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. First of all, it's moot to toss out two extremes a la ARod or Neifi when talking about Soto. Secondly, talking about Soto's better offensive production as if it all by itself it would have ensure more wins is also a stretch. Look, you'll find few people that don't think he can't seriously help the Cubs from here on out...but arguing for his playing time based on past what if's ultimately proves nothing and is impossible to be used to justify playing him now.