PDA

View Full Version : *Official* Sox Shut-Out Cubs & Shut-Up "Big Z" 6-28 Postgame Thread


SoxGirl4Life
06-28-2009, 04:57 PM
:bandance::bliss::bandance:

And for reference:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-28-cubs-bold-names-jun28,0,4657937.story

chisoxfanatic
06-28-2009, 04:59 PM
Gotcha, losers!!!

SoxSpeed22
06-28-2009, 04:59 PM
If Danks can be consistent with his fastball and changeup, then he can be one of the most dangerous pitchers in the league. He has the stuff, but is still putting it together.
Alexei got things rolling and the long ball came through today. Good to see the Sox win the last two after dropping game 1. On to Cleveland.

SoxGirl4Life
06-28-2009, 05:00 PM
Oh that felt good!


Now, back to the business of climbing back to .500 in Cleveland tomorrow.

ChiSox89
06-28-2009, 05:00 PM
nice win for the sox, we needed a strong outing by danks today and we got one

DumpJerry
06-28-2009, 05:00 PM
Gordo in. Sox win.

Red Barchetta
06-28-2009, 05:01 PM
Yes, four series wins in a row (excluding the Wrigley split)! We need to keep up the intensity as we have all divisional games between now and the All Star break. Let's start by repaying Cleveland. :smile:

cbone
06-28-2009, 05:01 PM
Steve Stone had a classic comment during the meltdown. "And there ladies and gentlemen is why he has never won more than 14 games." Classless piece of crap. That being said!!!

Great win!!! :gulp::bandance::D::smile:

soxpride724
06-28-2009, 05:01 PM
Awesome win! Oh, and **** you Zambrano! ==L==

ChiSox89
06-28-2009, 05:01 PM
hopefully they can get to .500 and beyond now with the indians coming up

Sox
06-28-2009, 05:01 PM
:soxwin:

guillensdisciple
06-28-2009, 05:02 PM
We have to get to.500 and never look back. I am happy we won, but now is the time to establish ourselves as a winning baseball team. We can't continue mediocrity.

The White Sox need a winning series against the Indians. Hell, a sweep would be best.

markopat
06-28-2009, 05:03 PM
That was enjoyable! Let's go get those Brewers!

Blueprint1
06-28-2009, 05:03 PM
Where are all the guests from friday? :bandance:

chisoxfanatic
06-28-2009, 05:03 PM
http://www.mouthpiecesports.com/blogmedia/2008/10/revenge1.jpg

Zakath
06-28-2009, 05:04 PM
The only downer is that we should have won all 5 against the Flubs this year...

Tragg
06-28-2009, 05:04 PM
Nice pounding. WE should be 5-0 against those bums.

Good to see Linebrink get those last 2 innings and do a good job with them.

chisoxfanatic
06-28-2009, 05:04 PM
That was enjoyable! Let's go get those Brewers!
:scratch:

ramblinsoxfan11
06-28-2009, 05:04 PM
YES!!!

That felt great, and was much easier on my heart than yesterday's game

SOXfnNlansing
06-28-2009, 05:05 PM
It's nice to be on the right side of a shutout! :bandance::gulp:

spawn
06-28-2009, 05:05 PM
I'm just glad this series is over, with the exception of the makeup game. I was talking to a Cub fan friend of mine at work, and we agreed these series bring out the worst in fans of both teams.

cws05champ
06-28-2009, 05:08 PM
Very nice win today. Wish we could have swept but, oh well. Keep taking series and we should be ok. Just wish the Tiggers would start a losing streak of some kind.

Brian26
06-28-2009, 05:08 PM
Steve Stone had a classic comment during the meltdown. "And there ladies and gentlemen is why he has never won more than 14 games." Classless piece of crap. That being said!!!



Stone was fantastic the entire game with his well-deserved and subtle jabs at Zambrano. It was a great broadcast.

34rancher
06-28-2009, 05:10 PM
Steve Stone had a classic comment during the meltdown. "And there ladies and gentlemen is why he has never won more than 14 games." Classless piece of crap. That being said!!!

Great win!!! :gulp::bandance::D::smile:
Only problem is, Steve was wrong (doesn't happen often), Zambrano has won 18 games and I believe 16 a couple times. But, semantics. That's a White Sox winner. Great game battling by Johnny Danks.

Brian26
06-28-2009, 05:15 PM
Only problem is, Steve was wrong (doesn't happen often), Zambrano has won 18 games and I believe 16 a couple times. But, semantics. That's a White Sox winner. Great game battling by Johnny Danks.

Maybe Steve was thinking of Kerry Wood when he said that.

BigP50
06-28-2009, 05:19 PM
Great outing by danKKKKKKKKKS

he was straight dealin'

russ99
06-28-2009, 05:21 PM
Nice win, keep rolling Sox. Hopefully they can put together a nice streak.

Winning two series vs. pretty good competition (Cub disgust aside) can really get this team cooking.

It was also good to see Linebrink figure out his problems with the breaking stuff.

LITTLE NELL
06-28-2009, 05:24 PM
2 weeks ago I predicted .500 after the Cubs series, missed by 1 because of the rainout. We will go 4-2 on the road trip, come home over .500 and start our pennant run. Just hope there is no letdown after beating the Flubs.

JB98
06-28-2009, 05:26 PM
That was a nice play by Ramirez and Beckham on the 6-5 putout to get Danks out of trouble in the sixth inning. I thought that was the key moment of the game. After the Sox got out of that inning, you sensed that the Cubs' best chance had gone by the boards.

Then, we got some tack-on runs and put the game away. The Sox got contributions from everybody one through nine this afternoon.

I try not to get caught up in the whole overhyped rivalry, but it is nice to put a loss on Zambrano, isn't it? What a clown. Hawk was right -- hitting Wise was a bush-league move. I'm glad Wise ended up scoring a run in that inning. Zambrano got what he deserved.

October26
06-28-2009, 05:27 PM
I'm enjoying this win today with my family. I don't find it necessary to text anybody, call anybody or brag to anybody after a Sox win over the cubs.

We are very happy to see the Sox win the last two games. Onto Cleveland and let's keep the winning streak going. :gosox:

34rancher
06-28-2009, 05:28 PM
Maybe Steve was thinking of Kerry Wood when he said that.
Speaking of Kerry, I hope we get to bat him around next!!! For a guy with an average of less than 7 wins a year since he broke into the majors (yes I know reliever with what 42 saves?), I have never seen such hype. Hope the Sox get to see him in a mop up job this week coming in down by 10. :cool:

twinsuck
06-28-2009, 05:29 PM
I loved when The Elephant Man stroke out for the last out of the game.

