PDA

View Full Version : Is it me or are the Cubs overrated?


Viva Medias B's
10-02-2007, 08:41 AM
The Cubs are favored by the oddsmakers to win the NLDS over the Diamondbacks. Why is that? Do they feel the Cubs have enough pitching, hitting, and relief pitching to overwhelm what Arizona has? I'm sorry, but I don't think Arizona is a pushover at all. The Cubs were the tallest midget in a terrible division, and they claimed that title by backing into it. It seems that Cub fans and certain Cubbie-loving media personalities believe that this will be a cakewalk. Evidently, word has not gotten to them that when the Cubs take the field late Wednesday night, the opposite dugout will not be populated by cupcakes like the Pittsburgh Pirates or Cincinnati Reds.

The Cubs did not win their way to the NL Central crown by fattening up on the Arizona Diamondbacks. That is because they lost four out of six to them in the regular season series:

7/20 - Cubs 6, Diamondbacks 2
7/21 - Diamondbacks 3, Cubs 2
7/22 - Diamondbacks 3, Cubs 0
8/24 - Cubs 6, Diamondbacks 2
8/25 - Diamondbacks 3, Cubs 1
8/26 - Diamondbacks 5, Cubs 4I posted those dates because these games took place after the Cubs started their run of winning against the NL Central cupcakes. Yet, the punditry seems to think that Cubs success against Arizona is a lock because:

Like the St. Louis Cardinals of 2006, having the worst record among the playoff teams is a guarantee of playoff success. I cannot believe how many people subscribe to this false theory. Last year, St. Louis bucked the system. Just because the Redbirds won it all last year with their 83 regular season wins does not make a successful Cubs run in the playoffs automatic, contrary to the belief of delusional Cub fans. Look at 2005. Did the team that won that World Series have the worst record among the playoff teams?
Lou Piniella is managing the Cubs. Piniella is probably the main reason the Cubs are in the playoffs. He is a good manager, no doubt. Yet, just because Lou is in the Cubs dugout does not mean the Cubs are a guarantee to beat Arizona. Wasn't Lou in the Seattle dugout in 2001 when the Mariners won 116 regular season games? What happened to the M's in the playoffs that year?I am sure there are other inane reasons cited by fans of the Cubs. Look, the Cubs are now playing a team capable of beating them. There are no more Pittsburghs and Cincinnatis ahead of them. I predict that Arizona wins the NLDS three games to one.

peeonwrigley
10-02-2007, 09:03 AM
The Cubs are favored by the oddsmakers to win the NLDS over the Diamondbacks. Why is that?

Because more people will be betting on the Cubs. Its the same reason their odds to win the Pennant/World Series are always skewed in March.

Also, to the casual bettor the Cubs are the more attractive play. A line up full of guys you've heard of against a line up of guys you have not... it does not necessarily have to do with what Vegas thinks will happen on the field.

Frontman
10-02-2007, 09:14 AM
Yeah, the "betting" line is always to favor the house. Since it will get more people betting on the Cubs, they'll say their favorites.

I trust nothing that comes out of the Vegas oddsmakers.

lostfan
10-02-2007, 09:15 AM
Of course Arizona is capable of beating the Cubs, but Arizona really isn't that good IMO. The starting pitching is nothing special and the lineup really doesn't scare anyone. I don't care for the Cubs any more than any of you guys, but the Cubs have both a better rotation and a far better lineup. It doesn't surprise me they're favored.

Frontman
10-02-2007, 09:22 AM
Of course Arizona is capable of beating the Cubs, but Arizona really isn't that good IMO. The starting pitching is nothing special and the lineup really doesn't scare anyone. I don't care for the Cubs any more than any of you guys, but the Cubs have both a better rotation and a far better lineup. It doesn't surprise me they're favored.

But my point is that never trust the oddsmakers. They make the odds to make the money, not to allow the gambler to make the most money.

In my honest opinion, I think the Cubs have a "punchers chance" (if I can use a boxing metaphor) but are not the best team in the playoffs. Pinella has done a great job turning around the culture of that team, but I think there is enough holes in his team that could cost the Cubs.

Given one more year, a few tweaks? They could possibly win it all.

DrCrawdad
10-02-2007, 09:28 AM
The Cubs are favored by the oddsmakers to win the NLDS over the Diamondbacks. Why is that? Do they feel the Cubs have enough pitching, hitting, and relief pitching to overwhelm what Arizona has? I'm sorry, but I don't think Arizona is a pushover at all. The Cubs were the tallest midget in a terrible division, and they claimed that title by backing into it. It seems that Cub fans and certain Cubbie-loving media personalities believe that this will be a cakewalk. Evidently, word has not gotten to them that when the Cubs take the field late Wednesday night, the opposite dugout will not be populated by cupcakes like the Pittsburgh Pirates or Cincinnati Reds.

