PDA

View Full Version : The overrated Twins


SoxxoS
01-24-2003, 12:38 AM
Everyone is talking about how the White Sox can or cannot dethrone the Twins. Looking at this objectively, this is what I see...

Defense: EDGE-Twins
Offense: EDGE-Sox
Starting 5: EDGE-Sox
Bullpen: EDGE: Even

I am not going to argue that the Sox defense is even close to the Twins. They are solid at pretty much every position. The Sox have ? marks in LF, CF, SS and catcher. I think Jimenez will do very well at 2B, and shouldn't be a problem.

I think the offense of the Sox is top 5 in MLB. We lost Clayton and basically replaced him with Crede. Rowand will replace Lofton. Olivo will replace Johnson. All should be considered positives and will ADD ON to the #3 rated offense in baseball last year. The only thing is how will Jimenez stack up against Durham's numbers? Who knows, but I am looking for big things from Jimenez. I think that will be a slight loss just from a power perspective, but should hit for a better average. Not to mention a possible Carlos Lee breakout year, and Frank Thomas going back to Walt Hriniak with a insentive laden contract.
The Twins were rated #13 in MLB in offense last year, and they should be about right around there in 2003. They have done nothing to improve their team, so there should be no reason to shoot up in the rankings. Matter of fact, they lost a 20 homer guy in David Ortiz. They had one player bat over .300 last year, and that was A.J. Pierzynski. Uber prospect Mike Cuddyer hit .259 with 4 homers in 112 AB's.

The starting 5. You probably think the Twins have an advantage over the Sox. Let's look deeper in the numbers. We know about our starting 5. Here is Minnesota's starting 5 (6)-
Brad Radke . Hurt last year. Pitched 118 innings. 9-5 with a 4.72 ERA. Good pitcher when healthy. Not a true #1 ACE guy. His career ERA is 4.30. Radke is a solid, but unspactacular pitcher. He is no match for Buerhle-type numbers. Even when healthy, no match for Buerhle.
Eric Milton . About as OVERRATED as they come. That song "What have you done for me lately?" comes to mind. Everyone talks about this guy like he is really good. His best ERA to date, for his career is-4.32 in 2001. 13-9 with a 4.84 ERA last year. Just a very mediocre at pitcher, who has a "good" stigma attached to his name. Compared to Colon...come on.
Rick Reed Best year out of all the Twins starters last year. 15-7 with a 3.78 ERA. A decent pitcher who is 37 years old. A typical #3 guy, but would be a good #4. I think a year duplicating last would be pushing it. Look for a slight decline. If you put him against Garland, you would have to say right now, advantage Reed. But that really isnt fair b/c Reed should be their number 2 guy and if you compare Garland with Milton...advantage Garland.
Kyle Lohse An average pitcher at best. 13-8 with a 4.32 ERA. However, gave up more hits than innings pitched, and walked 70 guys. I think Dan Wright and him are about equal, right now. However, if you have me the choice on who I would rather have, it's Wright in a heartbeat. Can't say that Wright is better, b/c he hasn't proved it on the field.
Johan Santana He should actually be the #4 guy, but he is listed as the #5. This is one guy that scares me. I was reading a scouting report about him, and the scout just raved about him. Gave up 84 hits in 108 IP last year! Plus he struck out 137. 2.99 ERA. I think this kid is a stud. He will probably be the #2 or 3 guy before it's said and done this year. Pretty big advantage over Rauch if he pitches in the 5th spot.
Joe Mays Cy Mays against us. But we hit him last year, like the rest of the league. 4-8 with a 5.38 ERA in a injury riddled season. I have no idea where to put this guy. I imagine he will take Lohse's spot in the rotation. He got pummled in the playoffs, so I dont know which Joe Mays will show up. Can be a decent pitcher, and very good against us, as we all know.
IMO, our 1-5 is a lot better. I think the pitchers above are either mediocre (Lohse, Milton) decent (Mays) Good (Radke, Reed) or young stud's (Santana).

Bullpen: Fact- J.C. Romero (who?), Latroy Hawkins, and Eddie Guardado all had career years. Anyone that argues that is a fool. What those 3 guys did last year cannot possibly be duplicated.
Romero-81 IP, 62 hits 1.89 ERA (who?)
Hawkins-80 IP, 63 hits 2.13 ERA (yes, Latroy Hawkins)
Everyday Eddie- 45 saves, 2.93 ERA. (Career ERA 4.67.)
My point is that the Twins cannot duplicate last season's bullpens success. No way. We know about our bullpen, and I really don't see any weaknesses, especially if Gordon can give us 60 innings.
Advantage: EVEN. Could very well be advantage Sox by the end of the year, but right now, its even.

