Cubs 8, Dodgers 4 (NLCS Game 5)

In Commentary And Analysis by berselius82 Comments

OSS:

almost_there

Three+ up:

  1. Addison Russell provided the biggest hit of the game, a no-doubter two run shot in the sixth inning to put the Cubs up 3-1, driving in who else but Javier Baez. Russell also added a single in the ninth and hustled his way into a leadoff ROE as the Cubs tacked on five insurance runs in the eighth inning.
  2. Javier Baez continues to turn into a star before our eyes. Today’s output included a bases-clearing double, another double, a single and stolen base, and yet another fantastic defensive play at second base. Just another day at the office.
  3. Jon Lester pitched deep into the ballgame, and he had the Dodgers bats stymied all night. Lester struck out six over seven innings, allowing just one run on an Adrian Gonzalez groundout. He had a tough time with the zone early on from what I can tell but settled down after the first and just cruised the rest of the way in a tight game. He even just missed a homer when batting in a key-ish situation as Joe decided to stick with him. He’s earned his contract this year and then some, and then even more.
  4. Almost all of the Cubs lineup kept hitting as well, with Fowler, Bryant, and Rizzo combining to go 6-15 with an RBI each and Zobrist drawing three walks.
  5. Joe Blanton was Transformed into an ace reliever this year some how, but his energon has run out against this Cubs offense and now he just seems more like Joe Blanton again.

Three+ down:

  1. Jason Heyward is just ice cold at the plate right now. At least there’s no way he starts game six with Kershaw on the mound.
  2. Aroldis Chapman looked pretty shaky in the ninth pitching with a huge lead. This one’s on me for wearing a Marmol shirsey today.
  3. Pedro Strop didn’t look so hot either, though I feel like some blame should go to the dumbasses who started waving towels around right behind home plate that inning who probably distracted him.
  4. Javy came up lame after his bases clearing double, but ended up staying in the game and said he was 100% afterwords. He must have just rolled an ankle or something. Enormous sigh of relief here.
  5. Watching Pedro Baez pitch is the worst. Even his own team’s fans can’t stand him.
  6. This was a thing that happened:

Next up: Kyle Hendricks has the tough task of facing not just Clayton Kershaw but the smirking jokes of half a thousand amateur comedians/broadcasters who won’t shut up about the Bartman game for the next 48 hours. I had Pat and Ron on for this game since I was in and out of the room, but there’s no fucking way I listen to the fox broadcast for game six without popping six or seven veins in my head.

Share this Post

Comments

  9. SK

    Rob Manfred bitches about game length all the time and suggests potential “fixes” that would be bad, but then when he gets meaningful games in prime time (ideal time to create new fans) he makes them even longer. Fail.

    If they need those billions from Fox so bad, arrange it so inning breaks are shorter but give them some other way to display ads. Logos on uniforms, paint ads on the field, I don’t care. But postseason is a good time to try to create some tight, well-paced action with built-in drama.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. SK

    Ryno,

    6-3 (if my math is correct, that’s .667) in post-season so far this year. Even better than their 162 game pace.

    I’ve been enjoying these Cubs for 18 months straight.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. SK

    Rice Cube,

    That aside, there are a lot of pitching changes in the post season and I understand that. With that being the case, though, the league could try to compensate somewhat by keeping the inning breaks to the usual length at most.

    (I actually don’t mind the frequent stops and starts of inning breaks in normal games. But the super long ones during the playoffs are a serious pain in the ass).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  14. Ryno

    I know you intentionally set this on a tee, but I don’t care.

    SK:
    Rice Cube,

    I…try to compensate somewhat by keeping…the usual length.

