PDA

View Full Version : New Sox Articles On ESPN


hold2dibber
01-23-2003, 02:18 PM
Several new ESPN articles analyzing the Sox' chances in '03 (and beyond):

White Sox "Hot Stove Heater" (http://espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove2003/whitesox.html)

Garland and Wright The Key (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/rogers_phil/1496899.html)

Sox Minor League Report (http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove2003/whitesoxminors.html)

A.T. Money
01-23-2003, 02:21 PM
ESPN is always critical towards the Sox. The way they see it, we still have a lot to go before we can catch the Twins. I personally don't see the Twins that far ahead.

hold2dibber
01-23-2003, 02:26 PM
I actually agree with almost everything in the article. I don't see Colon duplicating last season - but he'll still be good, probably 16 wins and an ERA in the 3.75 range. The key to the Sox success will be the development of Garland and Wright. If those guys take a step forward (i.e., lower their ERAs by about .50 in each case and consistently get into the 6th or 7th inning), the Sox will contend for the Division crown. If not, I think we're looking at about 85 wins, which won't get it done.

Another key is Jimenez - if he crashes and burns, the Sox don't have a back-up plan for the lead-off spot.

Finally, I think the articles give short shrift to the possibility that Big Frank will come back strong this year. I think, assuming that Jimenez at least is decent, that the Sox will have a fantastic offense next year.

delben91
01-23-2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber

I think, assuming that Jimenez at least is decent, that the Sox will have a fantastic offense next year.

Somewhat off topic, but how long is Jimenez under contract for?

yyz
01-23-2003, 02:53 PM
Todd Ritchie, expected to be the ace of the staff after coming over from Pittsburgh . . .
I don't think anyone expected him to be the 'ace' of the staff. Buehrle started on opening day.

Can expect to play better . . .
No mention of Big Frank here?

Why, exactly, do the White Sox think that Koch is a better pitcher than Foulke?
He doesn't have to be better, he just has to be about as good. The purpose of the trade was to have rights to your closer for 3 years rather than one. Foulke's second half stats were good, but based on a lot of careful use in nonpressure situations - if somebody got on, Marte or Osuna would come in and clean up after him.

Adding Koch to the mix does not improve the bullpen; it merely makes it more expensive.
Foulke is under contract for $6mm for 2003. Koch just filed his arbitration request for $5.9mm, and the Sox countered with $4.25mm. I know we gave cash to the A's in the trade, but I don't recall seeing how much. Regardless, I don't think Koch will be significantly more expensive.


In general, the thrust of this article is that if Colon, Buehrle and Koch underperform, the Sox are in trouble. Thanks for the scoop, ESPN.

pudge
01-23-2003, 03:01 PM
A mixed bag from the ESPN Hot Stove. Let me start with this one:

Colon, on the other hand, does improve the team, especially considering that the man he replaces in the rotation is Ritchie.

Haha to those who jumped down my throat for saying Colon, in essence, replaces Ritchie... (you out there Randar? ;)

Todd Ritchie, expected to be the ace of the staff after coming over from Pittsburgh in a winter trade

On the flip side, the above quote is moronic. Buehrle was always the ace, who thought otherwise?

The Sox have shown great patience with some of their young pitchers, but the one they picked to get rid of, Wells, could be the best of the bunch.

Spare me. Wells is not that great. This writer is just trying to stir the pot.

Ken Williams was talked into putting Rauch in the rotation, but he was hit hard, then sent back to the minor leagues. This stalled his development, left a hole in the rotation, and raised questions about the decision-making process in the front office.

I agree, and I'm not so sure a similar thing won't happen this year.

Can expect to play worse
Buehrle has thrown 460 innings in two years, and is still just 23.

Why pick Buehrle as someone who will play worse? It seems they can't really find someone who will realistically be worse. Any ideas? I'd put Sandy Alomar in here.

Okay, there's more, but I gotta get back to work.

doublem23
01-23-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by pudge

Spare me. Wells is not that great. This writer is just trying to stir the pot.


In terms of pitching talent, Kip Wells was the best pitcher I'd seen the Sox have since McDowell (and it's close). Problem is, no one ever taught him how to pitch.

MarkEdward
01-23-2003, 03:12 PM
I find it pretty cool that John Sickels did our report.

pudge
01-23-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
In terms of pitching talent, Kip Wells was the best pitcher I'd seen the Sox have since McDowell (and it's close). Problem is, no one ever taught him how to pitch.

That's an interesting thought, I guess we'll find out as his career progresses.

hold2dibber
01-23-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by pudge
Can expect to play worse
Buehrle has thrown 460 innings in two years, and is still just 23.

