Fire Lou Piniella

[Sammy Sofa]

Uh ??? Is the uh just for emphisis, or does it add value to the discussion ? Or do you preface your spoken sentences with uh ?

 

I am not going to debate Hill vs Soto on defense, and I already stated that Soto should get the bulk of the playing time.

 

My point, as I am sure you all are capable of understanding, yet chose to ignore, is that Soto blows a very easy play, Marmol implodes, yet you all pop off about Lou Piniella. Soto and Marmol sucked yesterday,and blew the game, not Lou. At least they were both man enough to own up to it.

 

Complaining about Lou after yesterdays fiasco just makes you look foolish.

 

Uh, no it doesn't. Lou, uh, unnecessarily, like, threw Soto under the, uhm, bus and stuff yesterday and made the, uh, very stupid decision to pinch hit, uh, er, Hill for Soto. Uh, that is what people are, uh, like, blaming Lou for.

 

And how nice that you won't debate Hill vs. Soto on defense after you make the ridiculous declaration that Hill is a significantly better defensive catcher.

[flyseye]

, particularly with someo

Uh ??? Is the uh just for emphisis, or does it add value to the discussion ? Or do you preface your spoken sentences with uh ?

 

I am not going to debate Hill vs Soto on defense, and I already stated that Soto should get the bulk of the playing time.

 

My point, as I am sure you all are capable of understanding, yet chose to ignore, is that Soto blows a very easy play, Marmol implodes, yet you all pop off about Lou Piniella. Soto and Marmol sucked yesterday,and blew the game, not Lou. At least they were both man enough to own up to it.

 

Complaining about Lou after yesterdays fiasco just makes you look foolish.

 

Uh, no it doesn't. Lou, uh, unnecessarily, like, threw Soto under the, uhm, bus and stuff yesterday and made the, uh, very stupid decision to pinch hit, uh, er, Hill for Soto. Uh, that is what people are, uh, like, blaming Lou for.

 

And how nice that you won't debate Hill vs. Soto on defense after you make the ridiculous declaration that Hill is a significantly better defensive catcher.

 

First, Fontenot hit for Soto, not Hill. Not that it makes any difference. But if you want to blame Lou for meaningless actions, uh,you probably should at least get it right.

 

The reason I am not going to waste my time debating why I (and others)feel Hill is a better defensive catcher than Soto is that there are no accurate metrics to measure them by. I suppose we could make this thread even more ridiculous by getting into an I say, you say debate regarding that, but frankly I have better things to do .

 

Edit: by the way if Colvin had made a bad throw instead of Soto totally crapping the bed on the play, I am sure there would have been a " Colvin is a lousy defensive player thread ". Boring as that would have been, at least your anger would not have been misdirected.

Edited July 18, 2010 by flyseye

[Sammy Sofa]

First, Fontenot hit for Soto, not Hill. Not that it makes any difference. But if you want to blame Lou for meaningless actions, uh,you probably should at least get it right.

 

Nah. PH anyone for Soto then is inexcusable. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

The reason I am not going to waste my time debating why I (and others)feel Hill is a better defensive catcher than Soto is that there are no accurate metrics to measure them by. I suppose we could make this thread even more ridiculous by getting into an I say, you say debate regarding that, but frankly I have better things to do.

 

So then why/how are you so sure that Hill is a significant improvement over Soto when it comes to defense? We're not talking about whether Hill is technically better or not; he needs to be MUCH better to justify putting his near-useless bat in the lineup over Soto's.

[flyseye]

I NEVER said Hill should be in the lineup over Soto, quite the opposite if you read .

 

I simply said he was a better defensive catcher, which I still believe. If you feel he is not, I am pretty sure I can cope with that. Even though you will be wrong.

[Sammy Sofa]

Actually, I wouldn't disagree that Hill is likely a better defensive catcher. The point, again, is that he's not better defensively enough to justify him getting extra starts or AB's or even coming in as defensive replacement over Soto. The defensive difference between the two is relatively very minor.

[TruffleShuffle]

coming up through the minors, hill always had the reputation of being an offensive catcher (lol). the reason everyone thinks he's much better defensively than soto is because he can't hit and people assume there must be some reason that he's on the team. hill has 30% caught stealing in his career versus 26% for soto, and his wild pitch rate is a little lower, but his passed ball rate is higher. is he better than soto defensively? maybe a little bit. enough that it's worth talking about or enough that a defensive replacement should be made in the 9th inning of close games? no.

[TruffleShuffle]

I simply said he was a better defensive catcher, which I still believe. If you feel he is not, I am pretty sure I can cope with that. Even though you will be wrong.

 

"here's my case, i have no evidence to support my position but trust me i know i'm right anyway"

[flyseye]

I simply said he was a better defensive catcher, which I still believe. If you feel he is not, I am pretty sure I can cope with that. Even though you will be wrong.

 

"here's my case, i have no evidence to support my position but trust me i know i'm right anyway"

 

Repeat alert:

 

 

The reason I am not going to waste my time debating why I (and others)feel Hill is a better defensive catcher than Soto is that there are no accurate metrics to measure them by. I suppose we could make this thread even more ridiculous by getting into an I say, you say debate regarding that, but frankly I have better things to do .

 

I will say I can come up with something better than your "he can't hit so " scenario, which is pretty weak by any standards, but I am perfectly content in this futile discussion with "trust me, I know I'm right ".

[Sammy Sofa]

So you're completely full of [expletive]. There's absolutely no way to you can prove that Hill should get anything other than scattered starts to give Soto the necessary time off when one sits down and compares their offensive and defensive capabilities.

 

And don't try and wiggle out by saying you're simply saying that Hill is a better defensive catcher than Soto; that can easily be true but only at a marginal level. Unless you're arguing that Hill poses a significantly better option defensively than Soto then you're continually repeating something meaningless.

[mookie]

This thread didn't work. :(

[Keener98]

I know we arent firing Lou, but bringing in Brian Schlitter to face the heart of the lineup and not leaving Marmol in was really dumb. Even with it working out, it was still a bad decision.

[radarluv1]

he could have ran, well anybody for soto tonight and then we could had baker instead of fukudome hitting against a lefty.

[TruffleShuffle]

he could have ran, well anybody for soto tonight and then we could had baker instead of fukudome hitting against a lefty.

 

like a SP not named lilly (because he's hopefully getting traded) or silva (because he's fat and probably even slower than soto)

[TruffleShuffle]

i love how it took lou about 2/3 of the season to figure out that a catcher with a .400 obp and a .900 ops is a good thing, should be played most days and can bat higher than 7th or 8th in the lineup. way to pay attention lou!

[Guest]

i love how it took lou about 2/3 of the season to figure out that a catcher with a .400 obp and a .900 ops is a good thing, should be played most days and can bat higher than 7th or 8th in the lineup. way to pay attention lou!

Geo should be hitting third in this lineup.

[Guest]

Soto's on pace for 120 starts. Seems like that's pretty close to where he ought to be, give or take a couple games.

[KaiserCesar]

Soto's on pace for 120 starts. Seems like that's pretty close to where he ought to be, give or take a couple games.

 

I would say roughly 15 games off

[TruffleShuffle]

Soto's on pace for 120 starts. Seems like that's pretty close to where he ought to be, give or take a couple games.

 

well yeah, that's because lou has caught up and been playing him consistently for a month. he wasn't on pace for 120 starts when he was practically platooning with koyie [expletive] hill

[Guest]

Soto's on pace for 120 starts. Seems like that's pretty close to where he ought to be, give or take a couple games.

 

well yeah, that's because lou has caught up and been playing him consistently for a month. he wasn't on pace for 120 starts when he was practically platooning with koyie [expletive] hill

 

So you're upset because Soto's getting the appropriate playing time in the wrong order?

 

Comparing his starts by month, we're talking about the difference in less than 1 game a week here.

[Tracer Bullet]

Soto's on pace for 120 starts. Seems like that's pretty close to where he ought to be, give or take a couple games.

 

well yeah, that's because lou has caught up and been playing him consistently for a month. he wasn't on pace for 120 starts when he was practically platooning with koyie [expletive] hill

 

So you're upset because Soto's getting the appropriate playing time in the wrong order?

 

Comparing his starts by month, we're talking about the difference in less than 1 game a week here.

 

is 120 really average for a good young C? I'd think you'd want at least 130 or even 140. While 150+ isn't probably a good idea, esp given the number of day games the Cubs play, 120 is way too few, imo. I don't want to ruin him, but why waste his prime with just 120 starts and put him at the back of the lineup, which only further limits his PAs?

[KaiserCesar]

Soto's on pace for 120 starts. Seems like that's pretty close to where he ought to be, give or take a couple games.

 

well yeah, that's because lou has caught up and been playing him consistently for a month. he wasn't on pace for 120 starts when he was practically platooning with koyie [expletive] hill

 

So you're upset because Soto's getting the appropriate playing time in the wrong order?

 

Comparing his starts by month, we're talking about the difference in less than 1 game a week here.

 

is 120 really average for a good young C? I'd think you'd want at least 130 or even 140. While 150+ isn't probably a good idea, esp given the number of day games the Cubs play, 120 is way too few, imo. I don't want to ruin him, but why waste his prime with just 120 starts and put him at the back of the lineup, which only further limits his PAs?

 

A day off every 6th game would give you 1-2 days off a week and 135 starts. This is pretty ideal IMO and covers most day games after night games, long extra innings, minor injuries, etc. Also to be considered is the fact that K. Hill is terrible and Soto is the best hitter on the team at the moment.

[Guest]

Soto's on pace for 120 starts. Seems like that's pretty close to where he ought to be, give or take a couple games.

 

well yeah, that's because lou has caught up and been playing him consistently for a month. he wasn't on pace for 120 starts when he was practically platooning with koyie [expletive] hill

 

So you're upset because Soto's getting the appropriate playing time in the wrong order?

 

Comparing his starts by month, we're talking about the difference in less than 1 game a week here.

 

is 120 really average for a good young C? I'd think you'd want at least 130 or even 140. While 150+ isn't probably a good idea, esp given the number of day games the Cubs play, 120 is way too few, imo. I don't want to ruin him, but why waste his prime with just 120 starts and put him at the back of the lineup, which only further limits his PAs?

Not to mention averaging data is a bad idea. The point truffle is making is that he didn't play enough and now he may be playing too often to maximize his effectiveness.

[Sammy Sofa]

120 starts isn't nearly enough for a catcher who hits as well as Soto, but I'm saying that without taking into account the nature of the Cubs schedule with all the extra day games. That said, a young catcher who hits that well should be getting 135-140 starts unless they have some kind of injury issue.

[Guest]

is 120 really average for a good young C? I'd think you'd want at least 130 or even 140. While 150+ isn't probably a good idea, esp given the number of day games the Cubs play, 120 is way too few, imo. I don't want to ruin him, but why waste his prime with just 120 starts and put him at the back of the lineup, which only further limits his PAs?

 

It might seem contradictory, but I think the greater the offensive catcher, the more you want to limit his starts. Catching takes a serious toll, and I think the point of diminishing returns, in terms of playing time, is much lower for that position.

[Sammy Sofa]

is 120 really average for a good young C? I'd think you'd want at least 130 or even 140. While 150+ isn't probably a good idea, esp given the number of day games the Cubs play, 120 is way too few, imo. I don't want to ruin him, but why waste his prime with just 120 starts and put him at the back of the lineup, which only further limits his PAs?

 

It might seem contradictory, but I think the greater the offensive catcher, the more you want to limit his starts. Catching takes a serious toll, and I think the point of diminishing returns, in terms of playing time, is much lower for that position.

 

Would 135 really be pushing it? That's still almost 30 starts off plus off days.