The Cubs did not win their way to the NL Central crown by fattening up on the Arizona Diamondbacks. That is because they lost four out of six to them in the regular season series:
7/20 - Cubs 6, Diamondbacks 2
7/21 - Diamondbacks 3, Cubs 2
7/22 - Diamondbacks 3, Cubs 0
8/24 - Cubs 6, Diamondbacks 2
8/25 - Diamondbacks 3, Cubs 1
8/26 - Diamondbacks 5, Cubs 4I posted those dates because these games took place after the Cubs started their run of winning against the NL Central cupcakes. Yet, the punditry seems to think that Cubs success against Arizona is a lock because:
Like the St. Louis Cardinals of 2006, having the worst record among the playoff teams is a guarantee of playoff success. I cannot believe how many people subscribe to this false theory. Last year, St. Louis bucked the system. Just because the Redbirds won it all last year with their 83 regular season wins does not make a successful Cubs run in the playoffs automatic, contrary to the belief of delusional Cub fans. Look at 2005. Did the team that won that World Series have the worst record among the playoff teams?
Lou Piniella is managing the Cubs. Piniella is probably the main reason the Cubs are in the playoffs. He is a good manager, no doubt. Yet, just because Lou is in the Cubs dugout does not mean the Cubs are a guarantee to beat Arizona. Wasn't Lou in the Seattle dugout in 2001 when the Mariners won 116 regular season games. What happened to the M's in the playoffs that year?I am sure there are other inane reasons cited by fans of the Cubs. Look, the Cubs are now playing a team capable of beating them. There are no more Pittsburghs and Cincinnatis ahead of them. I predict that Arizona wins the NLDS three games to one.

I have not followed AZ so I may of course be overlooking something, but after Webb their starters don't look too intimidating. Not that Lilly or Hill are all that but they have put up better numbers on the surface.

Phil Rogers did the usual comparison and he gave the Cubbies the edge in STARTING PITCHING, RELIEF PITCHING, HITTING, FIELDING, MANAGER & INTANGIBLES. The only thing Rogers tossed AZ way was BENCH.

The Cubbies have the edge in fielding? Are the D-Backs that bad in fielding, 'cos I think the Cubbies are a below average team in fielding at Catcher (Kendall), 3B (Ramirez), LF (Soriano), CF (Jones) & RF (Floyd, Murton, etc.). Even DeRosa is IMHO an average fielder, at best.

Why Soriano? Some will point to OF Assists, or range numbers. And to that I ask, have you watched Soriano play LF? He does have a terrific arm, but he's clueless in the field. I'll go so far to say Soriano is worse than Carlos Lee was when Lee was with the Sox.

Are the Cubbies overrated? Sure, always.

lostfan
10-02-2007, 10:00 AM
But my point is that never trust the oddsmakers. They make the odds to make the money, not to allow the gambler to make the most money.

In my honest opinion, I think the Cubs have a "punchers chance" (if I can use a boxing metaphor) but are not the best team in the playoffs. Pinella has done a great job turning around the culture of that team, but I think there is enough holes in his team that could cost the Cubs.

Given one more year, a few tweaks? They could possibly win it all.
Yeah, I'm not disputing you on the odds thing. Your post came out while I was typing mine.

As much as I hate to admit it the best team in the playoffs is probably the Yankees right now. As usual. And the best NL team is not as good as the worst AL team, at least from a cursory glance.

eriqjaffe
10-02-2007, 10:01 AM
The D-Backs somehow managed to win 90 games while being outscored by 20 runs. That speaks highly of two things: luck, and a penchant to win close games (32-20 in 1-run contests) while getting blown out when they lose (20-26 in games decided by 5+ runs). Statistically, they appear to be a team whose success is based on smoke & mirrors.

As much as I'd like to see the Cubs drop out early, I'm not sure how to call this series. The D-Backs do have a very good record at home (50-31, as opposed to 40-41 on the road), so them having home field advantage could be huge, if the series goes that far.

It's Time
10-02-2007, 10:09 AM
The Cubbies have the edge in fielding? Are the D-Backs that bad in fielding, 'cos I think the Cubbies are a below average team in fielding at Catcher (Kendall), 3B (Ramirez), LF (Soriano), CF (Jones) & RF (Floyd, Murton, etc.). Even DeRosa is IMHO an average fielder, at best.

Most on your list I would agree with, but not Ramirez. That guy might win a gold glove this year.

lostfan
10-02-2007, 10:17 AM
Ramirez's D gets a bad rap probably cuz of his loafing attitude, especially from Sox fans who love to hate on him. He's not Crede, but he's definitely above average.

jackbrohamer
10-02-2007, 10:21 AM
Like the St. Louis Cardinals of 2006, having the worst record among the playoff teams is a guarantee of playoff success. I cannot believe how many people subscribe to this false theory.