Thatguyoverthere
06-28-2009, 05:31 PM
One more win and we're back at .500! Hopefully this next day is the last time this team has a losing record all year. So far this season this team has been very up and down. Hopefully this recent solid play is here to stay. Great win today!

KyWhiSoxFan
06-28-2009, 05:32 PM
White Sox shut out the Cubs on my birthday. Yes!

October26
06-28-2009, 05:33 PM
White Sox shut out the Cubs on my birthday. Yes!

:happybday

VA_GoGoSox
06-28-2009, 05:35 PM
Only problem is, Steve was wrong (doesn't happen often), Zambrano has won 18 games and I believe 16 a couple times. But, semantics. That's a White Sox winner. Great game battling by Johnny Danks.

Stone said "That's why he has averaged 14 wins a year with some of the best stuff in the league."

It was spot on too. El Toro is clown shoes. Million dollar arm and a ten cent brain.

Let's keep this hot streak going!:gulp:

And does anyone know what happened when Stone said there was something going on in the Cubs' dugout that was holding up the game?

tstrike2000
06-28-2009, 05:35 PM
3:58 was a significant time as it marked the end of this weekend's series, which was nice to get over. Despite some bad defense and poor home plate umpiring this weekend, the Sox did what they needed to do. Nice work and some lights out pitching from Danks and Linebrink.

34rancher
06-28-2009, 05:39 PM
Stone said "That's why he has averaged 14 wins a year with some of the best stuff in the league."

It was spot on too. El Toro is clown shoes. Million dollar arm and a ten cent brain.

Let's keep this hot streak going!:gulp:

And does anyone know what happened when Stone said there was something going on in the Cubs' dugout that was holding up the game?
Couldn't agree more on get the hot streak going and Carlos is really Car-loser. But I rewound and listened several times, he said "That's why Carlos has never won more than 14 games" right after it happened. Who cares, hopefully he loses 14 games. I think it would be great if in the make up game he had to pitch and get drilled first pitch. :)

Red Barchetta
06-28-2009, 05:40 PM
Stone said "That's why he has averaged 14 wins a year with some of the best stuff in the league."

It was spot on too. El Toro is clown shoes. Million dollar arm and a ten cent brain.

Let's keep this hot streak going!:gulp:

And does anyone know what happened when Stone said there was something going on in the Cubs' dugout that was holding up the game?

I like how Zambrano drills Wise after he throws the wild pitch on the squeeze play. Class act!

Also, Soriano at times looks like he doesn't know how to play the game. He hit a gap shot that should have easily been a double. Paulie hit one later in almost the exact spot and was able to leg out a double with his tremendous speed. Every fly ball to Soriano was also an adventure.

VA_GoGoSox
06-28-2009, 05:43 PM
Couldn't agree more on get the hot streak going and Carlos is really Car-loser. But I rewound and listened several times, he said "That's why Carlos has never won more than 14 games" right after it happened. Who cares, hopefully he loses 14 games. I think it would be great if in the make up game he had to pitch and get drilled first pitch. :)


That's strange. You don't hear the Stone Pony make too many mistakes. :scratch:

And I agree--drilling Zambrano would be awesome and hilarious at the same time.

C-Dawg
06-28-2009, 05:44 PM
Also, Soriano at times looks like he doesn't know how to play the game.

The only knowledgeable Cub fans I know hate Soriano; they say if he was any good, he'd still be a Yankee.

Anyway, a great win! On to Cleveburg!

BigP50
06-28-2009, 05:47 PM
last 14 road games we are 10-4.

lets get it!

I want Mags back
06-28-2009, 05:50 PM
Anyone listening to the Score postgame?

Just called to discuss the infield fly and won a $100 dollar Beggars gift card.

:)

BadBobbyJenks
06-28-2009, 05:50 PM
What a comedy of errors from the Cubs today.

And that my friends is why they haven't won a world series in a century.

Another great series in a great rivalry. 36-35 Good guys.

doublem23
06-28-2009, 06:02 PM
Steve Stone had a classic comment during the meltdown. "And there ladies and gentlemen is why he has never won more than 14 games." Classless piece of crap. That being said!!!

Only problem is, Steve was wrong (doesn't happen often), Zambrano has won 18 games and I believe 16 a couple times. But, semantics. That's a White Sox winner. Great game battling by Johnny Danks.

I thought he said that's why Zambrano averages 14 wins a year, even with the N.L.'s best stuff, but either way, yeah, Stone was letting Big Z have it. No love lost for him.

chisoxfanatic
06-28-2009, 06:03 PM
Anyone listening to the Score postgame?

Just called to discuss the infield fly and won a $100 dollar Beggars gift card.

:)
Hey, congrats, I w M b!!! What did you say that got you the gift card?

Tragg
06-28-2009, 06:07 PM
Anyone listening to the Score postgame?

Just called to discuss the infield fly and won a $100 dollar Beggars gift card.

Congrats.

As for Z, it seems like he gets P.O.d and throws some creampuff pitches. That's just his personality, I suspect.

Brian26
06-28-2009, 06:10 PM
The reason people are debating this is because Stone said it twice...once when it happened and then later at the end of the game when they replayed it. One time he said "never more than 14 games" and the other time "averages 14 games".

Brian26
06-28-2009, 06:12 PM
Congrats.

As for Z, it seems like he gets P.O.d and throws some creampuff pitches. That's just his personality, I suspect.

Zambrano and Soto were battling with each other all day. I'd be embarrassed if I were a Cub fan. I can't believe Rothchild and Lou let that happen.

I want Mags back
06-28-2009, 06:15 PM
Hey, congrats, I w M b!!! What did you say that got you the gift card?
Just said how it was the right call since it's made at the ball's Apex and just cause Theriot had his back to the infield the call was already made and you can't reverse an infield fly.

BigP50
06-28-2009, 06:17 PM
Wise wanted to fight Z, I wish he had.

I loved it when danKKKKKKKs hit the first batter he saw!

Brian26
06-28-2009, 06:20 PM
Wise wanted to fight Z, I wish he had.

I loved it when danKKKKKKKs hit the first batter he saw!