There you have it. I think the Twins are very overrated. As you can tell by ESPN's Rob Neyer's "Beane count" The Twins (according to their runs scored vs. runs allowed) should have had the same record as us last year. And that includes a bullpen that was off their face. That includes a certain Todd Ritchie,Jim Parque and Royce Clayton. Although The Twins have to be considered the "favorites," I think the White Sox are just the better team.

Bmr31
01-24-2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Everyone is talking about how the White Sox can or cannot dethrone the Twins. Looking at this objectively, this is what I see...

Defense: EDGE-Twins
Offense: EDGE-Sox
Starting 5: EDGE-Sox
Bullpen: EDGE: Even

I am not going to argue that the Sox defense is even close to the Twins. They are solid at pretty much every position. The Sox have ? marks in LF, CF, SS and catcher. I think Jimenez will do very well at 2B, and shouldn't be a problem.

I think the offense of the Sox is top 5 in MLB. We lost Clayton and basically replaced him with Crede. Rowand will replace Lofton. Olivo will replace Johnson. All should be considered positives and will ADD ON to the #3 rated offense in baseball last year! The only thing is how will Jimenez stack up against Durham's numbers? Who knows, but I am looking for big things from Jimenez. I think that will be a slight loss just from a power perspective, but should hit for a better average. Not to mention a possible Carlos Lee breakout year, and Frank Thomas going back to Walt Hriniak with a insentive laden contract.
The Twins were rated #13 in MLB in offense last year, and they should be about right around there in 2003. They have done nothing to improve their team, so there should be no reason to shoot up in the rankings. Matter of fact, they lost a 20 homer guy in David Ortiz. They had one player bat over .300 last year, and that was A.J. Pierzynski. Uber prospect Mike Cuddyer hit .259 with 4 homers in 112 AB's.

The starting 5. You probably think the Twins have an advantage over the Sox. Let's look deeper in the numbers. We know about our starting 5. Here is Minnesota's-
Brad Radke . Hurt last year. Pitched 118 innings. 9-5 with a 4.72 ERA. No match for Buerhle. Even when healthy, no match for Buerhle.
Eric Milton . About as OVERRATED as they come. That song "What have you done for me lately?" comes to mind. Everyone talks about this guy like he is really good. His best ERA to date, for his career is-4.32 in 2001. 13-9 with a 4.84 ERA last year. Just a very mediocre at pitcher, who has a "good" stigma attached to his name. Compared to Colon...come on.
Rick Reed Best year out of all the Twins starters last year. 15-7 with a 3.78 ERA. A decent pitcher who is 37 years old. A typical #3 guy, but would be a good #4. I think a year duplicating last would be pushing it. Look for a slight decline. If you put him against Garland, you would have to say right now, advantage Reed. But that really isnt fair b/c Reed should be their number 2 guy and if you compare Garland with Milton...advantage Garland.
Kyle Lohse An average pitcher at best. 13-8 with a 4.32 ERA. However, gave up more hits than innings pitched, and walked 70 guys. I think Dan Wright and him are about equal, right now. However, if you have me the choice on who I would rather have, it's Wright in a heartbeat. Can't say that Wright is better, b/c he hasn't proved it on the field.
Johan Santana He should actually be the #4 guy, but he is listed as the #5. This is one guy that scares me. I was reading a scouting report about him, and the scout just raved about him. Gave up 84 hits in 108 IP last year! Plus he struck out 137. 2.99 ERA. I think this kid is a stud. He will probably be the #2 or 3 guy before it's said and done this year. Pretty big advantage over Rauch if he pitches in the 5th spot.
Joe Mays Cy Mays against us. But we hit him last year, like the rest of the league. 4-8 with a 5.38 ERA in a injury riddled season. I have no idea where to put this guy. I imagine he will take Lohse's spot in the rotation. He got pummled in the playoffs, so I dont know which Joe Mays will show up. Can be a decent pitcher, and very good against us, as we all know.
IMO, our 1-5 is a lot better. I think the pitchers above are either mediocre (Lohse, Milton) decent (Mays) Good (Radke, Reed) or young stud's (Santana).

