Today, as with the first game in the series, the Cubs and A's played a one-run game, this time with some Michael Barrett magic in the bottom of the ninth. I was a big supporter of Barrett's two seasons ago, but was a bit wishy-washy on his acquisition this offseason (thinking the Cubs had acquired a younger Damian Miller, whoopee). But you can't argue with the results so far (313/361/518): how smart has he made Hendry look to this point?

Last year, the Cubs were magic in one-run games, going 27-17. How are they faring in close games so far this year?

           RUN DIFFERENTIAL
            1     2     3
RECORD     9-12  6-5   5-3

Today, as with the first game in the series, the Cubs and A's played a one-run game, this time with some Michael Barrett magic in the bottom of the ninth.  I was a big supporter of Barrett's two seasons ago, but was a bit wishy-washy on his acquisition this offseason (thinking the Cubs had acquired a younger Damian Miller, whoopee).  But you can't argue with the results so far (313/361/518):  how smart has he made Hendry look to this point?

Last year, the Cubs were magic in one-run games, going 27-17.  How are they faring in close games so far this year?
           RUN DIFFERENTIAL
            1     2     3
RECORD     9-12  6-5   5-3
They've been about average.  Why do some teams win close games and others don't?  Tons of theories are out there.  Perhaps the manager is the cause, though you'd be hard-pressed to prove it (and harder-pressed to convince those on either side of that issue to listen to your arguments).  Maybe it's the bullpen, and I think I remember reading something somewhere that said good bullpens seemed to be more closely tied to teams that win close games (but I'm not sure, and it's Saturday evening, and I can't be bothered to look this up at the moment).  Others think it's due to a notorious L Word.  Luck.


Whatever the cause, many people would say that great teams win the close games; Rob Neyer, however, thinks this is bollocks.  I tend to agree with Rob.  In discussing the Yankees having the best record in baseball, Rob says,

[The Yankees have] played almost exactly as well as another half-dozen teams, and they've got the record they've got for one reason: In games at Yankee Stadium decided by one run, the Yankees are 9-1. Yes, yes ... I know that great teams will win more than their fair share of one-run games, especially at home. But as I've mentioned many, many times in this space, the mark of a great team is not the ability to win close games. The mark of a great team is the ability to win blowouts.


Okay.  So how have the Cubs fared in blowouts?  Very well, as it turns out.  In games in which the final score showed a difference of seven of more runs, the Cubs are a tidy 8-4.  If you expand the field to a more generous five-run differential, then the Cubs are a whopping 15-5.  Nice.

The Cubs' ability to win big is the reason why they have the best record in baseball according to the basic versions of the Pythagorean standings (at bottom of page found in that link).  The Cubs, at 41-26 through Saturday's game, are a nose ahead of the Cardinals for the best runs-scored/runs-given-up differential in baseball.  While this tells us nothing about the past (the Cubs' record is their record is their record), it is a good sign for the rest of the season.  If the Cubs can have the best run differential in baseball while losing big chunks of Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, and Sammy Sosa, what are they going to be like in the second half, given better health?

The rubber game (again) against Oakland is tomorrow.  Let's hope for a blowout; the Cubs seem to be pretty good at those this year.