Chicago Cobs Catchers

[Mephistopheles]

soto!

 

 

but damn his cera sucks... i guess he cant turn marquis into a good pitcher

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

What was Marquis' era pitching to Barrett? :)

[Exile on Waveland]

This is what Cubs catchers have hit this year:

 

.205/262/328.

 

We could use an upgrade. If we had kept Barrett. We wouldn't need that upgrade.

 

While I completely agree the Cubs are winning in spite of their awful catching situation, I'm not ready to agree with the later. Is it coincidence that the Cubs have been much better without Barrett? Maybe, maybe not. Also, Barrett is hitting 264/264/321 with the Padres. While that's certainly better than what Bowen/Hill have given the club, the Cubs would still need an upgrade from those putrid numbers.

[Sarcastic]

This is what Cubs catchers have hit this year:

 

.205/262/328.

 

We could use an upgrade. If we had kept Barrett. We wouldn't need that upgrade.

 

While I completely agree the Cubs are winning in spite of their awful catching situation, I'm not ready to agree with the later. Is it coincidence that the Cubs have been much better without Barrett? Maybe, maybe not. Also, Barrett is hitting 264/264/321 with the Padres. While that's certainly better than what Bowen/Hill have given the club, the Cubs would still need an upgrade from those putrid numbers.

 

What possible argument can you make that the reason the Cubs are doing better is because of getting rid of Barrett and replacing him with even worse production? I'd love to hear why the hell you think that. I have yet to see a single, solitary reason that isn't complete BS.

[Exile on Waveland]

This is what Cubs catchers have hit this year:

 

.205/262/328.

 

We could use an upgrade. If we had kept Barrett. We wouldn't need that upgrade.

 

While I completely agree the Cubs are winning in spite of their awful catching situation, I'm not ready to agree with the later. Is it coincidence that the Cubs have been much better without Barrett? Maybe, maybe not. Also, Barrett is hitting 264/264/321 with the Padres. While that's certainly better than what Bowen/Hill have given the club, the Cubs would still need an upgrade from those putrid numbers.

 

What possible argument can you make that the reason the Cubs are doing better is because of getting rid of Barrett and replacing him with even worse production? I'd love to hear why the hell you think that. I have yet to see a single, solitary reason that isn't complete BS.

 

I can't make one. There isn't one, there is no way to know such a thing. I never said the Cubs are winning because Barrett is gone; I simply said they've played much better without him. It's likely coincidence, but perhaps it's not. However, I will say this: if the Cubs continue to play better without Barrett, I'll consider trading him the correct move even without any statistical support.

Edited July 15, 2007 by Exile on Waveland

[Sarcastic]

If you have no evidence for something, there is no rational reason to assert it or believe it is true.

 

Maybe the Cubs are winning because I started putting my shoes on left foot first! That argument is actually more valid than the argument that the Cubs winning has anything to do with trading Barrett, since we can measure how his departure hurt the team, and but not how my shoes did.

[Exile on Waveland]

If you have no evidence for something, there is no rational reason to assert it or believe it is true.

 

Maybe the Cubs are winning because I started putting my shoes on left foot first! That argument is actually more valid than the argument that the Cubs winning has anything to do with trading Barrett, since we can measure how his departure hurt the team, and but not how my shoes did.

 

In the future, please read posts for what they say, not what you believe the poster is thinking.

 

I have NOT asserted that the Cubs are winning because they traded Barrett. There is no empirical data to support this, but I don't see how there could be either. The Cubs have played better without Barrett, it's likely coincidence but we'll never know. While I don't yet put much stock in it, if it continues I'd be loathe to completely dismiss it.

 

Finally, just because I have no evidence doesn't make it untrue. Plenty of things have existed long before they could be explained. It does, however, mean that I won't argue the point (which would be futile).

[Sarcastic]

If you have no evidence for something, there is no rational reason to assert it or believe it is true.

 

Maybe the Cubs are winning because I started putting my shoes on left foot first! That argument is actually more valid than the argument that the Cubs winning has anything to do with trading Barrett, since we can measure how his departure hurt the team, and but not how my shoes did.

 

In the future, please read posts for what they say, not what you believe the poster is thinking.

 

I have NOT asserted that the Cubs are winning because they traded Barrett. There is no empirical data to support this, but I don't see how there could be either. The Cubs have played better without Barrett, it's likely coincidence but we'll never know. While I don't yet put much stock in it, if it continues I'd be loathe to completely dismiss it.