Bullpen: Fact- J.C. Romero (who?), Latroy Hawkins, and Eddie Guardado all had career years. Anyone that argues that is a fool. What those 3 guys did last year cannot possibly be duplicated.
Romero-81 IP, 62 hits 1.89 ERA (who?)
Hawkins-80 IP, 63 hits 2.13 ERA (yes, Latroy Hawkins)
Everyday Eddie- 45 saves, 2.93 ERA. (Career ERA 4.67.)
My point is that the Twins cannot duplicate last season's bullpens success. No way. We know about our bullpen, and I really don't see any weaknesses, especially if Gordon can give us 60 innings.
Advantage: EVEN.

There you have it. I think the Twins are very overrated. As you can tell by ESPN's Rob Neyer's "Beane count" The Twins (according to their runs scored vs. runs allowed) should have had the same record as us last year. And that includes a bullpen that was off their face. Although they have to be considered the "favorites," I think the White Sox are just the better team.


I hope you are right. IMO, we should hope to win the division, but expect to get a wildcard. Minnesota has a better team.

bc2k
01-24-2003, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
The Sox have ? marks in LF, CF, SS and catcher. I think Jimenez will do very well at 2B, and shouldn't be a problem.

There you have it. I think the Twins are very overrated. Although The Twins have to be considered the "favorites," I think the White Sox are just the better team.

I don't think Lee and Rowand are defensive liabilities. I agree with you on catcher. Valentin's 36 errors in 2000 didn't really cost the team, but another 36 in '03 will burn us. Still, if Valentin sits against lefties, Jimenez will be at short with Graffaninose at 2b, and I see no problem with that defense. Plus, in that situation, JM can unleash one hell of a clutch pinch hitter in Jose Valentin. He could save a couple games that way.

I agree with your analysis of the EDGEs between the two teams. The only thing I worry about is the edge Minnesota gets playing at home. The Sox just aren't built to succeed there. I'll take the Sox over the Twins at Comiskey, but the Metrodome scares me.

The Sox are the better team.

kermittheefrog
01-24-2003, 04:12 AM
I'm so glad you called Eric Milton overrated because he is the lord of overrated. If you look at his ERA against the league average ERA Milton gets even worse. I almost feel like I should campaign against the belief that Milton is a good pitcher. I hate him so much....

And people dare suggest that I'm some kind of sterile baseball fan just because I'm a stathead. :angry:

soxtalker
01-24-2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Everyone is talking about how the White Sox can or cannot dethrone the Twins. Looking at this objectively, this is what I see...

Defense: EDGE-Twins
Offense: EDGE-Sox
Starting 5: EDGE-Sox
Bullpen: EDGE: Even

I am not going to argue that the Sox defense is even close to the Twins. They are solid at pretty much every position. The Sox have ? marks in LF, CF, SS and catcher. I think Jimenez will do very well at 2B, and shouldn't be a problem.

...

There you have it. I think the Twins are very overrated. As you can tell by ESPN's Rob Neyer's "Beane count" The Twins (according to their runs scored vs. runs allowed) should have had the same record as us last year. And that includes a bullpen that was off their face. That includes a certain Todd Ritchie,Jim Parque and Royce Clayton. Although The Twins have to be considered the "favorites," I think the White Sox are just the better team.

You may (well, I hope that) you are right. However, I take a slightly different approach. I don't think that we should view the Twins as this incredible team that is so difficult to overtake. (The only team that might fit into that category IMO is the Yankees.) Lots of things can change the situation during the season -- players having good years, bad years, getting injured, rookies coming out of nowhere, etc. The Twins do, however, provide a benchmark to compare ourselves against. So, looking at your analysis, I really want KW to do something now that improves our defense (focusing on the positions you've identified).

I also wouldn't mind expanding this to a few other areas. For example, the Sox have had terrible base-running skills during the past few seasons.

