Enhanced Box Score: Cubs 8, White Sox 2 – July 8, 2013

If only the Cubs could play the White Sox in every game.

It was tight early on, and it looked like a baserunning gaffe here and a throwing gaffe there would cost the Cubs. But then they busted things open in the 8th, and that was that. Matt Garza was as good as you’d like him to be, and a number of guys had great nights. Even Dave Sappelt had a four-hit night.

But you know who stole the show.

july 8 box

Full box.

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

151 responses to “Enhanced Box Score: Cubs 8, White Sox 2 – July 8, 2013”

  1. Spencer

    This is the very John Madden-esque EBS.

    1. JoeyCollins

      It’s the Annexation of Puerto Rico.

    2. Stinky Pete

      Doink. Doink.

  2. dying cubs fan's last request

    Alfonso Soriano MVP.

  3. Required

    We put it on their board…..YES!

  4. Andrew

    This is exactly what makes me hate and love Soriano. Completely gone for large parts of the season, then all of a sudden he just turns it on and is unreal. Oh well, probably stuck with him until next years deadline, so gotta learn to love it.

  5. willis

    Sweeping them is fun.

    Good game by many tonight. Another strong outing from Garza. God I’d love to keep that guy.

  6. Canadian Cubs Fan

    Beating the White Sox is always good, even in a season like this.

    Didn’t get to see the game, and unfortunately all the At Bat highlights are Len & Jim’s calls. Would have loved to hear Harrelson & Stone’s play-by-play instead. Would have enjoyed it even more.

    What’s with Barney making another error? Crazy.

  7. Edward Gomez

    Late inning heroics and a nice outing by Garza spells dooms for the White Sox. It’s going to be a very interesting next few weeks. One thought comes to mind. If the Cubs would be at an 80% closing rate (along if Garza started the season pitching and not on the DL) how far out would we be out of first place. Lastly, Garza coming to the dugout during the top of the first inning and taking his time was classic.

  8. JulioZuleta

    13 posts, 1,100+ comments, $2,700+ raised for a good cause. It was a busy day at BN.

  9. Required

    We are only 10 games out of the wild card. What if pigs flew and we put a little run together? Wouldn’t be impossible. There’s half of a season left.

    1. JulioZuleta

      Oh god, let’s not do this every time we win 3 in a row.

      1. Required

        Hey in the movie Major League they built that team to lose. They got Rick Vaughn glasses, Jobu got his rum and they won the division. I know it’s far fetched just like to see if the Cubs fans still have any hope.

        1. Cubs_Questions

          The Cubs are sellers. Any chance of a run that the Cubs make will likely be with out Gregg and Garza, and maybe Navarro and Soriano.

          This team is not built for now, they’ve clearly already been playing the role of seller. And since they’ve already dealt Feldman and Hairston, it would be foolish to turn back now. Especially when there could be so much talent on the table in a Garza or Gregg move that could help the Cubs in 2014/15.

          By deciding not to sell, they’re wasting the trade value of a guy like Gregg, and by not getting prospects now, just prolonging when they finally can put a winner on the field.

          1. Jay

            Glad somebody gets it.

        2. cubbiesOHcubbies

          so should Dale Sveum get himself a cardboard cutout of laura Ricketts and remove one piece everytime they win a game?

        3. ISU Birds

          Vaughn=Gregg, Jobu=Sori, and Willie Mays Hayes=Borbon. I don’t see how this isn’t going to happen.

    2. Jason P

      Don’t kid yourself. There are 75 games left, during which the Cubs would have to go 47-28 to even get to 85-77. Even then, they probably wouldn’t make the playoffs, so let’s say they’d have to win 88. In that case, they’d have to go 50-25, or essentially average a win in every single series they play.

    3. cubmig

      You have the right moniker: “Required”. That should tell you all you need to know……..but, no sin in being hopeful. Knock yourself out.

  10. Rebuilding

    Where can we go to party with the Cubs and the Crosstown Cup?

  11. sect209row15

    I can’t recall a starting pitcher strolling across the field during a game with two coaches in tow from the outfield bullpen. Gotta see it to believe it. Garza is a wackjob. Love it.

  12. Required

    On a side note, glad to see Marlon Byrd put together a good first half. Class act!

    1. Cornfield Cub

      I would have agree with you 1 1/2 ago.

      1. Cornfield Cub

        years ago*

    2. Bwa

      If you don’t mind steroids…

  13. Matty Ice

    Garza just told reporters he’s “50-50″ on signing an extension.


    1. MichiganGoat

      Yup 50% of the time those quotes are right 10% of the time

  14. Oswego chris

    Boy the White Sox are bad, and the place was empty…and Hawk wasn’t even getting angry…

  15. The Dude

    Honestly, if I were GM, I’d give Garza 4/70 and trade Shark. You have to give something of high value to get high value. The Cubs have already gotten the return on Garza’s value during his arbitration years, through performance. At four years, it’s ok to overpay on AAV because the risk I’m these contracts is generally in length, not initial annual salary. Bold moves are what we need… Bold moves ;)

    1. 70'scub

      I agree with the sell Shark now, the Cubs have a deep need for young talent that is MLB ready! In your case the Cubs could still trade Garza next year or during the winter trade meetings ect. I expect the Cubs to front load his contract. Neither of these two pitchers prime matches the Cub rebuild time line.

    2. Tim

      Why can’t we just keep Shark and Garza? I don’t think it would take 5/75 for Garza, but that would be my ceiling with him. I would be trying to get him for 4/60-65ish. Our rotation of 1.)Shark 2.)Garza 3.)Wood 4.)EJax 5.)Arietta/Villenuva/Rusin/Free agent/trade is pretty solid. We could win a title with that rotation.

      Our run differential on the year is only -4!! Imagine if our bullpen wasn’t the worst in the league? Or imagine if we had one solid offensive player?

      The bullpen will address itself. Arietta/Vizcaino/Russell/Strop/Parker/free agents, there are some nice options in this group who throw hard. It can’t possibly be so bad again next year.

      Offensively how likely is it that Rizzo/Castro/Barney repeat their 2013 season? You would think there would be a bounce back for some of that group. And who in the Cubs is due for a regression on offense? No one, we can only improve in this facet as well.

      This team is not far off from seriously contending. I say resign Garza, especially with the lack of high level impact pitching in our system, and add a bat next year. Whether that be through trade or free agency, and we could contend. Definitely by 2015 when Baez is likely to be up, with Soler/Alomora/Bryant hopefully not too far behind.

      1. sven-erik312

        Hi Tim, I”m with you. This has got Greg Maddox written all over it. I understand the point of view for trading Garza, but I get a bad feeling about doing it. I think it will be a mistake.

        1. Michael

          Huh Maddux was 26 and comin off a Cy Young so how is this like Maddux.

          1. ChicagoMike702

            Maddux was also a once-in-a-generation talent who was never injured and left as a FA.

            Other than they play the same position and throw with the same hand… I don’t see it at all.

            1. Jay

              Plus the difference in brains between Jed/Theo and Larry Himes is like the difference between Honey Boo Boo and Bill Gates.

    3. The Dude

      I may be wrong, but I believe the goal is to have a team that is competitive without major payroll restrictions. My thought process is, that, we could get a pitcher who is a 22 year version of Shark, plus more valuable pieces. Trading Shark would not set you back add far add trading Garza because of the return.

      And to your point about Castro, Rizzo, Barney; I believe they have just add much probability to falter next year add they have this year. There’s no trending upward to indicate otherwise. I say that while maintaining faith in Castro. I worry about Rizzo and appreciate Barney fir who he is.

      1. Tim

        Obviously no one is untouchable for the right package. If the D’backs wanted to give Skaggs and Bradley, sure here’s Jeff the pirate for you. It would have to be that kind of a deal though.

        In terms of those 3(Rizzo, Castro, Barney) I don’t think any of them are year in and year out all stars, maybe Castro. However, Barney is a better than .208 hitter, Castro is a hell of a lot better than .230, and I think even Rizzo could improve slightly. I know average is not a great stat to use, but I do think it shows how under performing some of these guys have been and the likelihood that they improve upon these poor numbers next season.

        My main thesis is that the Cubs are pretty close to winning, and trading Garza/Shark would set them back. I am not completely against the idea, no one is untouchable except LeBron James, but I think they have the pieces in place to contend for a playoff spot next year with these guys and be good for years to come.

      2. Jay

        Rizzo’s the one you need to have faith in. On pace for 25-95 in his FIRST FULL YEAR while maintaining strong OBP and OPS. Sure he’s streaky but with that short swing and his willingness to choke up on the bat with two strikes I have total confidence in him.

        1. MichiganGoat

          Faith, Trust… these are not real words! TRADE ALL THE PLAYERS!

        2. Hansman1982

          Even in a “terrible” year, Rizzo still has a very comparable OPS to last year.

          1. MichiganGoat

            You and your voodoo stats… don’t you have a hamburger to eat!