Let's refrain from the stereotypical meathead comments. Make an attempt to bring your game up a couple of levels.

kitekrazy
06-28-2009, 06:21 PM
Despite some bad defense

I knew the Sox D was bad but I had no idea the Cubs D was that bad.
They have a good chance of missin the post season. That's the team that should have a fire sale. I had this feeling if they couldn't get it done last year they never will with this group. Plus they have too many immature players. They're like the Dallas Cowboys of MLB. I would declare it impossible if Pac Man Jones became a Cub.

It's obvious Lou doesn't want to manage that team. It's like having a bunch of spoiled Little Leaguers.

doublem23
06-28-2009, 06:21 PM
Just said how it was the right call since it's made at the ball's Apex and just cause Theriot had his back to the infield the call was already made and you can't reverse an infield fly.

I don't think there's anything in the rules about the call having to be made at the ball's apex. Just one of those plays that either side would have a good argument for being boned, no matter what call was made.

Luckily, we didn't need to put this one in the hands of the umpires. :cool:

central44
06-28-2009, 06:22 PM
It feels good to know that at this point, the Sox can either win the season series or tie it, but they cannot lose it.

And I love watching Cub meltdowns. As tough as the Sox might be to watch sometimes, it could be a lot worse. Just imagine watching that team of headcases across town every day.

JB98
06-28-2009, 06:23 PM
Wise wanted to fight Z, I wish he had.

I loved it when danKKKKKKKs hit the first batter he saw!

Actually, I thought Zambrano wanted to fight Wise. If I read lips correctly, Zambrano tried to goad Wise into physical altercation.

I don't blame Wise for having words for Zambrano, but I'm glad DeWayne chose not to charge the mound.

Hanging the loss on Zambrano is good enough for me.

chisoxfanatic
06-28-2009, 06:24 PM
Just said how it was the right call since it's made at the ball's Apex and just cause Theriot had his back to the infield the call was already made and you can't reverse an infield fly.
Oh, well then, I disagree with you. I thought the umpire made the call way too quickly. It's one thing if the ball is right over him and he's camped out to make the catch; but, Theriot wasn't anywhere close to catching that.

Brian26
06-28-2009, 06:25 PM
I don't think there's anything in the rules about the call having to be made at the ball's apex. Just one of those plays that either side would have a good argument for being boned, no matter what call was made.

Luckily, we didn't need to put this one in the hands of the umpires. :cool:

It's a hell of a tough call if you look at it from the umpire's perspective. The ump has to signal the infield fly early enough so that the runner's know whether or not they need to go half-way.

doublem23
06-28-2009, 06:25 PM
Oh, well then, I disagree with you. I thought the umpire made the call way too quickly. It's one thing if the ball is right over him and he's camped out to make the catch; but, Theriot wasn't anywhere close to catching that.

The swirling winds at the Cell can play tricks on umps, too. :D:

chisoxfanatic
06-28-2009, 06:26 PM
Actually, I thought Zambrano wanted to fight Wise. If I read lips correctly, Zambrano tried to goad Wise into physical altercation.

I don't blame Wise for having words for Zambrano, but I'm glad DeWayne chose not to charge the mound.

Hanging the loss on Zambrano is good enough for me.
I think I remember seeing Z step off the mound and yell something towards first base. Z definitely was the one challenging Wise, not the other way around.

Brian26
06-28-2009, 06:27 PM
Oh, well then, I disagree with you. I thought the umpire made the call way too quickly.

If you watched the replay, you would have noticed the thirdbase umpire actually signaled it very late. I've seen some umps call for it as soon as the ball goes up in the air.

doublem23
06-28-2009, 06:28 PM
It's a hell of a tough call if you look at it from the umpire's perspective. The ump has to signal the infield fly early enough so that the runner's know whether or not they need to go half-way.

Oh, I know, and at the time he threw his arm up it looked like Theriot was getting ready to camp under that ball and make and easy catch.

Meh, whatever, Wise scored, the run proved completely unnecessary, and the big inning we potentially had going turned out to be not needed, either. It's no big deal.

hawkjt
06-28-2009, 06:29 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that Big Z hit Pods the pitch after he ran up in the box. I love that it came back to haunt him as he got distracted with Pods on first and Alexei ends up taking him deep.
Then he hits DWise, and walks Pods...meltdown.
BigZ will never grow up.

Liney has his breaking stuff back and with that to go with the 95mph...and after Dotel had his good outing...I feel better about our bullpen. Glad that Johnny went deep to allow everyone but liney to rest today...we got 10 games in a row...Tribe,KC,Tribe. Now is the time Sox.
Must win at least 6-7 games in this stretch...and go to Minny above .500.

slavko
06-28-2009, 06:32 PM
Zambrano and Soto were battling with each other all day. I'd be embarrassed if I were a Cub fan. I can't believe Rothchild and Lou let that happen.

Barrett lost the battle of wills and had to move on. Soto's a valuable property, ROY, I'd be amazed if he had to do the same. But Z has amazed me before.

chisoxfanatic
06-28-2009, 06:35 PM
If you watched the replay, you would have noticed the thirdbase umpire actually signaled it very late. I've seen some umps call for it as soon as the ball goes up in the air.
I didn't notice the third base umpire when they showed the replay, because I was looking at Theriot trying to see if he was in any position to catch the ball, which he was not.

doublem23
06-28-2009, 06:38 PM
I didn't notice the third base umpire when they showed the replay, because I was looking at Theriot trying to see if he was in any position to catch the ball, which he was not.

That's influenced, though, because you know where the ball eventually landed. Theriot didn't start to lose the ball until after the ump made the call.

JB98
06-28-2009, 06:42 PM
I think it was just a really tough call for the umpire. That's basically a routine pop to the left side of the infield that the wind blew 20 feet out into the outfield.

The wind was playing tricks with the ball on that side of the field. Look at the fly that Soto hit off Linebrink in the ninth. He didn't hit that ball hard at all, and the wind damn near took it into the Sox bullpen.

chisoxfanatic
06-28-2009, 06:42 PM
That's influenced, though, because you know where the ball eventually landed. Theriot didn't start to lose the ball until after the ump made the call.
One thing I think we can all agree on is that it's great that this discussion on if the infield fly rule truly applied to this situation didn't effect the outcome of the game. We still win! :D:

doublem23
06-28-2009, 06:45 PM
One thing I think we can all agree on is that it's great that this discussion on if the infield fly rule truly applied to this situation didn't effect the outcome of the game. We still win! :D:

The best way to handle blown calls is to not make it effect the outcome of the game.