    (I actually don’t mind the frequent stops and starts…But the super long ones…are a serious pain in the ass).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. Rice Cube

    I’m ok with trying to maximize matchups but relievers need to be warmed up by the time they’re called upon. Eliminate the warmup on the mound after entry IMO.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. dmick89

    Rice Cube,

    I like that idea, but I doubt the players would agree to it. I think they like to be able to get used to the mound even though that sounds silly to me. I’d be more ok with pitching changes if you forced relievers to face a minimum of two or three batters.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  23. Pinch-Running Tom Goodwin

    Another up: We are one single win away from advancing to the World Series. Holy shit.
    (Feel free to point out that we blew this same situation with two other Cubs teams, in which neither of those teams were the 2016 Cubs)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  26. cerulean

    dmick89:
    SK,

    Pitching. Changes.

    dmick89:
    SK mentioned pitching changes so ignore my last comment.

    I took your extra-punctuated comment a different way and would like to add that hitting has also changed. The batters are less likely to put a given pitch in play. The pitchers are less likely to serve up meatballs. That means more pitches per game with more pitching changes compounded by the very notion of pitch counts.

    We see more pitching changes because pitching and hitting have changed. That’s not something that can be fixed with a clock (though a clock wouldn’t hurt).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  30. cerulean

    dmick89:
    Rice Cube,

    I like that idea, but I doubt the players would agree to it. I think they like to be able to get used to the mound even though that sounds silly to me. I’d be more ok with pitching changes if you forced relievers to face a minimum of two or three batters.

    The number of warmup pitches on the mound equals the number of batters the pitcher must face.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  31. SK

    Rice Cube:
    SK,

    Ban Pedro Baez

    I just saw someone say he took 25 minutes to get two outs in the top of the 8th.

    Joe should ask the umpires to enforce that rule about how long a pitcher has to make his next pitch after getting the ball back from the catcher. I’d go out and do it after Baez entered the game, to “get in his psyche”.

    They did make a new rule recently, didn’t they?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  32. Rice Cube

    SK,

    The rule only applies when there are no men on base. It’s supposed to be 20 seconds per the rule book before the umpire calls an automatic ball. If there are men on base, there is no pitch clock. It wouldn’t be good to give runners an advantage knowing that there’s a pitch clock then, but maybe extend the pitch clock to 25 seconds with men on?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  33. Rizzo the Rat

    There’s been a lot of talk about Lester’s refusal to make pickoff throws and the Dodgers’ inability to take advantage. One of the ironies of the Dodgers taking such huge primary leads is that the runners had actually had to shorten their secondary leads. That meant that, for instance, Kike Hernandez had his momentum going in the wrong direction when Seager got his hit, possibly preventing him from going first-to-third. That said (I know I’m getting ahead a bit), I’m more worried about the Indians who will likely be much more willing to swipe bags against Lester.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  35. cerulean

    SK: I just saw someone say he took 25 minutes to get two outs in the top of the 8th.

    I am fine with Baez taking so long, so long as he gives up a five-spot.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  40. cerulean

    It’s a little convoluted, but here is an idea for adding time pressure to the game:

    Institute a 15-second set clock for the batter followed by a 15-second action clock for the pitcher.

    The batter must be ready in the box within 15 seconds after the ball is returned to the pitcher and is allowed one clock reset per pitcher action, and these do not accumulate. The clock is delayed or waved entirely for fouls off the body or other extraordinary circumstances. If the batter is not ready, the pitcher can pitch the ball anyway and it counts.

    When the batter sets in the box, the pitcher has 15 seconds to deliver the ball to the plate or, if a runner is on, bluff the runner back to the bag. The pitcher must throw the ball in between bluffs—that is either a pickoff throw (sorry Lester) or a pitch to the plate. The pitcher/catcher start with three clock resets per batter and gain one for every three pitches to the plate. The catcher can visit the mound, burning a clock reset, but those visits are limited to 15 seconds before the set clock starts.

    The manager can visit the mound only once per inning without removing the pitcher in addition to pitcher/catcher initiated timeouts—again excepting extraordinary circumstances of injury. Manager mound visits are limited to 30 seconds before the set clock starts.

    If the pitcher takes more than 15 seconds after the batter sets, an automatic reset is called that burns the reset for the pitch. If the clock reset for the pitch or all of the accumulated resets for a pitcher against a particular batter have already been used, the pitcher forfeits the right to a strike zone—that is, a pitch must be made but it will not be called a strike.

