Cubs MLB Roster

Cubs Organizational Depth Chart
40-Man Roster Info

40 players are on the MLB RESERVE LIST (roster is full) 

28 players on MLB RESERVE LIST are ACTIVE, and twelve players are on OPTIONAL ASSIGNMENT to minors. 

Last updated 3-26-2024
 
* bats or throws left
# bats both

PITCHERS: 15
Yency Almonte
Adbert Alzolay 
Javier Assad
Jose Cuas
Kyle Hendricks
* Shota Imanaga
Caleb Kilian
Mark Leiter Jr
* Luke Little
Julian Merryweather
Hector Neris 
* Drew Smyly
* Justin Steele
Jameson Taillon
* Jordan Wicks

CATCHERS: 2
Miguel Amaya
Yan Gomes

INFIELDERS: 7
* Michael Busch 
Nico Hoerner
Nick Madrigal
* Miles Mastrobuoni
Christopher Morel
Dansby Swanson
Patrick Wisdom

OUTFIELDERS: 4
* Cody Bellinger 
Alexander Canario
# Ian Happ
Seiya Suzuki
* Mike Tauchman 

OPTIONED: 12 
Kevin Alcantara, OF 
Michael Arias, P 
Ben Brown, P 
Alexander Canario, OF 
Pete Crow-Armstrong, OF 
Brennen Davis, OF 
Porter Hodge, P 
* Matt Mervis, 1B 
Daniel Palencia, P 
Keegan Thompson, P 
Luis Vazquez, INF 
Hayden Wesneski, P 

 



 

Minor League Rosters
Rule 5 Draft 
Minor League Free-Agents

The Hall of Fame Case for Ron Santo (Part 2 of 3)

On Monday December 8th, the Baseball Hall of Fame will announce the voting results of the Veterans Committee.  In a three part series, guest columnist and reader, “Dying Cub Fan” takes a look at the candidacy of former Cubs third basemen, Ron Santo. We ran this piece two years ago, but it's lost in Internet limbo and well, Santo deserves it, so we're running it again. Plus, the voting process has changed this year, as there are only 10 players for the committee to consider, so here's hoping this is the year.  You can join the revolution on Facebook as well.


 

Brooks Robinson

In 1964, third basemen won the MVP award in both the American League and the National League. Brooks Robinson won in the AL, playing for an Oriole team that won 97 games and finished third, and Ken Boyer won in the NL, playing for the Cardinals, who won 93 games and the pennant. The Cubs won 76 games and finished 8th. Santo had a better year than either Robinson or Boyer and finished 8th in MVP balloting. 6

 

AB

R

H

2B

3B

HR

RBI

BB

SO

BA

OBP

SLG

OPS+

Boyer

628

100

185

30

10

24

119

70

85

.295

.365

.489

130

Santo

592

94

185

33

13

30

114

86

96

.312

.398

.564

164

Robinson

612

82

194

35

3

28

118

51

64

.317

.368

.521

145

Santo had more home runs, a higher on-base percentage and a higher slugging percentage than either Robinson or Boyer. Santo won the Gold Glove over Boyer, who had won it the previous five years. Playing for teams that scored significantly more runs and had higher team on-base percentages than the Cubs, both Robinson and Boyer had more RBI than Santo; Robinson led the AL in RBI and Boyer led the NL (Santo finished second).

It is widely acknowledged that the MVP award does not always go the best player in the league, but it tends to go to players on teams that either win the pennant or come close. While there have been exceptions, very good players on mediocre or bad teams tend not to do as well in MVP voting as similar players on good teams. In the 1960s, no MVP winner in either league played for a team that won fewer than 90 games.7 The Cubs won 90 games or more once in that entire decade, in 1969 (with 92 wins).

