Strange though it may seem, nearly one-third of the 2008 baseball season is in the books.
Strange though it may seem, in the calendar year since Carlos Zambrano coldcocked Meathead Mike Barrett during the Cubs’ June 1 tilt against the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Cubs sport a ridiculous 99-67 record – a shade more than a full season of – gulp – solid play.
Strange though it may seem (and of course you’ve heard, and of course nearly every report has found a way to cram 1908 into the headlines) the Cubs closed out their recent homestand atop all of baseball (not by much). It’s all strange, but not all that surprising.
The Cubs actually look like a competent baseball team (High praise, we know). Seriously. We’re not willing to jinx the whole thing, nor do we expect the team’s torrid pace to continue unabated – but obviously we have few complaints at this point.
For once the offense is potent enough and selective enough to chip away at large deficits, compensate for patchwork pitching, and not require former wunderkinds to toss a one-hitter just to gain a victory. For once the bench seems fairly useful – not stacked with washout shortstops or mediocre versatile veterans. For once the lineup isn’t relegated to scoring runs just on homers -we’ve actually seen two-out hits once in a while. Paired with last year’s four-month finish and this season’s two-month beginning, and this team might actually be good. That’s all we know. But it’s been enjoyable – and so far, not as stick-our-heads-in-the-oven fatalistic as usual.
Still, at each check-in we’ve got to ask questions. (Note! Gimmick alert!) So here they are.
1. Can the Cubs win on the road? Like, ever?
Of course they can – the last two years, the road splits have actually been better than the home record. There’s no real explanation for this, although if you didn’t read Jim Hendry‘s quotes in today’s Tribune, you’d swear the Cubs had a plan.
You’d swear they sunk money into prodigious right-handed power hitters (Ramirez, Lee, Soriano), who also could look to the opposite field if the wind blew in. You’d swear they signed sinkerballers (Z, Dempster, Marquis), and bullpen flamethrowers (Marmol, Wood, Howry) to take advantage of the smallish park, avoiding wind-aided meltdowns. You’d swear they looked for slap-hitting heady role players (Riot, ReJo, DeRosa) and doubles machines (Soto, Fukudome) who weren’t beholden to the lack of weather or presence of it. You’d swear all of that, if you weren’t aware it was untrue:
“We used to spend a lot of time trying to figure out why we weren’t better at home,” general manager Jim Hendry said. “We thought this is the kind of park where maybe we could have an advantage. It’s unique. It’s packed every day.
“I can’t tell you we consciously did anything different. We used to think it was day games and this and that. On the flip side, we’ve had some teams that weren’t this good play better on the road than we are right now. It’s just a coincidence.”
. . .
“I don’t know how you would [build] a team for [just] this park,” Hendry said. “We tried to just improve. It wasn’t based on the park.
“But this is the kind of team that should play just as well on the road.”
Hmm. OK. Jim apparently is too modest. What’s Lou think?
“[But] to be talking about the best team in baseball or the best record in baseball on the first of June, I think it’s overkill. We’re only a third of the way through the season, and a lot of things can happen.”
OK, well put. Personally, we think it’s the song. The Cubs never have signed onto a pop-culture anthem to boost home fan morale like the Sox and Yanks. Now they have. Now it’s pure glee to hear the cheeseball chords burst from venerable Wrigley after a win, watching gyrating louts and uncaring sorority girls dressed for the beach. It’s absolute ecstasy for us Cub fans to torture non-fans (including spouses) with post-victory loud spins of the 1980s’ faux-classic. Who knew, right?
And the Cubs aren’t the only contender currently battling bizarre splits. The Red Sox sport an ungodly record at home (21-5) and a moribund road record (14-20). The Braves are 23-7 in Atlanta and an awful 7-20 away. Even the scalding Rays are 24-10 in that crappy dome, and a pedestrian 11-12 elsewhere. It’s fairly weird, for several teams to look like home titans and road dogs – the Cardinals and D-Backs also enjoy stellar home marks. What’s it mean? Who cares. I’d totally be OK with a 55-25 record at Wrigley and 41-41 everywhere else. Maybe that’s just me.
Whatever the rationale for the Cubs’ home success and road woes, it’s fun. Sure, with a June swing out west and an upcoming jaunt into AL East territory, they could conceivably take a step back. This year, however, they’ve taken advantage of scheduling, Wrigley, day games, and the best game atmosphere on the planet. And how many times in history have they ever done that?
2. Do we need a new fifth starter?
Doesn’t everybody? Even if the quick-working Sean Gallagher proves to be a rotation mainstay – he’s never pitched into September. Rich Hill is a head case, Sean Marshall is still getting stretched out and we’re fairly certain Jason Marquis will be an exclusive pinch-runner by September. That leaves the Cubs looking elsewhere, unless they’re suddenly confident in Jon Lieber or Kevin Hart. And though we all are familiar and comfortable with Ronny Cedeno and Micah Hoffpauir, they may be gone to secure an extra hurler. Matt Murton and Eric Patterson may well start forwarding their mail.
Who might this import? We don’t know. I’d prefer to aim for someone with a track record and ceiling like Derek Lowe, and well above someone with a basement like Steve Trachsel. Too soon to tell. Still, every other team in baseball has fifth-starter issues; that’s just the way things work.
3. Will the Cubs regress?
Sure, some. Though Fox Sports’ resident Cardinal fan and numbers manipulator Dayn Perry doesn’t believe in the hot starts of Ryan Theriot, Geovany Soto, Ronny Cedeno, or Ryan Dempster - we all know that aberrations can and do last longer than a year – and who’s to say they’re aberrations?
Regardless, the schedule will even out; more dates coming up against contenders, a tough interleague slate, an excursion to Canada, and more road games than not. Still, we remind you that in no year recently have the Cubs started particularly fast – not 2003, 2004, nor last year. That leaves…
4. Is this another 2001?
In 2001, ESPN ran some Baseball-Prospectus concocted article (Can’t find the link) which basically anointed the Cubs as playoff-worthy at the break and maintained the Cardinals and the Astros needed to play .750 ball to knock the Cubs off their perch, a virtual impossibility. Guess what, it happened. I remember, because I was horrified. In fact, I hadn’t even watched baseball for many years – but deposited fully in New England, working full-time on nightly deadlines amid grating Sox-or-Yanks fans, I rediscovered my Cub fandom. Now here we are.
ANYWAY, I digress. This team is much better than 2001 (Ron Coomer isn’t hitting cleanup, you see) – but also faces an improved Central division, and an NL East which has so far proven a bugaboo. Stranger things have happened; yes, even stranger than what’s already transpired (See above). We’re planning to sit back, enjoy the ride with a likeable, confident, heady team – and try not to live and die with every pitch. For once, the Cubs appear to be doing the same. That in itself is somewhat of an accomplishment.