            1. hansman1982

              Gotta do something while I am chewing…

    4. Hansman1982

      This makes no sense. You keep the guy who just missed a big chunk of time due to injury but trade the younger, less used and better pitcher who is also going to be less expensive the next two years?

      About as silly as trading Castro.

      1. MichiganGoat

        Yup… but why stop there lets trade the big three for 6 younger high potential players. SIGN ALL THE 16 YR OLDS… That way as we get older the team stays the same age ;)

        1. Hansman1982

          Just think of the 2097 lineup we could have!

          1. MichiganGoat

            I know right- my great great grand-kids will finally have a winner. The decade long rebuild in full force… I’m assuming Theo cloning is already happening, right now he is teaching a 2 yr old clone of himself how to build a winner. And once our facility in the Alpha Centauri system is finished we can corner the market on intergalactic talent. The Alpha Cubs will be awesome to watch. Excuse me while I cryo-freeze myself for the future.

        2. tbone

          Nice “Dazed and Confused” reference there, lol.

          1. MichiganGoat

            thx glad someone got it

      2. The Dude

        Lol chill out guys. The idea is not as silly as you make it appear. The return on Shark would have immediate impact, and likely better for the Cubs during 2015 and beyond. It would take an aggressive trading partner because of all the reasons you’ve mentioned. Just spit ballin’ late at night…

  16. dying cubs fan's last request

    Shark is a must keep, still relatively young and got a fresh arm because of his years playing football. His best years are still yet to come.

    1. 70'scub

      His best years are still to come must keep += high retail trade value…….

    2. The Dude

      My problem with trading Garza is that, at best, we can hope for value. Keeping Garza, who isn’t old, and trading Shark is the only way we get ahead. If they’re talking four years, Garza should be on this team. If we trade him, I bet my next beer that he’s getting a five year deal on the open market… I’ll also bet that the Cubs FO would rob any team that traded for Shark.

      1. MichiganGoat

        Trading Shark and actively shopping him is basically a fire sale. We are not the Marlins, we are not trading away all valuable pieces to get more prospects for a 2020 run. We are building for the next two years and beyond. We are trading Garza because 1-he wants more than the FO will give him, 2-he has more value in a trade than if we let him walk, 3-he could net us a major return (see Brett’s post yesterday). Trading Shark right now is a horrible idea UNLESS a team comes to us with an offer we can’t refuse- but that only happens on a Xbox or Fantasy Baseball.

        1. Chad

          You are exactly right MG. I do not want the cubs to move Shark unless they get an absolute haul, and I mean a Skaggs, Bradley, Davidson type of haul. But if they could get a return like that you have to trade him. Yes, Shark is developing into an Ace, and he has a young arm and he is under contract for 2 more seasons, but how expensive is he going to be after that? If he keeps going he could get a HUGE contract. Now, I’m fine with that as well if the cubs feel he is the best option, but they won’t ever get him to sign a friendly Rizzo/Castro type extension. So if the cubs are truly thinking long term (past 2015) then it is conceivable that they could move Samardzija. I’d think this off-season would be the more likely time frame for that though. Just think if the cubs can get a Skaggs who is ML ready, but not at Samardzija’s status yet, and a guy like Bradley who could be a Samardzija in 4 years, you aren’t hurting the development that much. (Disclaimer, that is a Dbacks example that has been used frequently here, so I kept with it).

          1. MichiganGoat

            yes if a team is stupid enough to trade a handful of their top talent to get a solid number 2/potential Ace that is going to get expensive to keep then sure we take it… but it will never happen. This is not a Xbox or Fantasy Baseball… no team is trading away that much to get one player, not with the new CBA- prospects are just too valuable right now.

            Ask yourselves would we trade three of our top prospects to get a player like Shark? Exactly.

            1. Chad

              I’m not saying it is likely, but it is possible. There are teams like the Dodgers and Yankees out there. They are dumb. Also, it is possible that Shark isn’t the only inclusion. Maybe a prospect that the cubs don’t have a big fit for like Rubi Silva as Luke or Brett mentioned. That might help bring back something. And yes teams have been known to do that, though it is unlikely I agree. Just saying a firesale is not the only option.

              1. Chad

                Also, it is possible that the FO doesn’t value Samardzija as much as the fans do.

                1. MichiganGoat

                  Maybe not but they do understand his trade value right now and will not give him up for anything less than a teams top prospects. And as I’ve been saying that is why they are not shopping him and no other team is really considering him.

                  The Dodger and Yankees would rather sign Garza to a deal than trade way the farm for Shark, but if LA want to give Puig for Shark then sure.