Robinson finished in the top ten in MVP voting seven times in his career. Santo finished in the top ten four times. Some of this disparity can probably attributed to the fact that Santo’s teams were, by and large, much worse than Robinson’s. For example, both the Orioles and Cardinals were significantly better in 1964 than the Cubs were, at nearly every position one examines other than third base. The Orioles, aside from Brooks Robinson, had two other Hall of Famers in Luis Aparicio and Robin Roberts, as well as a wealth of very good young players, including pitchers Milt Pappas, Wally Bunker and Dave McNally. Boog Powell, at 22, was probably the best offensive player that the Orioles had; despite playing only 134 games, he had 39 homers, 99 rbi and an OPS+ of 176. The Cardinals, aside from Boyer, had Lou Brock and Bob Gibson, both Hall of Famers, and also had Ray Sadecki, Curt Simmons, Bill White, Curt Flood, Tim McCarver and Dick Groat. The Cubs had Santo, Billy Williams and Ernie Banks, although Banks was no longer a great player in 1964 (Banks’ OPS+ that year was actually below that of Norm Siebern, the Orioles’ first baseman). Larry Jackson did win 23 games for the Cubs that year, although as a whole the Orioles’ and Cardinals’ pitching was much better than the Cubs’. Both Boyer and Robinson were fine players, and I don’t mean to suggest that they were undeserving of their MVP awards. However, Santo was better than they were in 1964.

1964 was by far Robinson’s best year. He never came close to being as productive at the plate again. Santo, on the other hand, followed his 1964 season with three consecutive seasons that were nearly as good as his 1964 season, having OPS+ years of 146 in 1965, 161 in 1966 and 153 in 1967. Robinson never had another year where his OPS+ exceeded 125. Aside from 1964 and the three seasons cited above, Santo had an OPS+ greater than 125 in 1963, 1968, 1969 and 1972.

Santo was a significantly better batter than Robinson. He had far more power, walked a lot more and had a higher career batting average. Santo’s peak offensive value was considerably higher than Robinson’s, and Santo’s peak was longer and more sustained. Santo hit far more home runs in 15 seasons (342) than Robinson did in 23 (268). Santo could also be counted on to drive in more runs in a given season, to hit for a higher batting average, to walk far more often and to score more runs.

Defensively, the statistics support the conclusion that Robinson was better than Santo.8 Robinson committed fewer errors and was involved in many more double plays. Although their career range factors are quite similar, Robinson had more years with high range factors than Santo (although Santo’s peak years in terms of range factor, 3.56 in 1966 and 3.60 in 1967, exceeded Robinson’s highs of 3.49 in 1967 and 3.43 in 1974 by a wide margin). Robinson won 16 Gold Gloves; Santo won five. However, Gold Glove voting is probably not a definitive measure of fielding prowess; in all probability it is less reliable than MVP voting for making definitive assessments about a player’s worth. Many players have won more than one Gold Glove9, and there seems to have been a tendency for voters to award them based on past reputation. While I don’t doubt that Robinson was an excellent defensive third baseman late into his career, I have some trouble believing he deserved at least the Gold Gloves he won in the 1970s, when younger players such as Don Money, Graig Nettles and Aurelio Rodriguez could not pry the award out of his hands until the Orioles finally realized that his bat precluded him from continuing as a regular following the 1975 season.10 However, Robinson was generally regarded as perhaps the best defensive third baseman of all time.

Robinson was a better defensive third baseman than Santo, and was perhaps the best of all time defensively. However, I have trouble seeing how Robinson’s defensive superiority can offset Santo’s clear and substantial advantages on the offensive side, particularly in light of the fact that Santo was a very good defensive third baseman.11

Let’s compare two players who played second base in the Hall of Fame: Bill Mazeroski (career OPS+ of 84) and Nellie Fox (career OPS+ of 94). Mazeroski won 8 gold gloves; Fox won 3. Fox led the league in hits 4 times, led the league in triples once and won an MVP award; Mazeroski never won an MVP and never led the league in any offensive category, other than one year when he led the league in intentional walks. Fox scored 100 runs or better 4 times and finished in the top ten in the league in runs scored seven times; Mazeroski never scored more than 71 runs in a season and never finished in the top ten. Mazeroski’s career OBP was .299; Fox’s was .348. Mazeroski is regarded as perhaps the finest double play man of all time, but can anyone make a reasonable argument that he was a better player than Fox? Both were relatively light hitters (Fox hit .288 lifetime, Mazeroski hit .260 and their career slugging percentages are quite close, even though Mazeroski hit 100 more home runs), although Fox was clearly a more productive offensive player.

Consider another example from players who played shortstop: Cal Ripken had a career OPS+ of 112 while Ozzie Smith had a career OPS+ of 87. Ozzie Smith clearly had much more range than Ripken and is generally acclaimed as one of the best defensive shortstops ever (winning thirteen Gold Gloves), a claim never made about Ripken (although he did win two Gold Gloves). Which one was the better player? How much does Smith’s defensive superiority offset Ripken’s clear offensive superiority? I would think that most major league managers and GMs, if they had to choose, would take Ripken over Smith and Fox over Mazeroski without losing too much sleep over it, preferring a good defender with good offensive value over a superlative defender with marginal offensive value. Santo’s career OPS+ was 125, Robinson’s 104. Do Robinson’s defensive advantages outweigh Santo’s offensive advantages? For me, I don’t see how they can; the offensive deficit is too large. Even factoring in his 1964 MVP year, Robinson was a fair offensive player (and, at times, actually a below-average one), a .270 hitter with some power who did not walk often. Santo was considerably better at the plate. I don’t see the defense making up the difference.

Robinson’s teams did far better than Santo’s, winning five division titles, four pennants (including one in 1966, before there was a division split) and two World Series. All told, Robinson played in 9 postseason series. Robinson was World Series MVP in 1970; in that series, he made several legendary defensive plays. There is no question that this should be given some weight, and should factor in Robinson’s favor. The question is, how much? Brooks Robinson was unquestionably an integral part of the Orioles’ success. However, the Orioles did not win a pennant until they acquired Frank Robinson in 1966, and did not win another during Brooks’ career after they traded Frank away after the 1971 season. The Orioles in the late 60s and early 70s won for a lot of reasons: great pitching (they led the league in team ERA in 1969, 1970 and 1971), great offense (they had team OPS+ numbers of 122 in 1966, 119 in 1969, 114 in 1970 and 122 in 1971 and led the league in runs scored in each of those years except 1969, when they finished second), great defense and great managing. Brooks Robinson’s OPS+ numbers in the four years Baltimore won the pennant (1966, 1969, 1970 and 1971) were below the Orioles’ team OPS+ numbers in each year except 1966, when his OPS+ was 124 and the team’s was 122. In 1969 he batted .234 with an OPS+ of 92. At least three or four Oriole players in each of those years were more valuable offensively than Brooks Robinson. Aside from Frank Robinson, those Oriole teams had superb leadoff hitters in Curt Blefary and Don Buford and significant power from Boog Powell. Merv Rettenmund, Paul Blair and Davey Johnson also contributed more offensively than Brooks Robinson.

There are a lot of players who played on pennant winners and World Series champions who are not in the Hall of Fame. Although playing on a winner should be given some weight, the fact that someone played on a winner is not sufficient, in and of itself, to put someone in the Hall of Fame. For example, there were many fine players on the 1950s Yankees, such as Gil McDougald, who are not in and should not be in. Similarly, performance in a World Series or playoff series should be given some weight, but no one will put Joe Rudi, Tommie Agee or Graig Nettles in the Hall of Fame simply because of outstanding defensive play in a World Series. I would agree that in an otherwise marginal case, factors such as play for a pennant winner or post-season performance can make a difference in determining whether someone should make the Hall of Fame, but I don’t think either Robinson or Santo is an otherwise marginal case. Santo never played for a division winner or pennant winner, but, again, how much of that is his fault? As for giving Robinson an “edge” over Santo, I don’t see how a great performance in one World Series can tip the scales in Robinson’s favor when Santo’s entire career was better. If you give credit for Robinson hitting .429 in the 1970 World Series, shouldn’t you also take away credit for his hitting .053 in the 1969 World Series, which the Orioles lost? How much credit do you give to Robinson based on the fact he played on a great team? While the Cubs had improved from 1964 and were competitive in the late ’60s and early ’70s, the Orioles were markedly better than the Cubs at that time (the Orioles averaged 106 wins a year from 1969 through 1971). I do not see Robinson’s presence on these teams making up the difference that Santo’s offensive numbers give him.

None of this is meant in disrespect of Brooks Robinson. Bill James in 2001 ranked him as the 91st best player of all time, and he is deservedly in the Hall of Fame. However, Santo was a better player.

Traynor and Lindstrom

In his 1994 book on the Hall of Fame, Bill James pointed out that throughout baseball history, Hall of Famers have accounted for approximately 10% of all at bats. He demonstrated that this was true not only when examining baseball history as a whole, but also when examining individual years and decades, with the notable exception being the period from 1925-35, with the percentage of Hall of Fame at bats being over 20% in each year during that period except one and being as high as 24% in 1929. James argues from these numbers that the players in those years are “disproportionately represented in the Hall of Fame, overrepresented by about 100 percent. There are about twice as many players from that generation in the Hall of Fame as there are from any other.”12 Part of this is probably due to the unusually high batting statistics from that era. However, as discussed briefly above, many of those numbers were not that remarkable in the context in which they occurred. Lindstrom and Traynor, neither of whom was an elite offensive player when compared to his contemporaries, are from that era. Traynor was elected by the BBWAA in 1948. Lindstrom was selected by the Veteran’s Committee during the 1970s, and has proved to be a highly controversial choice, one that bas been cited as evidence of incompetence and cronyism by the Veteran’s Committee during those years.13 As was shown above, neither Lindstrom or Traynor stood out amongst their contemporaries the way Santo did.

The conditions under which Lindstrom and Traynor played were very different from those in place during Santo’s career. First, the level of play was more competitive in 1968 than it was in 1930. For one thing, in 1930, major league baseball was still whites only; in the 60s there were many very talented African-American and Latin ballplayers in the National League. Also, many of the hitting-friendly ballparks in existence in 1930, such as Ebbets Field, the Baker Bowl in Philadelphia and Sportsman’s Park, were no longer in the National League, replaced by parks that were much more favorable to pitchers, such as Dodger Stadium, the Astrodome, Candlestick Park and Busch Stadium, with deeper fences and more foul territory. Gloves were better in the 1960s. Night baseball did not exist in 1930. Relief pitchers were not used as effectively in 1930 as they came to be used later. As described above, the mid- to late-sixties also featured an enlarged strike zone and elevated mounds. Lindstrom and Traynor did not compete in the environment Santo did; in their era, hits and runs were far more plentiful and worth less. The inflated batting statistics of that era, and their superficial appeal, have led to overrepresentation of players from that era in the Hall of Fame.

It is far easier to say that Santo fits within the top 10% of players playing regularly (to whom the number of total at bats in any period can be attributed) during his years in the game than it is to argue that Traynor or Lindstrom belongs in the top 10% during their time. Having said that, Traynor’s case for being in the Hall of Fame is a decent one even though Santo’s offensive numbers (other than batting average) relative to his contemporaries were better. Lindstrom’s case is much less strong. Although Lindstrom had a few good years, he simply did not have enough of them and, even in his best years, was not at the level of Santo’s best years.

Bill James on Fred Lindstrom: “As an offensive player he was by no means one of the top players of his time, and as a defensive player he was so outstanding that he was shifted to the outfield in mid-career. His selection to the Hall of Fame, while it ignores players like Ken Boyer, Ron Santo, Ed Yost and Stan Hack, was a bad joke.” (1988 Historical Baseball Abstract, p. 368). Lindstrom was only a regular for seven seasons. He did not play after he was 30, and did not play as a regular after he was 27.

A great deal of the appeal of Traynor and Lindstrom to Hall of Fame selectors would seem to have come from their batting averages. Traynor and Lindstrom each had a higher career batting average than Santo. Traynor hit .320 for his career. During his career, the league batting average was .295, meaning that his career average was 8.47% higher than the league average. Lindstrom hit .311 for his career. During his career, the league batting average was .290, making his career average 7.24% higher than the league average. Santo hit .277 for his career. During Santo’s career, the league batting average was .268, giving him a career average that was 3.36% higher than the league average. A player who had a batting average that was 8.47% or 7.24% better than a league average of .268 would hit .290 or .287, respectively. A player who had a batting average that was 3.36% higher than a league batting average of .295 or .290 would hit .305 or .300, respectively. Of course, it would be wrong to assert that, had Traynor or Lindstrom played in the 1960s, or had Santo played in the ’20s and ’30s, such averages represent how they would have performed, because we cannot know that. However, as noted above, a key measure of a player is the player’s performance relative to his peers at the time he played. While there are those who would argue that a .320 career batting average is impressive under any circumstances, it clearly does not represent the same level of achievement in the era that Traynor played as it would have in the era that Santo played. Furthermore, although Traynor and Lindstrom were better relative to their contemporaries in terms of batting average than Santo was relative to his contemporaries, when on base percentage and power are factored in, Santo has a distinct advantage, as the OPS+ numbers above show.

References

6 Dick Allen, who also played third base that year, also had a better year at the plate than Robinson or Boyer, with an OPS+ of 162 in his rookie season.

7 Cf. http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/bp/1409616.html, an article by Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus.