Maybe the Sox score 10 runs if Dye isn't called out. :dunno: We still win.

LoveYourSuit
06-28-2009, 06:50 PM
The minute I'm ready to stick a fork on this team, they bounce back and make me a believer again.

Very proud of these guys over the weekend. We have a ton of flaws and play very stupid at times, but the guys still have a lot of heart.

RadioheadRocks
06-28-2009, 06:52 PM
:supernana:

I want Mags back
06-28-2009, 06:54 PM
I don't think there's anything in the rules about the call having to be made at the ball's apex.
Attend an umpire's clinic, as I have and they will tell you otherwise. That's the only reason why I know it as that.

I want Mags back
06-28-2009, 06:56 PM
If you watched the replay, you would have noticed the thirdbase umpire actually signaled it very late. I've seen some umps call for it as soon as the ball goes up in the air.
I saw another replay from another angle in which the 2nd base umpire called it much earlier.

Zisk77
06-28-2009, 06:59 PM
The umpire on the grassy knoll called it right away :redneck

chisoxfanatic
06-28-2009, 06:59 PM
I saw another replay from another angle in which the 2nd base umpire called it much earlier.
Since you stated you went to an umpire's clinic, who's call is it to determine if the infield fly rule applies? The 2nd base ump, the 3rd base ump, or whichever ump calls it first? Can the crew chief override the call?

I want Mags back
06-28-2009, 07:04 PM
Since you stated you went to an umpire's clinic, who's call is it to determine if the infield fly rule applies? The 2nd base ump, the 3rd base ump, or whichever ump calls it first? Can the crew chief override the call?

Pretty much whoever calls it first. And no. The crew chief really has no additional power. Just the oldest guy.

Rohan
06-28-2009, 07:37 PM
That was enjoyable! Let's go get those Brewers!

Hmm... Yes... Let's get those Brewers... :geezer:

34rancher
06-28-2009, 08:03 PM
One thing I think we can all agree on is that it's great that this discussion on if the infield fly rule truly applied to this situation didn't effect the outcome of the game. We still win! :D:
Let's look at it this way, if the rule had not been in effect, they would surely have gotten the force out at third. So, either way, it ended up the same in the wash.

34rancher
06-28-2009, 08:04 PM
Hmm... Yes... Let's get those Brewers... :geezer:
Don't we have Cleveland next?

Rohan
06-28-2009, 08:21 PM
Don't we have Cleveland next?

Yep! That's why we're poking fun at him.

Over By There
06-28-2009, 08:25 PM
Some of the comments in this thread are why I'm always surprised when so many WSIers talk about how much they'd love to have Zambrano on the Sox. End of the day, the guy is a loser. Stoney is right - he just doesn't have the temperament to be a winner. You can talk about his heart, desire, blah, blah all day, but the guy is a loser.

primeaum
06-28-2009, 09:07 PM
And does anyone know what happened when Stone said there was something going on in the Cubs' dugout that was holding up the game?

I was at the game today and it looked like someone threw water, beer, or some other liquid into the bullpen but I couldn't tell for sure. I just looked over and saw some sort of liquid falling into the pen. Hell, it may have been accidentally dropped but it happened at about the same time as 3-4 fights in the stands. drunken fools

DumpJerry
06-28-2009, 10:49 PM
Don't we have Cleveland next?

Yep! That's why we're poking fun at him.
He's liking this interleague stuff.

kitekrazy
06-28-2009, 10:53 PM
Some of the comments in this thread are why I'm always surprised when so many WSIers talk about how much they'd love to have Zambrano on the Sox.

I would because he could be useful as a hitter. He can also bunt pretty good. I wonder how many times he would have beat up Betamit?

I do think he is a selfish player.

Johnny Mostil
06-28-2009, 10:55 PM
He's liking this interleague stuff.

11-6 Interleague, 26-32 American League . . . who doesn't like it?

chisoxfanatic
06-28-2009, 11:26 PM
11-6 Interleague, 26-32 American League . . . who doesn't like it?
I'm trying to think of another year we didn't do well in interleague play other than 2007. We have been one of the most dominant teams in interleague play.

DSpivack
06-28-2009, 11:48 PM
I'm trying to think of another year we didn't do well in interleague play other than 2007. We have been one of the most dominant teams in interleague play.

What AL team hasn't done well?

doublem23
06-29-2009, 12:00 AM
Attend an umpire's clinic, as I have and they will tell you otherwise. That's the only reason why I know it as that.

Not to discount your experience, but what level was this umpire's clinic? Major League? College intramurals? Tee-ball?

All I was saying is there's nothing in the rules that dictate the infield fly rule must be called at the ball's apex and I only see the IF fly called a couple times per year so I'm not 100% familiar with all the little unspoken rules and nuances about the call.

Lip Man 1
06-29-2009, 12:04 AM
When was the last time you saw a game where a run scored on a steal of home and via an infield fly ball.

That's 10 of 15.

Lip

voodoochile
06-29-2009, 12:07 AM
When was the last time you saw a game where a run scored on a steal of home and via an infield fly ball.

That's 10 of 15.

Lip

When's the last time those two things happened in the same inning, Lip?

Britt Burns
06-29-2009, 12:09 AM
yes! Great game...perhaps the best all year.

voodoochile
06-29-2009, 12:10 AM
Attend an umpire's clinic, as I have and they will tell you otherwise. That's the only reason why I know it as that.

I saw a play a few years ago where with men on first and second and less than two outs, the batter hit a soft liner to the SS. The SS intentionally trapped the ball with his glove scooped it up and fired to second to start the DP. As he threw the ball, the umps called it an IF fly rule play to protect the runners. I'm guessing this was a Sox game because I don't watch a lot of baseball not involving the Sox.

LoveYourSuit
06-29-2009, 01:14 AM
Some of the comments in this thread are why I'm always surprised when so many WSIers talk about how much they'd love to have Zambrano on the Sox. End of the day, the guy is a loser. Stoney is right - he just doesn't have the temperament to be a winner. You can talk about his heart, desire, blah, blah all day, but the guy is a loser.

I think Zambrano is a victim of the poisoned waters over there. A change in scenary and getting away from all of that stupid Circus crap which is Cubs baseball will help the development of this guy.

