jjgman21

But, but Cedeno and Murton tore it up at Iowa, isn't that enough? The Cubs, the only team in Baseball with guys who tear up the minor leagues but, can't manage to hit their weight in the big leagues. consistent playing time

wtf. I wish we had a couple guys in the lineup that could at least recognize a curveball, much less hit one. I don't know that any pitch thrown that inning was a strike, but most of them were either swung at, or called strikes anyway.

I haven't been following the game closely until now, but everytime I walked past the tv the past couple hours it seems I have seen Wandy getting an inside cutter or low curve being called a strike, or Rich Hill not getting the same exact pitches called the same way. has this been an illusion, or do we have to beat two teams yet again tonight?

why is it so wet?

My goodness, that's an awful comparison. Why? they are the same type of player-passive, non run producing for a production position and mediocre defensively. You may like that type, but Lou doesn't. I'm not saying either opinion is right or wrong, but they are very similiar. That's so vague it's not even worth making a comparison, even if you include the cliched terms used(what is passive?). vague comparisons are better than no comparisons, which is what you have given. Grieve, after a similar amount of PAs as Murton currently has, had slightly better walk rate and slightly better power (albeit at a younger age). Murton has a little more speed and defensive ability. the comparison might not be exact, but their skill sets and short comings are very similar. and even if they weren't, outright statements without explanation, argument or analysis like the two you have made in this discussion suck. Outright statements without explanation, argument, or analysis? That sounds like saying Murton is a RH Ben Grieve and then not elaborating or responding with vague, subjective statements. Murton makes contact more often(lower K rate) and better contact more often(better AVG). Grieve was three true outcomes to the extreme, he saw more pitches, struck out more often, and hit more home runs. On the other hand, this comparison to Grieve is supposed to be a negative one, while anyone would want what Grieve put up his first 3 seasons in the league out of Murton, or anyone in our outfield for that matter. fine, outright disputes of assertions without explanation, argument or analysis suck, more so than outright assertions without.... the assertion that he was three true outcome 'to the extreme' is just plain wrong, unless by 'to the extreme' you mean 'on the verge of being able to be catagorized as a three true outcome player.' Grieve walked a little more and struck out a little more. that's about the extent of their difference through their first two years in the majors. every other description you gave at to why they are different is pretty much wrong you look at what both did their first two years in the league (which IMO is the fair way to go about it since Murton's been jerked around this year) and their stats stack up like this AB/H/2B/3B/HR/BB/K 676/197/47/2/21/98/148 595/175/25/2/20/61/84 extrapolate Murtons stats out to having the same number of PAs, his numbers would be 702/206/30/2/27/72/99 let's put Grieves number back up to make the comparison easy on the eyes 676/197/47/2/21/98/148 702/206/30/2/27/72/99 pretty damn similar hitters.

very good article, but just one thing I disagree with... not controversial? says who? I've seen no explanation for why the rules are different for Bonds or how any of those nonexistent explanations makes it not controversial. if I am not mistaken, the rule is that you have to prove a current injury. there is no grandfather clause or injury, thus Bonds shouldn't be allowed to wear the armor. he still wears it, thus it is controversial. next article I would like to see, "How being allowed to call his own strikezone taints Bonds record."

My goodness, that's an awful comparison. Why? they are the same type of player-passive, non run producing for a production position and mediocre defensively. You may like that type, but Lou doesn't. I'm not saying either opinion is right or wrong, but they are very similiar. That's so vague it's not even worth making a comparison, even if you include the cliched terms used(what is passive?). vague comparisons are better than no comparisons, which is what you have given. Grieve, after a similar amount of PAs as Murton currently has, had slightly better walk rate and slightly better power (albeit at a younger age). Murton has a little more speed and defensive ability. the comparison might not be exact, but their skill sets and short comings are very similar. and even if they weren't, outright statements without explanation, argument or analysis like the two you have made in this discussion suck.

you have got to be kidding me, that's just about the worst comparison i have ever heard, unless you just want to talk about white outfielders. why is this such a terrible comparison?

Geo and his possible contributions to the Cubs has been touched on in several threads, so I thought I would start this thread to focus on the discussions surrounding the potential for Soto to help both this year and in the future. there is no doubt the raw numbers of Soto are impressive, yet there have been lots of out of hand dismissals to whether Soto could contribute at an acceptable level or be a long term solution. they generally fall into three arguments: see Ronnie Cedeno; the PCL is very hitter friendly this year; the projections all show he wouldn't be good. now I don't know whether Soto will be able to hit at an acceptable level, but these three arguments are lacking in merit at this point. Ronnie Cedeno - so bloody what. they are two different players. just because one appears to be a AAAA player doesn't mean the other is. we talk all the time on here about how we wish the Cubs would try to find the unteachable skill (plate discipline) and hope the teachable skill (power) develops, instead of the other way around. one thing Soto has always had was place discipline, despite always being young for his level (until this year). now his age has caught up with his league, and he has both. furthermore, Ronnie's stats in Iowa this year are in large part supported by a freakish hot streak of about 5 weeks. this isn't the case with Soto who has produced in every month of the year. whether it will translate to the next level remains to be seen because ie. Soto appears to have been somewhat lucky on BABIP, but his minor league history indicates Ronnie Cedeno's experience is not an appropriate comparison for predicting what Soto will do. The PCL is hitter friendly - so bloody what. his OPS is about 275 points higher than league average right now. certainly this isn't exclusively due to the hitter friendly nature of the PCL. furthermore, it's not like he's playing in Colorado Springs or Albequerque to help his stats. he still plays at Iowa which is nowhere near as friendly as alot of other parks. in addition, the hitter friendliness is partly attributable to the Cubs, whose ERA is a full run above what it was last year. again, the BABIP effect is a bit of a concern in inflating his stats, but luck most likely is not the primary factor in the increase in numbers, especially in light of the fact that he's hit so many HRs. Projections - I don't know how these projections are calculated, but I question whether they account for the 'light coming on' effect of a minor league batter. Geo was very good in the second half last year, sporting an 820/860 OPS in July/Aug. if the projections relied on overall numbers, they are missing the big picture. further, look at a player like Saltalamacchia. the overwhelming concensus is that he is going to be an awesome hitter in the major leagues. compare both players when they were 21. both were at the same level, and Soto outproduced Salty. while Salty's A+ stats sure were tasty, he followed it up with a year of flopping, and has done little in the bigs this year. Soto's path was different from his AA year on out, but as his playing time became more consistent, his production has gotten better year after year. so if Salty is so great based on a great year at A+, why isn't Soto just as great based on his eye popping year at AAA? now I could understand if there were no explanation for why Soto's numbers shot up other than BABIP and the increase in the league's overall production, but there is a fabulous indicator that a light bulb did in fact go on in Soto's development. that indicator is gb/ld/fb. 2005 - 56/14/30 2006 - 51/18/31 2007 - 43/21/36 clearly this guy has made the adjustment that we all wish Matt Murton would make. clearly he's hitting the ball differently now than at the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006. Finally, we really should stop using beginning of the year projections for what Soto will do since there is up to date information available, and if I am not mistaken, current mle indicates Soto would blow those pre-season projections out of the water. I don't know whether Soto is a short or long term solution at catcher for the Chicago Cubs, but you're gonna have to come a helluva lot stronger than these three flimsy arguments to convince me that he won't.

6. Delgado and LoDuca both have swings where their rear end goes the opposite direction of their bat, and manage to hit the ball hard. fricken wonder swings up there with Russell Branyans HR in the Lee-Young brawl game. 7. Matt Murton is not allowed to play baseball. the 'take down Jones v. let Jones hit' debate should not even be occurring because Murton should have immediately been inserted into the game upon Soriano's injury. a true outfielder (whether it's Floyd or Murton in right) probably takes a better route on Green's line drive and catches the ball.

Michael Barrett had a dugout brawl with Carlos Delgado. back to the website, for a little while today, when you would click on "stats" you would get the Colts schedule or something like that.

if they aren't parsnicketty, you usually can get standing room only/obstructive view at the box office. but yes, often there are tickets available. I recommend going straight to the box office area, where there will often be people trying to unload tickets they won't use, instead of going the scalper/broker route.

I claim the honor of being the first one to state it on this board since April of last year.

Except that the Pythagorean Win-Loss statistic says the Cubs should be +3 over the current record (meaning they should be 58-45 right now). The team has actually been unlucky by a factor of three games based on Runs Scored and Runs Allowed analysis. So the team is actually better than the record suggests, not worse as you suggest. I assume this was posted before the loss to Philly yesterday. somehow, by virtue of yesterday's 3 run loss, and tonights four run victory, or a run differential of 1 over the course of two games, the 104th and 105th of the season, the Cubs managed to gain two games in Pythag. their "should be" record is now 60-45. freaking Cardinals are 12 over what they should be. has to be the 'luckiest' season in a long time. just an update. by virtue of their one run win tonight, the Cubs fell one game back in Pythag. for an expected record (based on total runs) of 60-46. by virtue of the Bucs slaughter of the Cards, the Cards are now only .5 up on the Bucs for worst Pythag. in the NL, but remain ahead of the White Sox who should be 42-65.

I would flip flop 01 and 07. the starting pitching in 01 was general terrible outside of Wood and Leiber. had Mueller not gotten hurt, or McGriff not taken a month too long to waive his no trade clause I might think differently, but top to bottom I think this years team is better.

He's been saying that all year long after a short outing. Yes, IMO this team is ONE of the worst since the late 90s. ONE of not THE. if by eighth worst out of the past 10 seasons, I agree 100%. perhaps a debate that deserves it's own thread.

I was just looking at his gamelog. boy has he struggled. he hasn't taken a walk since the series against the Braves....when he was a Cub.

how bout first place and leading the wild card pack in one night. go D-Backs. go Giants. come on Barroid. hit the Cubs a couple bombs tonight.

first place. woot.

hey, charity strike for us. all in all a good inning for Demp, but for the friggin ump.

Doesn't really matter if Rollins is on second or third, single still scores him. Was ball 4 as really a strike like gameday shows it as? from what I have seen, just trust gameday. it's been asked several times this thread and the ball strike calls are indeed as bad and one sided as gameday has revealed. this ump is doing everything he can to hand the game to the Phillies.

update. Howard k's while Rollins steals second. ball hits Rollins in kidney. Dempster gets 0-2 on Rollen, Rollins steals second at some point. ump has now called four pitches in a row balls that have been called strikes for Phils. runners first and third, now 2-2 on Burrell.

hmmm. where have I seen that pitch called a strike before?

Dempsters really gotta stop falling asleep with a guy on second.

yes. we're really getting the shaft tonight, and the Phils are doing all the bitching.