8 Here I insert the obligatory caveat concerning defensive statistics: that they may well be driven by factors that are not measurable and that are beyond the control of the player. For example, an infielder’s range factor may vary due to whether he plays on a team with a ground ball pitching staff, and the number of double plays of an infielder may vary due to the skill of teammates.

9 See http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/gold_glove_nl.shtml#multi.

10 By contrast, when Santo won his first Gold Glove in 1964, he beat out Ken Boyer, who had won the five previous Gold Gloves at third base in the NL and who was, as noted above, awarded the 1964 NL MVP. That Santo knocked off a defending repeat winner is perhaps a particular validation of his worth as a fielder in 1964.

11 Santo shares the NL records for third basemen for having led the league in putouts and assists 7 times each. Santo shares the major league record for having led the league in double plays 6 times and having led the league in chances 9 times.

12 The Politics of Glory at 251-52. A similar bias has been identified in James Vail’s book, The Road to Cooperstown: A Critical History of Baseball’s Hall of Fame Selection Process, McFarland (2001), in which the author examined the statistics of players who met the Hall of Fame’s ten-year service requirement and who had been elected. Players from the 1920-45 era currently comprise about 33% of all Hall of Fame members.

13 Lindstrom was selected when Bill Terry and Waite Hoyt, two former teammates, were on the Veteran’s Committee. See The Road to Cooperstown at 107. See also The Politics of Glory at 162-171. During the time Bill Terry and Frank Frisch served on the Veteran’s Committee in the late 60s and early 70s, several players were elected whose Hall of Fame credentials were extremely weak, but who had played with Frisch or Terry on the Giants or the Cardinals.

Comments

If all the people who claim they voted for Santo actually did votefor Santo into the HOF, he would all ready be there. I'm looking at you, Joe Morgan....I've asked before, I'll ask again, who are the hold outs in Ronnie's vote?

[ ]

In reply to by navigator

Poor Ron. Maybe he should do a Joe Morgan special and put down all the current players to make himself look better. Also he should pronounce the word 'comfort', 'caaumfort'.

I never read this whole article. Too much of it weighs on Santo's tendency to take walks. One bad snippet though is when he compares Ozzie and Brooks to Ripken and Santo. Ripken won a ROY and two MVPs and went to lots of ASG's as the leading vote getter. That aside, he's talking about defense. FRAA Santo 60 Ripken 160 Robinson 286 Smith 247 Which one of those four is the least alike? Smith also stole 580 Bases, something that OPS+ doesn't even look at.

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

It's not my argument, I am just pointing out the flaws in it. Nice try though. Let me elaborare before you start trolling a little harder. 226 runs = roughly 22 wins. That's a lot of wins. Three or four MVP caliber seasons worth. Santo hit .277 with 342 HR's and 1331 RBI's Robinson hit .267 with 268 HR's and 1357 RBI's. If you're going to dumb down the defense into 'Well Santo was nearly as good' but obsess over the offense, it's just as valid to obsess over the defense and realize that Santo wasn't nearly as good, he was two rungs below Robinson, and dumb down the offense. My problem with these three articles, though interesting is that they're not objective. The question never is, 'Should Santo be in the Hall of Fame?', it's always a statement 'Santo should be in the Hall of Fame', now let me illustrate it.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Neal, I'm sorry you didn't like the article. As I recall, you didn't much care for it when it originally ran two years ago. I didn't use FRAA because I am somewhat statistically challenged and I don't like to use numbers that I can't calculate myself, either due to my limited brainpower or because I lack access to the information or databases necessary to calculate them. I did include a brief discussion of win shares, however. As I understand it, a lot of the Baseball Prospectus stats are proprietary to them. If we are going to use BP stats, I think it behooves us to look at WARP3 (which includes fielding). Santo's career WARP3 number is 112.8. Robinson's, despite his playing 8 more full seasons, is 119.3. Career numbers sometimes obscure the impact of big years. Between 1963 and 1968 Santo had a WARP3 of 62.5, which ranks as the 14th best five year span of any player since 1900. Those big years are probably one of Santo's best arguments for merting election. Robinson had a longer career than Santo, framed at the beginning and the end by seasons which added little offensive value. for about twelve years in the middle of his career (1960-1971), he was a decent offensive player and a superlative defensive one. Santo was in the majors at 20, but faded rapidly after he was 30 and retired at 33. If you compare 1960 through 1974, when they were contemporaries (period framed by Robinson's first and last good years, and including Santo's rookie season (where he played in only 95 games) and year with the White Sox, the WARP3 totals are Robinson 113 and Santo 112.7. From 1963 through 1968 Robinson played well and Santo played much better. The big point I was trying to make of course was that if Robinson is in, Santo should go in too. If you did not read the whole article, you may have glossed over the point where I said that "Traynor’s case for being in the Hall of Fame is a decent one." Lindstrom was inexcusable, but I do not have a problem with Traynor being in. As I said elsewhere, if Santo's argument was predicated simply on his being better than Lindstrom or Kell, I would agree he should not go in. I think the numbers show that he was not just better than they were, he was better than half of the current third baemen in the Hall, including Robinson and Traynor, who were both BBWAA (not VC) selections.

