IGT: Chicago @ Washington NLDS 2017 Game 5

[ijustposthere]

Hendricks tends to be less effective after being seen the 2nd time in a series.

You have to go with stuff guys and I can’t see Q not going x2

Based on what exactly?

 

[beckdawg]

Please. Facing a compromised Scherzer out of the pen on short rest is not what I was referring to. If he doesn't have the hamstring, he starts Games 2 and 5 on normal rest and the Nats cover four games with Stras/Scherzer in a five game series. There is no path to victory for the Cubs in that scenario, "better team" or not. The Nats were tailor-made for a short series and Scherzer's hamstring is the only reason the Cubs season isn't over.

As others mentioned the rainout let Stras pitch twice anyways which wouldn't have been the case even if Scherzer were healthy had the rainout not occurred. They would have got Scherzer game 1, Stras game 2, Gio game three and roark game 4 without the rainout. And even if we ignore that are you seriously going to argue they some how got worse pitching than they should have from their starters the first 3 games? Cubs beat Stras/Scherzer twice in the first three games anyways. That's not "luck." Hendricks out pitched Stras in game 1 and in game three they kept themselves in the game long enough to get to washington's bullpen.

So spare me this argument that the cubs were some how "lucky." They were the better team plain and simple. You know how I know this? The nationals did the same shit last year vs LA. They are a good team that doesn't know how to win in the playoffs. As I said initially, they had great pitching but where was this vaunted offense they were supposed to have? They had a 2 hit game 1, 6 hits game 2, 3 hits game 3, 5 hits game 4 and finally showed up game 5 with 14. 16 hits in the first 4 games of a series is how you lose a series. Cubs facing supposedly better pitching had 18. And washington had no ability to score without HRs. Zimmerman's double in game 3, and Russell's error game 4 were the only runs they didn't score via a HR in the first 4 games. Not to mention 3 runs out of their 8 thursday were via HRs.

 

[bamainatlanta]

If Scherzer wasn't hurt, the projected rotation is:

G1: Scherzer
G2: Stras
Off
G3: Gio
G4: Roark
Off
G5: Scherzer

And again, the Cubs have found a way to beat very good pitchers in the last few years in the playoffs. With the mistakes the Nats were making, I'm not giving a clear victory to the Nats.

Correct. Fatbeard is also conveniently forgetting the idiot manager the Nationals have, who can easily blow any series.

 

[bamainatlanta]

As others mentioned the rainout let Stras pitch twice anyways which wouldn't have been the case even if Scherzer were healthy had the rainout not occurred. They would have got Scherzer game 1, Stras game 2, Gio game three and roark game 4 without the rainout. And even if we ignore that are you seriously going to argue they some how got worse pitching than they should have from their starters the first 3 games? Cubs beat Stras/Scherzer twice in the first three games anyways. That's not "luck." Hendricks out pitched Stras in game 1 and in game three they kept themselves in the game long enough to get to washington's bullpen.

So spare me this argument that the cubs were some how "lucky." They were the better team plain and simple. You know how I know this? The nationals did the same shit last year vs LA. They are a good team that doesn't know how to win in the playoffs. As I said initially, they had great pitching but where was this vaunted offense they were supposed to have? They had a 2 hit game 1, 6 hits game 2, 3 hits game 3, 5 hits game 4 and finally showed up game 5 with 14. 16 hits in the first 4 games of a series is how you lose a series. Cubs facing supposedly better pitching had 18. And washington had no ability to score without HRs. Zimmerman's double in game 3, and Russell's error game 4 were the only runs they didn't score via a HR in the first 4 games. Not to mention 3 runs out of their 8 thursday were via HRs.

4runs actually.

 

[chibears55]

Hendricks tends to be less effective after being seen the 2nd time in a series.

You have to go with stuff guys and I can’t see Q not going x2

Huh?

Did you not watch Hendricks in world series?

Game 3 6 hits 0 runs

Game 7 4 hits 1 run

Yea i guess he was less effective, he gave up a run in second start

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[TL1961]

Please. Facing a compromised Scherzer out of the pen on short rest is not what I was referring to. If he doesn't have the hamstring, he starts Games 2 and 5 on normal rest and the Nats cover four games with Stras/Scherzer in a five game series. There is no path to victory for the Cubs in that scenario, "better team" or not. The Nats were tailor-made for a short series and Scherzer's hamstring is the only reason the Cubs season isn't over.

