Why did they stop hitting?
Al asked the question in another thread. I say it's worthy of it's own fanpost. Here are some theories,
1) They aren't as good as we thought.
Thesis: There were great stats in the regular season, but perhaps, as some have speculated, they were inflated by the Pirates, Reds, Astros and Cardinals of the world.
Evidence: The fate of the Brewers in the playoffs points to this as well. Perhaps the NL Central just isn't as good as we thought, records be damned. Face it, the Dodgers aren't an 84-win team if an interested Manny is with them all year. The Phillies flew under the Mets radar all season.
If this is true: This team simply can't win as constructed. The whole is less than the sum of its parts.
Solution: A major change. Lee/Ramirez/Soriano has to be broken up and someone else brought in.
2) 100 years and counting.
Thesis: The weight of a century of futility is upon these guys. It's no wonder they swing at pitches four inches off the corner. We should be grateful they were able to stand upright under all that. The first bit of failure, and they are done.
Evidence: The life went out of this team, visibly, after Dempster's walks and the errors and the first LOB in Game 3. You could almost read their minds. "Hear we go again."
If this is true: Again, the team can't win as constructed.
Solution: Changes, but not major. Maybe the team needs a few idiots to lighten everyone up.
3) Poor scouting.
Thesis: The Dodgers knew us backwards and forwards. We acted like we'd never seen them before.
Evidence: The constant 0-2 counts indicated that the Cubs hitters had no idea what was coming and the Dodgers had a perfect game plan. The reverse was hardly ever true.
If this is true: Disgusting, but on the bright side, fixable
Solution: Heads rolling in the scouting department. A renewed commitment to strategy.
4) Lineup not ideal
Thesis: The parts are right, but the order is wrong.
Evidence: The failure of the 1-2 spots and the 4-5 spots in the series
If this is true: Very fixable
Solution: If Theriot can't handle the leadoff, and there are legit questions, then that is the #1 priority in free agency.
5) Just a damn slump at the worst time
Thesis: It happens. The 2004 Cardinals and the 2006 Cardinals were largely the same team, after all.
Evidence: None, but it works if you don't like the other explanations.
If this is true: Go get em next year
Solution: Pray.
Any other ideas?
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
1 recs |
34 comments
Comments
Hmmm...
I’ll take an option #2 with some option #5 on the side.
The one thing that I don’t get about Aramis is this, he can be so damn clutch during the regular season, and yet flop in the playoffs. How can he consistently hit bottom of the 9th walk-off HR after walk-off HR, yet crumble under the pressures of the playoffs?
Someday we'll go all the way...
by CubsBullsBears on Oct 7, 2008 9:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's a fascinating question...
But there is pressure, and there is PRESSURE
I’d like to have seen how the hitters would have reacted if, at any point after falling behind the Dodgers, they somehow clawed their way back to a tie. Bloop, bad ump call, error on the Dodgers, whatever.
Nothing went right for them, or, better put, no two things in a row went right. When Fukudome had that solid hit in Game 3, after getting slammed by Pinella and after looking like an idiot on the previous pitch, I thought “Holy God this is going to happen.”
The next guy failed.
It really is frustrating to think, “What if just one more thing went right?”
The worst beer I had was pretty good.
by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
About scouting...
… your coaches, managers and players have to actually read the scouting reports and put them into action.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Oct 7, 2008 10:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough...
Whether the scouting is an issue on the front end or the back end, that’s a major problem.
The worst beer I had was pretty good.
by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You raise some good questions...
…and I would like to comment on the scouting issue.
It is impossible to tell whether the Cub’s scouts did a good job or bad job evaluating the Dodgers. They very well could have delivered scouting reports on the pitching staff and lineup that was spot on, but it still requires the players to execute the plan.
You could be right and the scouting sucked, but if I had to guess, I tend to think the players failed to execute good pitches or good AB’s and that was the problem.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Oct 7, 2008 10:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You're right...