hold2dibber
01-24-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
The starting 5. You probably think the Twins have an advantage over the Sox. Let's look deeper in the numbers. We know about our starting 5. Here is Minnesota's starting 5 (6)-
Brad Radke . Hurt last year. Pitched 118 innings. 9-5 with a 4.72 ERA. Good pitcher when healthy. Not a true #1 ACE guy. His career ERA is 4.30. Radke is a solid, but unspactacular pitcher. He is no match for Buerhle-type numbers. Even when healthy, no match for Buerhle.
Eric Milton . About as OVERRATED as they come. That song "What have you done for me lately?" comes to mind. Everyone talks about this guy like he is really good. His best ERA to date, for his career is-4.32 in 2001. 13-9 with a 4.84 ERA last year. Just a very mediocre at pitcher, who has a "good" stigma attached to his name. Compared to Colon...come on.
Rick Reed Best year out of all the Twins starters last year. 15-7 with a 3.78 ERA. A decent pitcher who is 37 years old. A typical #3 guy, but would be a good #4. I think a year duplicating last would be pushing it. Look for a slight decline. If you put him against Garland, you would have to say right now, advantage Reed. But that really isnt fair b/c Reed should be their number 2 guy and if you compare Garland with Milton...advantage Garland.
Kyle Lohse An average pitcher at best. 13-8 with a 4.32 ERA. However, gave up more hits than innings pitched, and walked 70 guys. I think Dan Wright and him are about equal, right now. However, if you have me the choice on who I would rather have, it's Wright in a heartbeat. Can't say that Wright is better, b/c he hasn't proved it on the field.
Johan Santana He should actually be the #4 guy, but he is listed as the #5. This is one guy that scares me. I was reading a scouting report about him, and the scout just raved about him. Gave up 84 hits in 108 IP last year! Plus he struck out 137. 2.99 ERA. I think this kid is a stud. He will probably be the #2 or 3 guy before it's said and done this year. Pretty big advantage over Rauch if he pitches in the 5th spot.
Joe Mays Cy Mays against us. But we hit him last year, like the rest of the league. 4-8 with a 5.38 ERA in a injury riddled season. I have no idea where to put this guy. I imagine he will take Lohse's spot in the rotation. He got pummled in the playoffs, so I dont know which Joe Mays will show up. Can be a decent pitcher, and very good against us, as we all know.
IMO, our 1-5 is a lot better. I think the pitchers above are either mediocre (Lohse, Milton) decent (Mays) Good (Radke, Reed) or young stud's (Santana).


I agree with most everything you say, except your analysis of the starting rotations. Seems like you're going on potential more than on actual performance. The Sox top 2 are better than anyone the Twins have. No question about it. But they have six guys who have all proven themselves, to one degree or another. None of them are awesome (although Santana may be), but there's all pretty good. The Sox, on the other hand, only go five deep, and three of the five haven't proven yet that they can be consistent major league starters. As much potential as I think Wright and Rauch have, their career ERAs are 5.31 and 6.59. None of the Twins top 6 have career ERAs anywhere near those numbers. My point is, the rotation MAY prove to be awesome, or two (or more) of the pitchers may crash and burn and never turn the corner and we'll end up with a two man staff. Whereas the Twins rotation (if healthy) may not have the upside that the Sox' rotation has, it is solid, dependable, deep and good. Right now, I'd have to give the Twins the nod.

Which brings me back to the same point I've been harping on the last two days: the Sox' success this year is largely dependent upon the development of Garland and Wright. Their progress will be the difference between an 80 to 85 win team and a 90+ win team.

MetalliSox
01-24-2003, 09:39 AM
Not sure if calling the Twins overrated is accurate. They have a good fundamental team. Hunter, Koskie, and Mienutyuedgtyvd are all golf glove caliber and they may not rip thr cover off the ball but they do the little things to beat you.
The only problem I have with the Twins is that they are saying we need to knock them off their pedistol (sp?). They won the division title one year. A team trying to knock another off there pedistol (sp?) would be the Red Sox/Yanks feud.
Mientkievichjudgfghjfg is a cocky pre-madonna by some of his statements. He is overrated.
But a team that knocked off the hottest team in the MLB in the playoffs last year can not be overrated. I'm curious how the loss of Ortiz will hurt them. He kills us.

ma-gaga
01-24-2003, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
And people dare suggest that I'm some kind of sterile baseball fan just because I'm a stathead. :angry:

You said it. :smile:

Milton is overrated, but he has a no-hitter to his name, and he's a lefty. A lot of teams would like to have an overrated lefty like him on their team.

The Twins pitching staff is a little more consistant than the Sox. If you look at the entire staff 1-12, the Twin's staff is deeper, more experienced and better than the Sox's.

Hitting the Sox have an edge. A huge edge? Maybe, it depends on how the 3-4 rookies the Sox send out this year perform (can I call Crede/Rowand rookies?). In my mind there's a HUGE question surrounding Olivo and Jimenez. How do they perform? I see that Jimenez is KILLING the ball in winter league, will that carry over? Will Sandy Alomar get 80 games? Will Carlos Lee ever break out? Can Frank Thomas find his stroke? There's so much variables that go into what the Sox are going to bring this year. The Twins have a lot less talent, but seem to be more consistant with their talent.