That's the gist of a lead article in the Cubune today. It is the most idiotic theory that I have ever heard, even from Cub apologists, and utterly invalid logic: Socrates was a man; the Cubs players are all men; so all Cubs players are Socrates?

spawn
10-02-2007, 10:22 AM
I hate to say it, but I agree with the mediots on this one. I think they'll beat the D-Backs. I don't want them to, but I think they will. Other than Webb and their bullpen, the D-backs don't really impress me.

Oblong
10-02-2007, 10:24 AM
I haven't followed the Cubs much this year. Is the roster now pretty much how it was during the year? If so then that's a big reason why the analogy to the 2006 Cardinals doesn't make sense. The Cardinals had a lot of injuries during the season so the playoff Cardinals didn't really match up with the team during the season. They didn't get hot at the right time, they got healthy at the right time.

lostfan
10-02-2007, 10:28 AM
I haven't been following them that closely but my Cub friend fans have been telling me the 3-4-5 has been mashing and Soriano has been coming thru big.

The Immigrant
10-02-2007, 10:36 AM
The Cardinals had a lot of injuries during the season so the playoff Cardinals didn't really match up with the team during the season. They didn't get hot at the right time, they got healthy at the right time.

People also forget that the Cardinals lost a tough NLCS series to the Astros in 2005 and made it to the World Series in 2004 after winning 100+ games. The 2006 regular season was an aberration because they were decimated by injuries, but they got healthy at the right time and were then pretty similar to their teams from 2004-2005.

PatK
10-02-2007, 10:37 AM
I haven't been following them that closely but my Cub friend fans have been telling me the 3-4-5 has been mashing and Soriano has been coming thru big.

Look who they've played the last month- the weak NL Central. Those bate disappear outside the division.

The Immigrant
10-02-2007, 10:38 AM
I haven't been following them that closely but my Cub friend fans have been telling me the 3-4-5 has been mashing and Soriano has been coming thru big.

They've been mashing against terrible pitching, but the Marlins managed to shut them down completely. We'll see how they fare against Webb.

ilsox7
10-02-2007, 10:43 AM
They've been mashing against terrible pitching, but the Marlins managed to shut them down completely. We'll see how they fare against Webb.

The D-Backs were the worst possible match-up for the Cubs, IMO. My friend (Cub fan) thinks they're done in 4. Maybe 3. They either have to beat Webb at least once or figure out how to get Hill, Lilly, and Marquis (:rolling:) to win at least 2 of 3.

I have not seen the D-Backs play much this year, but by all accounts they have solid starting pitching, a lockdown bullpen, and play above average defense. This is exactly the type of team the Cubs do not want to face.

FedEx227
10-02-2007, 10:44 AM
Most on your list I would agree with, but not Ramirez. That guy might win a gold glove this year.

Making gold gloves that much more worthless.

He's a butcher who has no idea how to charge a ball and lets it eat him up countless times.

But usually it happens at home, and the scorer deems the uncharged, natural hopping ball as a "hard, hit ground" and rewards a hit.

Don't let errors or gold gloves tell you who the great fielders are.

spiffie
10-02-2007, 10:45 AM
It really looks like the Cubs series to lose. While the idea of the Cardinals analogy doesn't really hold, they are probably a better team than they were early in the year, when they were still running Izturis out every day, putting Soriano in CF, and putting Eyre in during close situations and they got Marmol into crucial spots where he has been lights out. From June on they went 63-48 (.568) once they got their team figured out.

Arizona on the other hand really is like a less talented version of the 2005 White Sox. A few power bats, a lights-out bullpen, a speed guy or two, and just doing enough to win. It really will come down to their starters. Webb is a stud, but after that they're looking for wins out of Doug Davis and Livan Hernandez. If those guys can get them 5-6 strong innings and get the ball to the pen with a lead, the D-Backs will be in good shape. But if the Cubs can put some runs up on them, it will not be easy for the D-Backs to come back on the Cubs pen (and those words just look wrong on screen).

If I were going to be betting, I would look at the Cubs as a slight favorite. They have the better team, but its also more unstable. What Zambrano is going to show up? Will Dempster be able to avoid the big blow-up? Will they make any egregious errors? The D-Backs are pretty much a known quantity. The Cubs can show up as world-beaters or confused Little Leaguers depending on the day.

I'm saying Cubs in 5, but I think the winner of the Phils/Rox series is going to the World Series.

lostfan
10-02-2007, 10:46 AM
Look who they've played the last month- the weak NL Central. Those bate disappear outside the division.
Yes, but if I'm those Lee, A-Ram, or Soriano I'm really not scared of AZ's starting pitching. It's not like they're the Padres.

But as always, this is the Cubs. If any team is capable of ****ing things up, it's them.