Dempster walking 7 guys had nothing to do with scouting, he just had no control. Three booted balls in one half-inning aren’t scouting either. But the Cubs showing no real patience and flailing away at balls in the dirt on the other hand, that could be a failure to study a pitchers tendencies and just a lack of discipline.
Someday we'll go all the way...
by CubsBullsBears on Oct 7, 2008 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think if you're going to have any faith in the team next year
…you have to believe hypothesis #5.
It is too difficult to make wholesale changes a team when you have the kind of commitments that we do. The fact is that the core of this team – Z, Lee, Aramis, etc – will all be back next year.
People keep harping on the scouting as though this isn’t a major league team that had success all season. Why would scouting benefit one team more than another in the playoffs versus during the regular season? These are professional ballplayers, it’s a pretty crazy leap to assume that they just said “Who needs scouting!?” when they got to the playoffs.
The simple fact is that they didn’t do the things in this series that made them successful during the regular season. Dempster walked more people in Game 1 than he did in all of September combined. Our hitters couldn’t draw a walk if you gave them a pen and paper. Two solid defensive players made horrible costly errors. It was a slump at the worst time because they were all completely tense, couldn’t relax, and every one of them was pressing, plain and simple. That sounds like a clubhouse problem to me, which is the worst kind of problem as a fan because it’s one that we’re not privy to, and would be silly to speculate about.
I think if you’re going to improve next year you look at the deficient positions, the positions where you got below-average performance on offense and defense, and look to improve those. SS, RF, and maybe CF if you don’t have faith in Pie.
by Wreckard on Oct 7, 2008 10:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it was just the slump...
But it looked for all the world like the Dodgers pitchers knew every tendency of the Cubs hitters and the reverse was not true.
Whether it was bad scouting or failure to listen to or implement the scouting recommendations, I don’t know.
You’re absolutely right that walks and defensive errors put them in a hole. BUT… the fact also remains that the offense could not do anything to help the team dig out of that hole.
The worst beer I had was pretty good.
by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it is a combination of #4 and #5
We need a lead off hitter who can _atleast work the count/move the runner over/go the opposite way when needed. In the playoffs more often than not one big hit/move seals the series. That big heat need not always be Home Run but more commonly it is a base hit or a stolen base or an outstanding defensive play.
For the above reasons I think #4 is true as our lineup is not constructed properly and this prevented us from recovering in time from #5 . #5 is a risk that any team however mighty can face and smart teams have good Plan B’s to mitigate that risk. I sincerely think that we DID NOT have a Plan B.
by cubsnlinux on Oct 7, 2008 11:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I guess I'd go with the No. 4 and 5 combo platter.
What strikes me as particularly tragic now is the fact that everyone from Lou on down seemed to agree that Soriano was the impetus for this offense. Yet no one seemed concerned about Soriano’s God-awful postseason numbers nor about the fact that Alfonso has never shown the capacity to adjust his approach.
The Cubs coaching staff must’ve known going in that opposing pitchers weren’t going to give Soriano a damn thing to hit in the postseason. And they must’ve known that those same pitchers weren’t likely to make the kind of mistakes that Alfonso’s feasts on during the regular season. So, if one does buy into this “it all starts with Soriano” mentality, the Cubs were doomed from the beginning.
The only possible solution to this problem next season, assuming the Cubs make the playoffs at all, is an unlikely one. Lou has to drop Soriano in the lineup during the postseason. Let him hit leadoff during the regular season when the sheer number of games allows Alfonso’s streakiness to pay dividends. But in the postseason, Soriano needs to turn into the Invisible Man and be buried in the batting order. Meanwhile, the top of the Cubs lineup needs to completely revamp its approach to a bunting/stealing/hit & run offense.
I know this will probably never happen – Lou won’t likely want to make such a drastic change and Soriano might well put up a hissy fit. But, there, I said it.
(And as a parting disclaimer, let me just emphasize that I am no Soriano hater. I’ve defended him many times. But his approach at the plate KILLS this team in the postseason.)
