of Life

You'll understand how clever I am in a moment.

First off, I've got several posts in the works, but life (post title reference #1) got in the way of late, as I had an inordinate number of final projects to grade. I'm on vacation now. Booyah.

Secondly, and significantly more importantly, what the fucking fuck? Milton Bradley (post title reference #2) for Carlos Silva plus pittance? Look, I know that Bradley didn't dig Chicago. And I know that Chicago didn't particularly dig Bradley. And I know that Bradley, for all his skills as a baseball player, is injury- and explosion-prone. But he was still an above-average player last year (between 0.5 and 1.0 WAR, depending on whose formula you trust), a year when his power numbers basically evaporated (he slugged only .397). But Bradley's batting eye didn't evaporate: he OBPed .378. And he stayed relatively healthy, playing in 124 games, his third most ever. All of this was good for a 99 OPS+, which is hardly what Chicago paid for, but not exactly a Mike Hampton level blunder, either.

And Silva? Well, his career best WHIP is 1.173, which doesn't sound too bad until we look at the rest of his career: his second best WHIP is 1.312 (1.310 if you count his 84.0 IP as a rookie reliever). Silva has been a starter for six years, and in that time has had an above average ERA+ thrice (2004, 2005, and 2007), and in one of those years (2007) he was still just about as average as can be (102 ERA+). He's posted a positive WAR only three times (the same seasons his ERA+ topped the century mark), and has cost his team more than a win in the other three seasons he's started (including, importantly, both of his years with Seattle).

With Seattle's crazygonuts outfield defense, don't expect Milton to spend much time roaming around in right. That means Bradley will be moving into the DH slot in Seattle, which will protect him from injury the way the Cubs couldn't, potentially adding to his value (paradoxically, as moving to DH is usually a downgrade in value for all but the worst fielders). As for Silva, he might eat up some innings. He's done so before. And he might be good. He'll probably be OK-to-bad. Bradley will be OK-to-exceptional.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see whether any of those middling prospects Seattle sent our way work out.

Wait...

Shit.

Cubs "All-Time 9"

This seems like it would be a good idea. The Cubs are, after all, a franchise steeped in history, and some of the greats have played on the North Side (especially given Cubs.com's one-season format, which allows us to pretend that Rogers Hornsby belongs on an all-time Cubs list despite his HoF career as a Cardinal). So compiling an "All-Time 9" list seems like it could be a lot of fun.

Unfortunately, there are a few problems. First off, most of the statistics given on the ballot are junk. Runs and RBIs are too dependent on teammates to be reliable for...well, much of anything when we're talking individual performance. Batting average, when combined with OBP and slugging, can actually tell us quite a bit about a hitter. Of course, it's presented alone, which tells us very little. SB totals are nice, but without CS numbers it's impossible to know whether the player ran himself into bonus bases or right back into the dugout. Home runs are great, and definitely the best "stand-alone" stat that Cubs.com gives us, though it would be nice to see doubles in there as well (I'm not going to ask for anything crazy here like isolated slugging).

But these troubles are easy to overcome and, frankly, the sort of thing I'd expect. Most fans aren't interested in the sorts of numbers that I'm interested in. Fortunately, there's always Baseball-Reference.com. I pointed my browser B-R-ward and started creating some play index pages by position, sorting by runs created (which seemed the best statistic to use, seeing as the purpose of Cubs.com's little thought experiment is to determine the best offensive lineup).

That's when the real problems became apparent.

Even before I hit up Baseball-Reference, I noticed some glaring omissions from the ballot. Example: who the fuck leaves Cap Anson off any so-called "All-Time 9" ballot for the Chicago Cubs? I don't care if we're talking all-time seasons, careers, or months of June; Cap Anson was an insanely good baseball player and one of the Cubs' first stars. In fact, he's probably the greatest first baseman to ever lace up for the North Siders.

But the hits just kept on coming: even when the right names are on the ballot, the right years aren't always there (RBI/BA bias in several cases, but some of the choices were absolutely baffling).

Clearly, the solution to these problems is for an anal-retentive Cubs fan, who happens to maintain a ridiculously obscure pseudo-sabermetric blog [very] loosely based on the NL Central, to write about said problems.

Fortunately, I know just such a fan.

Following is my position-by-position analysis of the Cubs.com "All-Time 9" ballot. Sometimes Cubs.com does a solid job of picking candidates. Sometimes they don't. And sometimes, they pick Pittsburgh Pirates.

Read on, if you dare.