I agree, the Twins bullpen played out of their mind last year. They cannot possibly repeat what they did. However, their starting pitching cannot be as bad as it was last year either. I think their OVERALL pitching will be about the same this year with the starters getting in a bunch more innings. If they get hammered/hurt again, the Twins will be in serious trouble.

The Twins were rated #13 in MLB in offense last year Well this depends on what you want to use. Runs scored? Yes, they were 13th in runs scored, but they outhit the W.Sox 0.272 to 0.268. Team OPS? They were tied for 8th place a whopping 18 points behind the #3 W.Sox and a whopping 17 points above the #16th ranked Expos, 0.787 to 0.769 to 0.752.
check it out for yourselves... (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/statistics?stat=teambat&league=mlb&sortColumn=OPS&season=2&year=2002&split=0) Yes, they got rid of Ortiz, but LeCroy/Cuddyer should SHOULD make up his production and be better against lefties which was a weakness last year. That's their "rookie" this year. The team is older, and usually that means a little better with the bats. I'm not expecting a lot of improvement, but some guys should rebound (Mientkiewich, Koskie, Guzman?) and some guys can't get much worse (Rivas, Guzman). If they do the little things like WALK more than 12 times a year, they should be a dangerous team offensively. Their outfield is already pretty good, I don't expect a big dropoff from them offensively.

I'm torn on "Beane Count" and the Pythagorian records. The Twins out did their projections, but they also did the little things that help win games. They went something like 13-6 against the mighty Royals, but only out-runned them by a 54-52 count. They "should have" just barely played better than 0.500 ball against them, but they didn't. They just got hammered in 2 games by a 22-4 margin (off the top of my head here, you can check their schedule if you want to prove me wrong) but easily outplayed/outclassed the Royals.

The Twins are DUE for a falloff. But the rest of the division is so crappy it might not happen. We'll see, the Sox definitely have a shot, but the Twins essentially coasted through the last 2 months of last season, so I don't know how much you can really use to look at how GOOD of a team they are from last August and Septembers stats. I do know that they beat Oakland in Oakland and that watching Durham make the final out was about the sweetest out I've seen all year.

Crap. This was going to be a quick response making fun of Kermit, but it turned into an essay... sorry.

:)

duke of dorwood
01-24-2003, 10:02 AM
We have not improved enough to make up the losses head to head. If we are to finish ahead of them, it will be because we beat other teams more than they did. They appear to psyche out our manager too.

hold2dibber
01-24-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by KonerkosHip
Not sure if calling the Twins overrated is accurate. They have a good fundamental team. Hunter, Koskie, and Mienutyuedgtyvd are all golf glove caliber and they may not rip thr cover off the ball but they do the little things to beat you.


That's a great point. You can analyze the numbers, and the respective pros and cons of each team's offense, defense, pitching, etc., but the one thing that doesn't show up in those types of analyses are the "little things," the fundamentals. The Twins play hard, play together, run the bases well, do all the fundamentals well. The Sox, frankly, are the polar opposite (or were for the first half of last year). I'm hoping that the infusion of young blood, and the enthusiasm and hard work that resulted in the last two months of '02 carry over. Otherwise, I think the Twins fundamental soundness and team play give them an edge that the Sox lacked in '01 and most of '02.

Iwritecode
01-24-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I hope you are right. IMO, we should hope to win the division, but expect to get a wildcard. Minnesota has a better team.

Damn, your still a Twins fan huh? :D:

IMO, the Twins are a mediocre team that got fat by playing almost half their games against the weak AL central teams (yes, as much as I hate to say it, that included the Sox the past 2 years). In order to take this division the Sox need to play better against the teams in this division including the Twins. The Sox record against central division foes last year was 40 - 36. Meanwhile the Twins where 50 - 25. The Sox aren't going to go anywhere when they are losing 3 of 5 to the Tigers, 3 of 4 to the Indians and get swept by the Twins and Royals... They need to have over a .600 winning percentage against the ALC and at least .500 against the rest of the league. As far as how to achieve this is another idea completely.

