Chicago Cubs: Stop making Kyle Hendricks the next Maddux

For all you ERA fans out there, Hendricks has a lower career ERA than Maddux.

That’s it case closed, Hendricks is better than Maddux ever was I might as well give up now.  Well not exactly.

First of all, ERA is a stat that has to do with the team around you.  Secondly, Greg Maddux at 42 playing for the Dodgers was a tiny bit worse than when he was 28.

More from Cubbies Crib

• Cubs should keep close eye on non-tender candidate Cody Bellinger
• Cubs starting pitching has been thriving on the North Side
• Make no mistake: the Cubs are very much about power hitters
• Cubs are giving pitcher Javier Assad a deserved shot
• Cubs: It’s time to start thinking about potential September call-ups

That’s another thing, Greg Maddux pitched for 23 years!  I feel like it’s safe to say that Hendricks will fall short of that mark.

Let’s look at both of their best seasons; for Hendricks, it’ll be last year, for Maddux it was probably 1995.  The reason why I say probably is that he won the Cy Young four years in a row.  I’d say that’s not a bad stretch.

1995 Maddux had a 1.63 ERA, a 2.26 FIP, and a 0.811 WHIP while giving up 0.3 home runs per nine.  There’s a reason why he won the Cy Young four times in a row.

2016 Hendricks had a 2.12 ERA, a 3.20 FIP, and a 0.979 WHIP while giving up 0.7 home runs per nine.  Those numbers are great; they just aren’t Maddux great.

It’s easier for us to judge who Greg Maddux was since he is retired, but we still don’t know who Kyle Hendricks is or what he will become.

The sample size of Hendricks is still pretty small since he only has four seasons under his belt.  Similar to a lot of 2017 Cubs, he is having a down year from last year.

That could be because he played an extra month of baseball, which shouldn’t be taken for granted.  Or it could also be because he has battled some injuries, again which might have been caused by fatigue.

This year “The Professor” has a 3.22 ERA, a 4.13 FIP, and a WHIP of 1.181.  That isn’t the front of the rotation stuff we saw last year.

Could he be regressing to the mean or is this just a down year?  Nobody knows, but we have to be willing to consider 2015 might have been his max potential.

There’s also a question of dominance.  Maddux was dominant.  Hendricks hasn’t ever been dominant.

He’s not the kind of guy that can go out there and pitch a two-hit complete game on any given night.  Maddux also threw a lot more innings than Hendricks.

Last year, Hendricks threw 190 innings, his career high.  Maddux pitched 268 innings in 1992!  That just goes to show the difference in the eras as well.

There’s a reason why Greg Maddux is in the Hall of Fame.

By the way, Maddux should’ve gone in as a Brave.  Look at the numbers and tell me that man isn’t a Brave!

Anyway, Kyle Hendricks may be in Cooperstown one day; he may not.  Does that mean he isn’t a great pitcher?  Of course not.

I just don’t want to keep being fed this false narrative that Hendricks is the next Maddux It simply isn’t true, for now. It’s a great divide between the two, although Hendricks does have the opportunity to close it–at least a little bit.

Next: Nicasio makes sense for the Cubs

It’s possible that in 10 years, we’ll look back at this and say, “Wow, he really did turn into the next Maddux.” That’s the fun of baseball. You never know what’s going to happen.