FIRST BASE

Cubs.com's ballot:
1982 Bill Buckner (98 RC)
1903 Frank Chance (83 RC)
1995 Mark Grace (115 RC)
1922 Ray Grimes (125 RC)
2005 Derrek Lee (167 RC)
2002 Fred McGriff (93 RC)

Frank Chance was awesome, and I'm glad to see an "old schooler" from the turn-of-the-century Cubs dynasty on the ballot. But Frank doesn't belong in this conversation if we're talking single-season dominance, unfortunately, as he simply did not hit for power.

Fred McGriff did hit for power, but as much as I love the Crime Dog, he also doesn't belong on this list (though his 30 HRs and 100+ RBIs explain why he made the ballots, methinks).

Bill Buckner is probably the 7th or 8th most deserving first baseman, so his inclusion on the list isn't a big problem: he's not going to win, and neither are the guys who turned in slightly better performances. So why not give the much-maligned Buckner (who, it's worth noting for the umpteenth time, was a solid ballplayer) his day in the sun?

My ballot:
2005 Derrek Lee
1970 Jim Hickman (129 RC)
1922 Ray Grimes
1886 Cap Anson (119 RC)
1995 Mark Grace
1953 Dee Fondy (100 RC)

Cubs.com was right on when it came to Lee, Grace, and Grimes; all three should be in this discussion, and for the years they appear on the ballot. But what about Jim Hickman's 1970 campaign? Only Lee's 2005 beats out Hickman's 1970 in RC for a Cubs first baseman. And how about Cap Anson? He may not be the third beat in the Tinker-to-Evers connection, but if Frank Chance is fair game for the All-Time 9, why the hell wouldn't Mr. Burns' first choice at first base be? Fondy and Buckner could easily be switched, but Dee slightly outperformed Bill in every rate state and several counting stats (Buckner's RBI total appears to have been the deciding factor for Cubs.com), so I went with Fondy's '53.

Top 100 by RC. Note that Phil Cavarretta had a couple big years in 1944 and 1945 but did not make my list. That's because in 1945, the total number of arms in Major League Baseball was not an even number.

Best season: 2005 Derrek Lee
My vote: 2005 Derrek Lee



SECOND BASE

Cubs.com's ballot:
1912 Johnny Evers (91 RC)
1935 Billy Herman (120 RC)
1929 Rogers Hornsby (188 RC)
1990 Ryne Sandberg (124 RC)

One of these things is not like the other things. I'll give Cubs.com's writers credit for knowing their baseball poetics, but Evers really shouldn't be on this list. Hornsby and Herman, however, are spot on, as is Sandberg (though I prefer his 1984 season slightly).

My ballot:
1929 Rogers Hornsby
1935 Billy Herman
1984 Ryne Sandberg (126 RC)

Sure, I could add a fourth player to the list, in which case it would be between 2000 Eric Young and 2008 Mark DeRosa, but neither player topped the 100 RC mark, making them massive underdogs (just as Evers was), and DeRo wasn't exclusively a second sacker in '08. Best to keep this one simple, methinks.

Top 100 by RC. Note that Sandberg and Herman absolutely dominate this list.

Best season: 1929 Rogers Hornsby
My vote: 1929 Rogers Hornsby



SHORTSTOP

Cubs.com's ballot:
1958 Ernie Banks (135 RC)
1978 Ivan DeJesus (84 RC)
1995 Shawon Dunston (68 RC)
1931 Woody English (101 RC)
1922 Charlie Hollochar (97 RC)
1912 Joe Tinker (63 RC)

Now things are starting to get tricky. Why? Because when I started digging into the numbers, it seemed like Woody English should be on the ballot for his 1930 campaign, in which he totalled a club-best 139 RC splitting time at short and third. Cubs.com's rationale seems pretty obvious: in 1931, English played SS almost exclusively, whereas he played SS only about half the time the previous year (and actually played more games at third). But sweet merciful crap was his 1930 line a thing to behold: .335/.430/.511 (vs. .319/.391/.413 the following year).

As for the rest of the ballot, enough with "Baseball's Sad Lexicon," already: Joe Tinker doesn't belong here. And much as I love Shawon Dunston, he wasn't exactly the most feared hitter in baseball back in the day.

My ballot:
1958 Ernie Banks
1931 Woody English
1894 Bill Dahlen (125 RC)

Much like the second base ballot, this one is pretty straight-forward. If I had to add a couple more names to the list for the sake of argument, I'd take 1922 Hollocher, 1978 DeJesus, and 1969 Don Kessinger.

Top 100 by RC. Note that Ernie Banks was really, really good at baseball.

Best season: 1958 Ernie Banks
My vote: 1958 Ernie Banks



THIRD BASE

Cubs.com's ballot:
1983 Ron Cey (90 RC)
1976 Bill Madlock (100 RC)
1948 Andy Pafko (105 RC)
2004 Aramis Ramirez (109 RC)
1964 Ron Santo (135 RC)
1912 Heinie Zimmerman (131 RC)

This is probably the best ballot Cubs.com created. Most of the players are right on. Most of the years are, too. But Ron Cey really doesn't belong here, particularly since there is one glaring omission, not to mention one arguable omission: Woody English, playing just over half his time at third in 1930, put up an RC of 139 and could have made this a three horse race (OK, so I mentioned it). For the glaring omission, see my ballot...

My ballot:
1976 Bill Madlock
1948 Andy Pafko
2006 Aramis Ramirez (115 RC)
1964 Ron Santo
1912 Heinie Zimmerman
1938 Stan Hack (108 RC)

Stan Hack has no business being left off this list. He put up four of the top 15 RC seasons by Cubs third basemen. Granted, all were during World War II, but his best season (1938) came before the U.S. started sending Big Leaguers off to fight (or anyone, for that matter). So why was he left off the list? I have two guesses: 4 HR and 67 RBI. Of course, he also put up a .320/.411/.432 line. But in a battle of traditional statistics, Hack's not gonna do so well.

As for Aramis, his 2004 season was actually only his third best offensively as a Cub: 2006 and 2008 were both better. In fact, the only reason I can find for Cubs.com to select Ramirez's 2004 over his 2006 campaign is batting average; even Ramirez's traditional stats were better in 2006, with the exception of BA (.291/38/119 in '06 vs. .318/36/103 in '04). Ah, the siren's call of the .300 average...

Top 100 by RC. Santo is a Hall of Famer. Just sayin'.

Best season: 1964 Ron Santo
My vote: 1964 Ron Santo



CATCHER

Cubs.com's ballot:
1984 Jody Davis (63 RC)
1935 Gabby Hartnett (91 RC)
2008 Geovany Soto (91 RC)
1993 Rick Wilkins (95 RC)

On the heels of Cubs.com's best ballot comes their worst ballot. The catcher race only looks close because of two terrible, terrible calls: the inclusion of Jody Davis at all (and the use of his third best year as Cubs catcher, to boot!) and the inexplicable decision to use Gabby Hartnett's 1935 season instead of his 1930, when he was worth a staggering 129 runs at the plate.

My ballot:
1930 Gabby Hartnett (129 RC)
2008 Geovany Soto
1993 Rick Wilkins
1923 Bob O'Farrell (88 RC)

Ol' Bob ain't gonna win this one, but at least his performance is in line with Soto's and Wilkins's.

As for the Hartnett mixup, I can only shake my head in dumbfounded wonder. Let's take a look at two seasons:

Season 1: .339/.404/.630, 37 HR, 31 2B, 172 H, 84 R, and 122 RBI in 141 games
Season 2: .344/.404/.545, 13 HR, 32 2B, 142 H, 67 R, and 91 RBI in 116 games

Which was the better season? If you said Season 1, it's because the answer is really, really obvious. I even included a couple numbers I don't put much stock in (R and RBI) to illustrate how hard it is to get this one wrong even when relying on the BA/HR/RBI split stat style of player evaluation. So what the hell happened? Are five points of batting average really worth 24 homers (just for starters)?

Top 100 by RC.

Best season: 1930 Gabby Hartnett
My vote: 1935 Gabby Hartnett

I probably should've gone with Rick Wilkins since, based on the ballot, it was technically the best answer and it would be a nice, petty move on my part in response to the ridiculously crappy catcher ballot. But I couldn't say no to the greatest catcher in Cubs history, even if it meant cheating a little bit.



OUTFIELD

Cubs.com's ballot:
1961 George Altman (105 RC)
1925 Kiki Cuyler (154 RC)
1987 Andre Dawson (111 RC)
1937 Frank Demaree (114 RC)
1982 Leon Durham (108 RC)
1970 Jim Hickman (129 RC)
1979 Dave Kingman (112 RC)
1939 Hank Leiber (82 RC)
1943 Bill Nicholson (123 RC)
1950 Andy Pafko (117 RC)
1952 Hank Sauer (107 RC)
2007 Alfonso Soriano (107 RC)
1998 Sammy Sosa (149 RC)
1929 Riggs Stephenson (122 RC)
1970 Billy Williams (147 RC)
1930 Hack Wilson (192 RC)

There are quite a few snubs on the outfielder ballot, but it's such a gigantic field that I tend to be forgiving so long as we're at least talking about a guy who was over the century mark in run value. But Hank Leiber? Really?