SoxxoS
01-24-2003, 12:02 PM
Although fundamentals is not included, the Twins do have a big edge. However, INTANGABLES are also not included. Last year the Twins got all the bounces, all the breaks. Some of their mediocre pitchers were getting hurt, but they filled holes with more mediocrity, but it got the job done. However, what happens this year? Nobody knows. All I remember is in 2000, which I would call a "White Sox" year, we hit about .620 with runners in scoring position (it seemed).

Also, hopefully with Pettis and Wavin Wally gone and Carlos Lee yet another year in the league, that could possibly improve our fundamentals to respectable. We shall see...

Can I take a pill or something to hibernate until opening day?

jeremyb1
01-24-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
they have six guys who have all proven themselves, to one degree or another. None of them are awesome (although Santana may be), but there's all pretty good. The Sox, on the other hand, only go five deep, and three of the five haven't proven yet that they can be consistent major league starters.

Which brings me back to the same point I've been harping on the last two days: the Sox' success this year is largely dependent upon the development of Garland and Wright. Their progress will be the difference between an 80 to 85 win team and a 90+ win team.

i don't see how you could say lohse has proven himself and garland hasn't. their numbers were virtually idential last season. garland has also been in the league longer.

also, i don't understand how we're an 80-85 win team if garland and wright don't improve. last year without colon we won 81 games. colon should probably mean at least 4 more wins. i guess i wouldn't disagree if you say its the difference betwen 85 and 90+ wins. i just don't agree that we could win as few as 80 games this season unless a key player is hurt or takes a huge step backwards especially not with very likely improvements from lee and thomas and the subtraction of clayton.

MarkEdward
01-24-2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I'm so glad you called Eric Milton overrated because he is the lord of overrated. If you look at his ERA against the league average ERA Milton gets even worse. I almost feel like I should campaign against the belief that Milton is a good pitcher. I hate him so much....

And people dare suggest that I'm some kind of sterile baseball fan just because I'm a stathead. :angry:

Well, I picked Milton over Mays because Milton strikes out more hitters and walks less hitters.

gogosoxgogo
01-24-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I hope you are right. IMO, we should hope to win the division, but expect to get a wildcard. Minnesota has a better team.

We have no chance of getting a wildcard. I see Boston, Seatle, Oakland, and Anaheim all ahead of us in the wildcard race.

hold2dibber
01-24-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i don't see how you could say lohse has proven himself and garland hasn't. their numbers were virtually idential last season. garland has also been in the league longer.

That's a close call, to be certain. If you look at the numbers, I think Lohse was a bit better than Garland last year:

W/L: JG 12-12, KL 13-8
ERA: JG 4.58, KL 4.23
BB: JG 88, KL 70
K: JG 112, KL 124
WHIP: JG 1.41, KL 1.39

So I consider him to be minimally more accomplished at the MLB level (though I think Garland has WAY more upside). But even if you think they're virtually identical, he's their no. 6 starter, Garland is our no. 3 starter, so my point remains (that their starting rotation is deeper and more dependable than ours, at this point).


Originally posted by jeremyb1
also, i don't understand how we're an 80-85 win team if garland and wright don't improve. last year without colon we won 81 games. colon should probably mean at least 4 more wins. i guess i wouldn't disagree if you say its the difference betwen 85 and 90+ wins. i just don't agree that we could win as few as 80 games this season unless a key player is hurt or takes a huge step backwards especially not with very likely improvements from lee and thomas and the subtraction of clayton.

I don't think you can simplify things that much. I made that mistake going into last year; in '01 the Sox won 80 games, but we were getting Thomas, Parque, Rauch, Biddle and Barcelo back from injury, and acquired Ritchie who would at least be decent. And the Sox hadn't lost anyone who was a significant contributor in '01. So I assumed the Sox were good for at least 87 or 88 wins.

Of course, they only won 81 games last year. And that 81 win season included a big push at the end, when we were out of the race and playing in meaningless games, with big contributions by some young guys, especially Crede and Jimenez (and Wright, Garland, Rauch and Biddle as well) who have yet to prove they can get it done over the course of a 162 game season. Also, although I like many of the moves KW made in the offseason, I think the Sox are more susceptible to injury in '03 than they were in '02 - Koch and Colon have both thrown a lot of innings over the last few years, Gordon is a health risk, White is up there in years. Plus, we don't really have the same team we had last year; Howry, Durham, Lofton, Foulke and MJ are all gone. So I don't think you can just say "last year we had 81 wins, now we add Colon so we'll win 81+". It's not the same team that won 81. I shoul add that my guess is, if Garland and Wright don't improve, the Sox will win 84 or 85 games, barring a huge step forward by Rauch (which would mean a few more wins) or a significant injury (which would mean a few less wins).

