What's the difference?

The Brewers are in town for five games in four days in what not that long ago we all thought would be a critical series to determine which team would win the NL Central and probably get a first round bye in the playoffs and which team would be stuck trying to survive a best two of three Wild Card series. But the Brewers went on a ludicrous stretch where they went 24-4 while the Cubs staggered along at 14-14 over the same span. Milwaukee gained ten games in the standings and comes into this week with an eight game lead in the division. Yesterday, when the Cubs rallied (something we've rarely seen) to beat the Pirates and the Brewers rally to beat the Reds fell one run short in extra innings (after Milwaukee tied the game in the top of the ninth--of course they did), the Cubs gained a game on Milwaukee in the standings for the first time since July 30.

The Cubs could sweep the Brewers in this series and cut the lead to three games with 34 games to go. Sure they could.

They could also get swept and be 13 out.

We scratch our heads and marvel at how the Brewers win all these games.

Them?

But the fact remains that the Cubs are as culpable for the eight game deficit because their offense has been mostly crap since the All-Star break.

In fact, here are a few numbers that provide most of the difference between the two teams.

18 - The number of consecutive games between July 26 and August 15 that the Cubs lost when they trailed at any point during a game. 1-0 after the first? The Cubs couldn't overcome it.

18 - The number of times the Brewers came back to win games over that same stretch when they trailed in a game. Huh. I wonder if that's significant?

But it's even worse than you might think.

Oh it's not even just that the Cubs lost 18 straight games when they fell behind, the next number I have for you will blow your fucking mind.

This would make a cool shirt, right?

And you know what? There might even be others.

Buy some crap

Three - That's the number of those 18 games when the Cubs came back to take a lead at any point. Three! And in each case they erased a whopping one run deficit only to blow it anyway. Every other time they fell behind and they just stayed behind. They just laid there.

On August 4 against Cincinnati when they trailed 1-0 after two, took a 2-1 lead in the third and lost 3-2.

On July 21 they trailed the Royals 1-0 in the second, took a 4-1 lead in the bottom of the inning and lost 12-4.

And, on July 5 they fell behind the Cardinals 3-2 in the top of the sixth, came back to take a 4-3 lead in the bottom of the inning, and even tacked on an all-important State Farm insurance run in the seventh, only to blow it and lost 8-6 thanks to Brad Keller giving up five runs in the eighth.

If you got as much as a two-run lead on the Cubs at any point, it was over.

So while Milwaukee was winning 18 come from behind the games, the Cubs were losing that many in a row and in 15 of them never coming back to take a lead for even a single pitch. How fun.

The Cubs have won two in a row now so for them that's considered red hot. But even in the wins they've staggered to of late, have you noticed how hard it seems to be for them to score? And how even when they do score they never seem to be able to tack on more than a run per inning?

It seems that say, because it's because it's true.

In August, the Cubs have played 131 offensive innings (you can take offensive to mean either thing), and in those innings they have scored two or more runs eight times.

Eight!

Over that same span, the Brewers have scored two or more runs...33 times!

Thirty-three!

Hell, Milwaukee has scored five runs in an inning in August nearly as many times (five) as the Cubs have scored two. Would you like to know how many times the Cubs have scored five runs in an inning in August? The answer will not surprise you. It's zero! Which is the same number of times they've scored three runs in an inning. And one fewer than the number of times they have scored four.

On August 9 in St. Louis the Cubs scored two runs in the first and four in the second. Since that "outburst" they have scored more than one run in an inning three times in nine games.

They haven't scored more than two runs in an inning at Wrigley Field in August. They last did it in the seventh inning of their July 22 win over the Royals when they scored three runs in that inning, the final one when Kyle Tucker stole home. Totally normal stuff.

They last scored four in an inning the night before against the Royals when they took a 4-0 lead in the second and then lost 12-4.

They last scored five or more runs in an inning at Wrigley on July 6 when they scored five in the third to take a 10-0 lead in a game they won 11-0.

The Cubs average five runs per game which is third in the NL behind the Brewers and Dodgers who are both at 5.2. But the difference is when they scored those runs.

The guys at The Athletic (mostly Sahadevl) keep trying to convince us that the Cubs have an elite offense, but that hasn't been true for a while. At the All-Star break, the Cubs were averaging 5.3 runs per game to the Brewers' 4.8.

Since the All-Star break?

The Brewers are averaging 6.9 runs per game and the Cubs are averaging 3.8.

Holy crap.

But, as a helpful guide for Craig Counsell, I have a fix for him.

I have a new batting order! I know, the last refuge of the desperate offense, but I think we've easily reached that point.

1. Matt Shaw - He's been the Cubs best hitter by far over the last 30 games (.943 OPS over that span), and sure his on base average has been bad (.300) but nobody's has been worth a damn. I'm tired of the one guy on the team who is hitting getting the fewest at bats. Lead him off, he can't do any worse than Michael Busch has done there (.188/.247/412).
2. Petecrow Armstrong - If you are going to insist on running to try to jump start your offense, put your two fastest guys at the top of the order. Besides, if you get the dumbass idea to bunt Petecrow with a runner already in scoring position, it'll be slightly less ridiculous if he's batting second than when he's hitting third. Over Pete's last 30 he's been bad (.234/.283/.450) but at least what little power the Cubs still have is hitting 1-2.
3. Kyle Tucker - You only have him for 39 more games, you might as well ride him all the way. It's kind of stunning that a guy who hasn't had a prolonged slump since his rookie year has been this terrible for so long. In his last 30 he's (.190/.331/.248). Yikes.
4. Seiya Suzuki - Every year I marvel at how his final numbers always look more impactful than it felt while watching the games. This year in the first half, it didn't apply. But he's dragging his numbers down pretty quickly. (.219/.325/.324).
5. Michael Busch - I guess he really does need to platoon with a 41-year old. Yikes. Anyway, we'll just have to pray for one of this hot streaks very soon. He's been bad for the last month like everybody else (.158/.225/.347), but he's as likely to go HAM on the Brewers and hit six homers in the five games as he is to strike out 24 times. OK, maybe not as likely.
6. Nico Hoerner - He's the only guy other than Shaw who has hit for the last month (.310/.363/.372). I guess it's fine to have him lead off against lefties if you want, but make sure Shaw hits fifth then and Turner sixth. Man, there are no good solutions.
7. The left fielder - Ian Happ's last 30 isn't good, but it is for him, I guess (.234/.330/.414) but it's awfully hollow. And he needs to never get to face lefties again. The answer isn't Willi Mays Castro (.156/.156/.219 as a Cub in 10 games), and Owen Caissie is a lefty so that doesn't really work. Holy shit, Jed. Why did you not bother to add a right handed hitting outfielder at the deadline?
8. The catcher - Congratulations to Carson Kelly on getting his 40th RBI yesterday. I guess that's of the season, but it might be of his career, I'm not sure. He had 21 RBI in April, so just 19 in the four months since. It should be illegal to bat him higher than eighth. Same with Reese McGuire. Reese is fine as a backup catcher and fun to make fun of, but most of his season offensive output came in the first game he played in Cincinnati back in May.
9. Dansby Swanson - He got a big hit yesterday, which is nice. Just don't count on those. His .234/.265/.351 over his last 30 is bad, but sadly, it fits right in with this bunch.

There you go Craig. At the very least this lineup might keep you from losing all five.

Dare to dream.