Sammy Sofa

As Tryptamine put it, a win vs. the Nationals still counts as a win. Saying that the Cardinals are the only team that count is...well, it's stupid. Lee has failed in some clutch situations, and he's produced in others. Lee's career: .282/.367/.499/.865 w/RISP: .283/.390/.489/.879 w/men on: .282/.376/.480/.857 on 3rd, <2 out: .345/.407/.619/1.026 on 3rd, 2 out: .223/.372/.394/.766 w/2 outs: .266/.366/.479/.845 2 outs, RISP: .249/.386/.442/.828 Late & Close*: .295/.393/.502/.896 *Late & Close are PA in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck. Tie Game: .281/.377/.480/.857 within 1 Run: .284/.375/.491/.866 within 2 Runs: .284/.371/.490/.860 within 3 Runs: .286/.370/.501/.871 Within 4 Runs: .284/.368/.497/.865 Team Ahead: .284/.370/.502/.872 Team Behind: .282/.356/.509/.865 High Leverage: .283/.381/.494/.875 Medium Leverage: .295/.373/.506/.879 Low Leverage: .272/.355/.495/.851 And as has been pointed out... vs. Cardinals: .313/.398/.550/.948 His numbers against other NL Central teams aren't much to complain about either. And in case you only want to know how he did against St. Louis since becoming a Cub: 2004: .420/.500/.783/1.283 (81 PA) 2005: .393/.514/.821/1.336 (70 PA) 2006: .400/.500/1.000/1.500 (only 12 PA) 2007: .349/.414/.587/1.002 (70 PA) 2008: .281/.349/.368/.718 (63 PA) 2009: .268/.300/.393/.693 (60 PA) 2010: .286/.306/.686/.991 (36 PA) Yes, he's struggled overall this season. I don't think anyone's refuting that. Of course, everyone would want more production from their #3 hitter. However, to basically label him as someone who chokes when the pressure is on is ridiculous. Crushed.

What is it with people here demanding that others "prove" their completely ass-backwards point wrong? OK, first of all, you didn't "prove" that Lee is unclutch or can't handle pressure situations because all you did was cherry pick scenarios where that backed up your point. Are you meaning to tell us that in Lee's entire career (or even just his career with the Cubs) those or all or most of the pressure/clutch situations he's faced? Of course not, therefore your argument collapses from the jump off. But just for shits and giggles, let's toss something out there: you bring up a bad stretch against the Cardinals. During Lee's time here the Cardinals was the one team the Cubs would almost always have to look to take out to do well, right? If he can't handle that pressure, than why does he have a .313 .398 .550 .948 line against them? Hell, if you buy into clutch stats he's got a remarkably consistent OPS across all the major "clutch" situations between .828 and .896. If he's consistently dogging it in pressure situations, then how has he maintained those career numbers? Nobody is bashing your points because we "love" Lee or want him hitting 3rd right now; it's because you presented a completely halfassed argument that flies in the face of the bigger picture and requires ignoring the majority of his career.

You didn't point out any trends. trend = correlation with events over time. so all of that stuff didn't happen when the pressure was on? ok fine. You collected a bunch of scattered occurrences to back up your point while ignoring all of the ones that disproved it. You discovered no trends; only different times when he played poorly under a myriad of different circumstances. The only workable conclusion someone could take from your rambling, sloppy argument is that "sometimes Derrek Lee is not a good hitter."

You didn't point out any trends.

His club option does for after 2011, but that's only if he exercises his player option after this year. He could still opt out if he wants to. Gotcha. Thanks.

Doesn't his option automatically kick in if he's traded?

He sucked at the end of all those seasons except where didn't but then he sucked at the beginning of the season except when he didn't and because of his psychic powers he knows when the season is over even after the first week and aw [expletive] it I missed something.

Stop ignoring all of the other posts that showed you to be ridiculous.

Unless you're the Angels, in which case you win a WS in the same time. Think about this reeeeeeeeeealllllll hard for 2 seconds.

sulley, I will punch you.

It's not.

The debate over replay is good for baseball, from Selig's perspective. Actually slowing down the game with it is not. It's not going to happen until he's out of there in a few years.

The Cubs need to stop welcoming their new players with a big basket of clutch cancer.

So he was great in 2005 because it didn't matter? He had an OPS over 1.200 through April. He had an OPS over 1.000 every month through August. Apparently it didn't matter from day one, because he was [expletive] killing it the entire time.

You're kidding, right?

That was completely expected.

It's the same with Santo and Cubs fans. Both are biased to a flaw, and have next to no broadcasting skill. If you're a fan of their team, you probably love them. If you're anyone else, you almost certainly can't stand them. The difference is that Hawk is the PBP guy and gets to torture a national TV audience with his unprofessional shtick for some unfathomable reason. But at least Santo has Pat with him who is great. Also, Hawk is so boring to listen to, at least Ron is Entertaining. I'd disagree and say that both Hawk and Santo are awful but entertaining in their awfulness. The key is, as you pointed out, is that Ron has Pat to even things out and Pat actually handles the PBP. It would be one thing if Hawk was there to be the TV version of Santo, but he's supposed to be the TV version of Hughes, which is absurd. Couple that with the smarmy cloud of douche that is Steve Stone and it's torture to listen to.

They weren't on WGN for a long-time, they were on closed-circuit, then Chicago only cable, which is why the Cubs are popular and the White Sox are not And by the time CWS went to WGN the national aspect of WGN was smaller. I know people in PA, NY and NJ that had WGN growing up, but it's not out here anymore and hasn't been since I came here in the late 90s. WGN is still available on most of the East Coast, but it's WGN America.

No, not all of them, since there's WGN and then there's WGN America. Besides, the point was looking for the reasons why the Cubs have such a large, historic fanbase. The Cubs have a long history of national or multi-regional coverage because of WGN radio and TV dating back decades and across generations. The White Sox do not, so unless you expect them to somehow magically catch up with the relative smattering of games they have on WGN America and the mighty Midwest broadcasting power that is the Score, you brought up a very moot point.

Nothing against Ramirez specifically, but after this season and last, I'm ready for a radically different Cubs team. I like Ramirez, Z, Lee, etc. but it's time for a new direction. Out with the old, in with the new -- manager, GM, and core group of players. You don't do it to the point that you're going out of your way to hurt the team. It would be one thing if the Cubs already had candidates who could passably play 3B for a full season (unless DeWitt makes a jump power-wise, no, he doens't count) or had ANY prospects near being ready who could take over at 3B or if there were decent candidates out there as FA who the Cubs could get to replace Aramis...but there isn't. They'd be dumping him simply to dump and more than likely having to pay a big chunk of his remaining years to do so.

Not really. It's not your fault you never look beyond the USA in the medals table, or that the calculations to convert relative to population size can be too complicated. We are actually quite tolerant about intellectual laziness. 8-) http://ic2.pbase.com/o4/52/150052/1/60237644.staxsmall.jpg And something posted on the first page keeps trying to install malware on my computer. Be careful.

Only the Cobs.

Scoring hasn't been the problem for most of the 2nd half.

On the upside, Cashner sucking in the bullpen will hopefully keep the Cubs from penciling him in there next season.

Castro [expletive] rules. I love watching this kid play so much.