SoxxoS
01-24-2003, 04:32 PM
Plus, we don't really have the same team we had last year; Howry, Durham, Lofton, Foulke and MJ are all gone.


I consider Mark Johnson addition by subtraction. I don't understand how anyone thought this guy was a major league catcher. He is better than one catcher in all of major league baseball-Mr Versatility-Josh Paul. Advantage:Olivo

Let's compare the people we lost with the people we have now

Lofton/Rowand-Advantage "incomplete" I dont know if Rowand is going to be 100% healthy. Lofton started like a all-star and seriously couldn't get a hit for a month after that. He really helped the team, and then killed the team being an automatic out at the top of the order.

Howry/Gordon, White- Advantage even. However, Howry has an advantage in the ability to stay healthy throughout the year.

Foulke/Koch-Advantage Koch. Foulke killed us in the big games and everyone knows it. I dont care what his ERA was as the set-up man, we have one of those. What was his ERA as a closer last year. Don't forget or underestimate the mental aspect of Foulke going back into a closer role. The change of scenery should help,but... give me the fireballer any day of the week.

Durham/Jimenez-Advantage Durham right now. However, if Jimenez played like he does for a whole year like he did towards the end of last season and the Dominican League-Advantage Jimenez. He is going to hit for average, play solid "D" and hopefully will be a little more consistant than Ray was.

Dont forget...
Ritchie/Colon- A ha. A ha ha ha. I mean we are basically replacing a 20 game loser with a 20 game winner. Now, the difference won't be 40 games, but I can see a 10 to a possible 15 game swing just by taking Todd and inserting Colon in the mix. By a possible 10 game swing I dont mean from 85 wins to 95 wins. I mean more like 85 wins to 90 wins, b/c you have to take the losses into account. Why not?

Bmr31
01-24-2003, 05:28 PM
Im glad to see other people realize keith foulke will never be a good CLOSER. I've been preaching that for 2 years. Koch is a huge upgrade, i just wish we still had foulke to set him up.

hold2dibber
01-24-2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Im glad to see other people realize keith foulke will never be a good CLOSER. I've been preaching that for 2 years. Koch is a huge upgrade, i just wish we still had foulke to set him up.

How can you possibly say that? For several years in a row ('99 to '01, I believe) he had an awesome ERA, spectactular WHIP, and a fantastic saves-to-blown save ratio, among the best in baseball. What else can you ask for from a closer? How come he wasn't a good closer in those years?

Bmr31
01-24-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
How can you possibly say that? For several years in a row ('99 to '01, I believe) he had an awesome ERA, spectactular WHIP, and a fantastic saves-to-blown save ratio, among the best in baseball. What else can you ask for from a closer? How come he wasn't a good closer in those years?


Because he choked under any kind of pressure. Big game? He choked? Big pitch? He has no fastball to blow hitters away. With the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th, in a big situation, you need heat, not a changeup down the middle of the plate. Keith Foulke is an excellent pitcher and a below average closer.

upnorthsox
01-26-2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Because he choked under any kind of pressure. Big game? He choked? Big pitch? He has no fastball to blow hitters away. With the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th, in a big situation, you need heat, not a changeup down the middle of the plate. Keith Foulke is an excellent pitcher and a below average closer.

And you base this on what? The numbers?

The bases loaded #'s for those 2 the last 3 yrs:

Koch

31 AB 10 hits 15 R 23 RBI 2 HR 2 BB 5 SO

Foulke

31 AB 9 hits 7 R 22 RBI 0 HR 1 BB 7 SO

Seems Foulke does slightly better except for runs where he's alot better. That means he's less likely to put himself in a bases loaded situation and then have those guys score.

How about pressure? They've both been in one playoff race, how do they compare?

Foulke 2000

2.97 era 88 IP 34 SV 39 SVO 9 HR 22 BB 91 SO

Koch 2002

3.27 era 93.2 IP 44 SV 50 SVO 7 HR 46 BB 93 SO

Again slight edge to Foulke.

Big game ?

Foulke blew game 1 vs Seattle

Koch blew game 5 vs Minny

You can decide which was the bigger game.