    The takeaway here is that pitches must be made and the timing depends on the interplay between batter and pitcher, with runners serving as a complication and distraction. More hurried pitches would probably lead to better pitches to hit for the batter, which would make the batter want to set very quickly to force the pitcher’s next action. As an at bat goes long, the batter can use the time pressure to earn some ball calls, so the pitcher and catcher do not want to forfeit the resets. No strikes are ever awarded that do not ““““approximate”””” the strike zone. No balls are ever awarded without a throw. The only real punishment is the pitcher losing the right to have a strike called a strike. So the pitcher would throw an intent ball or possibly a pitchout if a runner is on.

    I think I like this. It adds another dimension of gamesmanship to the central gameplay mechanic of baseball—the batter versus the pitcher—while simultaneously giving incentives to both batter and pitcher to hurry the hell up. I bet it would shave half an hour of time off these playoff games.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  42. SK

    cerulean:
    It’s a little convoluted, but here is an idea for adding time pressure to the game:

    Institute a 15-second set clock for the batter followed by a 15-second action clock for the pitcher.

    The batter must be ready in the box within 15 seconds after the ball is returned to the pitcher and is allowed one clock reset per pitcher action, and these do not accumulate. The clock is delayed or waved entirely for fouls off the body or other extraordinary circumstances. If the batter is not ready, the pitcher can pitch the ball anyway and it counts.

    When the batter sets in the box, the pitcher has 15 seconds to deliver the ball to the plate or, if a runner is on, bluff the runner back to the bag. The pitcher must throw the ball in between bluffs—that is either a pickoff throw (sorry Lester) or a pitch to the plate. The pitcher/catcher start with three clock resets per batter and gain one for every three pitches to the plate. The catcher can visit the mound, burning a clock reset, but those visits are limited to 15 seconds before the set clock starts.

    The manager can visit the mound only once per inning without removing the pitcher in addition to pitcher/catcher initiated timeouts—again excepting extraordinary circumstances of injury. Manager mound visits are limited to 30 seconds before the set clock starts.

    If the pitcher takes more than 15 seconds after the batter sets, an automatic reset is called that burns the reset for the pitch. If the clock reset for the pitch or all of the accumulated resets for a pitcher against a particular batter have already been used, the pitcher forfeits the right to a strike zone—that is, a pitch must be made but it will not be called a strike.

    The takeaway here is that pitches must be made and the timing depends on the interplay between batter and pitcher, with runners serving as a complication and distraction. More hurried pitches would probably lead to better pitches to hit for the batter, which would make the batter want to set very quickly to force the pitcher’s next action. As an at bat goes long, the batter can use the time pressure to earn some ball calls, so the pitcher and catcher do not want to forfeit the resets. No strikes are ever awarded that do not ““““approximate”””” the strike zone. No balls are ever awarded without a throw. The only real punishment is the pitcher losing the right to have a strike called a strike. So the pitcher would throw an intent ball or possibly a pitchout if a runner is on.

    I think I like this. It adds another dimension of gamesmanship to the central gameplay mechanic of baseball—the batter versus the pitcher—while simultaneously giving incentives to both batter and pitcher to hurry the hell up. I bet it would shave half an hour of time off these playoff games.

    Kind of an elaborate set up for Ryno, especially since he won’t be around till Monday morning.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  43. cerulean

    dmick89,

    The dual approach also prevents batters from dilly-dallying, but maybe it should be 10 seconds after the pitcher gets the ball for the batter to set and 10 more seconds for the pitcher to perform some action, be it a pitch, a bluff, a pickoff, or the use of a timeout/clock reset/mound visit.