He would still be a wild cat in a Sox uniform but for some reason I feel he could be a winner here.

Sox
06-29-2009, 01:18 AM
White Sox shut out the Cubs on my birthday. Yes!

:happybday

Sox
06-29-2009, 01:23 AM
Some of the comments in this thread are why I'm always surprised when so many WSIers talk about how much they'd love to have Zambrano on the Sox. End of the day, the guy is a loser. Stoney is right - he just doesn't have the temperament to be a winner. You can talk about his heart, desire, blah, blah all day, but the guy is a loser.

Well said.:thumbsup:

Windy City
06-29-2009, 02:05 AM
I don't think Zambrano is a loser. The guy cares about winning. Does he lose his temper on the mound on occassion? Yes. Has he completely lived up to his potential? No. But Zambrano will take the ball and give you his best effort. You can't say that about many MLB pitchers or position players for that matter.

By no means I am giving him a pass for Sunday's performance against the White Sox, but Zambrano is a really good pitcher. When he is on, the guy is a solid starter.

guillensdisciple
06-29-2009, 02:19 AM
I don't think Zambrano is a loser. The guy cares about winning. Does he lose his temper on the mound on occassion? Yes. Has he completely lived up to his potential? No. But Zambrano will take the ball and give you his best effort. You can't say that about many MLB pitchers or position players for that matter.

By no means I am giving him a pass for Sunday's performance against the White Sox, but Zambrano is a really good pitcher. When he is on, the guy is a solid starter.


You put Zambrano with Ozzie, and you have a guide to success. Zambrano needs a person to help him that is like him. Ozzie would be a miracle for him.

I want Mags back
06-29-2009, 08:13 AM
Not to discount your experience, but what level was this umpire's clinic? Major League? College intramurals? Tee-ball?

All I was saying is there's nothing in the rules that dictate the infield fly rule must be called at the ball's apex and I only see the IF fly called a couple times per year so I'm not 100% familiar with all the little unspoken rules and nuances about the call.
The clinic was done by major league ump Mark Carlson. Again, it's not in the rules, its just the standard that umpires make the call at.

Over By There
06-29-2009, 09:06 AM
I don't think Zambrano is a loser. The guy cares about winning.

You put Zambrano with Ozzie, and you have a guide to success. Zambrano needs a person to help him that is like him. Ozzie would be a miracle for him.

Agree to disagree - I know some people think he just needs the right environment and maybe you're right. But I'm sticking to my guns. Even though he seemingly has the "fire" or "desire" to win, the fact is the desire is not great enough to win the day. If his desire was so great to win, he's had plenty of time and plenty of feedback to help figure out what's holding him back - it's not his "fire" and certainly not his stuff. Not to mention, he's had at least two managers, with vastly different personalities, to help him figure it out. (Maybe he's had even more, I don't recall when Zambrano got to the north side relative to Dusty.) Now, he's only had Rothschild as a pitching coach, I think, and that's a whole different story. How Rothschild has survived over the years is a mystery.

Anyway, I say he's a loser because IMO he doesn't have any excuses. He's got the stuff and he's had plenty of time to put it together. He is the only one standing in his own way.

Johnny Mostil
06-29-2009, 09:57 AM
I'm trying to think of another year we didn't do well in interleague play other than 2007. We have been one of the most dominant teams in interleague play.

The pre-game notes for Thursday's game said the Sox had the fifth-best all-time interleague record. Winning three of four since then has surely helped that standing . . .

EDIT: This (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/11773100) appears to give the all-time interleague standings as of yesterday morning. Only teams that appear to have all-time better interleague records than Sox are, in order of winning percentage, Yankees, Twins, Athletics, and Red Sox. Eight of fourteen AL teams appear to have winning interleague records compared to five of sixteen NL teams (not counting the Astros, whose loss last night I assume drops them to .500 in interleague play).

jabrch
06-29-2009, 10:04 AM
Some of the comments in this thread are why I'm always surprised when so many WSIers talk about how much they'd love to have Zambrano on the Sox. End of the day, the guy is a loser. Stoney is right - he just doesn't have the temperament to be a winner. You can talk about his heart, desire, blah, blah all day, but the guy is a loser.

I'd love to have him in my rotation. It has as little to do about heart and desire as about being "a loser" because that's all just talk.

He has great stuff and gets hitters out.

doublem23
06-29-2009, 10:18 AM
I'd love to have him in my rotation. It has as little to do about heart and desire as about being "a loser" because that's all just talk.

He has great stuff and gets hitters out.

Zambrano is a giant baby, in the same make as Javier Vazquez, he'll get you from Point A to Point B, but don't expect him to get you to Point C.

Sure, I'd put him in my rotation, but you better have a few other arms to lean on because it's only a matter of time before Cra-Z implodes and costs you a big game.

Oh, and he's owed over $55 million over the next 3 years.

:fail:

jabrch
06-29-2009, 10:30 AM
in the same make as Javier Vazquez, he'll get you from Point A to Point B, but don't expect him to get you to Point C.

No single player does...right?

Sure, I'd put him in my rotation

We agree on that

but you better have a few other arms to lean on because it's only a matter of time before Cra-Z implodes and costs you a big game.

Sure - but a rotation has 5 guys. Who would you rather see in your rotation - Carlos or Clayton/Bartolo?

Oh, and he's owed over $55 million over the next 3 years.

That's not too much money for a front of the rotation guy. I'd take him over Peavy who was owed more - and wanted 22mm in a guaranteed extra year and was going to cost us Poreda.

Phil Rogers is proposing the Cubs give him away just to unload him. That's crazy talk.

Boondock Saint
06-29-2009, 10:32 AM
No single player does...right?



We agree on that



Sure - but a rotation has 5 guys. Who would you rather see in your rotation - Carlos or Clayton/Bartolo?



That's not too much money for a front of the rotation guy. I'd take him over Peavy who was owed more - and wanted 22mm in a guaranteed extra year and was going to cost us Poreda.

Phil Rogers is proposing the Cubs give him away just to unload him. That's crazy talk.

Well said. I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't find the right words.

doublem23
06-29-2009, 10:42 AM
No single player does...right?

