The Cubs

[Kimmi]

It is cool. I like that Theo is loyal to "his guys".

 

Rob Bradford ‏@bradfo 11h11 hours ago

Red Sox and Cubs lead majors with 196 runs, each. That's 392 total. By my count, Theo Epstein had hand in acquiring all but 49 of them.

[iortiz]

BOS is the best team at offense based on wRC+.

2. BAL.

3. STL

4. PIT

5 CHC

[Palodios]

I can't believe some of the guys on the current Cubs roster... most of them I didn't think were still in baseball.

 

Ryan Kalish? I was legitimately surprised he was still alive. Fedex? David Ross? Trevor Cahill?

[Bellhorn04]

I can't believe some of the guys on the current Cubs roster... most of them I didn't think were still in baseball.

 

Ryan Kalish? I was legitimately surprised he was still alive. Fedex? David Ross? Trevor Cahill?

 

Ross is there for Lester of course.

[iortiz]

You don't usually see too many gaps of away teams in SF but tonight out there are a lot of the cubbies.

[Kimmi]

Jake Arrieta - 'Nuff said.

[Kimmi]

BTW, if the Sox don't win it all, then the Cubs don't win it all, I hope the Guardians win it all.

[Spudboy]

BTW, if the Sox don't win it all, then the Cubs don't win it all, I hope the Guardians win it all.

 

I'm down with that. I'm a Tito Bro, after all.

 

I also want to see Nap do well. And that city needs something big to happen finally.

[Youk Of The Nation]

As I've mentioned a million times before, if the Sox don't win, I would rather it be a team that hasn't won before, or a team that hasn't won in a long time. I'd prefer the "never before" teams, though, even though it has been so long for the Cubs. Basically, my preferences for a World Series go: Red Sox, Rockies, Pirates, Cubs, almost everyone else, Orioles, Cardinals, cancelled due to natural disaster, Yankees.

 

However, I do love the idea of a World Series in which BOTH teams have never won one before or haven't won one in a while. We had that last year with two teams that last won in the '80s, and that was cool. I guess I wouldn't mind seeing an Guardians-Cubs World Series or even Orioles-Cubs, as long as the Orioles were swept and beaten in each game by at least 5.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Youk Of The Nation

[a700hitter]

The Cubs will not get past the Mets or the Nats in the post season. I am okay with Tito winning it all if the Red Sox don't win.

[Bellhorn04]

The Cubs will not get past the Mets or the Nats in the post season.

 

Anything can happen in a short series between 2 very good teams.

[a700hitter]

Anything can happen in a short series between 2 very good teams.

Also, it is a long season. It is just my opinion that as of today, the Nats and Mets are better than the Cubs. It is also colored by my dislike of the Cubs. There is no allure there for me.

[User Name]

It's colored indeed. Because Arrieta/Lester and that offense can keep them competitive in any short series. f*** Maddon though.

[Kimmi]

As I've mentioned a million times before, if the Sox don't win, I would rather it be a team that hasn't won before, or a team that hasn't won in a long time. I'd prefer the "never before" teams, though, even though it has been so long for the Cubs. Basically, my preferences for a World Series go: Red Sox, Rockies, Pirates, Cubs almost everyone else, Orioles, Cardinals, cancelled due to natural disaster, Yankees.

 

However, I do love the idea of a World Series in which BOTH teams have never won one before or haven't won one in a while. We had that last year with two teams that last won in the '80s, and that was cool. I guess I wouldn't mind seeing an Guardians-Cubs World Series or even Orioles-Cubs, as long as the Orioles were swept and beaten in each game by at least 5.

 

LOL I'm with you on the Yankees. I would probably put the Os right in front of the Yanks. No way do I want to even see them in the World Series.

[Kimmi]

The Cubs will not get past the Mets or the Nats in the post season. I am okay with Tito winning it all if the Red Sox don't win.

 

That is nothing more than your wishful thinking.

 

The Cubs have a very good team. Very good.

[Youk Of The Nation]

I'm not so sure. I think the Cubs have a very good team, granted, but so did the Mariners when they finished the 2001 season with the most wins of any team since 1906, and they ended up getting steamrolled by the Yankees in 5 games in the ALCS. Postseason history is littered with the failures of regular-season success stories. The Met's rotation looked unstoppable last season, and Kansas City stopped them. The Rockies won an absurd number of games to end the 2007 season, swept through the DS and LCS like they were Spring Training games, and then fell apart completely against the Sox. Guys who went 20-3 or 18-5 in the regular season with a sub-3 ERA get shelled for eight or nine runs in postseason games all the time. I wouldn't start crowning the Cubs with the LCS Championship just yet. They are very good, but in the end, so are the Nats and the Mets, not to mention the Pirates.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not so sure. I think the Cubs have a very good team, granted, but so did the Mariners when they finished the 2001 season with the most wins of any team since 1906, and they ended up getting steamrolled by the Yankees in 5 games in the ALCS. Postseason history is littered with the failures of regular-season success stories. The Met's rotation looked unstoppable last season, and Kansas City stopped them. The Rockies won an absurd number of games to end the 2007 season, swept through the DS and LCS like they were Spring Training games, and then fell apart completely against the Sox. Guys who went 20-3 or 18-5 in the regular season with a sub-3 ERA get shelled for eight or nine runs in postseason games all the time. I wouldn't start crowning the Cubs with the LCS Championship just yet. They are very good, but in the end, so are the Nats and the Mets, not to mention the Pirates.