So this is how it ends.
by dat cubfan daver on Oct 7, 2008 11:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
"Lou has to drop Soriano in the lineup during the postseason"
Why drop Soriano only during the post season? Why not during spring training?
by cubsnlinux on Oct 7, 2008 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah, I'd be fine with that, too.
But, as I said, over the course of a long regular season, batting Soriano in the leadoff spot may actually help the team. Why? Because he is a great hitter and he can go on those breathtaking tears. It’s only in a short series that another team can truly take advantage of his utter lack of plate discipline and, in doing so, largely nullify Cubs’ hitters’ ability to get anything going.
Again, my point is predicated on the notion that “it all starts with Soriano,” as Lou and others have said many times.
So this is how it ends.
by dat cubfan daver on Oct 7, 2008 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Lou has to drop Soriano in the lineup during the postseason"
It looks like it at least from the comments we heard all year from Lou. As you said if the above is *really what they believe then may god help the Cubs. Soriano is too undisciplined and too streaky to dependent upon. His graph is full of hills and valleys and it would be suicidal to place all our bets on him.
by cubsnlinux on Oct 7, 2008 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is one of those ideas...
That sounds great, but I’m not sure is workable.
You aren’t just telling Soriano that he has a different spot in the postseason, you’re telling whoever you DO bat leadoff. So, you’ve got two guys trying to do different things. We’ve seen that it’s probably not the best idea to send these guys to the postseason with things on their minds…
To me, the solution is to commit to Soriano batting somewhere else from the get-go. You could make a strong case for any spot from 2-6, really. Then commit to someone else batting first. Theriot is the best guy currently on the roster, but a case could be made for a rejuvenated Pie or a straightened-out Fukudome. Or, you go free agency.
The worst beer I had was pretty good.
by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I think a more patient hitter...
…can adjust his approach to bat leadoff effectively. Theriot, Johnson and Fukudome all batted there at some point in the season.
Again, the idea here is to capitalize on Soriano’s strengths during the regular season and minimize his weakness during the postseason.
So this is how it ends.
by dat cubfan daver on Oct 7, 2008 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious how moving Soriano down in the order will
help improve his production. If he has a basic flaw in his swing, it will be exploited if he bats first or eigth. If by moving him down you hope to improve the team’s production, then why only do it during the playoffs? Wouldn’t moving him down be a long-term solution. I have often wondered about this but no one seems to have a good answer.
If you are conceding that he will be no help to the team during the playoffs, then why is he on the team? It seems to me that the obvious solution is to figure out how to transfer his regular season success to the post-season. Maybe we can convince pitchers to only throw him fastballs down the middle of the plate. A certain amount of hypnosis and power of suggestion should do the trick.
"Hats for bats.....keep bats warm." - Pedro Cerrano
"Hey bartender, Jobu needs a refill !!!!!!!" - Eddie Harris
by willie mays hayes' gloves on Oct 7, 2008 11:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It is not about improving Soriano
It is about improving the batting order. When your leadoff guy whiffs on 3 pitches it sets a tone for the game and lets the starting pitcher
get in rhythm. Soriano is very streaky but not horrible but he should NEVER, EVER allowed to be a lead off hitter.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 7, 2008 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Improving the order...
…what a concept!!!
Why folks put Soriano in front of that is beyond me.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Oct 7, 2008 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, I don't buy into this bullshit of letting Soriano bat
leadoff because he feels better there. I’m talking about getting production out of everyone in the lineup. You can’t just say “Move him out of the lead-off spot and the hell with him.” I would think you would want to get those numbers he can produce at some other spot in the order. Which spot? Who protects him? Who does he protect? That’s what I was asking.
"Hats for bats.....keep bats warm." - Pedro Cerrano
"Hey bartender, Jobu needs a refill !!!!!!!" - Eddie Harris
by willie mays hayes' gloves on Oct 7, 2008 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at his lifetime...
…numbers in the 5 hole and you’ll have your answer. He has about the equivalent of a full season in that spot and has; 107 RBI’s and a slugging % over 500.