 

Finally, just because I have no evidence doesn't make it untrue. Plenty of things have existed long before they could be explained. It does, however, mean that I won't argue the point (which would be futile).

 

If you read my post carefully, you would see that I never said that you had asserted that Barrett leaving was the reason for the Cubs' success. I pointed out that to do so is absurd, negating the point that "maybe it was, we don't know". Again, Barrett's leaving contributing to the Cubs winning is in fact less likely than my shoe habits doing the same. It is absurd to say, maybe that is it.

 

There is no reason to not dismiss it. Plenty of coincidences occur, people just don't notice the ones not based on conventional wisdom as often.

[Mephistopheles]

OMG CATCHERS OFFENSE IS IRRELEVANT! Last year the Cubs had the best offensive catchers in the league....and lost a lot of games. This year they have one of the worst....and have won more than theyve lost.

 

There is your empirical data.

 

Well not really. The Cubs catchers are going to drag down this offense before the season is over, that you can be assured of.

[Keener98]

Catcher is a defensive position. Obviously, it shouldn't be THAT pathetic offensively, but the fact is our pitching for the most part has been superb since Barrett's departure. Two easy outs at the #8 and #9 hole is definitely a bad thing, but we did manage to score 9 runs off of a guy named Roy Oswalt today, so it's not exactly killing us at the moment.

 

With any luck, Soto can provide at least a little bit of offense out of the catcher spot.

 

I swear if I hear this crap 1 more time, Im going to bang my head repeatedly into a wall. THE CUBS HAVE BEEN WINNING IN SPITE OF THEIR CATCHERS, what part of that is hard to figure out. The Cubs starting pitchers were pitching just fine the entire month of April with Barret catching also, so whats your point

 

Catcher is a defensive position, dude.

 

And so is 1st base 2nd base SS 3rd base CF RF and LF, so what the hell is your point? That phrase is an absolute idiotic phrase, since every position is required to play defense. But in case you didnt know, there is another part of baseball called offense, and I dont care how great you are a calling a game or blocking pitches, its not going to make up for an average under .100

[Sarcastic]

Catcher is a defensive position. Obviously, it shouldn't be THAT pathetic offensively, but the fact is our pitching for the most part has been superb since Barrett's departure. Two easy outs at the #8 and #9 hole is definitely a bad thing, but we did manage to score 9 runs off of a guy named Roy Oswalt today, so it's not exactly killing us at the moment.

 

With any luck, Soto can provide at least a little bit of offense out of the catcher spot.

 

I swear if I hear this crap 1 more time, Im going to bang my head repeatedly into a wall. THE CUBS HAVE BEEN WINNING IN SPITE OF THEIR CATCHERS, what part of that is hard to figure out. The Cubs starting pitchers were pitching just fine the entire month of April with Barret catching also, so whats your point

 

Catcher is a defensive position, dude.

 

And so is 1st base 2nd base SS 3rd base CF RF and LF, so what the hell is your point? That phrase is an absolute idiotic phrase, since every position is required to play defense. But in case you didnt know, there is another part of baseball called offense, and I dont care how great you are a calling a game or blocking pitches, its not going to make up for an average under .100

 

Keener, meet sarcasm.

 

Whenever someone types dude in their post, you know they aren't being serious.

[SouthSideRyan]

Keener, meet sarcasm.

 

Whenever someone types dude in their post, you know they aren't being serious.

 

Not so sure, cubsin03 was the original poster saying it was a defensive position.

[Sarcastic]

Keener, meet sarcasm.

 

Whenever someone types dude in their post, you know they aren't being serious.

 

Not so sure, cubsin03 was the original poster saying it was a defensive position.

 

You may be right. The dude at the end of his second post threw me off. I've never seen anybody actually type it if they weren't joking. Sya it maybe, but never type it.

[Keener98]

Keener, meet sarcasm.

 

Whenever someone types dude in their post, you know they aren't being serious.

 

Not so sure, cubsin03 was the original poster saying it was a defensive position.

 

You may be right. The dude at the end of his second post threw me off. I've never seen anybody actually type it if they weren't joking. Sya it maybe, but never type it.

 

Yea I dont think he was being sarcastic. I think it was more being a smartass since I said if I hear that phrase again Im going to repeatedly hit my head against a wall. By the way, do you have any aspirin, my head hurts?

[abuck1220]

The Cubs have played better without Barrett, it's likely coincidence but we'll never know.

 

yeah, we will. the new catchers can't hit and the pitching staff has performed just about the same as it did w/ barrett. so we do know that it's coincidence.