[ ]

In reply to by dcf

Well, I have a small quibble to you saying that you won't use the BP's proprietary stats, but consistently use OPS+, which I am relatively confident you're not calculating yourself. But when you look at the WARP3 numbers, you can see that Robinson's defense was so valuable that he and Santo were essentially deadlocked during Satno's career. When you start talking about career OPS's then you should throw out those years that Robinson played from 34+, it's not Robinson's fault that Santo couldn't play anymore, nor should Santo be rewarded for having a short career when being evaluated for an honor where a long career clearly is a valued assett. There's some other minor things that bothered me, like I suspect though haven't researched, that you cherry picked your OPS+ seasons benchmarks to put Santo in a better light. But all in all it's a pretty thorough analysis, and and interesting read. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and it looks like, just as I've argued before, that people who played at and reported the time didn't consider Ronny a HoF'er. We may never know why, but it would certainly be an interesting study to find out why.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

I cherry picked nothing on OPS+. All of their seasons are listed. It's not Santo's fault that he had 4 OPS+ seasons better than Robinson's best or 7 seasons better than Robinson's second best. A big part of the argument was that Santo had a higher and more sustained offensive peak than Robinson, which is frankly inarguable. Also, I did not say that I calculated the OPS. I said I avoided information that I could not calculate myself based on available information. I can calculate OPS+. I did not use FRAA, BRAR, FRAR or WARP3 because I do not have the information available to calculate them. I can certainly run formulas. As I said, I don't like using them unless I know how the elements of them are calculated.

Someone over at MLBTradeRumors is making an argument for the acquisition of Peavy. The headliner: Peavy is a staunch Christian and therefore will be a better clubhouse presence than atheists/agnostics. Brilliant. Someone should tell this to Todd Walker. I make fun of this moronocity as a staunch (whatever the fuck that means) Christian, myself.

[ ]

In reply to by The Joe

well he should be gunning for COL, then. COL has some not-so-hidden issues going on there with extreme christianity. and no...i'm not calling it a negative or destructive or blah blah blah...but it is a huge part of their clubhouse to the point where it effects team chemistry decisions. ARZ, when being run more directly by Joe Sr., had a similar (but less formal) structure where Joe. Sr. favored character and faith as a starting point for players on his D-Backs. the man made a bold statement about bonds in the mid-90s (pre-HR-mania of the late 90s) that he will *never* play for the D-Backs based solely on how he handles himself in the public arena...specifically incidents at meetings/gathersing and run-ins at airports.

Wasn't Peavy the jagbag that went after D Lee? That would be an interesting meeting in the clubhouse. The Cubs will probably try to sell seats to that somehow too. There is no question in my mind that Santo should be in the hall of fame. He was a dominant player at his position in his league for a extended period of time. Brooks benefited from national exposure in postseason ball and I can't help but wonder if that had been Santo instead of Robinson, would we be having this discussion yearly about Brooks? I grew up watching the wizard of Oz in south central IL, and even though I hate the cardinals (hate is probably an understatement) You would not believe the defensive plays he made. The man truly redefined the position and I have never seen anyone as good with the glove since (Vizquel never was the acrobat Oz was).