It's Time
10-02-2007, 10:50 AM
but by all accounts they have solid starting pitching, a lockdown bullpen, and play above average defense. This is exactly the type of team the Cubs do not want to face.

http://www.serieslive.com/img/acteurs/james_gammon.gif
"They may play good defense but they hit like ****".:redneck

johnr1note
10-02-2007, 11:22 AM
It really looks like the Cubs series to lose. While the idea of the Cardinals analogy doesn't really hold, they are probably a better team than they were early in the year, when they were still running Izturis out every day, putting Soriano in CF, and putting Eyre in during close situations and they got Marmol into crucial spots where he has been lights out. From June on they went 63-48 (.568) once they got their team figured out.

Arizona on the other hand really is like a less talented version of the 2005 White Sox. A few power bats, a lights-out bullpen, a speed guy or two, and just doing enough to win. It really will come down to their starters. Webb is a stud, but after that they're looking for wins out of Doug Davis and Livan Hernandez. If those guys can get them 5-6 strong innings and get the ball to the pen with a lead, the D-Backs will be in good shape. But if the Cubs can put some runs up on them, it will not be easy for the D-Backs to come back on the Cubs pen (and those words just look wrong on screen).

If I were going to be betting, I would look at the Cubs as a slight favorite. They have the better team, but its also more unstable. What Zambrano is going to show up? Will Dempster be able to avoid the big blow-up? Will they make any egregious errors? The D-Backs are pretty much a known quantity. The Cubs can show up as world-beaters or confused Little Leaguers depending on the day.

I'm saying Cubs in 5, but I think the winner of the Phils/Rox series is going to the World Series.

This is probably the best analysis I've seen of this series on this board.

The D-Backs have speed, defense, and good pitching, especially in the bullpen. while the starting "big 3" pitchers for the Cubs are marginally better than the D-backs, the overall staff for Arizona is much better.

The Cubs have a better hitting lineup, but they are built more like a traditional American League club -- bigger hitters, not a lot of speed. The defense is marginal at best (especially outfield), and the bullpen, while it performed well down the stretch, is not nearly as good as Arizona's.

The key to this series will be Webb's performance, and whether the Cubs bats can provide the firepower to overcome AZ's pitching. Especially key will be the "lesser lights" in the Cubs lineup -- guys like Theriot, De Rosa, Kendall, etc. If a couple of these guys have a big series, the Cubs could win it.

Then again, there always seems to be a Billy Goat, a black cat, a gatorade soaked first baseman's glove, or a bespectled fan interfering with a playable foul ball to show up at just the right moment to turn the tide!

kittle42
10-02-2007, 11:36 AM
The Cubs have as much chance as winning the weak NL as anyone. They arguably have the best starting pitching of the four teams. They aren't the Rockies, but they have a good enough lineup.

Quit deluding yourselves into theinking they're an automatic three and out. Just try not to worry about it and let history take care of itself.

pierzynski07
10-02-2007, 11:43 AM
They're what, something like 7 games over .500? Of course they're overrated. You should know that.

At the same time, so are the Diamondbacks.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2007, 01:23 PM
300 million spent doesn't get you as many wins as it used to. LOL

Lip

kittle42
10-02-2007, 01:47 PM
They're what, something like 7 games over .500? Of course they're overrated. You should know that.

At the same time, so are the Diamondbacks.

300 million spent doesn't get you as many wins as it used to. LOL

Lip

It's the postseason. They only need 3, 4, and 4 wins, now.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2007, 01:51 PM
That's 11 total wins. I don't think the Cubbies will be getting more then 5 or 6 tops.

Lip

AZChiSoxFan
10-02-2007, 02:19 PM
Of course Arizona is capable of beating the Cubs, but Arizona really isn't that good IMO. The starting pitching is nothing special and the lineup really doesn't scare anyone. I don't care for the Cubs any more than any of you guys, but the Cubs have both a better rotation and a far better lineup. It doesn't surprise me they're favored.


Yeah, you're right. The scrubs are great. I mean, how can you write off the fact that they won a whopping 85 games, while playing in the weakest division in baseball.

I'll take Brandon webb over little Z or Lilly any day of the week.

TDog
10-02-2007, 02:39 PM
That's 11 total wins. I don't think the Cubbies will be getting more then 5 or 6 tops.

Lip

I would be surprised if the Cubs win more than one game. Actually, one game would surprise me.

The Cubs don't have a good team by postseason standards. They had a losing record against the NL East and NL West. They were 8-4 against the AL, but five of those wins came against the White Sox when the White Sox were in their death mode in the AL Central, the second-weakest division in baseball. The Cubs won six of their last 10, but lost all three games against the Marlins in that stretch. Get the Cubs out of the NL Central and they have a losing record. To get to the World Series, they would have to beat teams that didn't have the margin for error the NL Central offered.