Would you take that from a 5 hole guy? I sure as hell would and so would every team in the league.
It’s too bad they couldn’t get Roberts, because who knows how that could have changed how the offense performed in the playoffs. At this point, just get this guys ass out of leadoff.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Oct 7, 2008 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
5 seems about right. I don't see him producing much more
speed, so 5 would keep runner on base in front of him. It would be nice to have a good LH power stick behind him at 6, but I have no idea who that would be.
"Hats for bats.....keep bats warm." - Pedro Cerrano
"Hey bartender, Jobu needs a refill !!!!!!!" - Eddie Harris
by willie mays hayes' gloves on Oct 7, 2008 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know what the ultimate goal is. I was inquiring about the
short-term solution for the problem of getting some production out of Soriano. You can’t just ignore him. You are paying him a lot of money and he will be a part of the team for 6 more years. If his streaks hurt you at lead-off, they will hurt you at another spot in the order. If he contributes during the season, you expect him to contribute during the playoffs. How do you accomplish that?
"Hats for bats.....keep bats warm." - Pedro Cerrano
"Hey bartender, Jobu needs a refill !!!!!!!" - Eddie Harris
by willie mays hayes' gloves on Oct 7, 2008 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, he's useful to the team over the course of a long season...
…because he does put up good power numbers and can shock other teams into submission. And if he needs to bat first (not leadoff) during the regular season to do that, he should be allowed to.
It’s just during a short series that his weaknesses are exposed to the point of killing the team as a whole. And if he’s not going to hit in the postseason anyway, why not just bury him in the lineup so the rest of the team doesn’t look to him for an offensive spark the way that Lou (and others) keep saying they do?
So this is how it ends.
by dat cubfan daver on Oct 7, 2008 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will try to answer your questions..
Moving Soriano down in the order and replacing him with a lead off hitter who does all the basic stuff that a lead off hitter is supposed to do will alleviate a lot of pressure from our 3-4-5 hitters. More often than not you want your lead off hitter to be on base to steal a base / to spoil a pitcher’s concentration or to trigger hit and run plays. You need a little more consistency in that spot. It would be much more obvious if we look at a leadoff hitter as the guy who hits in front of your best hitters (OBP +SLG) in your lineup (without concentrating too much on the word(s) ’leadoff’). With Soriano in the leadoff spot and reasonably assuming that the number of times he is at the plate with zero outs in a game are minimal, ptichers absolutely need not pitch to him at all. With the pitching talent that is available in the play offs they can throw three low and away sliders or paint the outside corner and as we have seen Soriano is going to K almost every single time or hit a lazy fly ball. He is simply too unwilling to adjust or adapt to the situation. Because of these tendencies in the post season Soriano cannot simply force the pitcher to throw a pitch that he can handle because 9 out of 10 times he finds himself in a 0-2 count. After an 0-2 count Soriano’s Average is .168 and and his OBP is .223. This is simply unacceptable in the post season.
Now his numbers even out during a 162 game long regular season when there is time for crests to follow his troughs. The number one problem is that the Cubs DEPEND on him to be THE guy in the post season which is a recipe for disaster. You do not make decisions in your life based on your lottery tickets. It is kind of analogous to when Hendry was dependent upon a healthy Wood and Prior. Soriano is too streaky to be counted upon and he is a ONE dimensional hitter.
So the solution would be to move Soriano away from the lead off spot and protect him with ARam or if possible by acquiring a big lefty bat in the off season.
by cubsnlinux on Oct 7, 2008 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you. I appeciate the insightful anaysis. That's all I asked for.
"Hats for bats.....keep bats warm." - Pedro Cerrano
"Hey bartender, Jobu needs a refill !!!!!!!" - Eddie Harris
by willie mays hayes' gloves on Oct 7, 2008 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take a little of #1 as well.
Many fell in love with the fact this team won 97 games. However, the NL is currently pretty awful. The Cubs interleague record should have raised some eyebrows. It was not hard to see that the two teams playing the best down the stretch thumped the two teams that did not play well in September.
