Just discovered a 🐷new bakery in our area with some absolutely insane pastries and this is going to be a problem.
There’s no getting around it: that was about as bad as a loss can get for the Cubs in this particular moment. They were playing a beatable team at home, they put up three runs on a good starting pitcher, and got seven shutout innings from their own. When you are chasing down a playoff spot from where the Cubs found themselves a month ago, last night’s is exactly the kind of game you CANNOT afford to lose. And now with Kyle Hendricks going tonight against Paul Skenes instead of Justin Steele? The loss last night feels all the more impactful.
Rage:
Craig Counsell on how good Jameson Taillon was, and on the decision to go with Jorge Lopez in the 8th:
So, not a whole lot went into the decision. Taillon’s night was over, Lopez was the guy selected for that inning, and he didn’t pitch as well as hoped. The end.
I actually think that’s a pretty fair perspective, given how good Lopez has been – you simply WOULD select him for that spot, and then probably Porter Hodge for the 9th. The only beef I have is a POSSIBLE one, regarding the decision not to put Lopez on the IL last week with the groin injury. No idea if he was still feeling anything, or was rusty, or whatever (velo was down a click from usual, but that could just be normal game-to-game variance). He did pitch a clean inning this weekend, so maybe all indications were that he was no worse for the wear. It’s also worth noting that the two hits before the first homer were a bloop and an infield hit, and then the Bryan Reynolds home run was a Wrigley Special. The second homer, Andrew McCutchen’s, was more of a typical blast. So, four runs on two homers, but obviously could’ve been a very different situation if those first three don’t all fall in perfectly.
The weird thing on the two homers, by the way? Lopez very nearly hit Miguel Amaya’s mitt. Like, I don’t know that you could say those were THAT terribly-executed pitches. He just got got by two very good hitters. Unfortunately, we knew there was probably some regression looming on his ERA, and it simply came at the worst possible time.
As for the possibility of letting Taillon keep going, I think it would be defensible in either case. He was at 89 pitches, hadn’t really labored, and his velocity was holding well, but he did have runners on base his final few innings so you could argue they were SLIGHTLY higher-stress, and seven times up-and-down is solid, and he would’ve been facing the lineup the fourth time through, and so on and so forth. I could really make the argument in either direction, which means I am not going to hindsight the decision. Taillon was fantastic and did his job. The bullpen just couldn’t hold it there.\
Taillon on Justin Steele, by the way, if you want to be optimistic on his elbow soreness (): “Steely has been awesome for the last couple of years here. He’s a guy we all look to when it’s his day, and you see Steele on the mound, you know you’re going to get a good effort and you’re going to be in the game. It stinks, but from everything I’ve heard, we’re hoping it’s just a quick thing. He means a lot to this group.”
Heads up, , which might be the biggest discount I’ve seen. If you were considering getting one – to watch the Cubs, of course – worth checking it out. #ad
Not that you needed a reminder of just how fast and quick-twitch Pete Crow-Armstrong is, here’s PCA beating out a ROUTINE DOUBLE-PLAY BALL at second base:
I don’t want to read too much into the margins of , and thus I’m sliding it down here at the bottom of the Bullets with a heavy bit of pre-explanation. I just thought this was an interesting way to frame part of Craig Counsell’s first year managing the Cubs:
“This season will still be a failure if the Cubs don’t make the playoffs. And Counsell could still push for big changes this offseason. But a manager who has spent a lot of time in observational mode has noticed the group’s ability to solve problems.
With a few exceptions, Counsell largely inherited David Ross’ coaching staff after he decided to leave the Milwaukee Brewers for a five-year, $40 million contract. The Brewers rallied around Pat Murphy, Counsell’s longtime bench coach and college coach at Notre Dame, preventing a mass exodus and ensuring some continuity.”
Is that simply a way to note how well the Brewers have done? Maybe. Or is a nod to something we’ve discussed before as an open question: how would Craig Counsell have constructed his coaching staff differently if he’d had a full and normal hiring period in which to operate? And how much of his success with the Brewers was predicated, in some small part, on the coaching staff with whom he worked? The back-to-back mentions of Counsell being in “observational mode” together with a discussion of the coaching staff he “largely inherited” at least does make you think, right?
To be sure, even if Mooney’s comments there are indeed a nod to that latter point, that doesn’t mean he is, or I am, suggesting that the coaching staff is the reason for underperformance this year. I could point to several crystal clear success stories, actually. So I note it here as a placeholder for considerations over the next two months, as coaching contracts expire, and interviews/processes that couldn’t realistically happen last year – internal and external – can take place.
A heads up to the fantasy football players among you! Our sister app – Fantasy Life – has been rebranded as Bleacher Nation Fantasy. Fastest alerts I’ve seen, by the way. So jump on that:
