Geovany Soto

[Omar]

Geovany Soto

[Warpticon]

Geovany Soto

[Post Count Padder]

Geovany Soto

[Mephistopheles]

I think a fair amount of skepticism is due for a guy who has pulled off the 'ol "Improbably high batting average for a guy who strikes out a lot" trick, when repeating the level for the 3rd time in a club where even stiffs like Buck Coats look offensively gifted.

 

 

agree. I thought most people here believe in the "reverting back to your career stats" theory.

 

Yeah, completely different point in the development process. Reversion isn't an issue until you peak. Position players usually peak between 26-28.

 

it depends on the position. catchers peak earlier than 1B.

[Warpticon]

I thought they just declined faster.

[Mephistopheles]

It's the decline that causes the earlier peak.

[TruffleShuffle]

i like players who can hit the ball far; i.e., not Slappy McRagarm

[Keener98]

i like players who can hit the ball far; i.e., not Slappy McRagarm

 

Hell I like catchers who can make a damn throw to first base in the air, and not help cause an implosion, I thought thats why we needed "experience" back there. Also that was a hell of a throw by Kendall to 2nd base last night.

 

Kendall needs to be the backup. If we play a team who can steal(Cincy, Mets) Soto needs to be starting every game against them, or else they are goin to run us wild.

[CubinNY]

Opportunity costs are a helluva thing.

 

Who knows how many wins Lou has cost the Cubs by not bringing up Soto after the Barrett trade. The crazy thing is, he may never be this good again. We may have missed his "career" year while he was wasting away in Iowa.

 

I have some serious concerns that he's not nearly as good as he is this season.

 

Enough with the Geovana Soto quotes, most people now know who he is.

[sethuel1]

Geovana Soto

[GoCubsGo1679625768]

Geovana Soto

[NCCubFan]

Enough with the Geovana Soto quotes, most people now know who he is.

No we don't. We do know who Geovany Soto is, though.

[TheDude]

Who knows how many wins Lou has cost the Cubs by not bringing up Soto after the Barrett trade.

 

Probably zero. The Cubs were winning games between Kendall and Barrett. Hill had a winning record as a catcher, by a nice margin. I'm not saying Hill gets the credit, I'm saying the team was winning regardless, so I don't see any real opportunity cost. I suppose the team wins-more in the same game, which doesn't matter at all.

 

The entire Soto craze is way overblown. It's like a bride anticipating a dream wedding that will never happen the way its projected.

[Keener98]

Who knows how many wins Lou has cost the Cubs by not bringing up Soto after the Barrett trade.

 

Probably zero. The Cubs were winning games between Kendall and Barrett. Hill had a winning record as a catcher, by a nice margin. I'm not saying Hill gets the credit, I'm saying the team was winning regardless, so I don't see any real opportunity cost. I suppose the team wins-more in the same game, which doesn't matter at all.

 

The entire Soto craze is way overblown. It's like a bride anticipating a dream wedding that will never happen the way its projected.

 

Explain to me why its overblown? The guy has put up unbelievable numbers this year, at a position that has sucked for 3/4's the season for the Cubs, and you think its overblown that people want Soto to get a chance? Kendalls D is downright pathetic, and last night was prime example. He was a big cause to the implosion from Marshall. He has a 554 OPS in Sept, and if somebody reaches 1st base with decent speed against us, its an automatic double, as Kendall stands no chance at throwing out a runner. So once again, please explain to me, how its overblown, because there are plenty of reasons for Soto over Kendall, where as Kendalls 1 thing he has over Soto is meaningless(experience).

[CubinNY]

Who knows how many wins Lou has cost the Cubs by not bringing up Soto after the Barrett trade.

 

Probably zero. The Cubs were winning games between Kendall and Barrett. Hill had a winning record as a catcher, by a nice margin. I'm not saying Hill gets the credit, I'm saying the team was winning regardless, so I don't see any real opportunity cost. I suppose the team wins-more in the same game, which doesn't matter at all.

 

The entire Soto craze is way overblown. It's like a bride anticipating a dream wedding that will never happen the way its projected.

 

So, the Cubs never lost a game the entire time that Hill, Bowen, Kendall have been catching?

 

ok

[Sammy Sofa]

Who knows how many wins Lou has cost the Cubs by not bringing up Soto after the Barrett trade.

 

Probably zero. The Cubs were winning games between Kendall and Barrett. Hill had a winning record as a catcher, by a nice margin. I'm not saying Hill gets the credit, I'm saying the team was winning regardless, so I don't see any real opportunity cost. I suppose the team wins-more in the same game, which doesn't matter at all.

 

The entire Soto craze is way overblown. It's like a bride anticipating a dream wedding that will never happen the way its projected.

 

So, the Cubs never lost a game the entire time that Hill, Bowen, Kendall have been catching?

 

ok

 

That argument doesn't work on so many levels. You're essentially saying that Soto himself could have and definitely would have somehow "won" any games that the other catchers started...you're also discounting that he could have also somehow "lost" any of the games the others won or helped win.

[CubinNY]

Who knows how many wins Lou has cost the Cubs by not bringing up Soto after the Barrett trade.

 

Probably zero. The Cubs were winning games between Kendall and Barrett. Hill had a winning record as a catcher, by a nice margin. I'm not saying Hill gets the credit, I'm saying the team was winning regardless, so I don't see any real opportunity cost. I suppose the team wins-more in the same game, which doesn't matter at all.

 

The entire Soto craze is way overblown. It's like a bride anticipating a dream wedding that will never happen the way its projected.

 

So, the Cubs never lost a game the entire time that Hill, Bowen, Kendall have been catching?

 

ok

 

That argument doesn't work on so many levels. You're essentially saying that Soto himself could have somehow "won" any games that the other catachers started...you're also discounting that he could have also somehow "lost" any of the games the others won or helped win.

 

No, I'm saying we don't know. The Dude dude is saying none. The only way that is possible is if Soto would have done exactly the same as Kendall, Bowen, and Hill or preformed worse. We have no way of knowing, but I'd wager that it is near imossible to perform worse than the combination of Kendall, Bowen, and Hill.

 

On so many levels? What the hell does that mean?

[Sammy Sofa]

Who knows how many wins Lou has cost the Cubs by not bringing up Soto after the Barrett trade.

 

Probably zero. The Cubs were winning games between Kendall and Barrett. Hill had a winning record as a catcher, by a nice margin. I'm not saying Hill gets the credit, I'm saying the team was winning regardless, so I don't see any real opportunity cost. I suppose the team wins-more in the same game, which doesn't matter at all.

 

The entire Soto craze is way overblown. It's like a bride anticipating a dream wedding that will never happen the way its projected.

 

So, the Cubs never lost a game the entire time that Hill, Bowen, Kendall have been catching?

 

ok

 

That argument doesn't work on so many levels. You're essentially saying that Soto himself could have somehow "won" any games that the other catachers started...you're also discounting that he could have also somehow "lost" any of the games the others won or helped win.

 

No, I'm saying we don't know. The Dude dude is saying none. The only way that is possible is if Soto would have done exactly the same as Kendall, Bowen, and Hill or preformed worse. We have no way of knowing, but I'd wager that it is near imossible to perform worse than the combination of Kendall, Bowen, and Hill.

 

On so many levels? What the hell does that mean?

 

It means there are so many different "woulda-coulda-shoulda" factors involved in this type of argument that it pretty much ends up negating either side.

 

For one, how do you know if Soto playing any better than the other catchers would have still lead to the Cubs winning more games? What if he hit better statistically, but he didn't score or drive anyone in? Or didn't score enough or drive in enough runs? Or what if his better defense still resulted in the Cubs being overall outscored and losing the game? Or someone else still screwed up and lost it? Or the pitcher just stunk? Or the other bats were still turned off? And what if he played worse in certain games than the other catchers? The whole thing either way has little basis in realistic arguments to "prove" that Soto would have won or lost more games for the Cubs than the other catchers.

 

For the record, I've wanted to see him play more for months, but this particular argument does little for or against him. It's meaningless.

[CubinNY]

Who knows how many wins Lou has cost the Cubs by not bringing up Soto after the Barrett trade.

 

Probably zero. The Cubs were winning games between Kendall and Barrett. Hill had a winning record as a catcher, by a nice margin. I'm not saying Hill gets the credit, I'm saying the team was winning regardless, so I don't see any real opportunity cost. I suppose the team wins-more in the same game, which doesn't matter at all.

 

The entire Soto craze is way overblown. It's like a bride anticipating a dream wedding that will never happen the way its projected.

 

So, the Cubs never lost a game the entire time that Hill, Bowen, Kendall have been catching?

 

ok

 

That argument doesn't work on so many levels. You're essentially saying that Soto himself could have somehow "won" any games that the other catachers started...you're also discounting that he could have also somehow "lost" any of the games the others won or helped win.

 

No, I'm saying we don't know. The Dude dude is saying none. The only way that is possible is if Soto would have done exactly the same as Kendall, Bowen, and Hill or preformed worse. We have no way of knowing, but I'd wager that it is near imossible to perform worse than the combination of Kendall, Bowen, and Hill.

 

On so many levels? What the hell does that mean?

 

It means there are so many different "woulda-coulda-shoulda" factors involved in this type of argument that it pretty much ends up negating either side.

 

For one, how do you know if Soto playing any better than the other catchers would have still lead to the Cubs winning more games? What if he hit better statistically, but he didn't score or drive anyone in? Or didn't score enough or drive in enough runs? Or what if his better defense still resulted in the Cubs being overall outscored and losing the game? Or someone else still screwed up and lost it? Or the pitcher just stunk? Or the other bats were still turned off? And what if he played worse in certain games than the other catchers? The whole thing either way has little basis in realistic arguments to "prove" that Soto would have won or lost more games for the Cubs than the other catchers.

 

For the record, I've wanted to see him play more for months, but this particular argument does little for or against him. It's meaningless.

So, in other words the argument is meaningless but you agree that Soto should have been called up?

 

Why do you think this? And before you answer you might want to think it over a little.

 

is it

 

A) Because he might preform better than who was playing Catcher for the Cubs

B) The Cubs might be a better team with him catching

C) What the hell, he can't be worse than who is catching

D) All the above

 

If you answer any of A,B,C or D, my argument doesn't look so meaningless because esentially you are saying the same thing.

 

Perhaps you're like Mr. Dude and don't think the Cubs need potentially better players, becuase everything is just hunkydorey

[Sammy Sofa]

Who knows how many wins Lou has cost the Cubs by not bringing up Soto after the Barrett trade.

 

Probably zero. The Cubs were winning games between Kendall and Barrett. Hill had a winning record as a catcher, by a nice margin. I'm not saying Hill gets the credit, I'm saying the team was winning regardless, so I don't see any real opportunity cost. I suppose the team wins-more in the same game, which doesn't matter at all.

 

The entire Soto craze is way overblown. It's like a bride anticipating a dream wedding that will never happen the way its projected.

 

So, the Cubs never lost a game the entire time that Hill, Bowen, Kendall have been catching?

 

ok

 

That argument doesn't work on so many levels. You're essentially saying that Soto himself could have somehow "won" any games that the other catachers started...you're also discounting that he could have also somehow "lost" any of the games the others won or helped win.

 

No, I'm saying we don't know. The Dude dude is saying none. The only way that is possible is if Soto would have done exactly the same as Kendall, Bowen, and Hill or preformed worse. We have no way of knowing, but I'd wager that it is near imossible to perform worse than the combination of Kendall, Bowen, and Hill.

 

On so many levels? What the hell does that mean?

 

It means there are so many different "woulda-coulda-shoulda" factors involved in this type of argument that it pretty much ends up negating either side.

 

For one, how do you know if Soto playing any better than the other catchers would have still lead to the Cubs winning more games? What if he hit better statistically, but he didn't score or drive anyone in? Or didn't score enough or drive in enough runs? Or what if his better defense still resulted in the Cubs being overall outscored and losing the game? Or someone else still screwed up and lost it? Or the pitcher just stunk? Or the other bats were still turned off? And what if he played worse in certain games than the other catchers? The whole thing either way has little basis in realistic arguments to "prove" that Soto would have won or lost more games for the Cubs than the other catchers.

 

For the record, I've wanted to see him play more for months, but this particular argument does little for or against him. It's meaningless.

So, in other words the argument is meaningless but you agree that Soto should have been called up?

 

Why do you think this? And before you answer you might want to think it over a little.

 

is it

 

A) Because he might preform better than who was playing Catcher for the Cubs

B) The Cubs might be a better team with him catching

C) What the hell, he can't be worse than who is catching

D) All the above

 

If you answer any of A,B,C or D, my argument doesn't look so meaningless because esentially you are saying the same thing.

 

Perhaps you're like Mr. Dude and don't think the Cubs need potentially better players, becuase everything is just hunkydorey

 

No, I'm pointing out that claiming that Soto would have definitely won OR lost more specific games than the other catchers is ultimately a meaningless argument because it's essentially unarguable either way. It's too much of a "what if" with too many different variables and outcomes to be proven either way. That's different than saying I do or do not think that Soto can generally improve the performance of this team if he gets more playing time...but to try and point out where he would have actually "won" or "lost" games for the Cubs over the course of the already complete portion of the season is, by and large, a meaningless argument from either perspective.

 

To get all metaphysical, Soto can help win or lose future games because he has yet to play in them. Soto cannot help to win or lose games in the past because he did not play in them. It is impossible to definitively argue that he would have won or lost games he did not play in because the simple variable of Soto playing in them completely negates the outcome that we actually saw.

 

"OOOOOO-WEEEEEEEE-OOOOOOOOO!!!"

 

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Sasquatch56/Mentok.jpg

[Keener98]

Who knows how many wins Lou has cost the Cubs by not bringing up Soto after the Barrett trade.

 

Probably zero. The Cubs were winning games between Kendall and Barrett. Hill had a winning record as a catcher, by a nice margin. I'm not saying Hill gets the credit, I'm saying the team was winning regardless, so I don't see any real opportunity cost. I suppose the team wins-more in the same game, which doesn't matter at all.

 

The entire Soto craze is way overblown. It's like a bride anticipating a dream wedding that will never happen the way its projected.

 

Still overblown?3-3 so far thats not too bad I guess

[AllStarMe]

Another base hit! Awesome! Soto now 4-4 on the day

[Prior4CyYoung]

the one out he made was a ball caught at the wall. Heck of a day at the plate for him.

[UK1679666180]

He's hot right now and clearly a better defensive C than Kendall, he called a very good game today as well. He definitely deserves more reps right now.

[Shilzzz]

i still have a sinking feeling that hendry has fallen in love with kendall and will resign him.