The thing is, you can't say how many October wins their season or even their September translates to. In 2000, Sox fans were shocked that they could lose three straight to the wild card team. But wild card teams often get to the World Series. Sometimes they win. It isn't just that the wild card teams go in hot. Last year, the Tigers backed into the wild card. The Tigers didn't belong in the postseason the way they lost their big lead, but their huge lead that preceded what in the old days would have been considered a monumental collapse gave them the cushion they needed for the wild card. They got to the Series against another team that had a miserable September. No one saw that coming.

It isn't a matter of the weakest teams being the teams to beat, which seems to be the myth many Cubs fans are clinging to today. The factors are numerous and vary from team to team. The 2000 White Sox hitting, for example, disappeared after Labor Day and their starting pitchers were all hurt. (I wonder if things would have worked out differently if Jerry Manuel made Mark Buehrle an emergency starter. Maybe Herbert Perry should have pitched.)

Of course, it didn't work for the Cubs when they had the best pitching in the National League, a 3-1 NLCS lead and home field advantage with their best pitchers rested and ready to start. So logically, it must be their year when they have the weakest of the eight teams making the postseason.

lostfan
10-02-2007, 02:39 PM
Yeah, you're right. The scrubs are great. I mean, how can you write off the fact that they won a whopping 85 games, while playing in the weakest division in baseball.

I'll take Brandon webb over little Z or Lilly any day of the week.
I didn't say they sucked. I said I didn't think they were that impressive.

HomeFish
10-02-2007, 06:03 PM
The list of reasons for why the Diamondbacks are overrated is a lot longer than the list of reasons for why the Cubs are overrated.

As somebody said before, the Diamondbacks are team based on smoke and mirrors. They're a team of guys who are playing well over their heads right now. The Cubs have a lot more raw talent. Luck can beat raw talent, sure, but on the flip side raw talent can win without luck.

I'm just really, really happy that I am far away from Chicago right now.

DrCrawdad
10-02-2007, 06:15 PM
Making gold gloves that much more worthless.

He's a butcher who has no idea how to charge a ball and lets it eat him up countless times.

But usually it happens at home, and the scorer deems the uncharged, natural hopping ball as a "hard, hit ground" and rewards a hit.

Don't let errors or gold gloves tell you who the great fielders are.

I agree with your observations. I'll add that I'm just not impressed with Ramirez as a fielder. Ramirez (usually) catches the balls hit to him. And I admit Ramirez looks better at 3rd with Lee at 1st.

I don't think Ramirez has much quickness or instinct at the position.

I'll never forget seeing a routine flyball bounce off Ramirez' forehead last year.

Aramais Ramirez, very good hitter (and very tough to strike-out) but a poor fielder. Combine Ramirez with Derosa, Soriano, Jones, Floyd and possibly Kendall and you have a weak defense with the potential to make mistakes in crucial spots. Note that I did not say errors too, 'cos they have the real ability to make non-errors/non-plays.

veeter
10-02-2007, 06:46 PM
Winning a lot of one run games, as the D-Backs have, is a HUGE sign of a good team. This board is underestimating them. They win the series in five games.

HomeFish
10-02-2007, 06:51 PM
Winning a lot of one run games, as the D-Backs have, is a HUGE sign of a good team.

Or just dumb luck, which is never guaranteed to last.

Again, the Diamondbacks lack talent. Who do they have on their team? Do they have anyone who can hit like Lee, Ramirez, or Soriano? No. Do they have anyone with nasty stuff like Zambrano? No.

They're a team of Darin Erstads who have gotten lucky so far this year. They are, to reference the quote in my signature, basing their entire playoff hopes on fortune. And fortune is an unstable foundation for anything.

The Immigrant
10-02-2007, 06:52 PM
As somebody said before, the Diamondbacks are team based on smoke and mirrors. They're a team of guys who are playing well over their heads right now.

That's funny, because this is pretty much what people were saying about the White Sox before the 2005 playoffs began.

I sure hope the D-Backs continue "playing over their heads" for the next 7 days or so.

HomeFish
10-02-2007, 06:53 PM
That's funny, because this is pretty much what people were saying about the White Sox before the 2005 playoffs began.


True, and it's also what people said about another set of Darin Erstads who won it all -- the 2002 Angels.

But for every spunky, no-name team that wins it all, there are many more who go 3 and out. The 2005 Sox and the 2002 Angels are the exceptions, not the rules.

veeter
10-02-2007, 06:55 PM
Or just dumb luck, which is never guaranteed to last.

Again, the Diamondbacks lack talent. Who do they have on their team? Do they have anyone who can hit like Lee, Ramirez, or Soriano? No. Do they have anyone with nasty stuff like Zambrano? No.

They're a team of Darin Erstads who have gotten lucky so far this year. They are, to reference the quote in my signature, basing their entire playoff hopes on fortune. And fortune is an unstable foundation for anything.Why are they 4 - 2 against the cubs then? And noone gets "lucky" for 162 games. Baseball's long season eliminates dumb luck.

veeter
10-02-2007, 06:58 PM
This thing, as usual, will come down to pitching. Zambrano is very good. But Ted Lilly? Talk about smoke and mirrors. The rest of the cubs roration is either over rated (Rich Hill), or just plain sucks.

