Sammy Sofa

He's still playing it safe because of the quad strain. He would have to have been totally healthy and busting at full speed to make that a triple.

Exactly. "Oh, ignore the fact I missed the ball like a goober...I hurt my widdle self!"

Him and Zambrano both.

Soooooooooootoooooooooooooo.

Oh, what the funk...

Hells no. I say his downward spiral continues so far that within two weeks he looks like this: http://www.poster.net/scarface/scarface-photo-xl-scarface-6235654.jpg

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 No, I'm pointing out that claiming that Soto would have definitely won OR lost more specific games than the other catchers is ultimately a meaningless argument because it's essentially unarguable either way. It's too much of a "what if" with too many different variables and outcomes to be proven either way. That's different than saying I do or do not think that Soto can generally improve the performance of this team if he gets more playing time...but to try and point out where he would have actually "won" or "lost" games for the Cubs over the course of the already complete portion of the season is, by and large, a meaningless argument from either perspective. To get all metaphysical, Soto can help win or lose future games because he has yet to play in them. Soto cannot help to win or lose games in the past because he did not play in them. It is impossible to definitively argue that he would have won or lost games he did not play in because the simple variable of Soto playing in them completely negates the outcome that we actually saw. "OOOOOO-WEEEEEEEE-OOOOOOOOO!!!" http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Sasquatch56/Mentok.jpg

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.

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 and definitely would have somehow "won" any games that the other catchers started...you're also discounting that he could have also somehow "lost" any of the games the others won or helped win.

It wouldn't kill us losing to the Cardinals, but the Brewers have a damn good shot of winning today. I'd love to hold that lead for today until the Brewers are back on the road and the Cubs are back home tomorrow.

Floyd and Ward have been hot lately. True, but looking at his numbers against Mulder, there's really no excuse to not see the Big Murt today to help drive the nail in the Cardinals' coffin.

Who has been counting on Guzman, either within the organization or amongst the fans? This. Reminiscent of the people saying we need to cut Prior and Wood now just because it'll make themselves feel better. Gooz is costing us nothing and it's not like anyone's writing him into a rotation spot then panicking when he turns up injured. He's just another one of those guys who's a bonus if he gives us anything, it's not a big deal. Exactly.

FonteNOT.

Who has been counting on Guzman, either within the organization or amongst the fans?

i don't know much about injuries and whatnot, but this is what rotoworld said on June 8th, and it might be why the Cubs waited. So further proof the Cubs medical staff is full of jackasses So you're saying it's impossible it wasn't damaged further over the last 3 full months? And are these type of tests done by some sort of exclusive "Cubs medical staff?" I thought things like this were handled by doctors that treated players in general from around the league. I really dont see how in his very limited rehab stint he could have hurt it that much too cause the problem. To me it seems more likely the problem was there in June, and they either mis evaluated it(its happened before) or they overlooked it. My guess is the problem was there in June but was mis diagnosed, which sucks cause he loses 3 months of rehab time. Maybe...but again, isn't this the result of evaluations from national medical resources as opoosed to "the Cubs' medical staff?" I'm not saying they haven't screwed up, but I think it's pretty shortsighted to pin this on the Cubs organization alone. Plenty of doctors outside of the club have been involved along the way.

i don't know much about injuries and whatnot, but this is what rotoworld said on June 8th, and it might be why the Cubs waited. So further proof the Cubs medical staff is full of jackasses So you're saying it's impossible it wasn't damaged further over the last 3 full months? And are these type of tests done by some sort of exclusive "Cubs medical staff?" I thought things like this were handled by doctors that treated players in general from around the league.

Ironically, this is exactly the type of game that, to me, shows why Marmol would often be wasted as a closer. Yes, I agree he would have likely not given up any runs...but that means you just used him when the Cubs have a 5-1 lead. That seems like a waste of a guy who is so dominant. At the same time, contrary to recent dramatics, games like this are still very much the exception for Dempster, not the rule.

Yeah, I saw Tourgasm as well. I think he was the 2nd best comedian there though. I don't think what he did at Tourgasm was his best stuff. A lot of people hate him and I don't understand why. Yeah, he's kind of obnoxious and I don't like his on stage antics all that much, but a lot of his stuff is actually funny. I think a lot of people overrate him, but I also think a lot of people severly underrate him. I can't listen to his Harmful if Swallowed CD and not crack up. I've found that most people that can't stand him do so because it's pretty clear he's a joke thief a la Carlos Mencia. Cook has ripped off so much of Louis CK's act that it should be criminal. You pull out all of the bits that he's stolen and you're left with a guy braying like a jackass and bragging about his MySpace page. Joke stealing is common as hell...every big comedian ever has probably stolen one or two jokes from a guy/girl no one ever heard of...sh*t happens really. And not that I'm a fan of either Cook or Mencia...but I heard one joke Mencia stole from Bill Cosby and it actually ended up being more funny...and Cook's "stolen material" is more topical than it is the actual joke. I'm not saying you're not gonna get jokes ripped off here or there or that it's impossible to have instances of "parallel writing," but it goes beyond that with guys like Mencia and Cook and Leary and the mother of all joke thieves, Robin Williams. They steal entire jokes and routines often almost wholesale and then to pass them off as their own with little to no change...and then they do it again and again. It's happened so often with these guys that to anyone even just paying a little bit of attention that's it clear it's not just an accident or a coincidence. And these kinds of talk and accusations against these guys have been around well before they got their big breaks and became ultra-famous. Williams was so bad with it that people would stop and walk of stage mid-set if they saw him come in the room. People like Joe Rogan and George Lopez were calling out Mencia well before he got his show simply because he was such a notorious hack and it was pissing people off. Leary got a LOT of crap right before and after Bill Hicks died for practically lifting Hicks' entire routines, and this was before Leary got his break as "the rant guy" on MTV. Cook got the same accusations levelled at hime for ripping off guys like Louis CK. And yet, the typical response is that people who say these things or don't like him because of it are just "jealous of his success" or "don't like him because he's popular." That's such a cop-out. Look at all the other comedians that have a ton of success and are very popular (even with the dreaded "young folk") and don't have anything like this said about them. It doesn't make any sense to brush off the criticisms of Cook as meaningless when it's not like that kind of response is par for the course with most other famous comedians. Besides, it's incredibly easy to hate Cook just for doing garbage like this alone: http://wwtdd.com/post.phtml?pk=2882

So...is anyone gonna start today's game thread?

It was really hilarious and creepy at the same time.

54% is pretty bad. That means the closer is giving up a run in every other inning they pitch more or less. I would think a great closer would be around 90% and an average one around 65%. I don't think anyone is really defending 2006, though that was really a collapse of the entire team, plus you had Dusty using Demp on about the most horrible closing non-schedule possible.

huh? I'm saying, I'll take 85% every time. Marmol has been awesome, but I still want Dempter closing. When he's celebrating winning the WS, I'll be happy, but dbags like you will be questioning why 85% Dempster will be out there. Huh? Dbag, why waste a post. What's with the name calling?

regardless, dempster puts far too many runners on base to be an effective closer with 1 run leads. Can Fred provide us with the numbers that show how many inherited 1-run leads Dempster has saved or lost? In order for it to be relevant, you'd have to know how many saves and blown saves the average closer has in those situations. Average % is going to be a lot lower. I'll check what Dempster's done. Well, whatever needs to be checked. I'm curious to see what his numbers in those situations look like.

like Dempster did today? SPECIFICALLY like today? Ideally, no. But so long as the end result is the team wins at least the significant majority of the time when the closer comes in, it works for me.

Real closers save ballgames.