The NL East that the ‘84 Cubs played in (playing each team 18 times by the way) was light years superior to this year’s NL Central. So, before everyone gets excited next year and starts declaring the ’09 Cubs the best of their lifetime, take a look at the competition.
by the nth on Oct 7, 2008 12:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You make valid points...
…and it is no mistake, that every Cub team that has made noise in the playoffs (84 and 03) were strong in the 1 and 2 spots. I can’t tell you how this helps the 3-4-5 hitters out, because the pitcher goes in the stretch and has to concentrate on both the runner and the hitter. And, guess what happens when they have to do that – they make more mistakes.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Oct 7, 2008 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't remember the 03 team now.
I have successfully flushed that memory but I totally agree about ‘84. It seemed like they started every game with runners on base, Dernier or Sandberg or somebody. What was frustrating to me about this year’s team all season long was if Sori didn’t lead off with a HR it seemed like we never had anyone on base in the first inning.
Come from behind wins are exciting but I much prefer to get in front and stay there. Let the other guys play catch up.
Tommie Agee was out.
by Weeghman Park on Oct 7, 2008 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take the odds - 1, 3 and/or 5
It looks like the Dodgers put it together and peaked at the right time. They were still lucky to win their division with 84 wins. The Cubs, on the other hand, faded in September. Scouting could have had something to do with it and it sure looked like they were in a slump.
I believe the pressure part of #2 without the 100-year implications. The players had last postseason and the fear of postseason elimination on their minds. I contend that had the Cubs won the WS in 03’, and the last few seasons were as they were, this would have still happened. So I don’t think the players and team management carried the weight of 100 years on their shoulders. If they did, then there probably would have been more signs of bowing to that pressure during the regular season.
I don’t think this flop is because of #4 either, at least not as a stand-alone reason. This team did not strike me as being too terribly lineup sensitive. The lineups weren’t really odd either given who played.
Getting to postseason for two concecutive years, and for three of the last six, is a step in the right direction. The more postseason appearances, the better the chances of pulling one out.
by AboutTheCubs on Oct 7, 2008 9:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
2....2.....2....2....2....
and for honorable mention, #2. This is why I was so nervous about game 1- I just knew that if things went south in game 1, I expected the series to end rather quickly. At the first sign of trouble, you could see it on their faces – “here we go again.”
To be fair, however, the streakiness of their hitting worried me all season, and it bit them in the playoffs once again. Soriano epitomizes this team’s offense: feast or famine, and dependent on one big inning where everyone hits at once to do all their damage at once. Am I the only one who saw that this summer, that without that one big inning, the Cubs wouldn’t score more than 3 runs tops in any given game? I would be willing to wager that the Cubs had more scoreless innings at the plate than any other team in the National League, and I’d be curious to see if the numbers back that up.
by reedjohnson on Oct 7, 2008 9:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the thoughts...
By no means are we limited to 5 choices, though. In fact, I’ll add one more…Call it 3b
3b — Scouting was fine, but the players and/or coaches didn’t pay attention or properly execute
Evidence — Same as 3
If it’s true — Just as digusting, if not more disturbing, because it’s harder to fix. It means that a) the players and coaches have little regard for advance scouting (probably not true) or b) everything goes out the window when the pressure is on (far more likely)
In which case, we’re back to this team not being able to win as currently constructed or… wait for it… currently coached.
The worst beer I had was pretty good.
by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 10:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This is probably simplistic, but I was just looking over the splits on ESPN's sites and the Cubs
big three (Soriano, Lee & Aaramis) had some pretty bad season splits v. the Dodgers. Not as many games and ABs against them as teams in the NLCD, but perhaps Dodgers’ pitchers matched up well v. our best hitters? Lee got it going some in the playoff, though. Oh, well, sort of tired of the whole thing, time to get ready for the remainder of the playoffs and the WS.
by DudeVf11 on Oct 7, 2008 11:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 

