HomeFish
10-02-2007, 07:00 PM
Why are they 4 - 2 against the cubs then? And noone gets "lucky" for 162 games. Baseball's long season eliminates dumb luck.

Not having seen any of those six games, I couldn't tell you.

I can tell you, however, that regular season record is no predictor of postseason series. The 2001 Mariners were all over the Yankees in the extremely hyped season series -- and lost the ALCS. The Mets in 2000, iirc, won the regular season subway series. The Braves in 1999 beat the Yankees in interleague too, I think.

HomeFish
10-02-2007, 07:01 PM
This thing, as usual, will come down to pitching. Zambrano is very good. But Ted Lilly? Talk about smoke and mirrors. The rest of the cubs roration is either over rated (Rich Hill), or just plain sucks.

And the back end of Arizona's rotation is better?

veeter
10-02-2007, 07:03 PM
Not having seen any of those six games, I couldn't tell you.

I can tell you, however, that regular season record is no predictor of postseason series. The 2001 Mariners were all over the Yankees in the extremely hyped season series -- and lost the ALCS. The Mets in 2000, iirc, won the regular season subway series. The Braves in 1999 beat the Yankees in interleague too, I think.I watched most of those games. Arizona, beat the cubs with good pitching and timely hitting. The cubs did what they did all year against above .500 teams, got beat four out of six times.

veeter
10-02-2007, 07:06 PM
And the back end of Arizona's rotation is better?I say yes, if we're comparing Livan hernandez to Rich Hill. Hernandez has a ton of post-season experience. However, he won't have the late Eric Gregg to give him 8" outside corners, this time.

dakuda
10-02-2007, 07:12 PM
Odds have nothing to do with who will win. They are set to make the house money. If there is too much betting on one side, the odds are adjusted.

JB98
10-02-2007, 07:15 PM
And the back end of Arizona's rotation is better?

The Cubs have big-time problems with left-handed pitching, and soft-tossers like Doug Davis give them fits.

The Cubs have to deal with Webb twice and Davis once. That's three tough games.

Diamondbacks in five.

JB98
10-02-2007, 07:16 PM
And the back end of Arizona's rotation is better?

Sorry, double post.

thomas35forever
10-02-2007, 07:20 PM
I think the Cubs do have a chance to win this series. I can almost guarantee they won't do it in less than five games though. Dealing with Webb twice would make me at least a little apprensive. If I'm a Dbacks fan, I fear facing Zambrano and possibly Lilly, but laugh at the rest of the rotation.

It's Time
10-02-2007, 07:54 PM
The rest of the cubs roration is either over rated (Rich Hill), or just plain sucks.


I didn't think this was at all an accurate statement based on what I've seen of Hill.

He is 11-8 with a 3.92 ERA.
195 IP, 183 K's, 63 walks.
Whip 1.19

He also had the least RS in Baseball. He should have won 18 games based on those numbers.

Brandon Webb, while posting an 18-10 record and a just over 3 ERA, has a 1.19 WHIP. That would be the same as Rich Hill.

OBA against Webb: .237
OBA against Hill: .235

munchman33
10-02-2007, 08:07 PM
Of course Arizona is capable of beating the Cubs, but Arizona really isn't that good IMO. The starting pitching is nothing special and the lineup really doesn't scare anyone. I don't care for the Cubs any more than any of you guys, but the Cubs have both a better rotation and a far better lineup. It doesn't surprise me they're favored.

Is this a serious post?

Brandon Webb is the best pitcher in the NL. Without a doubt. He's gonna pick up his second straight Cy Young. And the Cubs have to face him twice in the short series? I don't see them winning either of those games, let alone all three middle games.

And have you seen their bullpen? Definition of shutdown. From top to bottom. Probably the best pen in baseball.

HomeFish
10-02-2007, 08:10 PM
Is this a serious post?

Brandon Webb is the best pitcher in the NL. Without a doubt. He's gonna pick up his second straight Cy Young. And the Cubs have to face him twice in the short series? I don't see them winning either of those games, let alone all three middle games.

And have you seen their bullpen? Definition of shutdown. From top to bottom. Probably the best pen in baseball.

Zambrano has better stuff, and the Diamondbacks are going to face him the same night that the Cubs face Webb.

I say the Cubs offense and Zambrano's stuff gets them past the Diamondbacks on that particular matchup. Webb is effectively neutralized.

munchman33
10-02-2007, 08:18 PM
Zambrano has better stuff, and the Diamondbacks are going to face him the same night that the Cubs face Webb.