                  1. Chad

                    We are on the same page here MG. It’s going to take a lot and the FO is not shopping him, but I’m sure they are listening and saying it would take “X, Y, and Z”. Well they better be anyway.

                    1. MichiganGoat

                      I doubt they are even telling what it would take that would lower their leverage. Instead I’m thinking its more like “ahh thanks, thats cute but try again”

                    2. Chad

                      I bet they do more than that, I bet there is a list they have.

        2. BluBlud

          I have no Idea where trading Shark to keep Garza comes from. Sure, if Arizona wants to trade the farm for him, then of course you do it. If Shark is traded, it’ll be because a team came and got him, not because the Cubs shopped him. Extend or don’t extend garza, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Shark.

          1. Chad

            Agreed 100% Blu.

          2. MichiganGoat

            Thats not what I’m even saying or commenting on. I’m responding the idea that “trading Shark is the only way we get ahead” that The Dude had said. I agree there is no correlation between what we do with Garza and how it relates to Shark. I’m saying trading/shopping Shark is just not a smart or successful plan UNLESS we are doing a fire sale- and that is not what the plan is.

            1. Chad

              You guys are on 2 different but related topics. However, a fire sale is not the only successful plan that would allow Shark to be traded, but it would require a significant haul in near ML ready pitching prospects. Everyone seems to think Shark will be around forever, but it is fathomable that he will leave in 2 years, so keep that in mind.

              1. MichiganGoat

                If we are shopping Shark then yes we are basically doing a fire sale strategy, but if a team wants to hand us a plate of gold then we listen. As I’ve said all my comments are related to the “trading Shark is the only way we get ahead” concept. This front office is always listening but they are not shopping players we have under control, that are on the right side of 30, and have still yet to reach their peak years. And other teams know what they would have to give to persuade Theo and Co. differently and no other FO is going to clean their farms to get one player.

        3. jh03

          C’mon… that could happen on ‘The Show’ too, so it’s not just Xbox.

          1. MichiganGoat

            Good point.. I still only play the original Nintendo, too many buttons on the controls after that ;)

            1. jh03

              I’m wayyyyyy too young to have owned an original Nintendo haha. However, my dad had an old Super Nintendo that I would play that duck hunting game on, when I was little. That game was fun as hell!

              1. MichiganGoat


                And the game you are referring to is called Duck Hunt. It came on a dual cartridge with the original Super Mario Bros. I still play if from time to time.

                Damn when did I get so fracking old

                1. Feeney

                  I spent years trying to perfect the NES Mario Bros speed run. The world record is like 4 something minutes. I never got close. I can still beat the game in about 7 minutes. I don’t care what anyone says that was the golden age of video games.

                  1. MichiganGoat

                    I was never great with Super Mario Bros… those jumping games always got me. But he original Tecmo Bowl is the best. Simple game play and completely awesome. 4 plays and go for it. I LOVE THAT GAME

                    1. Feeney

                      One day I will have the perfect man cave. And in it will be a NES, SNES, N64, Sega Genesis and Atari. All the games. That’s my dream. Man, I am nostalgic now.

                    2. Rebuilding

                      Bo Jackson!

                    3. BluBlud

                      LT was beast on that game. That was my first sports game.

                2. jh03

                  Yeah, I remember that now that you say that. Man, thinking back on it, those Super Nintendo games were classic. You could play all day and not get bored….

                  1. Stinky Pete

                    A friend of mine said he was playing Zelda. I figured it was some jazzed up online version. I walked by him and was amazed to see the same game I played many years ago. He was playing it on an emulator. So now I have 758 Super Nintendo games I can play on my computer. Sweet.

            2. Kyle

              That is a true fact. I have a young friend who insisted I play Link to the Past, but I like my Zelda with two buttons only.

              1. MichiganGoat

                TRUTH BROTHER TRUTH.

                All i want is up down left right a b – these other controls with the 50+ buttons and two gyroscopes to move forward only piss me off. I play Modern Warfare (or something like that) with my brother in law and his friends the other day and basically I sat in a corner and just sprayed bullet everywhere then blew myself up with a something. But I can still kick some Contra ass.

            3. Rebuilding

              A good friend of mine went on EBay and got the original Atari 2600 and all of the games. Love some Pitfall and Decathlon

    3. The Dude

      Exactly why he’s the most valuable. The Cubs can afford a slight overpay with Garza, especially if it’s only a four year deal. You can’t create Sharks value strictly from a market play, not even close. He’s the most valuable Cub. That’s a franchise changing piece to move, especially when they have the money to keep the treaty of the team in tact.

