Not Worse, Anyway

I am quoting this comment from andyrut on the View From The Bleachers, but it could have been any number of comments from any number of other websites:

As for giving it up for the Cubs brass, there are just so many question marks out there and I couldn't say that the 2006 team will be any better than the sub-.500 2005 team.

I just don’t understand this sentiment. I can’t think of a single area in which the Cubs of 2006 should be worse than 2005, and while in many respects it’s a wash, there are several important areas in which they should be better. And I’m saying this from my head, not my heart.



Let’s break it down, and start (as always) with the pitching.

We’ll start with Prior, who we can reasonably expect to pitch more games than in 2005, and pitch them at a higher level. He’s healthy. He’s ready. Prior’s production should mean improvement of the team. I mean, Prior did not allow more than 3 earned runs in any start after August 4th, for crying out loud.

Next, Zambrano, who pitched better in the second half than the first. They solved the cramping issue. And he’s a year older and a year wiser, and all that. Zambrano’s production should be at least a wash, if not an improvement.

Maddux is a year older, so we can see it going either way I suppose. Maybe he makes some more adjustments and finds a rhythm to ride out in a blaze of glory, or maybe he loses another half-step and puts up numbers worse than last year. Or maybe he’ll have another season just like the last two. Me, having watched that brilliant game where he blanked the Mets last May from the left-field bleachers -- where he struck out 10 -- I think he has enough for one more quality season.

Then Williams and Rusch... how can having Jerome Williams for a full season not be a bonus? (As an aside, I think the Hendry bashers should pause to give him credit for getting Williams for Hawkins.) Especially since there’s no way he doesn’t show up to camp in great shape, knowing what’s at stake in his career and in a competitive starting roster. This guy can still be good. And Glendon Rusch suffered greatly from shuttling between the bullpen and the dugout, so if he starts in a rhythm, he could be just fine, too. In any case, we shouldn’t see anything worse from these two compared to last year.

Then there’s the variables, Kerry Wood & Rich Hill. I think either one of these guys could turn heads this season (if it's possible for Wood to still turn heads). There’s no way Rich Hill doesn’t start 2006 with a third pitch to augment the fastball and that brilliant curve, and if it’s at all effective, he’ll be good. And Kerry Wood, well, who knows? But again, can it be any less in production than last season? There’s only one way to go from 2005 for either of those two guys, and that’s up.

Basically, with those 7, I can’t see any way the starting pitching will be worse than it was in 2005, and there are plenty of reasons to suppose it will be better, starting with Prior.

So that’s number 1. Number 2, the catcher. Barrett and Blanco, the same as last year. If anything, though, also remember this: Blanco was hitting much better in the second half, and Barrett has another year of managing the staff under his belt to free up his concentration and augment his confidence for hitting. I expect better numbers from both of those guys, offensively.

At first, maybe it’s unfair to expect Derrek Lee to put up numbers as high as last season... or is it? OK, yes, it is. Lee put up the best season of any Cubs first baseman, ever. But on the other hand, there’s no way he’ll ever be batting sixth in the lineup while Baker figures out roles, and there should be more men on base, in general. So, first base is probably no change.

Then, if Todd Walker is at second, I figure he’ll be at least as good as he and Hairston & Perez were last year as well. I’ll start by saying I hope the perpetual rumors that the Cubs want to trade him are unfounded, because this guy is a good line-drive hitter and he’s fine defensively, especially with Lee giving him an extra step to cheat up the middle. In any case, let’s call this a wash from last season, for now.

At third, Ramirez. Of course, it’s a matter of health. But there’s this: the Cubs gave him the contract extension at the beginning of last season, meaning that they have an investment to protect for the next several seasons. I can’t see them letting him dawdle on the off-season training and conditioning that will help prevent recurrence of these nagging injuries. In other words, he should be at least as healthy, and at least as productive in 2006.

At short, Cedeno. If we look at last season, and take the production from Nomar at start (awful), Neifi at his start (good), Niefi at his close (bad) and Nomar at his close (good), we end up settling in with mediocre. Any reason to suppose Cedeno won’t at least be mediocre? So shortstop is at least a wash, and I’m hopeful that Cedeno will be better than mediocre.

In left, the Hollandsworth / Dubois platoon was brutal, Gerut never got a chance, Hairston was streaky, and Murton was good. Next year, we have every reason to assume it will be Murton, and that he’ll be at least as productive as the compendium of 2005 left fielders were. In fact, it’s hardly conceivable he could be worse.