 

Or the Giants, especially now that Cain seems to be healthy.

[Kimmi]

I'm not so sure. I think the Cubs have a very good team, granted, but so did the Mariners when they finished the 2001 season with the most wins of any team since 1906, and they ended up getting steamrolled by the Yankees in 5 games in the ALCS. Postseason history is littered with the failures of regular-season success stories. The Met's rotation looked unstoppable last season, and Kansas City stopped them. The Rockies won an absurd number of games to end the 2007 season, swept through the DS and LCS like they were Spring Training games, and then fell apart completely against the Sox. Guys who went 20-3 or 18-5 in the regular season with a sub-3 ERA get shelled for eight or nine runs in postseason games all the time. I wouldn't start crowning the Cubs with the LCS Championship just yet. They are very good, but in the end, so are the Nats and the Mets, not to mention the Pirates.

 

Absolutely. I wasn't trying to say that the Cubs are a shoe in to win it all if they made it to the playoffs. I was just arguing against a700 posting that the Cubs would be beat by the Mets or the Nats. It's more or less a crapshoot once you get to postseason.

[a700hitter]

That is nothing more than your wishful thinking.

 

The Cubs have a very good team. Very good.

LOL!!! I did say that it was my opinion and I did say that it was colored by my dislike of the Cubs, but i would be happy to make a sig bet with you if they face the Mets or the Nats in the post season.

[Kimmi]

LOL!!! I did say that it was my opinion and I did say that it was colored by my dislike of the Cubs, but i would be happy to make a sig bet with you if they face the Mets or the Nats in the post season.

 

We'll see if and when the time comes, but me making a bet of any kind is like putting the kiss of death on whatever I'm betting on.

[Northern Star]

BTW, if the Sox don't win it all, then the Cubs don't win it all, I hope the Guardians win it all.

 

Ugh. They would be well down the list for me. Once they totally remove Chief Wahoo, we might talk.

[Northern Star]

As I've mentioned a million times before, if the Sox don't win, I would rather it be a team that hasn't won before, or a team that hasn't won in a long time. I'd prefer the "never before" teams, though, even though it has been so long for the Cubs. Basically, my preferences for a World Series go: Red Sox, Rockies, Pirates, Cubs, almost everyone else, Orioles, Cardinals, cancelled due to natural disaster, Yankees.

 

However, I do love the idea of a World Series in which BOTH teams have never won one before or haven't won one in a while. We had that last year with two teams that last won in the '80s, and that was cool. I guess I wouldn't mind seeing an Guardians-Cubs World Series or even Orioles-Cubs, as long as the Orioles were swept and beaten in each game by at least 5.

 

At the time, I didn't want the 2003 series to be Red Sox/Cubs because Chicago was SO close to 100 years without a title, and how often would that ever happen again? Now I think back, I kinda wish it had been. Boston in 4, and the Cubs streak intact.

[Youk Of The Nation]

At the time, I didn't want the 2003 series to be Red Sox/Cubs because Chicago was SO close to 100 years without a title, and how often would that ever happen again? Now I think back, I kinda wish it had been. Boston in 4, and the Cubs streak intact.

 

No way, 2003 would have meant the Sox won the ALCS in 7 regular games, that would not have been nearly as satisfying as winning the World Series after coming back from down 0-3.

[Bellhorn04]

In 2003 the Red Sox and Cubs were each, in spooky lockstep, exactly 5 outs away from the World Series when the walls began caving in.

[Bellhorn04]

The Cubs starting rotation is putting up amazing numbers thus far. All 5 have made all their starts. The highest ERA is 2.90. 4 of the 5 have a WHIP under 1.

 

The bullpen has nice numbers too.

[iortiz]

Yeah and their offense is outstanding too. I really would like a WS against them.

[mvp 78]

Cubs are good now, but pace means nothing.

 

f*** the Cubs.

[a700hitter]

Cubs are good now, but pace means nothing.

 

f*** the Cubs.

Pace doesn't mean anything. They are on a pace for 112 wins. If anyone would like to wager that they will put up 112 wins, I am all ears. Yeah, they are a very good team and they are on pace to win 112 games. They are not going to win 112 games. Pace means nothing. They are good because they are talented, not because of their pace -- good or bad. A team or a player is good or bad because of their talent. Their pace dictates nothing. Stat heads are always talking about regressing to norms. And there is some validity to that. That notion runs counter to this "pace" theory. When you have 2 years of play under your belt, you have not established any pace for the course of your career -- not even within a large margin of error. Carl Crawford was on pace for more career hits than Derek Jeter when we got him.

Edited June 18, 2016 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

I don't expect the Cubs to win 112 games but I think they'll win 100 without too much difficulty. They have been outstanding in all phases of the game. Their record isn't smoke and mirrors.

[Kimmi]

I don't expect the Cubs to win 112 games but I think they'll win 100 without too much difficulty. They have been outstanding in all phases of the game. Their record isn't smoke and mirrors.

 

The scary part is, the Cubs are 5 games worse than their Pythagorean W-L. They should be 50-15. They are 2-2 in extra inning games and 8-9 in one inning games. As you said, their record isn't smoke and mirrors.