  17. another JP

    With Garza now talking extension, I’m thinking we’ll at least have him right up to the trade deadline. Unless a team hits Theo/Jed up with a kick-ass proposal, it makes sense to consider keeping MG if he’s reasonable on his contract demands. I’ve always thought the Garza situation would determine how Shark feels about a new contract, and the team really looks at Garza as a leader. Give the guy a few more starts in July and let’s see what happens… the Cubs just might go on a bit of a run here.

    1. willis

      It’s always made more sense to extend him. I mean, God forbid you have an excellent 2/3 starter to build from, along with a 3 (Wood) and a 2 (Shark). If he’s asking for the world then I can see them letting him go and probably I’m ok with that. Hit him with 4/65 with innings incentives to pop it up a little if he hits them. If he walks from that, then unfortunately you have to hope there is a decent return.

  18. Jason Powers


    1. Jason Powers

      Easy outing. So 50-50 to extend our meal ticket to top prospects. Let’s see how July progresses.

  19. Michael

    This spell of good play by the Cubs is nice, but let’s not get crazy. We’re still 9 games under. I’m just happy we will probably avoid 100 losses this year.

    1. Tim

      Who cares about how many losses we have this year? The Cubs are out of it, you would think the higher the draft pick the better. More money to spend in the draft with a worse record, and more international pool money to trade next season.

      Still, this Cubs team is better than its record. The offense and bullpen have been really brutal, if they were just average we would be in contention

  20. Rebuilding

    We can’t just “keep Garza”. It takes two to sign a deal and Garza prob wants a bidding war to ensue this offseason. Given his career numbers I don’t know why his initial asking price would be lower than Sanchez’s deal 5/85. He knows that a ton of new revenues are coming in and it’s a weak FA class for pitchers. Assman, who has been very reliable, said the Cubs weren’t going higher than 4/64. He just isn’t going to accept that right now so if we aren’t willing to go up near $80 mil you might as well get something for him while you can

    1. Tim

      How many times has Garza been like I like it here? He even said in the press conference after the game, “my kids like it here, I like it here.” He went on to talk about how cool it would be to win here. he clearly enjoys being a Cub and playing in Chicago.

      Having said that, yes it takes two to tango. Sanchez got that money based on the fact that he had a ridiculous postseason, and had been healthy for awhile. Garza hasn’t pitched a full season since I don’t even know when. They are comparable pitchers in terms of talent, but not much else, two completely different situations.

      I have a hard time believing Garza would turn down 5/75 today.

      1. Tim

        Not to mention Garza doesn’t have a ton of leverage. As Brett has pointed out many times, the Cubs don’t have to trade Garza. And if they don’t he’s got compensation attached to him. How’d that work out for Kyle Lohse. Yes, Garza is a better pitcher than Lohse, but Lohse was coming off a ridiculously good year. If I were Garza I would be worried about getting that same 5/75 if I have compensation attached to me in the offseason. I would be worried enough to the point that I would take a small discount to stay with a team I am happy playing for, AND who is going to be contending for titles during my contract.

      2. another JP

        When I mentioned the Cubs keeping Garza I qualified the statement by suggesting he would need to be reasonable in his contract demands. Well, Tim Dierkes at MLBTR made the following observation regarding MG:

        “Garza’s value is difficult to peg, given his history of durability followed by the long layoff. Last offseason five starting pitchers received deals of three or more years, most of whom did not have draft pick compensation attached. A salary in the $13-15MM range seems appropriate for Garza, but from a team point of view it would be difficult to guarantee more than three years.”

        So it’s not inconceivable that he’d accept a 4/64M contract if he enjoys Chicago. When Garza himself tells reporters tonite it’s 50/50 that he’d sign an extension, you have to believe he understands what the FO is willing to pay.

  21. Tim

    Having said all of that the Cubs would have to be willing to give him 5/75, which according to you and assman they aren’t. I think that is a mistake.

  22. Scott

    Who is assman?

    1. MaxM1908


  23. ruby2626

    At home trying to dry out. Sweet game but a game that outlined the Cub weakness’. Rizzo is ridiculously lost, nothing but K’s and lazy fly outs. Bout time the hitting coach earns his money, I’m sure there is some technical improvement that needs to be made. Barney also is hitting horrible. Grounders to the pitcher and that DP he hit into, what is the opposite of exploding off his bat. Castro gets enough ink here so I’ll let his weak first 4 at bats go.

    Quit the screwing around, Shark and Garz would make a nice combo, make it happen already.

    Oh wait one more comment. What exactly does Borbon bring to the table? Bring back Tony Campana, same type of player yet Campana was way better.

    1. Carew

      hey, Borbon can bunt, supposedly.

  24. Cheese Chad

    Sorry if this was mentioned earlier but I didn’t read any comments; what is the rule on a ground rule double. I forget the inning but it seemed like the fan deliberately grabbed the ball on a cody ransom double when sappelt likely would have scored. Does the umpire have the authority to say he would have scored or is it automatic that he stays at third?

  25. PeteG

    Sorry, but I have to throw this out. Does anyone else see the WAR stat as useful? I looked it up and it’s a bullshit stat. You can hit 50 bombs and be less useful than a guy who stole 50. Please explain how??

    1. ChicagoMike702

      From my experiences, WAR is remarkably accurate. A replacement-level team is figured for 52 wins in a season, total the players’ WAR from a particular team then add the 52 and compare to what their record over a season ended up being. I think you’ll be surprised how accurate it can be.

      1. Michael

        2012 Cubs Total War = 67.8 wins actual wins 61. That’s the first and only one I looked up so you have about a 7 game difference which is not that accurate really. And before somebody says its pretty accurate look at it from a standings point of view how important is 7 games answer, Its pretty important.

        1. Michael

          So to be fair I did the Tigers as well an again it’s off by roughly te same amount.

          1. ChicagoMike702

            Of course it’s not 100% accurate. Managerial decisions play a factor, umpires, luck, etc. I did 3 random teams for argument’s sake:

            ’12 Phillies projected: 78.9 wins, actual: 81
            ’12 A’s projected: 98.7, actual: 94
            ’12 Nationals: 97.7, actual: 98

            Including the Cubs record that you pulled (not including the Tigers because I don’t know the exact number it was off) picking 4 teams WAR was accurate, on average, within 3.5 games (3.45 to be exact). Thats pretty darn good to me. I don’t think any other single stat could come even remotely close to predicting records that accurately.

  26. Serious Cubs Fan

    Be careful of WAR. Allen Craig (Allstar): old stats vs. new. .325 BA (4th in nl), 68 rbi (2nd). only 17 BBs, only 1.1 war. WAR can be very deceiving and also helpful depending on how you use it. It really depends on what argument your trying to make

  27. William

    I will take a stab at that. For one thing, speed never slumps. Speed gets inside a pitchers head and causes them to make more mistakes to the guy batting. A guy with speed causes your opponent to make more errors and speedsters are usually better defensively themselves. Lastly, a speedy player gets on base more than someone only trying to pulverize the ball. There is a reason why people say speed kills. :-)

    1. Michael

      WAR is useful in some things and useless in others. Don’t let it dictate who is a better player thats where it can be useless.

      1. Hansman1982

        Wait, what?

        1. MichiganGoat

          Baseball Card Stats FOR ALL… no need for all the other voodoo

        2. Michael

          Wait what, So you would take Carlos Gomez over everybody in baseball cause he Sir is tied with Kershaw for the highest WAR in baseball. If anybody agrees with this then they are nuts cause who would take Gomez over well Caberra. I see it useful to give you a semi-accurate idea of who is producing the most by position but certainly would not use it to tell me who is the best in the game right now. I could think of over a dozen players who are better then Carlos Gomez

          1. Rebuilding

            This year’s Carlos Gomez? Maybe. Don’t forget that playing an excellent CF as opposed to booting balls over at 3rd makes a difference too. Check out Gomez’s catch robbing Votto of a HR last night. That was a Win all by itself

            1. Michael

              Booting balls ?, Caberra plays a excellent 3rd Base. I seen the catch I have seen a lot of players make that catch. It’s a awesome play and yes it saved the day but a HR to make the game 2-1 always sets a team up to win.

              1. MichiganGoat

                I think excellent is a huge stretch… he has been better than feared and he is very good at knowing his limitations and not trying to force a play where there is no play to make (which is something I wish Castro would learn, sometimes the right move is to just not go for it and make an error). But to call him excellent or elite is just not realistic. If you want to look at stats that are deceiving look at defensive stats.

              2. Rebuilding

                Cabrera has a .943 fielding percentage and 10 errors. Every advanced metric of fielding shows him having atrocious range. And the eye test says he plays one step to the right and one to the left. Maybe you saw him make a nice play, but I think most would agree that he is at best a below average defender

                1. Michael

                  Dude not even going to argue with you cause I have seen to many conversations between you and others that just prove to be pointless and time consuming. I watch almost every Tigers game and really could care less what you say the guy for his size and being moved all around and back to 3rd has done a hell of a job. Caberra better then Gomez end of story.

                  1. Rebuilding

                    Ok, I guess if you are going to argue Cabrera is a good defender it is pointless

                  2. Rebuilding

                    Ok, I guess if you are going to argue Cabrera is a good defender it is pointless.

                    1. Michael

                      It is so now make somebody else laugh please.

                    2. Rebuilding

                      I love Cabrera. What he is doing with the bat this year is incredible. I would probably take him only after Trout to start a team today. But to ignore that for 2 years in a row he has the lowest range factor of any 3b in baseball and leads all 3b in errors this year seems laughable. Sportscenter has segments dedicated showing his adventures over there

          2. MichiganGoat

            I think you are trying to arguing a fairly reliable measurement and expecting it to be perfect. Gomez is having a monster year and is just 0.5 WAR above Miggy so they are basically the same. Yes never rely on one stat to paint the entire picture of a players worth, but WAR is a quick and simple way to measure if a player has value.

            1. Michael

              And I totally agree with this and that’s what I find useful about WAR you can judge value but dont use it as a complete measuring stick for a players worth. All my rambling an you said it perfect.

              1. Chad

                WAR is an index that weights the value of different statistics which impact the overall value in wins to a team. WAR should be the stat you look at when comparing players for total value (assuming that they set up the index correctly). Only when players have equal values of WAR should you then look at other statistics. For example a player that hits .300, OBP of .350 and has 50 RBIs may have the same WAR as a guy that his .280, OBP of0.350 has 75 RBIs may possibly have the same WAR (just giving an example) but two guys that both hit .300, OBP .350, and 100 RBIs may have different WAR based on defense. Just an example.

                1. Michael

                  I would gladly sacrifice one players defense to have monster numbers offensively. You need offense to score and win and more times then not a error will not cost a team the win.

          3. hansman1982

            Gomez does have the 13th highest wOBA in the majors this year and plays (according to Fangraphs) superb CF defense. Combine the .901 OPS with plus defense at a premium position? Dang, that is ridiculously good and one could make an argument that he is one of the better players in baseball.

            Does this mean that he has proven himself, year after year, to be the best in the game, no and his previous years WAR reflects that.

            If you were doing an MLB draft and could only hold the player 1 year and you knew he was going to do what he has done so far this year, he’d be in the conversation for 1st overall.

            FWIW, Fangraphs has him 3rd in WAR behind Cabrera (perennial leader) and Trout.

            1. Michael

              After that comment you just proved to me why I hate some people using WAR as a means to dicate their overall position in baseball. By saying he would be in the conversation for being the top player in all the majors is just insane he is good and having a hell of a year but honestly not # 1 overall. And no he is not 3rd in WAR he tied with Caberra

              1. Michael

                Sorry fudged the end he is tied with Kershaw for the lead not 3rd.

              2. Rebuilding

                I’m not sure why you don’t get that having a great defensive CF producing Gomez’s numbers might have a similar value to a poor fielding 3b producing Cabrera’s numbers. I don’t think anyone here would necessarily take Gomez over Cabrera because he hasn’t done it over an extended period of time, but positional value is important, as is defense

                1. Michael

                  I must be at a comedy den. Well no shit position value is important but when you look at the whole picture Caberra is light years better then Gomez. Again Gomez is playing awesome this year (see what I said year) but Caberra is one of those special players that don’t come around that often.

              3. hansman1982

                It depends if you are using Fangraphs or Baseball-Reference.

                Fangraphs has him at 5.0 WAR, B-R 5.5
                Fangraphs has Kershaw at 3.6 WAR, B-R 5.6

                You are confusing this season’s WAR calculations with an overarching statement as to the bestest player that you’d want to sign to a long term deal. For this season, WAR is saying that Gomez is somewhere between 1.4 and even with Kershaw.

                Now, what sabermetrics has determined is there are A LOT of things that dictate how reliable this year’s data is going forward. What you are saying is that Gomez is not the best player in baseball because this is the only year he has done this.

                WAR is not disputing that claim, it is merely saying that, for the 2013 season, Gomez is one of the best players in baseball. It isn’t saying to expect that next year, it isn’t saying that he is someone that you should sign to a mega-contract the same as Kershaw, just that for this season he has been one of the best.

              4. hansman1982

                You should read this:


                “You should always use more than one metric at a time when evaluating players, but WAR is pretty darn all-inclusive and provides a handy reference point.”

                1. Michael

                  If you read my comments I say WAR is useful it’s not like I hate the Stat I just feel sometimes people use it way to much as the definitive answer to a players worth

                  1. hansman1982

                    It’s that we are debating two separate but close things.