Also: Kiki Cuyler was awesome in 1925. And a Pittsburgh Pirate.

My ballot:
2001 Sammy Sosa (193 RC)
1930 Hack Wilson
1970 Billy Williams
1930 Kiki "Chicago Cub" Cuyler (147 RC)
1970 Jim Hickman
2004 Moises Alou (123 RC)
1929 Riggs Stephenson
1936 Frank Demaree (120 RC)
1935 Augie Galan (119 RC)
1950 Andy Pafko
1911 Frank Shulte (117 RC)
1979 Dave Kingman
1987 Andre Dawson

Sosa's '98 was awesome. His His 2000 and 2001 seasons were even better. His '98 is on the ballot only because of the chase: he hit two fewer homers in '01, but with 2 more RBIs (for those who care) and a batting average that was 20 points higher (and, more tellingly, an OBP up 60 points and a SLG up 90 points). Sosa's 2001 season is, for all intents and purposes, tied with Hack Wilson's 1930 campaign (and possibly Rogers Hornsby's 1929) as the best offensive season by a Cubs player. Ever. At any position. But it wasn't part of a magical home run chase, so it's not on the ballot.

Lame.

Fortunately, Sosa's '98 is still comfortably in the top three on this ballot. Poor Kiki Cuyler, though, gets screwed over. If Cubs.com actually listed Cuyler's best season as a Cub, I'd have a tough decision between Kiki and Billy Williams for the third outfield spot. As things stand, however, I'm not voting for a Pirate on an all-time Cubs list. (Though for what it's worth, Cuyler's value is inflated due to the fact that MLB didn't keep CS records during his playing days, so I'd probably vote for Billy W. regardless.)

And as a final note, where's the love for Moises Alou? The man gave us two fantastic seasons in 2003 and 2004, and yet he gets snubbed for the likes of Soriano? For shame, Cubs.com. For shame.

Top 100 by RC. Note that Bill Lange's 1895 (124 RC) did not make my ballot. That's because the lack of CS numbers from way back when result in what appears to be a 67-for-67 SB record, which is almost certainly inaccurate. Since I don't know whether he got caught once or 68 times, and since he isn't going to win anyway, I left Lange off my list (perhaps unfairly).

Best seasons: 2001 Sammy Sosa, 1930 Hack Wilson, 1970 Billy Williams
My votes: 1998 Sammy Sosa, 1930 Hack Wilson, 1970 Billy Williams



PITCHER

Cubs.com's ballot:
1921 Grover Alexander (11 RC)
1918 Claude Hendrix (12 RC)
1971 Fergie Jenkins (16 RC)
1930 Pat Malone (11 RC)
1933 Lon Warneke (14 RC)
2008 Carlos Zambrano (13 RC)

Pitcher is a really, really tough position for this sort of vote. Since the All-Time 9, as proposed by Cubs.com, is intended as purely an offensive force, it doesn't matter whether the pitcher is actually good at pitching (though it's worth noting that most of these guys were), which makes things a bit easier. But the pitcher's spot in the batting order is where the differences between the game of the late nineteenth century and the game since the early twentieth century are perhaps most obvious: pitchers started (and finished!) a lot more games back then (see John Clarkson), which really skewed the all-time seasonal RC leaderboard in favor of the olde timers.

Cubs.com's solution seems like the right move in my mind. Rather than loading up the ballot with obscure names from the 1870's, they went with 20th- and 21st-century hurlers. This makes a lot of sense. Even once I sorted out pitchers who'd appeared in more than 45 games, 19th-century types still lurked atop the leaderboard en masse. Some of these performances are damned impressive (Scott Stratton's 1894 season is absolutely eye-popping, in fact). But many of these pitchers, Stratton included, saw time at other positions, and even those who didn't tended to be left in games longer, resulting in more at bats and, therefore, more accumulated value with the bat.

So with the 19th century eliminated, how did Cubs.com do?

My ballot:
1921 Grover Alexander
1918 Claude Hendrix
1971 Fergie Jenkins
1924 Tony Kaufman (11 RC)
1933 Lon Warneke
2008 Carlos Zambrano

They did pretty damned well, as it turns out. There's an argument to be made for Jack Taylor's 1902, in theory, but his line really wasn't all that impressive: those extra runs (he put up 14 RC that year) are a function of his 204 PAs (79 more than any player on Cubs.com's ballot) rather than his lackluster .237/.272/.280 line. Tony Kaufman's 1924 should probably replace Malone's 1930, but it's such a close call (it really comes down to rate vs. counting stats evening out in RC) that I can't fault Cubs.com for going with the guy who got more PAs in this case.

Top 100 by RC (post-1900).

Best season: 1971 Fergie Jenkins
My vote: 1971 Fergie Jenkins



Cubs.com's All-Time 9 is a great idea. And in some ways, it's executed very well. The stats on the ballot are crap, but even when the positional ballots themselves are garbage, I'm usually able to pick the best player(s), if not always the best year(s), and that's not something that should be sold short. Still, I wish that more of the ballots looked like those for third base (pretty much dead-on) or pitcher (arguable, but with solid logic backing the choices). A+ for the concept, and a big "thank you" to Cubs.com for giving me an excuse to dive into the B-R archives, but just a little more statistical legwork would have made the All-Time 9 a much, much better experiment.

Reality Check

Cubs fans: We're playing against Philadelphia. We're not in Philadelphia. Here's hoping Captain Douchebag has an assault charge waiting for him for this bit of idiocy.

Kudos to Shane Victorino for handling his recent rash of center field insanity as well as he has.

Comparing Cubs Aces

After last night's Jenkins/Maddux graphstravaganza, I got to thinking: how do the various Cubs aces of the last half century stack up against one another? I mean, the turn-of-the-century (20th, that is) Cubs had a fistful of aces: Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown, Hippo Vaughn, Orval Overall, Pete Alexander, and Ed Reulbach were all dominating pitchers (some for longer than others, of course). But as I thought about the last fifty years, very few names sprang to mind. Of course, there was Fergie Jenkins, who I fully expected to top the list of Cubs pitchers, and Greg Maddux, who I expected to top the overall list. And there's Big Z, though he's had a couple off years of late, and his near-contemporary Kerry Wood (during his prime as a starter, anyway). And who could forget Rick Sutcliffe's brief period of 80's dominance?

But the list pretty much ended there. Sure, several Cubs pitchers had a solid season or two; some even put together seasons I'd call great (2003 Mark Prior, anyone?). But I was hard-pressed to think of many Cubs starters who were true aces for more than a year or two.

So I dove into Baseball-Reference.com to find a sample set on which to perform a couple quick-and-dirty historical WAR tests. I had a few criteria in mind: First, each pitcher had to have at least a couple Opening Day starts under his belt (I'm looking for staff aces, after all). Second, each pitcher had to be a legitimate ace for a few years, so no ERA+ 100 guys who simply happened to be better than three subpar options (ie. Jon Lieber, Larry Jackson), and no pitchers with one good year and then little else to show for themselves (Prior). And finally, each pitcher had to have played in Chicago for at least five or six years (this was the loosest of my criteria, as it turned out that nobody who belonged on my short list played fewer than eight seasons in a Cubs uniform).

Using these three criteria to thin the crowd, I narrowed down my list to my original suspects (Jenkins, Maddux, Zambrano, Wood, Sutcliffe) and one pitcher I'd completely overlooked: Rick Reuschel.

Here's how the final six stacked up against one another while in Cubbie blue, with seasonal WAR graphed from best season to worst:

As I expected, Jenkins (blue) was well ahead of the pack, but there were certainly plenty of surprises here. First and foremost, I'd forgotten just how good Reuschel (orange) really was (a consequence of being too young to remember his best years with Chicago, methinks); he was far and away the best of the rest while a Cub, which is saying something in this crowd. On the other side of the coin, Sutcliffe (purple) didn't fare nearly as well in this little experiment as I'd expected him to, nor did Big Z (green). I expected Wood (brown) to suffer due to his injury seasons and his switch to the bullpen, but he actually outpaced Sutcliffe and wasn't significantly outperformed by Zambrano (though Z clearly has the edge). Maddux's (red) Cy Young year is right up there with Jenkins' and Reuschel's best years, but it's an outlier; as a Cub, Maddux was generally more similar to Wood and Zambrano than Jenkins valuewise.

Next up, I graphed each pitcher's career, fully expecting to see Maddux pull away from the pack, Jenkins to settle comfortably into second, Reuschel to drop back into the pack, and Wood and Zambrano to fall behind Sutcliffe:

As expected, Maddux was King of the Mountain careerwise, with Jenkins just behind. But Reuschel continued to surprise me; seriously, how did I miss this guy? Wood and Zambrano didn't change a bit, as neither had played for anyone other than Chicago before 2009. Sutcliffe had some absolutely Godawful seasons away from Chicago, which drag his career value down significantly. Once again, I found that I'd conveniently overlooked Sutcliffe's bad years while almost completely ignoring Rick Reuschel. I feel like I should send him a letter of apology or something:

Dear Mr. Reuschel,

Although I was only two years old when you left my Chicago Cubs (who were, incidentally, still four years away from being "my" team), I feel terrible for having underestimated your contributions to Cubs baseball in the late '70's and early '80's. I am currently taking measures to rectify what I feel is a grevious error. Fortunately, I write for a largely-unknown baseball blog with a loose focus on the NL Central; rest assured that I will do everything in my power to make mention of your achievements whenever possible.

Please accept my humble apologies.

Your new biggest fan,
David J. Marincic

That should do it. While I track down a stamp, here are a couple more graphs I made just for funsies. Both are, as I expected, convoluted rat's nests due to the fact that there are six pitchers included in the dataset, but they're fun nonetheless.

First up, here is each pitcher's Cubs years. The x-axis represents which year in the pitcher's career he threw for the Cubs, so a pitcher whose career begins at "1" was a rookie in Chicago. Only their Cubs WAR values are displayed for pitchers who threw for more than one team in a season:

Next, here is each pitcher's year-by-year WAR. All seasons are accounted for, and WAR values for pitchers who split time between multiple teams in one season are combined to create a yearly total:

Sweet merciful crap, I'm out of unicorn postage stamps! I'd better run to the store; Mr. Reuschel has had to wait almost thirty years for this letter, and damned if I'm going to let him wait a day longer...

A Graphical Tribute to Fergie Jenkins and Greg Maddux

Fergie Jenkins and Greg Maddux had their number 31 retired by the Cubs today. Both were obviously great pitchers, and as is my tendency when I read about various baseball-related honors, I dove into the numbers in an attempt to quantify just how great each of these guys really was. All of my data comes from BaseballProjection.com's wonderful pitcher WAR database.

First off, I borrowed a move from the fine folks at Beyond the Boxscore and graphed each pitcher's WAR in descending order from his best season in a Cubs uniform to his worst (partial seasons are included as full seasons for simplicity's sake):

The results shouldn't surprise anyone. Both Jenkins and Maddux essentially started and finished their careers in Chicago (Jenkins pitched a whopping 14.2 innings for the Phillies before coming to Chicago to begin his career in earnest; Maddux pitched two more respectable years for the Dodgers and Padres before hanging up his spikes three years after his Chicago swan song), but Jenkins developed faster and enjoyed his best seasons in a Cubs uniform, whereas Maddux didn't emerge as an ace until his final season in Chicago, after which he was (in)famously allowed to walk, so his prime years were for the Braves. A graph of each pitcher's Cubs career path puts these developmental discrepancies in rather stark perspective:

Maddux's career was on the upswing when he left for Atlanta, while Jenkins had already peaked before he moved on to Texas. If we expand each pitcher's career path to include every stop in his big league career, the advantage shifts to Maddux:

Jenkins peaked earlier, but Maddux sustained his peak (and his career) longer, though mostly as a Brave. Revisiting each pitcher's descending seasonal WAR while taking into account his entire career gives Maddux the edge over Jenkins:

Of course, it's important to remember that Maddux put up most of these numbers in Atlanta rather than Chicago; seven of his top ten seasons (#1 and #'s 3-8) were as a Brave, while Jenkins put up seven of his top ten seasons (#'s 1-2, 4-7, and 10) as a Cub. Breaking up each player's total WAR as a Cub and overall really hammers home this difference:

Jenkins was worth 81.4 WAR over his career, and 53.5 of those wins were with the Cubs. Maddux's career WAR was 96.7, but only 31.4 of those wins were in Cubbie blue. Maddux was the more valuable pitcher; Jenkins was the more valuable Cubs pitcher.

None of this changes the fact that both Jenkins and Maddux are beloved by Cubs fans (and rightly so!). Congratulations to both players for this well-deserved honor. I look forward to watching the number 31 flapping in the breeze at Wrigley for many years to come.

But I Want to Graph Patience NOW!

Over the last two years, my gut has been saying "Man, those Cubs hitters sure are seeing a lot more pitches than they used to." Unfortunately, I lacked the expertise to perform much more than a surface analysis of stats like pitches/AB, OBP, and the like.

Fortunately, Harry Pavlidis at Cubs f/x is a lot smarter than I am. Check out his wonderful Cubs Plate Discipline Trends post and prove your intestinal rumblings right! And if you're the sort who bleeds Cubbie blue and sabermetric...black? lavendar? mother-of-pearl?...the rest of the Cubs f/x site will suck your every free moment into a black hole of statistical bliss.