So, we are supposed to consider the team with only two starters as "better" because baseball's playoff format favors those teams yet Washington still lost?

The rainout greatly aided the two starter team, yet we ignore that?

We should assume Nats win if not for Scherzer hamstring injury? So are we assuming Scherzer starts Game 1 and does BETTER than Strasburg's 7 IP, 0 ER, 10K performance?

Scherzer's hammy issue is an excuse, but Arietta's didn't matter?!

 

[didshereallysaythat]

Looks like Quintana is going game 1 according to Bleacher Report.

I look for Lackey to back him up if we are trailing and he doesn't go atleast 6. Tied or winning, Madden will do what he did in game 5 two days ago.

 

[CSF77]

Huh?

Did you not watch Hendricks in world series?

Game 3 6 hits 0 runs

Game 7 4 hits 1 run

Yea i guess he was less effective, he gave up a run in second start

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

How many innings again? I believe they yanked him when the Indians were coming up for the 3rd time.

 

[CSF77]

Looks like Quintana is going game 1 according to Bleacher Report.

I look for Lackey to back him up if we are trailing and he doesn't go atleast 6. Tied or winning, Madden will do what he did in game 5 two days ago.

Might be a mistake. He is better off resetting the rotation again and pull a mulligan on game 1. Game 2 go with Q . I would push Jake back to game 5 as he has been ineffective post injury.

But road: Lackey/Q
Home: Lester/Hendricks/Arrieta
Road: Q/Lester

 

[chibears55]

How many innings again? I believe they yanked him when the Indians were coming up for the 3rd time.

That has nothing to do with what you said..

You basically said you wouldn't give Hendricks a 2nd start in a series cause he ineffective in them..
As to why you'd go with Q who has only pitched once as a starter and once as a reliever on post season..

He started 2 games in a damn WS and a game 7 do or die and he went into the 5th giving up just 1 run..
I would say that being very effective in a pressure situation..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[chibears55]

Just seen the box score for Game 5..

Didnt realize outside the Nats mistakes , it was basically

Jay 2 hits RBI R
Contreras H 2 BB 2 R
Russell 2H 4 RBI R

That were most productive offensively..

Bryant Rizzo Heyward Baez
Combined 1-19

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

That has nothing to do with what you said..

You basically said you wouldn't give Hendricks a 2nd start in a series cause he ineffective in them..
As to why you'd go with Q who has only pitched once as a starter and once as a reliever on post season..

He started 2 games in a damn WS and a game 7 do or die and he went into the 5th giving up just 1 run..
I would say that being very effective in a pressure situation..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

87 MPH fast ball will always be his limitation. He is one of the greatest pitchers to play with his limited talent for sure

 

[ijustposthere]

How many innings again? I believe they yanked him when the Indians were coming up for the 3rd time.

Which Maddon was heavily criticized for.

 

[CSF77]

Just as reference:

. Maddux never threw 95, and spent the last 6 or 7 years of his career with his fastball velocity slowly creeping from the high 80s to the mid 80s. But prior to his decline, Maddux threw a 92 mile per hour fastball. A 92 mile per hour fastball with fantastic movement and pinpoint control and command.

 

[CSF77]

Which Maddon was heavily criticized for.

Honestly going into his rotation like that in a 5 game was a huge mistake. He had lackey and Monty for that situation

 

[ijustposthere]

Honestly going into his rotation like that in a 5 game was a huge mistake. He had lackey and Monty for that situation

I'm talking about game 7. Hendricks was settling in, and putting in Lester knocked over a domino that eventually led to Cleveland tying the game late.

 

[CSF77]

I'm talking about game 7. Hendricks was settling in, and putting in Lester knocked over a domino that eventually led to Cleveland tying the game late.

Is this retcon?

Or conjecture?

Or just assumption?

Because there is little fact backing that Hendricks would have done anything more or less than Lester did.


