Thursday, September 08, 2005

Inside a 68-71 record

Behind Greg Maddux the Cubs rolled to a 2-1 win at Busch Stadium, on Wednesday night. This win moved the Cubs record to 8-4 vs. the rival Redbirds. The Cubs, who have historically struggled at Busch Stadium (leading many Cub fans to bad memories of that park) have actually won two series at that dump since the All Star break. So the Cubs have taken care of the best team in the NL this season. Why does their record stand at 68-71, 19-1/2 games out of first?

Struggles at Home
Earlier in the season Dusty Baker blamed the Wrigleyville faithful for the Cubs woes at home. Remember when Baker said the team could use some time on the road? The Cubs are actually pretty good on the road. They are 35-35 away from the Friendly Confines. Maybe it's the sunshine or the late nights on Rush St., whatever it is the Cubs have really struggled at home. They are only 33-36 at Wrigley Field. Three below .500 in your own ballpark is a killer.

Strong within the division
Dusty and company have had no problems against teams in the NL Central. The Cubs are 35-25 in their own division (second only to the Redbirds amongst NL Central teams). The Cubs are a respectable 16-14 vs. the NL West. Where this all fell apart for the battling Cubbies was against the NL East. The Cubs have the pathetic mark of 11-23 vs. the Braves, Mets, Phils, Nats & Marlins.

BTW: In interleague play the Cubs were 6-9. (I hate Interleague Play)

Baseball in the sunshine...
Well the Cubs have struggled at home this year, where they play a majority of day games. So it's logical that they have played bad during the day. That logic holds up. The Bruins are 34-39 in daylight. At night they are two games over at 34-32.

One Run Games
The Cubs are actually not bad in close games. They are 20-17 in one run games. The first place Cardinals by comparison are 18-22 in one run games.

Conclusion
I guess it's pretty simple. The Cubs need to build a club that can win at Wrigley Field. Remember they built the place on a cemetary.

No comments: