The Cubs are terrible. I realize this is a statement that one could say about many recent Cubs teams, but this year is worse than normal. They are currently on track to lose over 100 games for only the third time in team history. In fact, they are on track to lose 110 games. But even if they don’t lose that many, 100 losses seems easily in reach (if that is the way to say it).
Consider a couple of statistics. The Cubs have lost twelve one-run games in a row, and their record in one-run games, 6-16, is the second worst in baseball. Their 16 losses is the worst; the most any other team has is eleven.
While the Cubs record in one-run games indicates a lack a clutch hitting, it is also the result of terrible relief pitching. The Cubs have the fewest “holds” (16), the fewest saves (7), and the second most blown saves (11) of any team. (The Mets have one more blown save, but then they have had eleven more save opportunities.)
In other words, it’s bad. But instead of complaining too much about this year, let’s take a look at the two times the Cubs have lost 100 games and see what happened the next season. The Cubs went 59-103 in both 1962 and 1966, and both times they finished over .500 the next year. They were 82-80 in 1963, a 23-game improvement over 1962, and they were 87-74 in 1967, a 27½-game improvement over 1966. Could that happen again? Well, let’s look at the 1962/1963 and 1966/1967 teams to see why they improved – and what that says about today.
First, 1962/1963. Here is the starting eight from 1962:
1B – Ernie Banks
2B – Kenny Hubbs
SS – Andre Rodgers
3B – Ron Santo
LF – Billy Williams
CF – Lou Brock
RF – George Altman
C – Dick Bertell
The main starters were Bob Buhl, Dick Ellsworth, Don Cardwell, Cal Koonce and Glen Hobbie. Relievers included Bob Anderson, Barney Schultz and Don Elston.
In 1963, the starting eight was much the same. The only difference was that Lou Brock had moved to right field and Ellis Burton was in center. The main starting pitchers were Dick Ellsworth (who went from 20 losses to 22 wins), Larry Jackson, Bob Buhl, and Glen Hobbie. A key difference was that in 1963 the Cubs had a closer: Lindy McDaniel led the league in saves with 22. (They used closers a lot differently back then, so the numbers were lower.)
The other main difference was that the Cubs had the same manager for the whole season in 1963 (though he was called the “head coach”), instead of the silly college of coaches in 1962.
But the improvement didn’t stick, though they only lost six more games in 1964 than in 1963. Why? Who knows for sure, but two things stand out: Kenny Hubbs was killed in a plane crash in February of 1964, and Lou Brock was traded in June of 1964. Also, Lindy McDaniel’s saves dropped from 22 to 15.
The Cubs continued down in 1965, losing another four more games (to a record of 72-90), on their way to another 59-103 record in 1966. The 1966 team is the one about which Leo Durocher famously said, “This isn’t an eighth place team” (where the Cubs had finished in 1965). And they weren’t. In 1966 they finished tenth.
But, as I mentioned above, in 1967 the Cubs improved to an 87-74 record, and a third place finish. Not only that, but 1967 marked the beginning of a six-year run of over .500 finishes. So what happened from 1966 to 1967 and why did it stick this time?
First, look at the position players in 1966:
1B – Ernie Banks
2B – Glenn Beckert
SS – Don Kessinger
3B – Ron Santo
LF – Billy Williams
CF – Adolfo Phillips
RF – Byron Browne
C – Randy Hundley
The main starting pitchers were Dick Ellsworth, Ken Holtzman, and Bill Hands. Nobody else started more than twelve games. The relievers included Ferguson Jenkins, Cal Koonce, Bob Hendley and a lot of others.
In 1967 the starting eight was the same, except that Ted Savage was in right field instead of Byron Browne.
The pitching changed in 1967, though. Fergie Jenkins was now a starter, winning 20 games. While Kenny Holtzman was in the Reserves most of the year, he got enough weekend passes to get nine wins. Also, rookies Rich Nye and Joe Niekro won 13 and ten games. While Chuck “Twiggy” Hartenstein* only saved ten games, he was great in relief, giving the Cubs a go-to guy they were missing in 1966.
So, what do the 1962/1963 and 1966/1967 turn-arounds tell us about 2012 and 2013? Probably not to expect one like those. First, in 2012 we don’t have Williams, Santo and Banks, to say the least.
Second, there will probably be a bit of a turn-around. A 6-16 record in one-run games will improve, etc. (Regression to the mean and all.) But beyond that, 2012 doesn’t have the core that kept the Cubs good from 1967 to 1972. (All four infielders plus the catcher from the 1966 team went from tenth place in 1966 to the All-Star game in 1969.) I don’t see any kind of a core in the 2012 team. (Starlin Castro does not constitute a core.) Maybe there are people at Iowa (Anthony Rizzo-?) that could be part of a core, but it’s hard to hit a home run at Wrigley Field when you are playing in Des Moines. If they are going to help with a turnaround, it’s probably going to be more 2014 (at the most optimistic) or later.
Third, if there is going to be a big turn-around, the Cubs need a closer. That was a big change in both 1962/1963 and 1966/1967. Where would such a person come from now? Could Carlos Marmol come back? Is it James Russell? Or could it be somebody else, either somebody in the minors or a free agent? I don’t know.
And what about starting pitching? Where are the young guys? Where is the Fergie Jenkins, Ken Holtzman, or Bill Hands? To ask it is almost to answer it. While Matt Garza might be part of such a group (unless he is traded to get the kind of prospects Jim Hendry gave up to get him), all the Cubs have is Jeff Samardzija, a couple of mid-career guys who might be serviceable end-of-the-rotation pitchers and … not much else. There might be young guys in the minors who could take over, but they are well hidden if they are there.
The turnaround in 1967 stuck because John Holland, the Cubs general manager, had built a team of good young players around a core of William, Santo and Banks. Theo and the boys have not had a chance to do that yet, and building farm systems was not what Jim Hendry was about. In other words, if the Cubs lose 100 games this year,** they will almost certainly be better next year (see regression to the mean, again). However, it seems just as likely that this improvement will not come close to the improvement the Cubs had in ’63 and ‘67.
-----------
Note: There was one other similarity between 1962/1963 and 1966/1967. In both 1963 and 1967 the Cubs got into first place during the middle of the season. In ten-team leagues that is not as easy as it is today. In 1963 it was on June 6. I wrote about it here. In 1967 it was on July 1. I won’t go into that one, but if you ever get a chance, ask Wayne Messmer about it. That man is a Cubs fan.
* If you wonder why Chuck Hartenstein was nicknamed “Twiggy,” two things. First, he was thin. Second, look up “Twiggy” on Google.
** When it comes to the Cubs, I guess I am almost always an optimist. I said “if”.
Comments