Some players show up in big games regularly, some don't. So far in his career, Zambrano is a clear no-show. Yes, you need guys like him to get you through the 162-game marathon that is a baseball season, because he's great at padding his numbers against teams like the Pirates and Astros, but you'd be crazy at this point to give him the ball in a big game in October. Apply the slightest amount of pressure to him and he completely unravels.

That's just the way it is; if you think baseball is nothing more than a bunch of numbers dancing around a spreadsheet and box score, that's fine, but I think you're missing the very real human element to the game, and certain guys just don't have it when it counts. I don't know if its genetic or if it's a result of their training or whatever, but guys like Vazquez and Zambrano are just not made to win big games.


That's not too much money for a front of the rotation guy. I'd take him over Peavy who was owed more - and wanted 22mm in a guaranteed extra year and was going to cost us Poreda.


Actually, even including Peavy's $22 million option in 2013, Zambrano's remaining deal past 2009 is slightly larger per year than Peavy's; but that's OK I wasn't terribly outraged when the Sox refused to pick up that option, that's too much to invest in a single player.

The point being, much like Javy Vazquez, I'd obviously want Zambrano in my rotation from April to September. I wouldn't give him the ball in October.

hawkjt
06-29-2009, 10:55 AM
The pre-game notes for Thursday's game said the Sox had the fifth-best all-time interleague record. Winning three of four since then has surely helped that standing . . .

EDIT: This (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/11773100) appears to give the all-time interleague standings as of yesterday morning. Only teams that appear to have all-time better interleague records than Sox are, in order of winning percentage, Yankees, Twins, Athletics, and Red Sox. Eight of fourteen AL teams appear to have winning interleague records compared to five of sixteen NL teams (not counting the Astros, whose loss last night I assume drops them to .500 in interleague play).


Those standings updated thru today show the best records by percentage to be Yankees, Twins, then Sox at 127-101. Now...go out and win that last game vs the Cubs and the Sox are a solid #3.

Inter-league play has been bery bery good to the sox. Consider if you took out the ultra-competitive Cubs series...they would be 91- 66...good enough to win the NL Central most years.

MeteorsSox4367
06-29-2009, 10:58 AM
I was driving home from Michigan with a co-worker who is as big a Cubs fan as I am a Sox fan. When we got back to work near the Cell, Zambrano threw his wild pitch, allowing my co-worker to describe Zambrano as "a mental (bleeping) midget."

It was also cool hearing all the fans singing "Na, Na, Na..." when Zambrano was pulled, even though we were a good four blocks from the Cell.

SSrep
06-29-2009, 11:07 AM
Eight of fourteen AL teams appear to have winning interleague records compared to five of sixteen NL teams (not counting the Astros, whose loss last night I assume drops them to .500 in interleague play).[/QUOTE]

Astros are 4 games under including the playoffs :tongue:

Johnny Mostil
06-29-2009, 11:15 AM
Astros are 4 games under including the playoffs :tongue:

:thumbsup:

jabrch
06-29-2009, 11:55 AM
That's just the way it is; if you think baseball is nothing more than a bunch of numbers dancing around a spreadsheet and box score, that's fine

Have you ever read any of my posts? :scratch:

, but I think you're missing the very real human element to the game

I think you are missing my point.

, and certain guys just don't have it when it counts. I don't know if its genetic or if it's a result of their training or whatever, but guys like Vazquez and Zambrano are just not made to win big games.

Give me a guy who will throw 200 innings with an ERA under 4.00 and I will find a spot for him in my rotation. It's not about "numbers dancing around on a spreadsheet" it is about the fact that you need to have guys go out there and get outs. Even if you get me to agree that Carlos is weak and can not handle pressure (which I don't agree with - he does have his moments - more than most - but he also has his good spots too...enough to keep his ERA down and IP up.) you are still better off with a guy like Carlos than with nearly every other pitcher in baseball. I can name 10-15 guys better than him - but certainly not 30+. Carlos is a front of the rotation guy.


The point being, much like Javy Vazquez, I'd obviously want Zambrano in my rotation from April to September. I wouldn't give him the ball in October.

I would. Tell me how it is his fault in 2007 when he gave up 1 ER in 6 innings and the offense and Carlos Marmol blew it for him. Do you blame him last year for the freaking awful defense played behind him vs LA? Or are you blaming him for his performance as a 22 yo in his first post season games?

I think your sample size is small. And even still - Carlos has been ok. I'd love to see the Sox rotation line up with MB, Carlos, Danks, Floyd in the postseason. I'll go to war with that.

everafan
06-29-2009, 12:28 PM
Steve Stone had a classic comment during the meltdown. "And there ladies and gentlemen is why he has never won more than 14 games." Classless piece of crap. That being said!!!

Great win!!! :gulp::bandance::D::smile:

Except what he said was wrong - he should have said that is why he averages only 14 wins per season. He has won more than 14 several times.

everafan
06-29-2009, 12:31 PM
Speaking of Kerry, I hope we get to bat him around next!!! For a guy with an average of less than 7 wins a year since he broke into the majors (yes I know reliever with what 42 saves?), I have never seen such hype. Hope the Sox get to see him in a mop up job this week coming in down by 10. :cool:

As fun as knocking Wood around would be - I'd rather the Indians not have any lead in the 9th.

TDog
06-29-2009, 01:01 PM
Astros are 4 games under including the playoffs :tongue:

I don't believe I have ever heard anyone refer to the World Series as "the playoffs."

I think the World Series would put the White Sox four over, too -- the White Sox being two over .500 in both 1906 and 1917 and two under in 1919 and 1959. Of course, such consideration would make the Yankees' interleague record untouchable.

whitesoxwin
06-29-2009, 01:02 PM
All I can say this was probably the loudest Sox bye-bye to a pitcher!!
Big Z meltdown...what a piece of work!
And as most have said here..nice win..should have made it 5 straight...now lets go to Cleveland and get above .500!!
Go Sox!!

everafan
06-29-2009, 02:30 PM
Some of the comments in this thread are why I'm always surprised when so many WSIers talk about how much they'd love to have Zambrano on the Sox. End of the day, the guy is a loser. Stoney is right - he just doesn't have the temperament to be a winner. You can talk about his heart, desire, blah, blah all day, but the guy is a loser.

I think a lot of us believe that Ozzie could handle Zambrano and maximize his considerable talent. Anyway, I like my Venezuelans a little crazy.

Konerko05
06-29-2009, 04:03 PM
How exactly does a loser accumulate a .610 W-L % over his career?

doublem23
06-29-2009, 09:06 PM
Have you ever read any of my posts? :scratch:

You're advocating him based solely on his statistics, I don't know how else you can expect someone to read into those posts. Zambrano is your typical Prima Donna Baseball Player, who is great when he's pitching against an inferior opponent in a relatively meaningless game in the middle of the season, but simply unravels the moment the spotlight is turned on or something slightly irks him. Again, I never said I wouldn't want him in my rotation, guys like him are perfectly good for getting you from April to September, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to win a big game in late September or during the play-offs; he simply won't do it.

doublem23
06-29-2009, 09:11 PM
How exactly does a loser accumulate a .610 W-L % over his career?

A) You're missing the definition of a loser. Javier Vazquez is a loser, but he'll still win more games for you than he won't, it's not just how many games you win but when you win them.

B) Literally 1/2 of his career starts have come against the other 5 teams in the N.L. Central. That's how.

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2009, 10:03 PM
A) You're missing the definition of a loser. Javier Vazquez is a loser, but he'll still win more games for you than he won't, it's not just how many games you win but when you win them.

B) Literally 1/2 of his career starts have come against the other 5 teams in the N.L. Central. That's how.

Good call on the Vazquez comparison. Zambrano overall is a better pitcher than Vazquez (and also hits better), but Zambrano also costs more and is more of a hothead.

drewcifer
06-29-2009, 10:16 PM
You're advocating him based solely on his statistics, I don't know how else you can expect someone to read into those posts. Zambrano is your typical Prima Donna Baseball Player, who is great when he's pitching against an inferior opponent in a relatively meaningless game in the middle of the season, but simply unravels the moment the spotlight is turned on or something slightly irks him. Again, I never said I wouldn't want him in my rotation, guys like him are perfectly good for getting you from April to September, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to win a big game in late September or during the play-offs; he simply won't do it.

You're nuts if you wouldn't want him to be in your top 3 starting any playoff series.

A) You're missing the definition of a loser. Javier Vazquez is a loser, but he'll still win more games for you than he won't, it's not just how many games you win but when you win them.

B) Literally 1/2 of his career starts have come against the other 5 teams in the N.L. Central. That's how.

That is impossible.

Marqhead
06-29-2009, 10:38 PM
That is impossible.

I counted 133 of his 244 career games came against NL Central opponents. That may be off by a few depending on if any were relief appearances, but that is more than 50%.

FielderJones
06-29-2009, 10:41 PM
That is impossible.

Opponents so far in 2009 (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/players/player/gamelogs/2009/223692): Hou, Mil, StL, Cin, Ari, Fla, SD, Pit, Cin, Hou, ChW, Det, ChW. That's 7 out of 13.

In 2008 (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/players/player/gamelogs/2008/223692): 18 NLC starts, 12 against all others.

I could continue clicking back, but why bother? Internet sports sites are your friend.

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2009, 10:54 PM
That is impossible.

Actually, it is possible, if previous seasons' schedules are as unbalanced as that of the 2009 schedule. This year the Cubs play 82 games within their division:

15 each against the Pirates
15 against the Reds
18 against the Astros
17 against the Brewers
17 against the Cardinals

So it is entirely possible that approximately half of Zambrano's starts are against the NL Central.

doublem23
06-29-2009, 10:58 PM
You're nuts if you wouldn't want him to be in your top 3 starting any playoff series.

I think you're nuts if you hand Big Z the ball in a big game.


That is impossible.

Zambrano has started 223 games in his career. 29 vs. Cincinnati, 26 vs. Houston, 23 vs. Milwaukee, 23 vs. Pittsburgh, 22 vs. St. Louis. 123 of his career starts are intradivisional. 55.1%.

drewcifer
06-29-2009, 11:23 PM
I just went through all his game logs since 01. You'r right.

He's started in a total of 223 Games, 123 against the Central (55%). In those 123, the Cubs have won 73% of the time (71-52).

That's pretty dominating.

FielderJones
06-29-2009, 11:41 PM
That's pretty dominating.

Like he said, dominating against crap competition.

voodoochile
06-29-2009, 11:46 PM
Just to be picky, 71-52 is not a 73% winning percentage. It's a 58% winning percentage.

drewcifer
06-29-2009, 11:51 PM
Like he said, dominating against crap competition.

:rolleyes:

So a guy whose work gets you the Ws that matter during the race at almost a 75% clip is NOT someone you want in the playoffs based on...what, 5 ****ing starts?

And considering it's the Cubs who have to play offense behind him, mind you...

That's ridiculous.

I'd take him in a heartbeat if they wanted to unload him that bad and make a deal work for us.

doublem23
06-29-2009, 11:57 PM
I'd take him in a heartbeat if they wanted to unload him that bad and make a deal work for us.

So would I, I'd love Zambrano to start every 5th day for the Sox in the regular season, but if he was inserted into this rotation, come October there are 2 guys I'd definitely start over him and 2 I probably would, depending on how Floyd and Contreras have been recently pitching.

This game is more than just numbers.

chisoxfanatic
06-29-2009, 11:59 PM
So would I, I'd love Zambrano to start every 5th day for the Sox in the regular season, but if he was inserted into this rotation, come October there are 2 guys I'd definitely start over him and 2 I probably would, depending on how Floyd and Contreras have been recently pitching.

This game is more than just numbers.
doublem,

I'd probably use him as the 3rd or 4th starter in a postseason series, giving him as little pressure as possible. But why are we even talking about Z coming here? I don't want that headcase here.

doublem23
06-30-2009, 12:02 AM
doublem,

I'd probably use him as the 3rd or 4th starter in a postseason series, giving him as little pressure as possible. But why are we even talking about Z coming here? I don't want that headcase here.

It's hypothetical, Zambrano (like Vazquez) is the poster child for people who look at baseball from a purely statistical standpoint. He puts up pretty numbers but he doesn't come through when it matters. I've never said I wouldn't want him, guys like him and Vazquez are still valuable as they do a great job of getting your team through the regular season, they're just useless when the stakes get raised. Watch the guy pitch and you'll see, he does not handle pressure well.

chisoxfanatic
06-30-2009, 12:04 AM
Watch the guy pitch and you'll see, he does not handle pressure well.
I wonder if any of that has to do with the huge pressure put on the Cubs due to their long record of futility. I wonder if a change of scenery would right that (I'm not saying he should come here though).

jabrch
06-30-2009, 12:13 AM
You're advocating him based solely on his statistics,

No - I've watched him pitch for a long time now. I've seen him dominate for almost 10 years. You are picking a few isolated bad outings and telling me that's more important than nearly 1500 innings.