I say the Cubs offense and Zambrano's stuff gets them past the Diamondbacks on that particular matchup. Webb is effectively neutralized.

Sometimes I wonder if you watch anything other than Cubs baseball Homefish.

Brandon Webb's stuff is absolutely nasty. I wouldn't be quick to call Zambozo's stuff better just because Paul Sullivan told you so. Webb's fastball moves a heckuva lot more than Zambozo's does, and HE CAN CONTROL IT. Even if his feelings are hurt.

Not to mention, the Cubs don't exactly have a contact hitting team. Webb misses a lot of Cubs bats head to head for a good reason.

kittle42
10-02-2007, 08:36 PM
I didn't think this was at all an accurate statement based on what I've seen of Hill.

He is 11-8 with a 3.92 ERA.
195 IP, 183 K's, 63 walks.
Whip 1.19

He also had the least RS in Baseball. He should have won 18 games based on those numbers.

Brandon Webb, while posting an 18-10 record and a just over 3 ERA, has a 1.19 WHIP. That would be the same as Rich Hill.

OBA against Webb: .237
OBA against Hill: .235

Shhhh! Some people wouldn't admit that Ernie Banks was any good around here.

It's Time
10-02-2007, 08:49 PM
Shhhh! Some people wouldn't admit that Ernie Banks was any good around here.

The Cubs dislike is fine, it's the off the wall comments that makes me roll my eyes. I just like to deal in facts. We can bash them all we want, but I will not make statements not based on facts.

Hill is a pretty good pitcher and he could have won 18 games easily.

JB98
10-02-2007, 08:50 PM
The Cubs dislike is fine, it's the off the wall comments that makes me roll my eyes. I just like to deal in facts. We can bash them all we want, but I will not make statements not based on facts.

Hill is a pretty good pitcher and he could have won 18 games easily.

The thing about Hill is there is no in between with him. He throws a two-hitter, or he walks guys and gets bombed.

The Cubs definitely have the edge in the Hill vs. Hernandez matchup, however.

SOXSINCE'70
10-02-2007, 09:17 PM
Are the Cubbies overrated? Sure, always.


Exactly!!:cool:

hose
10-02-2007, 10:12 PM
I think the Cubs are a much better ball club than the D-Backs.

Arizona is one of the lowest scoring teams in the NL and on top of that lost Orlando Hudson for the season.....Cubs > Arizona.

PatK
10-03-2007, 09:42 AM
Sometimes I wonder if you watch anything other than Cubs baseball Homefish.

Exactly.

On most forums, trolling is a bannable offense.

Bill Naharodny
10-03-2007, 02:18 PM
I agree with your observations. I'll add that I'm just not impressed with Ramirez as a fielder. Ramirez (usually) catches the balls hit to him. And I admit Ramirez looks better at 3rd with Lee at 1st.

I don't think Ramirez has much quickness or instinct at the position.

I'll never forget seeing a routine flyball bounce off Ramirez' forehead last year.

Aramais Ramirez, very good hitter (and very tough to strike-out) but a poor fielder. Combine Ramirez with Derosa, Soriano, Jones, Floyd and possibly Kendall and you have a weak defense with the potential to make mistakes in crucial spots. Note that I did not say errors too, 'cos they have the real ability to make non-errors/non-plays.

I think Ramirez is a steady third baseman. He's not a big highlight buy, but he handles what he gets to, and he throws accurately. He IS a dog, of course, but he's not bad in the field.

The fielding issues for the Cubs, if any, will be the ones cited above -- the large Arizona outfield is not ideal for 3 guys whose defensive deficiencies are real. Soriano can throw, but he's misplayed a bunch of balls just in the last month. Jones can't throw and is an average centerfielder, playing there only because they had nothing better (In fact, they kept Pie on the postseason roster because of his glove.). Floyd's better in right than Daryle Ward, but so are 75% of the posters on this board. In Wrigley, these deficiencies don't come into play; in a big outfield, they do.

TDog
10-03-2007, 02:37 PM
I think the Cubs are a much better ball club than the D-Backs.

Arizona is one of the lowest scoring teams in the NL and on top of that lost Orlando Hudson for the season.....Cubs > Arizona.

I'm sure the consensus going into the Red Sox-White Sox matchup in the 2005 ALDS was Red >White, especially with Frank Thomas being lost for the season. The White Sox had a hard time scoring runs. They had a rookie closer. They won 99 games, but no one backed into the AL 2005 postseason. The three teams outside Chicago had 95 wins. Even after the lopsided opener and heading back to Boston, consensus still favored the Red Sox. You could make an argument that hey were more > than the White Sox than the Cubs are to the Diamondbacks. And only White Sox fans would have protested.

People will believe what they want to believe. In a week it won't be about belief, and I expect the Cubs players to be on vacation.

DrCrawdad
10-03-2007, 02:48 PM
I think Ramirez is a steady third baseman. He's not a big highlight buy, but he handles what he gets to, and he throws accurately. He IS a dog, of course, but he's not bad in the field.