Milton Bradley Only Injures Himself When it is Strategically Wise to Do So

For those of you who, like me, don't have cable and saw this play on Gameday as "Prince Fielder hits sacrifice fly to RF Reed Johnson. Rickie Weeks scores. Craig Counsell to third."

Not only is that a spectacular catch by Johnson, but it's great baserunning by the Brewers and an incredibly classy reaction by Fielder after being robbed of what would have been his first career grand slam.

Edit: The video I linked to originally has been removed, but the same footage can be found here.

Chicago Cubs PWMBA: Kosuke Fukudome

The baseball season is coming. Professionals are playing the sport as we speak (or write) in beautiful cities as well as Kissimmee. As such, it's time to start looking ahead at some things to expect.

Or what we can't expect or predict in any reliable way as the case may be. In this series I am identifying a player on each team in the NL Central that is a question mark in terms of what to expect from them heading into the season. Some may be because of small sample sizes or interesting trends, other may be a jerk who plays for the Cubs.

Chicago Cubs Player Who Might Be Anything: Kosuke Fukudome

Fukudome only has one year of MLB statistics so it is difficult to determine how well it projects to his future production in the majors. He started off hot but definitely cooled down the stretch. He seemed to make some adjustments well but may have hit a slump toward the end of the season. It is also possible that pitchers have figured him out and he has not been able to adjust to them. The graph below shows his stats over the course of the season.

While there is a trend downward it is unclear if it is a cause for concern or performance below true capabilities. His final season stats were .257/.359/.379, good for a EqA of .260. Exactly league average is not the production the Cubs invested in and not the production needed from a corner outfielder.

The upcoming season will be interesting as it may determine how much money and time the Cubs will invest in Fukudome. If he performs well then he may be a long term member of the club. If not, then he may be looking for a new job where he can try to overcome a legacy as overhyped.

I admittedly have no knowledge of Fukudome's stats from Japan and cannot imagine how they would translate. If there are projections that compare them to minor league statistics I am unaware of them however I think the main issues to keep in mind are that Fukudome is only 32 and he has shown signs of being able to make adjustments and show patience at the plate.

Fukudome's season was comprised of a Jekyll first half and a Hyde second half. Somewhere towards the middle is where I would expect him to perform this upcoming season and in the long run of his career. Looking at his season stats, he was hitting .279/.383/.408 at the All-Star break. This is actually fairly close to most projections I have seen and seems to be a reasonable level to expect from him. Quite frankly, if he performs at any level below that and the Cubs can and should find a replacement for far less money and equal or greater production.

Sorry Dave

but this is absolutely hilarious

Credit goes to Deadspin although the photo is apparently from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

This Should Not Be a Sports Cliché

Several days ago, I was reading Phil Rogers's winter forecast for the Chicago Cubs at ESPN.com (I know, I know; a bad call on my part) when, only three paragraphs into the piece, I stumbled upon this gem:

"The Cubs have built one of the strongest teams in their history, with no glaring voids, but have gone all Alex Rodriguez in the playoffs."

Now before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I have no intention of making NL Central Stage simply a platform for critiquing bad sports journalism. The fine folks at Fire Joe Morgan have that well in hand already [EDIT: Until November 13th, that is; FJM, you will be missed]. I am not trying to be the next Coach Ken Tredakniorbles, and neither is Caleb (as far as I know).

That said, I am not going to stand idly by while paid journalists spew such wrongheaded clichés, particularly when the cliché in question is based on a false assumption (A-Rod chokes in the playoffs).

First thing's first: in 39 career games, Alex Rodriguez's postseason batting line is .279/.361/.467 with 7 HR and 41 hits (16 for extra bases). That's pretty damned good. A-Rod's career batting line is .306/.389/.578, so his performance in the playoffs is worse than his regular season performance, but then again, he's played in 2042 regular season games and only 39 postseason games. 39 games is a statistically insignificant sample size, and A-Rod is still pretty good within that sample.

To put things in perspective, Derek Jeter, the face of the Yankees, has played in 123 postseason games—three times Rodriguez's total. In those 123 games, his batting line is .309/.377/.469 with 17 HR and 153 hits (42 XBH). His numbers are slightly better than A-Rod's, but even assuming that A-Rod were to maintain his "Choke-Rod" numbers until he played in roughly as many postseason games as Jeter (117, for ease of calculation), he would have 21 HR, 123 H, and 48 XBH, putting him right up there with Jeter.