All that said, after what they did to Foulke last yr I prefer having Koch coming in where everyone knows who the closer is instead of half the BP griping and politicing for the job.

voodoochile
01-26-2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by upnorthsox
The bases loaded #'s for those 2 the last 3 yrs:

Koch

31 AB 10 hits 15 R 23 RBI 2 HR 2 BB 5 SO

Foulke

31 AB 9 hits 7 R 22 RBI 0 HR 1 BB 7 SO


How can there be less runs than RBI's?

fuzzy_patters
01-26-2003, 10:32 AM
It's easy for a relief pitcher to allow less runs than rbi's. If a pitcher comes in with 2 inherited runners and allows his first batter to double them in, that would be an example of 2 rbi's with the runs being charged to the previous pitcher.

voodoochile
01-26-2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
It's easy for a relief pitcher to allow less runs than rbi's. If a pitcher comes in with 2 inherited runners and allows his first batter to double them in, that would be an example of 2 rbi's with the runs being charged to the previous pitcher.

DOH!

Thanks. Now that the coffee has kicked in, it is easy to understand...

:D:

maurice
01-27-2003, 10:13 AM
Anyone with a low opinion of Foulke as a closer is really going to be dissappointed with Koch. Even the best closers are human and blow games (even "big" games) once in a while. Foulke has been one of the best closers in the majors over the last several years using any relevant measure.

jeremyb1
01-27-2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
That's a close call, to be certain. If you look at the numbers, I think Lohse was a bit better than Garland last year:

W/L: JG 12-12, KL 13-8
ERA: JG 4.58, KL 4.23
BB: JG 88, KL 70
K: JG 112, KL 124
WHIP: JG 1.41, KL 1.39

So I consider him to be minimally more accomplished at the MLB level (though I think Garland has WAY more upside). But even if you think they're virtually identical, he's their no. 6 starter, Garland is our no. 3 starter, so my point remains (that their starting rotation is deeper and more dependable than ours, at this point).

they're not exactly the same. that's why i was careful to say virtually identical. i wouldn't give lohse any real advantage because his team played better behind him or his era was .3 higher than garlands. those differences probably aren't even statistically significant.

you could call lohse thier sixth starter but the way i understand it, he's considered their five ahead of santana heading into the spring. if you wanted to go purely on how their pitchers performed last season then lohse would be their number two or three starter. someone like milton is certainly more talented but we're not considering that when comparing garland and lohse so why consider it when comparing lohse to other twins starters.




I don't think you can simplify things that much. I made that mistake going into last year; in '01 the Sox won 80 games, but we were getting Thomas, Parque, Rauch, Biddle and Barcelo back from injury, and acquired Ritchie who would at least be decent. And the Sox hadn't lost anyone who was a significant contributor in '01. So I assumed the Sox were good for at least 87 or 88 wins.

Of course, they only won 81 games last year. And that 81 win season included a big push at the end, when we were out of the race and playing in meaningless games, with big contributions by some young guys, especially Crede and Jimenez (and Wright, Garland, Rauch and Biddle as well) who have yet to prove they can get it done over the course of a 162 game season. Also, although I like many of the moves KW made in the offseason, I think the Sox are more susceptible to injury in '03 than they were in '02 - Koch and Colon have both thrown a lot of innings over the last few years, Gordon is a health risk, White is up there in years. Plus, we don't really have the same team we had last year; Howry, Durham, Lofton, Foulke and MJ are all gone. So I don't think you can just say "last year we had 81 wins, now we add Colon so we'll win 81+". It's not the same team that won 81. I shoul add that my guess is, if Garland and Wright don't improve, the Sox will win 84 or 85 games, barring a huge step forward by Rauch (which would mean a few more wins) or a significant injury (which would mean a few less wins).

what happened last season was two things. 1) bad luck and 2) players who could've been expected to play better struggling. we did get frank back but his performance during many parts of the season was below the league average at dh. you could argue that he hurt the team more than he helped it last season, at least during certain stretches. that shouldn't be expected to happen again. foulke was good but only in the second half. koch is at least close to an adequate replacement for foulke's performance last season. howry had been mediocre the last two seasons. glover alone will best his production. you point out that we won a lot at the end. that means that with durham, howry, and foulke, and lofton we weren't even .500 last season. you're correct that its a stretch to automatically assume jimenez will perform as well as they did last season but its not all that unlikely either. as long as neither are terrible, minimal improvements from frank and carlos could offset their struggles.

jeremyb1
01-27-2003, 10:40 AM
oops. accidentally posted that twice.