[ ]

In reply to by The E-Man

Thanks for the help E-man! I believe that if Santo doesn't make it as a player, he will be in the hall as an announcer eventually. I just personally would like to see him make it based on his on the field accomplishments, not popularity as an announcer (lets face it, not too many announcers can get away with walking into the booth after the break and saying "what just happened?" on the air, legitimate reasons for his lateness or not) Cub broadcasts wouldn't be the same without him! These articles on Santo have been fantastic! Is James as emphatic about Dawson getting into the Hall? Also.... What right fielder/lefty bat makes us more athletic? I hesitate to even ask, but is there any chance we get Roberts in his walk year and move Dero to right? This would solve the leadoff issue, address athleticism, and right field issues. I think Dero is athletic enough to perform better in the outfield defensively if given his full attention for the season.

[ ]

In reply to by second sacker

"that if Santo doesn't make it as a player, he will be in the hall as an announcer eventually" Joe Carter and that annoying woman who does Yankees games, too. "Roger is in George's Bawx!!"

Mike Sweeney here in KC was a big Christian too, in fact, probably the most hardcore Christian conservative in the big leagues. I think the reaction was pretty predictable; it totally rubbed some players the wrong way, it really made a positive difference for several young players, overall, he was just a magnetic guy that you either gravitated towards or you did not. No big deal. You won't find anyone that would ever say that Sweeney wasn't the NICEST guy in the bigs though, that is guaranteed. So if Peavy is the same way, I don't see how it could possibly hurt anything.

if I may... Ron Santo:Brooks Robinson::Alan Trammell:Ozzie Smith::Tim Raines:Rickey Henderson

all three were great players overshadowed by someone a little greater....Santo's the best of those not in imo.

I'd think Maddux planned this the whole way...

he'll be only the 2nd pitcher with over 3000 K's and less than 1000 BB's...by one walk.

The other pitcher is Ferguson Jenkins.

Recent comments

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    18-year old SS Jefferson Rojas almost made the AA Tennessee Opening Day roster, and he is a legit shortstop, so I would expect him to be an MLB Top 100 prospect by mid-season. 

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    Among the relievers in the system, I expect RHRP Hunter Bigge at AAA Iowa and RHRP Ty Johnson at South Bend to have breakout seasons on 2024, and among the starters I see LHP Drew Gray and RHP Will Sanders at South Bend and RHP Naz Mule at ACL Cubs as the guys who will make the biggest splash. Also, Jaxon Wiggins is throwing bullpen sides, so once he is ready for game action he could be making an impact at Myrtle Beach by June.

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    I expect OF Christian Franklin to have a breakout season at AA Tennessee in 2024. In another organization that doesn't have PCA, Caissie, K. Alcantara, and Canario in their system, C. Franklin would be a Top 10 prospect. 

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    The Reds trading Joe Boyle for Sam Moll at last year's MLB Trade Deadline was like the Phillies trading Ben Brown to the Cubs for David Robertson at the MLB TD in 2022. 

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    Javier Assad started the Lo-A game (Myrtle Beach versus Stockton) on the Cubs backfields on Wednesday as his final Spring Training tune-up. He was supposed to throw five innings / 75 pitches. However, I was at the minor league road games at Fitch so I didn't see Assad pitch. 

  • crunch (view)

    cards put j.young on waivers.

    they really tried to make it happen this spring, but he put up a crazy bad slash of .081/.244/.108 in 45PA.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Seconded!!!

  • crunch (view)

    another awesome spring of pitching reports.  thanks a lot, appreciated.

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    Here are the Cubs pitchers reports from Tuesday afternoon's Cardinals - Cubs game art Sloan Park in Mesa:

    SHOTA IMANAGA
    FB: 90-92 
    CUT: 87-89 
    SL: 82-83 
    SPLIT: 81-84
    CV: 73-74 
    COMMENT: Worked three innings plus two batters in the fourth... allowed four runs (three earned) on eight hits (six singles and two doubles) walked one, and struck out six (four swinging), with a 1/2 GO/AO... he threw 73 pitches (52 strikes - 10 swing & miss - 19 foul balls)... surrendered one run in the top of the 1st on a one-out double off Cody Bellinger's glove in deep straight-away CF followed one out later by two consecutive two-out bloop singles, allowed two runs (one earned) in the 2nd after retiring the first two hitters (first batter had a nine-pitch AB with four consecutive two-strike foul balls before being retired 3 -U) on a two-out infield single (weak throw on the run by Nico Hoerner), a hard-contact line drive RBI double down the RF line, and an E-1 (missed catch) by Imanaga on what should been an inning-ending 3-1 GO, gave up another run in the 3rd on a two-out walk on a 3-2 pitch and an RBI double to LF, and two consecutive singles leading off the top of the 4th before being relieved (runners were ultimately left stranded)... threw 18 pitches in the 1st inning (14 strikes - two swing & miss, one on FB and the other on a SL - four foul balls), 24 pitches in the 2nd inning (17 strikes - three swing & miss, one on FB, two SPLIT - six foul balls), 19 pitches in the 3rd inning (13 strikes - seven swing & miss, three on SL, two on SPLIT, one on FB - three foul balls), and 12 pitches without retiring a batter in the top of the 4th (8 strikes - no swing & miss - four foul balls)... Imanaga throws a lot of pitches per inning, but it's not because he doesn't throw strikes...  if anything, he throws too many strikes (he threw 70% strikes on Tuesday)... while he gets a ton of swing & miss (and strikeouts), he also induces a lot of foul balls because he doesn't try to make hitters chase his pitches by throwing them out of the strike zone... rather, he uses his very diverse pitch mix to get swing & miss (and lots of foul balls as well)... he also is a fly ball pitcher who will give up more than his share of HR during the course of the season...   
     
    JOE NAHAS
    FB: 90-92 
    SL: 83-85 
    CV: 80-81 
    COMMENT: Was called up from the Hi-A South Bend group at Minor League Camp for the day... relieved Imanaga with runners at first and second and no outs in the top of the 4th, and after an E-2 catcher's interference committed by Miguel Amaya loaded he bases, Nahas struck out the side (one swinging & two looking)... threw 16 pitches (11 strikes - two swinging)...   

    YENCY ALMONTE
    FB: 89-92 
    CH: 86 
    SL: 79 
    COMMENT: Threw an eight-pitch 5th (five strikes - no swing & miss), with a 5-3 GO for the first out and an inning-ending 4-6-3 DP after a one-out single... command was a bit off but he worked through it...   

    FRANKIE SCALZO JR
    FB: 94-95
    CH: 88 
    SL: 83
    COMMENT: Was called up from the AA Tennessee group at Minor League Camp for the day and worked the 6th inning... got the first outs easily (a P-5 and a 4-3 GO) on just three pitches, before allowing three consecutive two-out hard-contact hits (a double and two singles), with the third hit on pitch # 9 resulting in a runner being thrown out at the plate by RF Christian Franklin for the third out of the inning... 

    MICHAEL ARIAS
    FB: 94-96
    CH: 87-89
    SL: 82-83
    COMMENT: Was called up from the AA Tennessee group at Minor League Camp for the day and allowed a hard-contact double on the third pitch of the 7th inning (a 96 MPH FB), and the runner came around to score on a 4-3 GO and a WP... gave up two other loud contact outs (an L-7 and an F-9)... threw 18 pitches (only 10 strikes - only one swing & miss)... stuff is electric but still very raw and he continues to have difficulty commanding it, and while he has the repertoire of a SP, he throws too many pitches-per-inning to be a SP and not enough strikes to be a closer... he is most definitely still a work-in-progress...   

    ZAC LEIGH: 
    FB: 93-94 
    CH: 89 
    SL: 81-83 
    CV: 78
    COMMENT: Was called up from the AA Tennessee group at Minor League Camp for the day and tossed a 1-2-3 8th (4-3 GO, K-swinging on a sweeper, K-looking on another sweeper)... threw 14 pitches (11 strikes - one swing & miss - eight foul balls)... kept pumping pitches into the strike zone but had difficulty putting hitters away (ergo a ton of foul balls)... FB velo is nowhere near the 96-98 MPH it was a couple of years ago when he was a Top 30 prospect, but his secondaries are better...   

    JOSE ROMERO:  
    FB: 93-95
    SL: 82-84
    COMMENT: Was called up from the Hi-A South Bend group at Minor League Camp for the day and worked the 9th (14 pitches - only six strikes- no swing & miss) and allowed a solo HR after two near-HR fly outs to the warning track, before getting a 3-1 GO to end the inning... it was like batting practice when he wasn't throwing pitches out of the strike zone...

  • crunch (view)

    pablo sandoval played 3rd and got a couple ABs (strikeout, single!) in the OAK@SF "exhibition"

    mlb officially authenticated the ball of the single he hit.  nice.

    he's in surprisingly good shape considering his poor body condition in his last playing seasons.  he's not lean, but he looks healthier.  good for him.