My opinion is a team will catch onto a pitcher like Kyle after seeing him enough. It is not like he comes in at 95 early inning and as he gasses out then he adds movement late inning. He is at the lower MPH stage at a full tank and has to put smart the hitters. Eventually the hitters will adjust their bat speeds back to match his softer speeds and then he starts to get into trouble.

Honestly it wasn’t shocking that hat he go lit up early yesterday. It spoke volume of his tenacity that he controlled the wound as he did.

Honestly I am a Hendricks fan. I’m totally into a guy that has no business playing with a system that glorifies the power pitcher. But I am also a realist where these hitters see 95+ all day and it is easier to adjust your bat speed down than up.

 

[ijustposthere]

Is this retcon?

Or conjecture?

Or just assumption?

Because there is little fact backing that Hendricks would have done anything more or less than Lester did.


My opinion is a team will catch onto a pitcher like Kyle after seeing him enough. It is not like he comes in at 95 early inning and as he gasses out then he adds movement late inning. He is at the lower MPH stage at a full tank and has to put smart the hitters. Eventually the hitters will adjust their bat speeds back to match his softer speeds and then he starts to get into trouble.

Honestly it wasn’t shocking that hat he go lit up early yesterday. It spoke volume of his tenacity that he controlled the wound as he did.

Honestly I am a Hendricks fan. I’m totally into a guy that has no business playing with a system that glorifies the power pitcher. But I am also a realist where these hitters see 95+ all day and it is easier to adjust your bat speed down than up.

Exactly. It's based on nothing.

 

[LuvMyBears]

Is this retcon?

Or conjecture?

Or just assumption?

Because there is little fact backing that Hendricks would have done anything more or less than Lester did.


My opinion is a team will catch onto a pitcher like Kyle after seeing him enough. It is not like he comes in at 95 early inning and as he gasses out then he adds movement late inning. He is at the lower MPH stage at a full tank and has to put smart the hitters. Eventually the hitters will adjust their bat speeds back to match his softer speeds and then he starts to get into trouble.

Honestly it wasn’t shocking that hat he go lit up early yesterday. It spoke volume of his tenacity that he controlled the wound as he did.

Honestly I am a Hendricks fan. I’m totally into a guy that has no business playing with a system that glorifies the power pitcher. But I am also a realist where these hitters see 95+ all day and it is easier to adjust your bat speed down than up.

Now, I don't think people catch up to Kyle. I think he's smart enough to pitch around them catching on. I thought his issues on Thursday was his location. He wasn't locating like he normally does. Which led to someone asking (I can't remember who) if he's dealing with blisters due to the blowing on his fingers that night. Maybe it's the same as catching on to Kyle but to me locating is different. Just my thought.

 

[fatbeard]

As others mentioned the rainout let Stras pitch twice anyways which wouldn't have been the case even if Scherzer were healthy had the rainout not occurred. They would have got Scherzer game 1, Stras game 2, Gio game three and roark game 4 without the rainout.

Eppur si muove.

And even if we ignore that are you seriously going to argue they some how got worse pitching than they should have from their starters the first 3 games? Cubs beat Stras/Scherzer twice in the first three games anyways.

I never said, or even implied, this.

That's not "luck." Hendricks out pitched Stras in game 1 and in game three they kept themselves in the game long enough to get to washington's bullpen.

Indeed, jam bloop singles are the ultimate manifestation of hitting skill. Maybe they could do a derby at the next All Star Game?

So spare me this argument that the cubs were some how "lucky." They were the better team plain and simple. You know how I know this? The nationals did the same shit last year vs LA. They are a good team that doesn't know how to win in the playoffs. As I said initially, they had great pitching but where was this vaunted offense they were supposed to have? They had a 2 hit game 1, 6 hits game 2, 3 hits game 3, 5 hits game 4 and finally showed up game 5 with 14. 16 hits in the first 4 games of a series is how you lose a series. Cubs facing supposedly better pitching had 18. And washington had no ability to score without HRs. Zimmerman's double in game 3, and Russell's error game 4 were the only runs they didn't score via a HR in the first 4 games. Not to mention 3 runs out of their 8 thursday were via HRs.

#Notluck

I really don't understand the butthurt here. I never said the Cubs weren't a great team. But being a great team and being fortunate are not mutually exclusive.