                    I am saying that WAR tells us that, yes, this year, Gomez is as valuable to his team as Kershaw, Cabrera, Trout, etc…

                    You are saying that you don’t disagree but based on career numbers/scouting, Gomez isn’t the most valuable player because he is having a career year.

                    If a MLB-wide redraft were to happen today, no, Gomez wouldn’t go 1-1 (and probably not in the top ten). I’d draft Trout 1-1 every time.

                    1. Michael

                      Alright well ill just give up and chalk this up as a loss, I’m on 2 hours of sleep and had to help my wife get her keys out of a locked car this morning already so my thoughts are all jumbled around. Like always good talking baseball.

                  2. Norm

                    YOU are using it way too much as the definitive answer to a players worth.
                    You said:
                    *I see it useful to give you a semi-accurate idea of who is producing the most by position but certainly would not use it to tell me who is the best in the game right now.*
                    No one is using it to tell you who is the best in the game right now. It’s used to tell you who has been the most productive so far.
                    It’s no different than AVG or OBP or SLG or HR’s.
                    Is Michael Cuddyer the third best hitter for average in baseball? No, but he’s been the 3rd best hitter this year.

                    1. DarthHater

                      WAR is different than AVG, OBP, and SLG because those are rate statistics whereas WAR is a linear weight statistic. WAR is good for assessing the overall value of a player’s past performance, taking all aspects of the game into account and weighting them for relative importance. So, if a player has a fluke great season, WAR provides a nice way of measuring just how great it was. But if you want to predict how likely or unlikely it is that the player will repeat such a performance, his career rate statistics may be a lot more meaningful.

                  3. Chad

                    @ DARTH. I would say that is not necessarily true. There is career WAR, but I would say you’d be better off to look at the trend in the WAR for that player over multiple seasons still than looking at the “rate statistics” over seasons. WAR is still going to be a better overall measure of performance.

                2. Cheese Chad

                  Does WAR cover wins above the average replacement or the next best player on the team? That would make it interesting. Someone like Kinsler who is a top 5 2nd Baseman but his backup is Profur (a top 5 prospect) might not have as good of a WAR as say Jose Altuve who’s backup is probably Dwight Howard (he’s an astro, right?)

          4. Norm

            Why are you putting so much…finality in WAR…as in calling someone the ‘best in baseball’? It’s not measuring the true talent of the player, it’s measuring the results so far.
            No, no one would say Carlos Gomez is better than Miguel Cabrera. But we could argue that Carlos Gomez has been as valuable as Miguel Cabrera….so far.
            Going forward, I don’t think many would take Gomez because we know he’s not as much a sure thing as Cabrera and Cabrera is likely to continue dominating while we’ll likely see a bit of a fall off from Gomez.

            So, WAR isn’t measuring true talent, it’s measuring what happened.

            1. hansman1982

              “So, WAR isn’t measuring true talent, it’s measuring what happened.”


              1. Chad

                There is a difference in WAR during a season and a career WAR. The repeatability of WAR is probably what you would want to consider, but I’m going to guess that Cabrera’s WAR was not as high at one point as it is now, so perhaps Gomez is just starting his run?

                Just to make sure everyone understands WAR is an index that removes bias based on stadium, team, league etc. It also takes a number of important stats (adjusted for bias) and then combines a player’s performance based on what is most crucial to a team’s overall ability to win and gives a player a value based on that. This is assuming that the index has weighted each “trait” or performance statistic correctly. Like any good index the number is compared to the average of 0, which gives the term above replacement. Which means that a WAR of 5 means that a player adds 5 wins to a team if they were to replace the player with an average WAR= 0 player.

    2. Hansman1982

      No, speed doesn’t matter. The batters OPS improves the same amount if you have tony campana or prince fielder on the base paths.

  28. Blublud

    Out outfield went a combined 7-11 with 4 BB. If you gef that from your outfield, you are giong to win on most days.

    1. baldtaxguy

      I’m not a Sappelt fan, but he looked much more aggressive at the plate. He should get some more PA’s here this week so let’s see if it continues.

  29. DB

    Best part of the game for me was Navarro scoring all the way from 1st base on the Valbuena double. He was probably as stunned as I was that Bell was waving him home.

    1. baldtaxguy

      That was good stuff. Rizzo fanning him afterwards on the bench with a towel and Navarro so winded he could not even speak made me lol. You can tell Navarro has a good sense of humor about the game.

  30. Die hard

    If we sweep then are we buyers ?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.