PDA

View Full Version : New ESPN article about the Twins


MRKARNO
03-04-2003, 09:48 PM
Jason Stark wrote an article about the Twins, which he calls them the most lovable team in baseball? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!! They are whinos who will lose the division. Not even once in this long article does he mention the white sox, but he often mentions the Yankees and how the Twins should be the AL Central favorites

Daver
03-04-2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Not even once in this long article does he mention the white sox, but he often mentions the Yankees and how the Twins should be the AL Central favorites

The Twins are the AL Central favorites till proven wrong,that is the task that the 2003 White Sox have to acheive.You cannot consider the Sox the favorites till they beat the Twins,something they have not managed to do in the last two seasons.

jeremyb1
03-04-2003, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by daver
The Twins are the AL Central favorites till proven wrong,that is the task that the 2003 White Sox have to acheive.You cannot consider the Sox the favorites till they beat the Twins,something they have not managed to do in the last two seasons.

i'm not going to argue that the sox are the favorites but i disagree with your reasoning there. first of all, clearly a team can be considered the favorites even if they did not win the division last season. things change from season to season and the sox certainly have a different team. even the twins won't be exactly the same with ortiz and jackson departing and cuddyer most likely winning rf this spring.

additionally, i believe the twins were only better than us by a game or two in head to head play last season. we may not have proved that we can beat the twins more times than they can beat us but we've proved we can play them well enough to win the division if we outplay them against the rest of baseball.

OEO Magglio
03-04-2003, 11:16 PM
The Twins are definetly the favorites, there is no way you can consider the sox the favorites when the twins have dominated the sox the last two years, the sox can't be favored until they beat the twins, I believe the sox are a better team this year, but they have to prove it before we could ever consider them the favorites.

jeremyb1
03-05-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by OEO Magglio
The Twins are definetly the favorites, there is no way you can consider the sox the favorites when the twins have dominated the sox the last two years, the sox can't be favored until they beat the twins, I believe the sox are a better team this year, but they have to prove it before we could ever consider them the favorites.

it looks like my post above was ignored, so i'll restate my point. the white sox were 8-11 against the twins last season. they were not "dominated" by the twins and they certainly proved they are capable of beating the twins. if the sox go 8-11 against the twins next season and then 87-56 against the rest of baseball while the twins go 83-60, the sox will win the division without even winning the season series against the twins. or the sox could just win 3 more of the 19 games against the twins this season and then they will be "dominating" the twins.

fuzzy_patters
03-05-2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
it looks like my post above was ignored, so i'll restate my point. the white sox were 8-11 against the twins last season. they were not "dominated" by the twins and they certainly proved they are capable of beating the twins. if the sox go 8-11 against the twins next season and then 87-56 against the rest of baseball while the twins go 83-60, the sox will win the division without even winning the season series against the twins. or the sox could just win 3 more of the 19 games against the twins this season and then they will be "dominating" the twins.

Three more agains the Twins, huh? How many starts do you think Colon will have against them? Assuming Colon is as much better than Richie as I think he is, that shouldn't be hard to do.

MRKARNO
03-05-2003, 07:13 AM
There is a difference between going 8-11 against a team and being dominated by one. Yes the twins may have had the "upper hand" but the Sox were not "dominated." winning a season series 10-9 is also far from dominating another team. The twins did nothing this offseason to warrent their favoratism. The sox should at least not be considered as a non-top tier AL Central team. There will be a race for the title this year and I think that the twins will not win the division.

fhqwhgads
03-05-2003, 08:39 AM
I don't know that anyone in Chi-land should be getting too excited about B.C. vs. the Twins. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I believe his performance (particularly at the Dome) was mediocre at best.

GO TWINS!

mike squires
03-05-2003, 09:02 AM
It happens every year. 90% of the magazines I've picked up this spring has the Twins over the Sox. Although I agree the Twins are the team to beat it would be nice to see a mag go out on a limb or make a not so obvious choice for their first place picks. Even though the Sox are an obvious choice this year!!!

Bobby Thigpen
03-05-2003, 09:12 AM
I'm getting sick of hearing about the Twins. Yes they won the Central last year and they have virtually the same team back this year. They should be the favorites. Being the favorite to win your division is absolutely meaningless once the season starts. Who really cares who is the favorite to win the division? The Sox weren't supposed to be the favorites in 83 or 2000 and those season's turned out pretty well. I don't think the Angels were picked to finish any higher than third or fourth in their division, and last year turned out all right for them. I think it's ridiculous to argue about who the favorite is when it means absolutely nothing.

moochpuppy
03-05-2003, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by fhqwhgads
I don't know that anyone in Chi-land should be getting too excited about B.C. vs. the Twins. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I believe his performance (particularly at the Dome) was mediocre at best.

GO TWINS!