Of course, no Yankee (and perhaps no player at all) casts a longer shadow over postseason performance evaluation than Mr. October himself, Reggie Jackson. So how did Reggie do in the postseason? In 77 postseason games, Jackson hit .278/.358/.527 with 18 HR and 78 H (33 XBH). For the sake of argument (and I'm well aware that my mathmatical methods for extrapolating Jackson's and Rodriguez's statistics are shaky at best, but bear with me on this one), let's multiply Jackson's numbers by 1.5 to bring him roughly in line with Jeter and 117-game "Choke-Rod." Maintaining his career postseason production, 114-game Jackson would collect 27 HR, 117 H, and 49 XBH.

The similarities are telling. Sure, A-Rod's line is probably the worst of the three, but he's also played in far fewer postseason series than either Jeter or Mr. October. A-Rod gets a bad rap for 2005 and 2006 postseasons in which he went .133/.381/.200 and .071/.071/.071, respectively, but where's the love for his other postseason accomplishments with the Yankees (.267/.353/.467 just last year, not to mention .258/.378/.516 in the 2004 ALCS and an absolutely monstrous line of .421/.476/.737 in the ALDS that same year)?

In five postseason series in pinstripes, A-Rod has put up solid-to-excellent numbers three times. Admittedly, in his two worst series (the '05 and '06 ALDS's), Rodriguez has been significantly outperformed by Jeter (.133/.381/.200 vs. .333/.364/.619 in 2005; .071/.071/.071 vs. .500/.529/.938 in 2006). Those are some fantastic numbers from Mr. Jeter. But where's the vitriol for Jeter's awful 2007 NLDS (.176/.176/.176 vs. Choke-Rod's .267/.353/.467) and subpar 2004 ALCS (.200/.333/.233 vs. Rodriguez's .258/.378/.516)? Add the only other postseason series A-Rod and Jeter have played in together (the 2004 ALDS) to the equation, and A-Rod has actually outperformed Jeter in three of his five postseason series as a Yankee: Jeter put up an excellent line of .316/.350/.526, but A-Rod's .421/.476/.737 was otherworldly.

Getting back to Mr. Roger's piece, going "all Alex Rodriguez in the playoffs" appears, in light of the numbers, to mean "slightly underperforming based on career regular season numbers and/or unrealistic fan/media expectations, largely due to inconsistency that is not offset by sufficient sample size." Obviously, that's not what Rogers was going for. I'm sure what he meant to write was that the Cubs went "all Alex Rodriguez in the 2006 ALDS," or "all Derek Jeter in the 2007 ALDS," or "home after getting the everlasting shit kicked out of them by the Dodgers."

FA FA FA: Chicago Cubs

I decided I'm going to do short previews for the offseason for each team in the NL Central. I will be focusing on free agent losses and availability at desired positions. I will call these previews FA FA FA until someone gives me a reason not to.

CHICAGO CUBS (97 - 64)

Significant FAs: Ryan Dempster (SP), Kerry Wood (RP), Jim Edmonds (CF)

Significant Gaps: None

A team with the fourth highest EqA and second highest OBP in the entire MLB is lucky to be returning most of it's starting lineup. They could improve in some positions, of course, but until they get a stronger reason to they won't. As far as Jim Edmonds is concerned, a .256/.369/.568 line will be hard to replace, but a) that was in a half season and b) he turns 39 next year. Reed Johnson, the heir apparent to the position, put up .303/.358/.420. You are admittedly losing power (a lot of it) and if they can sign Edmonds they may as well, but Johnson provides similar defensive ability in CF, although I may be biased because of his freak of nature catch in Houston last year. It's a matter of if they can find that power some other place in the lineup (move Soto up) or find a better replacement.

Their highest priority should be Ryan Dempster. Granted, he may have had a career year in 2008 (1.21 WHIP, 2.46 K/BB) his career stats indicate that his WHIP should stay below/around 1.5. That is not bad for your fourth starter. The Cubs are keeping Rich Harden for 2009 and along with Zambrano and Lilly that makes a very good pitching staff for a team that is strong defensively and offensively.

Kerry Wood should be signed not even necessarily because he had a good year last year (1.09 WHIP, 4.67 K/BB) but because he is a franchise player and keeping him will be good for the public image. That being said, I am of the belief that dominant closers can be made/broken easily and wouldn't devote too much payroll to them. If necessary I will clarify this statement.

The Cubs are also losing some bullpen players (Lieber, Howry) and could use some help there but I honestly think that statement applies to every team in the league and premium bullpen help is hard to predict and even harder to find.