In center, there is a huge upgrade. A leadoff hitter, a running game, a fun personality... Juan Pierre is such a great fit I’m still giddy that they signed him. (Correction: traded for him. Thanks, AQ.) Again, there is no conceivable way that Pierre will be worse than the aggregate of Patterson and Hairston last season. I won’t go overboard talking about how much bigger of a difference I think Pierre will make because his numbers last season don’t support that position, but my instinct is that this will be a bigger upgrade than people realize.

In right it’s a wash, unless Jones is better than everyone thinks. Right now, everyone seems to think that this guy isn’t going to do very much, or at least won’t do more than Burnitz did or would have done this season. Maybe not, although Burnitz was awful shaky in the second half last season, and when Ramirez was hurt and Lee needed him most for protection, he didn’t produce nearly enough. Not to take anything away from his defense and attitude, which were both stellar. But it’s entirely conceivable that Jones will like playing on this club, and will be good. At least offensively, he shouldn’t be worse than Burnitz.

And the bullpen is a huge upgrade. Again, Dempster – even if he doesn’t do as well last year – cannot do worse at closer than the sum of Dempster & Hawkins & committee in 2005, barring a collapse so drastic that it will be Hawkins redux. And the biggest problem with the bullpen collectively was walks, so they signed a couple of good relievers who should walk a lot less guys. I’m telling you, this will make a bigger difference than a lot of fans realize. Going in, I’m expecting that this bullpen is good for something like 4-10 extra wins compared to last season. Hell, looking back at last April and May, they could be +5 by the time interleague starts.

And the bench. Again, I can’t see how they’re going to be worse. Hairston is OK, Neifi is a great utility man, John Mabry is pretty decent, and whoever the last guy is on the bench, it’ll be better than the bench was last season. Or, at least it won’t be worse.

As far as I can tell, top to bottom, this team lines up evenly or better than 2005 on every count in all likely (non-catastrophe) scenarios.

Here’s part of the problem: it’s one thing to compare predictions against what the Cubs were in 2005, and another to compare against what they should have been in 2005. We have a tendency to compare 2006 to what we expected in April 2005, which was much more than what we saw. If you look at what we expected going into 2005 – healthy Prior, healthier Wood, healthier Ramirez, healthier Nomar, decent left fielders, decent Patterson, decent LaTroy Hawkins at setup or something – then the 2006 Cubs don’t stack up all that well.

But the 2005 projections never came to pass, by a long shot. Here’s how I have it judged: the team we thought we’d see in 2005 should have won about 88 games. The team we did see should have won at least 81. They won 79.

So, if you look at who actually played the games in 2005, and the production they put up, I can easily say that the guys we expect to play the games in 2006 will be at least as good, if not better, than the sum of the players at each position in 2005. And that 2005 team, with all its problems, won 79 games.

On paper, the 2006 team should not win less than 79, then, and there are plenty of areas where they improved, making somewhere around 88 a reasonable expectation, barring catastrophe, I figure. And 92 wins will be a great season. Then we roll the dice and see whether 88 – 92 wins is enough to get them in the playoffs, and so on. Some years it is, some years it isn’t. Who knows?

And while I hesitate to bring this up, I also have to assume that Dusty will be better next season. One, because he can’t possibly do so many stupid things, but two, because he won’t have as many stupid decisions available at his disposal. Pierre will bat leadoff, and that alone reduces the number of lineup permutations he might have used in half. Same with the bullpen – there are just less moves to make, period, and that means less bad moves.

Moreover, after watching Dusty for 3 seasons, I tend to think that the 2006 team is shaping up to be the kind of team he will manage well. This doesn’t excuse his poor managing in 2005. But, knowing that there will be a steady group of starters, a bullpen with clearer role pitchers, and a lineup with less variables, then maybe this is a group that helps Dusty help them, so to speak.

Again, he should have done better with what he had last season, but as far as I can tell, that’s pretty much irrelevant for 2006. Even with Murton & Cedeno, there is a lot less experimenting for him to perform, and that was a lot of the problem in 2005 -- Dusty trying out new ideas trying to find something that worked. In 2006, either what he has will work or it won’t, but there will be much less guessing, and much less second guessing. (Now, if he underachieves in 2006, then that will be a different matter altogether, but this is not a foregone conclusion.)

I think Cub fans have reason to be hopeful. Several good reasons, in fact, because there are several critical areas that the club has shored up. And, for that matter, other than possible reductions from Maddux & Lee who might not be able to maintain the level they were at last season, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate any single position or area in which they look to be worse than what we saw in 2005.

So, why the doom and gloom?