No, Ramirez is not a highlight reel guy. But think of the '05 Sox in the post-season and all of the highlight reel plays by Joe Crede at 3rd base. Think the Sox would have won w/o those spectacular plays?

The fielding issues for the Cubs, if any, will be the ones cited above -- the large Arizona outfield is not ideal for 3 guys whose defensive deficiencies are real. Soriano can throw, but he's misplayed a bunch of balls just in the last month. Jones can't throw and is an average centerfielder, playing there only because they had nothing better (In fact, they kept Pie on the postseason roster because of his glove.). Floyd's better in right than Daryle Ward, but so are 75% of the posters on this board. In Wrigley, these deficiencies don't come into play; in a big outfield, they do.

IMHO they Cubbies are poor in fielding in 5 of 8 positions with Soto catching. With Kendall they are poor in 6 of 8. I have not seen the D-Backs so I can't say they are better or worse. But the Cubbies have the very real potential for some decisively poor fielding. It will be interesting to see if fielding jumps up and bites them.

Viva Medias B's
10-03-2007, 03:27 PM
Here are predictions from Chicago sports writers, not including Cubs beat writers:

Jay Mariotti: Cubs in 4
Rick Telander: Cubs in 5
Greg Couch: Cubs in 4
Chris De Luca: Cubs in 5
Phil Rogers: Cubs in 4
Dave van Dyck: Cubs in 4
Dan McGrath: Cubs in 4
Ed Sherman: Diamondbacks in 5

I did not officially include the predictions of Cubs beat writers Paul Sullivan (Cubs in 3) and Gordon Wittenmeyer (Diamondbacks in 5) because no White Sox beat writers made any predictions about this Cubs-Diamondbacks NLDS. The reason I posted these predictions is because I am wondering if there is anywhere we could go back and see what these individuals predicted two years ago on the eve of our ALDS series against the Red Sox.

It is amazing that as Cub fans talk out of their arse more than fans of any other team I've ever seen in all of sports, local sports writers join right in with them.

I still say Diamondbacks in 4.

DrCrawdad
10-03-2007, 04:10 PM
Here are predictions from Chicago sports writers, not including Cubs beat writers:

Jay Mariotti: Cubs in 4
Rick Telander: Cubs in 5
Greg Couch: Cubs in 4
Chris De Luca: Cubs in 5
Phil Rogers: Cubs in 4
Dave van Dyck: Cubs in 4
Dan McGrath: Cubs in 4
Ed Sherman: Diamondbacks in 5

I did not officially include the predictions of Cubs beat writers Paul Sullivan (Cubs in 3) and Gordon Wittenmeyer (Diamondbacks in 5) because no White Sox beat writers made any predictions about this Cubs-Diamondbacks NLDS. The reason I posted these predictions is because I am wondering if there is anywhere we could go back and see what these individuals predicted two years ago on the eve of our ALDS series against the Red Sox.

It is amazing that as Cub fans talk out of their arse more than fans of any other team I've ever seen in all of sports, local sports writers join right in with them.

I still say Diamondbacks in 4.

I don't have online access (that I know of) to the Sun-Times archives, but I do the Cubune. The only prediction I saw was Phil Rogers.

Rogers: White Sox in 5

AZChiSoxFan
10-03-2007, 04:13 PM
Shhhh! Some people wouldn't admit that Ernie Banks was any good around here.

Ernie Banks used to post on WSI? Who knew?

DrCrawdad
10-03-2007, 04:26 PM
Here are predictions from Chicago sports writers, not including Cubs beat writers:

Jay Mariotti: Cubs in 4
Rick Telander: Cubs in 5
Greg Couch: Cubs in 4
Chris De Luca: Cubs in 5
Phil Rogers: Cubs in 4
Dave van Dyck: Cubs in 4
Dan McGrath: Cubs in 4
Ed Sherman: Diamondbacks in 5

I did not officially include the predictions of Cubs beat writers Paul Sullivan (Cubs in 3) and Gordon Wittenmeyer (Diamondbacks in 5) because no White Sox beat writers made any predictions about this Cubs-Diamondbacks NLDS. The reason I posted these predictions is because I am wondering if there is anywhere we could go back and see what these individuals predicted two years ago on the eve of our ALDS series against the Red Sox.

It is amazing that as Cub fans talk out of their arse more than fans of any other team I've ever seen in all of sports, local sports writers join right in with them.

I still say Diamondbacks in 4.

So most Chicago writers are picking the Cubbies? IF they manage to actually win the NLDS the Cubbies and Cubbie fans will still claim that no one picked them to win the NLDS.

veeter
10-04-2007, 07:15 AM
Shhhh! Some people wouldn't admit that Ernie Banks was any good around here.Who's Ernie Banks?