CubinNY

I admit that I might have read it wrong...and that he may have meant longer ago than he implied...fair enough. But Soto got more attention that just from NSBB. He was mentioned regularly in the farm club updates that WGN and Comcast did during the Cubs games this year. I'm just still miffed that Koyie Hill and Bowen both got so much of a chance but Soto hasn't (until now) and now, while hitting in the .400's, is still a question mark for regular playing time down the stretch. People here have been talking about Soto since well before this season. I think Hendry is just spewing crap. What I mean is, I don't believe he believes what he is saying. Yet, it is inexplicable why they choose to bring up Hill after Barrett was traded when clearly Soto was the better prospect.

Marshall and Murton for Tejada? I'd do that deal.

Harang is still the ugliest player in baseball. Pitch well Z, you'll have to.

I disagree with some others that think the non-quantifiable things are very small. I actually think they are somewhat large (although not nearly as much as football or basketball). However, I question if Theriot has those "intangibles" that everyone describes of him. "He provides a spark, and he's a winner"-the Cubs are 60-58 with him starting, and 19-14 when he doesn't. Additionally, the Cubs score 5.24 runs per game when Theriot is not in the lineup, while they only score 4.37 runs per game when Theriot starts. (those might be a little off, I was trying to do a manual count-there's at least a .6 or .7 difference though, maybe Fred can run it through his program and check). There's absolutely no evidence that Theriot makes the Cubs better. They don't win more when he's in the lineup, and they don't score as much when he's in the lineup (countering the intangible that even though Theriot might not be getting on, his spark has made others better around him). There are other intangibles, but I think most people would agree those are the two biggest, and Theriot hasn't made a difference on either one. This is a really great post. The only problem is you cannot convince people who don't believe in numbers that these numbers matter. What I mean is this. I teach teachers how to manage behavior, others behavior and their own. I teach them that what matters most in behavior management is what we can see and hear. That we cannot get into kids heads and see what they are thinking. That a pill won't teach a kid to learn to read or do math problems. I have data and science behind me. I have journal articles for them to read full of numbers that demonstrate what successful applications look like. None of this convinces them, they like the intangibles becuase it makes things easier to take. They think numbers and facts take the mystery out of life. They couldn't be further from the truth.

It's not a statistical or 3rd party reason (BABIP/defense) why he's doing better this year, it's a mechanical issue for him as well as pitch selection. If he stays closed in his delivery as well as not overthrowing his sinker (leaving it up in the zone) he'll do better. You're basing something solely on effect rather than cause. He had a better defense behind his last year and the reason why he BABIP is lower is not b/c of defense nor random flucuation but b/c of improvements in his stuff and command. That and not overthrowing. He used to overthrow a lot when he got into trouble and it only got him into more trouble. :) Yea, I'm giving a test right now, trying to keep one eye on my students.

It's not a statistical or 3rd party reason (BABIP/defense) why he's doing better this year, it's a mechanical issue for him as well as pitch selection. If he stays closed in his delivery as well as not overthrowing his sinker (leaving it up in the zone) he'll do better. You're basing something solely on effect rather than cause. He had a better defense behind his last year and the reason why he BABIP is lower is not b/c of defense nor random flucuation but b/c of improvements in his stuff and command. That and not overthrowing. He used to overthrow a lot when he got into trouble and it only got him into more trouble.

Yep, it's time to step up. If they can't put away these pathetic teams they don't deserve to be in the playoff.

obviously. and if jason kendall starts, i wouldn't expect all-star numbers or anything even close. I agree. I suppose the above was directed more toward the few people who have said that we will turn on Soto should he not perform up to some mythical level.

I've stated this previously, but I think it bears mentioning again. Soto may never be this good again in his entire career. Even if he does start next year, I wouldn't expect all-star numbers or anything even close.

Just what a team should do. Not play a prosppect during the previous season and "give him a look" in meaningless games in ST. It's the Cubs MO and a reason they cannot sustain a winning record year in and year out.

Nicely put. My gosh, I don't know where you guys get this from !!! Kennesaw Mountain Landis, the original commissioner of baseball, was a judge who was hired by the owners of MLB as a PR move to attempt to minimize the damage of the Black Sox Scandal of 1919. Just incidently, he's the same judge who, just 5 years earlier, kept inexplicably delaying the court action that the Federal League brought against Major League Baseball until the Federal League folded and the "problem" went away. Unbiased ?? No ties ?? Give me a break !!! Landis was a nasty character, there is no doubt. He also got Jack Johsnon banned from boxing. However, Unless I don't know my history he was also not a former baseball owner. And as far as I know he also was fiercely independent, ruling for the players as often as ruling for the league in labor disputes. Landis was responsible for keeping Blacks out of baseball among many other dispicable things, but he is generally regarded as an independent voice among baseball historians. I think all the commishiners were non-owners up to Selig.

Hanley Ramirez is good I'm soooooo glad Furcal decide Chicago wasn't good enough for him.

The problem is, if you take this kind of argument to its logical extreme, you can pretty much make the following arguments: 1) You can't argue that A-Rod playing SS on this team would give this team any more wins than it has. 2) You can't argue that Neifi playing SS on this team would give this team any more losses than it has. In terms of probability, no, we can't say with absolute 100% certainty that Soto would have been given this team more wins than Hill/Bowen/Kendall/Blanco. There's always a possibility that Soto would perform as well as or worse than that quartet. However, given Soto's production in the majors and AAA, I think there's an incredibly good chance the Cubs' offensive production would have increased with Soto behind the dish as opposed to the four catchers mentioned above. With better offensive production, this team would have more wins. If the Yankess went 162-0 with Neifi at SS it would be pretty hard to say that A-Rod would have given them more wins. I think that is what TheDude is saying. If after the Barrett trade the Cubs went on a long win streak winning most of thier games, it would be hard to say that Soto would have yielded more wins since they already were winning most of the games at that point of time. I don't know if any of that is true since I didn't look it up, but that seems to be the point that is trying to be made. Execpt the Dude and you (if you are making the same claim) are wrong. The Cubs lost plenty of games from the time Barrett was traded up to 9/17/07. Opportunity cost are what it cost the Cubs to not have the better player playing. And as I said in the original, "who knows". But I'd bet it is at least one game. Where does this "good enough" mentality come from? Are we supposed to be happy the Cubs are in first and be thankful? According to runs scored and runs allowed the Cubs have won two games less than they should have. That difference can probably be attributable to luck. However, had they put in a better player(s), even with the playing two games under the pyth. record they would probably be six or seven games up.

Under no circumstances would I trade Pie for Tejeda. Are the Cubs going to have enough money?

Nicely put.

Yes. There's a lot to like about him from an image standpoint. Everybody likes the underdog or in this case undersized player. That doesn't make him a good player. It also dosen't mean he sucks either. It's too bad he's 27. If he was 24 or younger I might think he has a future.

Cardiac Cubs

He's on a hot streak (in "the zone"). When he's like this he hits lots of HRs too. It couldn't happen at a better time.

Shannon and Roony couldn't say enough great things about Soriano to start the game. They do a pretty good job on the radio. Shannon is funny but I wonder if he's always this drunk.

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

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?

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

These types of post still amaze me.

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.

ND, hahahahahahahahahahahaha! How long until the genuis gets a win this year?