Morning Walk-thru - Hey! Hey!

What the hell is going on here?...The Cubs finally gave Ted Lily (2.18 ERA) some support yesterday and beat the Brew Crew 9-3. The win leaves Chicago at 8-13, good enough for last place in the NL Central and the second worst record in the National League. But why have they been so bad thus far?

I ask because the Yun' Ball Coach brought up this interesting stat via email: the Cubs have actually scored more runs (97) then they've allowed (84). The only other team in the division that can make that claim is Milwaukee and they're in first place, but their run differential is a paltry one, while the Cubs have scored the second most runs in the division and given up the second fewest.

And they're in last place.

The statistical oddities continue. Below are the Cubs offensive rankings going in to yesterday's action (NL rank, Central rank):

H (2nd, 1st), 2B (1st, 1st), HR (9th, 4th), RBI (6th, 2nd), TB (4th, 2nd), BB (13th, 5th), SO (5th, 1st), OBP (9th, 2nd), AVG (3rd, T-1st).

Based on those stats, it's hard to see how the Cubs are in the Central cellar. In three of the categories (H, 2B, AVG) they're leading the league and in three of the other "good" ones they're trailing only Milwaukee. Of course, they're leading the division in strike outs and are second worst in walks, but even with that, they're still one off the lead in OBP.

Must be the pitching. Let's look at some of those numbers:

ERA (6th, 2nd), R (7th, T-2nd), HR (15th, 6th), BB (11th, 6th), SO (1st, 1st), WHIP (3rd, 2nd), AVG (2nd, 1st), OBA (3rd, 2nd), K/9 (1st, 1st), H/9 (2nd, 1st)

.

The bad stats here are pretty glaring, home runs and walks, but in every other category the Cubs are right in the mix (and nowhere near the worst team in the Central.) So, to ask the titular question, what the hell? Why aren't the Cubs at least .500?

I really don't know. I guess it comes down to the old playoff cliche: timely pitching and timely hitting. Over the long run they have been pretty good, but in the impact stats HRs and BBs they're struggling both offensively and defensively.

On one hand, this could be an encouraging sign. Eventually, these stats will have to show up in the won-loss ledger, right?

On the other, it really depresses me as it confirms something I've long suspected, the Cubs are bad because they're the Cubs.

Let's play two, dominate 90% of the statistical categories that matter, and lose them both.

WarrNuggs can't complete their waltz across Texas...After being shocked on their home floors in the respective Game Ones, San Antonio and Dallas both responded with victories.

Game Two is always the most important game in any seven-game series. It's the fan's first chance to see how players, coaches and teams respond to the information gathered from the first game, and, unfortunately for me and anyone else hoping for an upset, it went pretty much by the book.

Golden State and Denver both looked impressive in small spurts, but Dallas and San Antonio each did what they had to do. Conventional wisdom says that if you're the road team all you hope for is a split, but it still feels like the Texas heavyweights have things under control.

What fun is that?

I can't wait to read about this on 38pitches.com...Orioles broadcaster, Gary Thorne, said during last night's game that Doug Mirabelli had told him that Curt Schilling's bloody sock from the 2004 ALCS was a fake. Painted for publicity not bloodied and sodden with shear courage.

Of course, every Red Sox representative scoffed at the notion. Mirabelli called Thorne an (expletive). Theo used an (expletive). Schilling will probably never speak to a media member again.

But the solution seems pretty simple. Pull the sock out of the HOF and do some tests. This will never happen, however. The stakes are too high. The sock is part of baseball lore now, a mythic talisman commemorating the end of the Curse. What would happen if it was a fake?

Interested to see how this plays out.