[Sarcastic]

The Cubs have played better without Barrett, it's likely coincidence but we'll never know.

 

yeah, we will. the new catchers can't hit and the pitching staff has performed just about the same as it did w/ barrett. so we do know that it's coincidence.

 

But what if some magical supernatural force was preventing the Cubs from winning while Barrett was here? Maybe the mighty Catcher God Thor favors Koyie Hill over Barrett. You can't prove that isn't what happened, so it is just as likely that that is the cause for the Cubs winning as anything else.

[abuck1220]

and i can't prove that there isn't such a thing as a unicorn, so they must exist.

[TruffleShuffle]

and i can't prove that there isn't such a thing as a unicorn, so they must exist.

 

*points to sig*

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

and i can't prove that there isn't such a thing as a unicorn, so they must exist.

 

*points to sig*

 

Proven!

[Rob]

Which is more likely?

 

1. The Cubs recent stretch is essentially a self-correction for our impossibly bad record in one-run games from earlier in the season.

 

2. The two or three passed balls our new catchers have saved has been enough to more than make up for the fact that they have two or three hits over the last month. Not only that, but it's enough of a significant improvement that its helping carry this team to new heights?

[TheDude]

If the Cubs can somehow land A-Rod next year, then I have no worries about some like K. Hill at receiver. Hell, you could put Pie in CF everyday too, to maximize up the middle defense and simply not worry about production from 7-9.

 

But short of that, the Cubs aren't equipped enough to stand pat with K. Hill or Bowen full-time. I've got my fingers crossed that Soto can bring at least .250/.300/.350 to the table.

[Sarcastic]

and i can't prove that there isn't such a thing as a unicorn, so they must exist.

 

Exactly.

[Exile on Waveland]

and i can't prove that there isn't such a thing as a unicorn, so they must exist.

 

Exactly.

 

Ha ha, unicorns, ha ha. I guess I should've expected the cavalcade of condescension. I certainly did not make such an argument, but, oh well.

 

Anyway, again, I think it's very, very likely the catcher position is going to end up costing the Cubs if it doesn't improve. A team with other serious holes (SS, CF) can't withstand such inept hitting from catcher (or any position, for that matter). I also don't think Barrett's absence is the reason for the Cubs superior play -- it's likely just a hot streak from a team that hadn't yet played up to it's expected rate.

 

However, I don't want to completely dismiss some other intangible affect either. Is it Likely? No. Possible? I'd say maybe. That's all I was saying. Somehow, though, trying to keep an open mind about some immeasurables renders me a unicorn believer.

[jjgman21]

Catcher is a defensive position. Obviously, it shouldn't be THAT pathetic offensively, but the fact is our pitching for the most part has been superb since Barrett's departure. Two easy outs at the #8 and #9 hole is definitely a bad thing, but we did manage to score 9 runs off of a guy named Roy Oswalt today, so it's not exactly killing us at the moment.

 

With any luck, Soto can provide at least a little bit of offense out of the catcher spot.

 

I swear if I hear this crap 1 more time, Im going to bang my head repeatedly into a wall. THE CUBS HAVE BEEN WINNING IN SPITE OF THEIR CATCHERS, what part of that is hard to figure out. The Cubs starting pitchers were pitching just fine the entire month of April with Barret catching also, so whats your point

 

Catcher is a defensive position, dude.

 

And so is 1st base 2nd base SS 3rd base CF RF and LF, so what the hell is your point? That phrase is an absolute idiotic phrase, since every position is required to play defense. But in case you didnt know, there is another part of baseball called offense, and I dont care how great you are a calling a game or blocking pitches, its not going to make up for an average under .100

 

this itself is crap. you know exactly what the phrase means. it means that teams are often willing to sacrifice some offense for defense at that position because of the importance of defense at that position.

 

as for it not making up for an average under .100, I agree for the most part, but chances are Barrett doesn't block all those sliders in the dirt by Wuertz, or Wuertz doesn't have the confidence in Barrett to block them and leaves them up, in which case, today's game doesn't end 7-6.

[Guest]

as for it not making up for an average under .100, I agree for the most part, but chances are Barrett doesn't block all those sliders in the dirt by Wuertz, or Wuertz doesn't have the confidence in Barrett to block them and leaves them up, in which case, today's game doesn't end 7-6.

I watched Wuertz pitch to Barrett pretty often and Mike didn't seem to have any problem with throwing those same sliders to Barrett.