    But that’s only half the problem. How do you enforce it—what is the punishment? I don’t like awarding balls and strikes (too arbitrary), or issuing warnings and fines (too opaque), or ejecting the pitcher (too extreme). If the pitcher forfeits the right to a strike call, pitchers not being stupid will throw a ball. The pitch is accounted for in the traditional manner. If the batter isn’t set in the allotted amount of time, the pitcher does not have to wait.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  46. dmick89

    cerulean,

    Issuing a ball seems like the easiest way to take care of it, but I’d go even further, especially if they go with something like a 25 or 30 second clock. If they do that, I’d award a base for the batter (call it pitcher interference) or an additional base for one base runner. That could result in a run if a guy is on 3rd. Pitchers will do whatever they can to speed things up. I think that’s necessary at this point. I’d be ok with a clock for batters too, but the pitcher clock starts as soon as he gets the ball back.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  47. Rice Cube

    I still don’t think clock should be enforced with men on. Seems to give too much advantage to runner, even if we would like to see more offense.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  48. WaLi

    I think what dm said earlier would be the best. If a reliever comes in, he has to face two batters minimum and/or minimum of one out. This would also increase the strategy of the game and give more power to the batting team – which would drive offense which is a good thing for the game.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  50. Rizzo the Rat

    More offense = longer games. And, frankly, I think there’s plenty of offense right now. This isn’t like 2014 when runs were really hard to come by.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  51. cerulean

    Rizzo the Rat,

    I haven’t found a data source, but I imagine the increase in the length of games is directly correlated to an increase in the number of pitches per game. The Cubs saw something like 190 in a nine-inning game this year, which is just crazy.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  52. cerulean

    cerulean:
    Rizzo the Rat,

    I haven’t found a data source, but I imagine the increase in the length of games is directly correlated to an increase in the number of pitches per game. The Cubs saw something like 190 in a nine-inning game this year, which is just crazy.

    If I am adding in my head correctly, the number of pitches in game 5 was 144–183—that is 327 combined pitches. Damn. It’s a wonder the game was only four hours long.

    Anyway, more offense certainly increases the number of pitches per game, but more contact earlier in the count may decrease it enough to offset it. The question to me is whether the game is being structured in a way that prevents human rain delays and possibly encourages more contact earlier in the count.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  54. Rizzo the Rat

    I’m sure more pitches means longer games. However, I’m much less concerned about the length of games per se than in the lulls in action, e.g., overlong commercial breaks, pitching changes and time taken between pitches.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  55. Rizzo the Rat

    I kind of like Rice Cube’s suggestion. Maybe we could limit teams to warming up one or two pitchers on the game mound, but after that the relievers have to come out of the bullpen ready to pitch. (That might also serve as a de facto limit to the frequency of pitching changes, since relievers would need more bullpen time to get ready.)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  58. cerulean

    Rizzo the Rat,

    Relievers have one minute to warm up if in the middle of the top or bottom of an inning.

    I was going to say they couldn’t, but that might be dangerous for the batter.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  63. SK

    JonKneeV,

    One wouldn’t think so, but then, why bother for just a couple games (he’s on a taxi squad for games on Saturdays and Wednesdays or some shit), since he’s slated for winter league?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  67. Rizzo the Rat

    Perkins,

    Is Soler not feeling well? With the lengths Maddon is going to avoid starting him, I have to worry that he hasn’t recovered from his injury.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  69. Perkins

    Rizzo the Rat:
    Perkins,

    Is Soler not feeling well? With the lengths Maddon is going to avoid starting him, I have to worry that he hasn’t recovered from his injury.

    No idea. Could be that he wanted the great defense, but figured that literally anyone on the roster could hit Kershaw better than Heyward.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  70. Perkins

    SK:
    I’ve seen two “Win it for Harry” tweets already.

    At the risk of telling people how not to have fun, fuck that.

    More like win it for Ronnie.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  75. cerulean

    SK,

    Santo was the ultimate Homer—pure fan emotion—endearing if sometimes just unlistenable. I miss his unlistenability in the booth.

    Even though he is now in the Hall, I don’t think many really appreciate how great he was as a player. If he could have played for a handful more years, he would have cemented himself as one of the all-time greats. As it is, he remains one of the greatest two-way players in the game.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  76. cerulean

    Just over three-and-a-half hours.

    Not that I’m counting down or anything.

    [gif of classic Sonic looking at watch]

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment