CaliforniaRaisin

They start playing night games later in the summer, when it starts getting blisteringly hot in AZ with random rain storms popping up infrequently. Arizona's monsoon storms have long started already (heck, a few drifted over to the LA area a few weeks ago!) - it's normally better to get the games in the morning during monsoon season since the storms really get going with the help of the sun during the afternoons and evenings.

Only 1 K in 2.2 for Campusano? He's slipping!

How do you figure? um lets see. 1. More wins doesn't matter 2. lower era incorrect 3. less walks 4. less hits allowed incorrect 5. lewss homers allowed incorrect 6. more ground ball outs 7. more team wins in his starts doesn't matter 8. much more consistent is that enough or should i keep going for you? Veal gave up fewer runs and baserunners, and struck out many more. He walked more, but his K/BB ratio was better too. You can see the numbers here. apparently i should have qualified my answer with WHEN VEAL LEFT.....or maybe you have seen all their starts this season....? So I went through and tabulated Atkins' stats at the time of Veal's promotion: Mitch Atkins: 72.1 IP, 53 H, 5 HR, 68 K/25 BB, 2.24 ERA 1.08 WHIP, .196 BAA Donnie Veal: 73.2 IP, 45 H, 4 HR, 86 K/40 BB, 2.69 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, .169 BAA To go over Nathan's list: 1. More wins: Yes, Atkins had 6 and Veal had 5 (though I think this is a poor stat to judge a pitcher). 2. lower era - Yes, 2.24 to 2.69. 3. less walks - Yes, 25 to 40. Of course Veal has the K advantage. 4. less hits allowed - No, Veal had 45 Hs, Atkins 53. 5. lewss homers allowed - No, Veal had 4 HR to Atkins 5 6. more ground ball outs - Not going to look it up but I'm sure Atkins wins this in a landslide. 7. more team wins in his starts - Eh, so what? 8. much more consistent - I guess...though in the stat line I showed above, Veal was better than Atkins in 4 out of 7 categories. So, of the corrections TT made to your list based on Atkins' current stats, he was only wrong on the ERAs at the time of Veal's promotion.

I understand Nate's argument, though. At the time of Veal's promotion, he and Atkins were similarly rated. Veal and Atkins both had their upsides at the time...but Atkins is a year younger. Things are different since then, but at the time, Nate's got a good argument. Regarding my choice, I was evaluating performance more than anything else, though. But why use the "at the time" argument when we're talking about the entire season to date? Because we also started talking about the best performance level-by-level.

How do you figure? um lets see. 1. More wins doesn't matter 2. lower era incorrect 3. less walks 4. less hits allowed incorrect 5. lewss homers allowed incorrect 6. more ground ball outs 7. more team wins in his starts doesn't matter 8. much more consistent is that enough or should i keep going for you? Veal gave up fewer runs and baserunners, and struck out many more. He walked more, but his K/BB ratio was better too. You can see the numbers here. apparently i should have qualified my answer with WHEN VEAL LEFT.....or maybe you have seen all their starts this season....? I can't check right this moment (I will check later), but I'm pretty sure Veal had fewer hits and a better WHIP when he was promoted.

I think Veal is talked about moreso for a few reasons. For one, he's lefthanded...that tends to go farther with pitchers. Two, his scoreless streak at Daytona vaulted him into the spotlight. Three, he was a much higher draft pick than Atkins, which lends itself to more hype and more in-depth scouting reports. Finally, Atkins didn't establish his prospect status until this season. Veal's prospect status was well above Atkins last season due to where he was drafted and some of the numbers he put up at Boise. Also (though this of course is related to a few things you mentioned like his draft spot and his quicker promotion), Veal has better stuff.

Hill topped out at 92 mph in the first, mostly was at 90-91. The 92 mph was the strikeout pitch to Josh Fields. Geovany Soto is the starting catcher.

This time of year, with a team this far out of the race is no time to be saying "is veteran player X's stats slightly better than young player Y's?" This time of year is not about stats. Its about finding out what you have. There's a simple question that should be asked about every player on this team right now. The answer will tell you if that player should be playing or sitting/traded. The question is "the next time the Cubs challenge for a division or (dare I say) World Series title, will this player be a part of the mix?" If the answer is no, get rid of them immediately. If the answer is "maybe," then you absolutely owe it to the organization to see if that answer will be yes or no. I agree with your entire post. But, I still dont' believe the argument that Dusty failed to play younger players this year or won't play them down the stretch. Could he have played more? Sure, but he has for the most part stuck with Cedeno, Marshall, and Murton the entire first half of the season. When Hill was with the Cubs he pitched regularly, when Aardsma was with the team he pitched, Novoa has gotten into some critical innings, etc. The only guy I can think of that got shafted was Theriot. Just because the Cubs fire Dusty, doesn't mean that Jim Hendry is all of the sudden going to call up Hill, Guzman, Aardsma, and Theriot. I'd have to say Guzman has been shafted too.

If we stop consideration at the time Veal was promoted, Atkins had just started to struggle while Veal had come on strong. Veal had reduced his BB numbers, had the advantage in WHIP, BAA and Ks and the ERA gap had really been decreased. Atkins started out hot while Veal struggled in April, but ever since, I'd say Veal has had the advantage.

To say they are better than guys who are getting playing time - like Rusch and Perez - makes them worthy of playing time on this team. The Cubs aren't going anywhere and guys like Hill and Guzman, who are pretty much ready for the big leagues (in Hill's case, as ready as he will ever be) need to play so the Cubs can get a chance to properly evaluate them for 2007.

Been a rough go of it for Dylan recently.

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses". I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played. Tell that to Angel Guzman, who essentially was a spectator for two weeks during his last call-up. Angel Guzman of the 5+ ERA? It was fairly obvious in his time with the club that he is rusty and still has some work to do in the minors. His first promotion was ill-timed, in my opinion. He was much more ready for his second promotion, but it was pointless to have him go up just to be the long reliever used once every 2 weeks. But the strangest thing of all is he had a dominant outing relieving Rusch (as IPT pointed out), and then sat on the bench for the next 18 days. So Gooz shows steady improvement and then isn't used for 18 days.

Chris Walker has really put together a great season at WT, and he has had to to be considered in the Cubs' plans, given his more advanced age.

It's what the Cubs *should* do. I think we all agree on that, since the season is lost.

1. Youngsters like Murton, Theriot, Guzman and Hill could be played more regularly - especially before the call-ups in September - to get a better read on their abilities. 2. Dusty won't get a chance to finish what he and Joey Cora have valiantly tried to do to Z's arm. 3. The interim manager might be the best candidate for the job and could be hired beyond this season.

That's great news! :D And that's a great sig.

=; This thread is staying alive until 2010.

Yeah, I was the same way.

I don't trust the score. They are anti-Cubs bigots. They're worse if you live in Chicago. I would never trade with the Score unless I could fleece them.

I'd put Gallagher ahead of Veal in Daytona because I don't Veal has enough IP there. Same for Gallagher not having enough IP at West Tenn. And I'd rate Veal's performance over Atkins' at Peoria. Don't forget Pina out in Boise.

Sounds like Z is cleared to go on Friday. Mesa getting blown away in the 8th, 8-1. All 8 Angels runs came in the 6th, after Parker was gone with 5 strong innings. Castillo gave up 6 ER and got one out in the 6th, Holdzkom got the final 2 outs of the inning but gave up 2 unearned runs. Mesa got their run in the 2nd thanks to a Luther Murphy walk, a wild pitch and a Marwin Gonzalez RBI single. Drew Rundle is 0 for 3 with 3 strikeouts and now 1/13 in his brief professional career (.077/.333/.077, 4 BBs/10 Ks).

Probable Starters: West Tenn: ?? Daytona: LHP Carlos Perez (1-5, 5.34 ERA, 64 IP, 47/37, 1.86 WHIP) Peoria: RHP Todd Blackford (8-2, 3.68 ERA, 95.1 IP, 42/41, 1.38 WHIP) Boise: RHP Jeff Samardzija (0-1, 3.00 ERA, 9 IP, 6/2, 4 HBP, 1.22 WHIP) Mesa: RHP Julio Castillo (0-2, 11.47 ERA, 9.2 IP, 3/7, 2.58 WHIP)* * All Mesa starters that I list should be taken with a grain of salt since they shuffle their starters and relievers back and forth so much.

:pats self on back: The relievers, ok. The hitters weren't that fun to look at. :( Hill is the clear cut winner here. I think the battle for second is more interesting. I think Veal has had the second best season and Wells the third. I like Hill, and I still think he will be dealt, but IMO, considering the lack of hype, and "prototype" stuff, I actually like Gallagher's season better then Wells and Veal. Veal and Wells has the stuff, so there numbers are not really all that surprising. Now in comparasion that his stuff, Gallagher simply gets it done, he keeps pitching and pitching, and defying the logics. I would give Gallagher my first half award....with Veal, Wells, and Hill in that order. Uhh, Gallagher has better stuff than Wells. Gallagher has more (better) pitches than Veal. And Hill has the best stats - the question was who was the best pitcher was in the first half, I didn't take into account age, league, stuff - just who had the best first half.

Now Harvey in the "Not-So-Hot" list: Rough year for Cubs hitting prospects... Veal gives up a run and is off the Hot Sheet. :(

Actually, Pedro is a year younger than Trachsel at 34. I'm incredibly curious about Pelfrey, who they just called up. He was probably the top pitching prospect in the minors who had never seen the majors after Billingsley made it to the show. Homer > Pelfrey.