Why pick Buehrle as someone who will play worse? It seems they can't really find someone who will realistically be worse. Any ideas? I'd put Sandy Alomar in here.

I expect Buehrle to be about the same (although I'd like to see the Sox lighten his load in a little in terms of IP). The only guy on the team who really had a career year was Maggs. I guess I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't quite reach the same numbers as last year, but I also wouldn't be shocked if improved upon them a bit. Will Marte be as good as last year? That's a toss up to me. Also, I'm not sure that Crede will display quite as much power over the course of the year as he showed in his 200 ABs at the end of last year (but I expect, and hope, that he shows better plate discipline). Finally, I don't think Koch will be quite as good as he was last year.

RKMeibalane
01-23-2003, 03:46 PM
I'm not convinced the Sox have enough to catch Minnesota, but I don't agree with some of what was said in the article. ESPN seems to have forgotten that Frank Thomas even exists. They didn't say much about him. They also seem to think that Beuhrle won't get any better. I don't see what the problem is. As long as Manuel keeps his innings down, there's no reason he shouldn't continue to improve.

I would be interested to see what ESPN says about the Cubs. Why? Because I'm convinced the outlook for that team will be more positive than the one for the Sox. Another case of media bias. Will it ever end?

dougs78
01-23-2003, 03:47 PM
Good points yyz. I agree with most of whats being said here. Its a pretty factual analysis..i just happen to think they took a lot bigger look at what could go wrong than what could go right. IMHO they underestimated what to expect from the starters. There is no reason to assume Colon won't put up an average year for him as Dibber said. Again, no reason to see a drop off from a 23 year old pitcher like buehrle. And most importantly I think Garland and Wright are ready to take a step forward. Realistically I see 14-16 wins for each of them. If that happens I really see 90 wins on the horizon.

FanOf14
01-23-2003, 04:00 PM
I hope garland can get at least 14 wins and since Danny had 14 wins last year, I am hoping he gets at least 14 this year.

gogosoxgogo
01-23-2003, 05:13 PM
Maggs in the 5th spot!? I think they overrate Paulie's abilities. He had a career first half last year, and I think his career numbers are more of what we can expect from him in following years. Maggs will definately be in the #4 role.

MisterB
01-23-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by delben91
Somewhat off topic, but how long is Jimenez under contract for?

He's on the same schedule as Buehrle - arbitration starting next year, free agent after '06.

harwar
01-24-2003, 09:27 AM
espn,who we all know is obsessed with the yankees-redsox thing is just really angry because we got Colon.I read those "hot stove heaters" everyday and thats the most negative one so far.

jeremyb1
01-24-2003, 03:18 PM
i love sickles to death but he's a life long twins fan. i'm sure he tries very hard to be objective but i know if i had to write about the twins i'd probably find a lot to complain about. it doesn't mean those complaints aren't valid, just that i worked harder to discover them.

also, the fact that someone who is a national writer and therefore doesn't have all that much knowledge of the team wrote the article means that there will be factual inaccuracies. its inevitable.

that said, i agree with most of sickles' points. clearly there are ommissions such as any talk about frank but i still thought it was pretty good analysis. the one thing i didn't like was that he seemed to merely dismiss garland and wright because of their k/bb ratios. i think k/bb is a valuable tool, but i have my doubts about how well it can be applied to young major league pitchers. the problem with young major league pitchers is that their highly inconsistent. they basically need to work on pitching their best every time out. clearly in their poor outings (which may be half or more of their outings) they will have very poor k/bb ratios. however, as long as their k/bb ratios are good in their good starts i don't think its a very important stat for young pitchers.

k/bb is most useful when looking at a pitcher who consistently struggles or consistently pitches well. its useful to look at colon's rate and see if it suggests he deserved to pitch as well as he did last season or to look at eric milton's to see if his numbers suggest he's actually a better pitcher than his era suggested. however, the inconsistency of young major league pitchers doesn't lend itself well to k/bb in my opinion.

if you take garland's k/bb figures in the two months he was hammered its an ungodly 29 walks versus 26 strikeouts. however, if you take that figure over the other four months of the season in which his era was under 4 its 54 vs. 86 which isn't great but isn't terrible either. in the last two months it was a pretty solid 48 k's versus 28 bb's.

wright's overall total of 136/71 isn't bad at all. the fact that it was an impressive 76 to 31 in the second half does nothing but indicate improvement this season in my opinion.

T Dog
01-24-2003, 04:50 PM
Why, exactly, do the White Sox think that Koch is a better pitcher than Foulke?

Maybe because last year Koch didn't go to his manager to say he couldn't close anymore.