If you watch enough of Zambrano pitching, and wouldn't put him in the front end of your rotation, you either have a sick rotation, or you are an idiot. (and I know you are not an idiot) So if your only arguement is a few isolated meltdowns and a sample size of 5 playoff games; 2 of which where when he was VERY young, and others where it clearly wasn't his doing, I will tell you that's the difference between a fan and professional.

Zambrano is somewhere in the top 30 pitchers in the game.

Zambrano is your typical Prima Donna Baseball Player, who is great when he's pitching against an inferior opponent in a relatively meaningless game in the middle of the season, but simply unravels the moment the spotlight is turned on or something slightly irks him.

That's simply untrue. The fact that it has happened, doesn't mean it always happens. You are taking a few public, but isolated incidents and broadbrushing a 1500 IP career.

Again, I never said I wouldn't want him in my rotation, guys like him are perfectly good for getting you from April to September,

Not "perfectly good" He's much better than that

but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to win a big game in late September or during the play-offs; he simply won't do it.

That's untrue.

drewcifer
06-30-2009, 12:19 AM
There is nothing wrong with his playoff performances. It was pretty much one bad outing against FLA 6 years ago that taint things for him, otherwise his teammates are to blame.

If you look at playoff performances between Zambraino and Vazquez, it's a joke. Vazquez gave up 18 Earned Runs in 15 innings!!!!

Nobody chokes like Vazquez and he's not even a career .500 pitcher.

Konerko05
06-30-2009, 12:24 AM
A) You're missing the definition of a loser. Javier Vazquez is a loser, but he'll still win more games for you than he won't, it's not just how many games you win but when you win them.


No, you're missing the definition of a loser.

Javier Vazquez career W-L%: .493
Carlos Zambrano career W-L%: .610

Vasquez has only had one winning season in the last four years, and that came when the Sox were completely out of the race in 2007.

Zambrano has only had one season under a .696 W-L% in the last four years, and that came in 2007 when he went 18-13.

A loser loses, Carlos Zambrano wins consistently year after year. He hasn't had a losing season since 2002 when he was first breaking into the MLB.

drewcifer
06-30-2009, 12:27 AM
No, you're missing the definition of a loser.

Javier Vazquez career W-L%: .493
Carlos Zambrano career W-L%: .610

Vasquez has only had one winning season in the last four years, and that came when the Sox were completely out of the race in 2007.

Zambrano has only had one season under a .696 W-L% in the last four years, and that came in 2007 when he went 18-13.

A loser loses, Carlos Zambrano wins consistently year after year. He hasn't had a losing season since 2002 when he was first breaking into the MLB.

And to build on that point, going through all his game logs showed me something I didn't expect aside from how much his division helped him - you guys realize that Braino is slightly under .500 within his division until after the allstar break over his career?

A choker he is not - he is absolutely filthy July-September EVERY year in his career in division games.

RadioheadRocks
06-30-2009, 03:34 AM
"Less Filling!!!"

"Tastes Great!!!"

guillensdisciple
06-30-2009, 04:53 AM
Sox at .500 = happy camper me.


Now lets take back the central!

Mohoney
06-30-2009, 05:36 AM
I'd love to see the Sox rotation line up with MB, Carlos, Danks, Floyd in the postseason. I'll go to war with that.

Agreed. Any comparison of Javy Vazquez to Carlos Zambrano isn't fair to what Zambrano has accomplished in his career.

doublem23
06-30-2009, 09:58 AM
Agreed. Any comparison of Javy Vazquez to Carlos Zambrano isn't fair to what Zambrano has accomplished in his career.

Woo, yeah, he's got that sparkling record against the Reds, Pirates, and Brewers.

What a stud. :party:

Warriorjan
06-30-2009, 10:30 AM
Hey, I'm not a fan of Big Z, but to mention him and Javy in the same breath is ridiculous. Big Z wins hands down.

jabrch
06-30-2009, 11:01 AM
Woo, yeah, he's got that sparkling record against the Reds, Pirates, and Brewers.

What a stud. :party:

You are criticizing him for beating his division rivals? Dubs...come now... Show me where you see him very bad in a meaningful sample size against good opponents in this list.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6559/splits;_ylt=AkvifjPcgXKlQ30idF.k8kyFCLcF?year=care er&type=Pitching

I notice you left out the Astros and the Cardinals when talking about his division rivals. He's been damn good against them too. You don't need to like Carlos. But you can't find one shred of meaningful evidence that proves that he can't win big games. He has - and he does.

He has a career 3.49/1.28 with a 100-64 record. His w/l % is 11th best of all active MLB pitchers. 38th in wins amongst actives and 12th in ERA.

Pear-Zin-Ski
07-02-2009, 07:07 PM
I think we're all missing a point that D23 was pointing out: Sure the guy has a winning record and he's a big reason why the Cubbies have made the playoffs the past two years...and then what?

IN THE GAMES THAT MATTER...he does not show...plain and simple...you can have a winning percentage of .700 but is it about getting to the playoffs or about winning a World Series?


You are criticizing him for beating his division rivals? Dubs...come now... Show me where you see him very bad in a meaningful sample size against good opponents in this list.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6559/splits;_ylt=AkvifjPcgXKlQ30idF.k8kyFCLcF?year=care er&type=Pitching

I notice you left out the Astros and the Cardinals when talking about his division rivals. He's been damn good against them too. You don't need to like Carlos. But you can't find one shred of meaningful evidence that proves that he can't win big games. He has - and he does.

He has a career 3.49/1.28 with a 100-64 record. His w/l % is 11th best of all active MLB pitchers. 38th in wins amongst actives and 12th in ERA.

jabrch
07-02-2009, 07:17 PM
IN THE GAMES THAT MATTER...he does not show...plain and simple...

That's just not a fact. It's untrue. He has shown up huge in many big games. You can't blame him for the **** defense his team played behind him in the playoffs or the game where they didn't give him support and he only gave up a few runs. He has pitched big in the pennant race for his team.

Nellie_Fox
07-03-2009, 02:37 AM
Any more discussion on Zambrano and whether he's a big-game pitcher or not should be taken to WTS.