Bartolo Colon against the Twins:

2002 vs. Twins/@ Metrodome
ERA = 9.00/11.57
W = 1/0
L = 1/1
IP = 10/4.2
H = 16/9
R = 10/6
ER = 10/6
HR = 3/1
BB = 4/2
SO = 7/5
AVG = .364/.409

Three year average vs. Twins/@ Metrodome
ERA = 4.01/4.21
W = 3/1
L = 2/2
IP = 58.1/25.2
H = 62/33
R = 28/12
ER = 26/12
HR = 6/1
BB = 26/10
SO = 58/27
AVG = .276/.311

fhqwhgads
03-05-2003, 10:02 AM
Thanks, moochpuppy. Where did you get the detailed info? From a particular article, or some super-nifty player comparison engine? Gotta link? Thanks!

moochpuppy
03-05-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by fhqwhgads
Thanks, moochpuppy. Where did you get the detailed info? From a particular article, or some super-nifty player comparison engine? Gotta link? Thanks!

Colon stats (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=5763)

ESPN.com is still good for some things.

Hullett_Fan
03-05-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Jason Stark wrote an article about the Twins, which he calls them the most lovable team in baseball ...


:woo-woo

"Ain't you fogittin 'bout somebody???"

Lip Man 1
03-05-2003, 12:05 PM
MLB Radio in their AL Central Division audio preview (which runs about 45 minutes and which you can still listen to by going to their site) picks the Sox to win the division by 3 to 5 games because of Colon, Buehrle and Ordonez.

They say the Twins are the better team but their best players don't equal the three Sox players that I mentioned and that will be the difference in the end.

Just FYI.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
03-05-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
I'm getting sick of hearing about the Twins. Yes they won the Central last year and they have virtually the same team back this year. They should be the favorites. Being the favorite to win your division is absolutely meaningless once the season starts. Who really cares who is the favorite to win the division? The Sox weren't supposed to be the favorites in 83 or 2000 and those season's turned out pretty well. I don't think the Angels were picked to finish any higher than third or fourth in their division, and last year turned out all right for them. I think it's ridiculous to argue about who the favorite is when it means absolutely nothing.

I really wouldn't worry too much about these pre-season predictions from "the experts" in the press. Mostly they just pick the team that won the division the prior season. The Twins get the nod this season just as the Sox got the nod in 2001. These guys have perfect 20/20 hindsight. As for their claim to being "experts", well...

Everybody starts the season 0-0. Get back to me on May 1 about who the REAL favorite is.

czalgosz
03-05-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I really wouldn't worry too much about these pre-season predictions from "the experts" in the press. Mostly they just pick the team that won the division the prior season. The Twins get the nod this season just as the Sox got the nod in 2001. These guys have perfect 20/20 hindsight. As for their claim to being "experts", well...

Everybody starts the season 0-0. Get back to me on May 1 about who the REAL favorite is.

Amen to that.

The Twins are a good team. I would be very surprised if they won 94 games again, but I would also be surprised if they won less than 85.

A lot depends on the Twins pitching - they can't depend on the great situational hitting they had last year to return. Ask the '00 Sox or the '01 Mariners about how situational hitting comes and goes. If Milton and Mays can stay healthy, and Radke can return to form, then the Sox will be hard-pressed to keep up with them. If those three struggle, the Sox should be able to beat them.

As to what's going to happen, your guess is as good as mine. Until the real games start, any speculation is just mental masturbation.

Bobby Thigpen
03-05-2003, 01:26 PM
PHG, that was my point exactly. I guess I just need to be able to say it a little more concisely. :smile:

ma-gaga
03-05-2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
...the Twins are the better team but their best players don't equal the three Sox players...

This is the big question in my mind.
Do the stars carry the team?
Does the team carry the stars?

You can make an argument for both sides. Boston has had some incredible individual performances over the last 2-3 years, but have not gone anywhere, and Anaheim won the whole thing last year. Barry Bonds finally got some post-season success last year, but was shut down in his previous 5 attempts. and you have the Braves, best TEAM over the last 10 years but terrible post-season success. The A's, the Mariners also contrast the argument of teamwork and stars abilities to win games...

It's going to depend on the games. Whether the Twins depth can overcome the Sox star power. Like everyone else said, everything else is just talk. But it's an interesting question in my mind as to which is the better philosophy:

Superstars or Depth

:)

PaleHoseGeorge
03-05-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
PHG, that was my point exactly. I guess I just need to be able to say it a little more concisely. :smile:

I'm glad to be of assistance, Thiggie.

:gulp:

voodoochile
03-05-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
This is the big question in my mind.
Do the stars carry the team?
Does the team carry the stars?

You can make an argument for both sides. Boston has had some incredible individual performances over the last 2-3 years, but have not gone anywhere, and Anaheim won the whole thing last year. Barry Bonds finally got some post-season success last year, but was shut down in his previous 5 attempts. and you have the Braves, best TEAM over the last 10 years but terrible post-season success. The A's, the Mariners also contrast the argument of teamwork and stars abilities to win games...

It's going to depend on the games. Whether the Twins depth can overcome the Sox star power. Like everyone else said, everything else is just talk. But it's an interesting question in my mind as to which is the better philosophy:

Superstars or Depth

:)

Ideally you want both. You have to have guys who are capable of rising to the moment. That is why every team that wants to go somewhere in the postseason needs at least one pitcher who is "ace" caliber.

The other side of the coin is you have to have a certain level of talent as a whole on the team to even make the playoffs.

I personally would rather have a good team with a few spectacular players (Buehrle, Colon, Maggs, Frank) than a team that is very good across the board. IMO, depth is overrated... of course someone needs to tell that to Manuel...

czalgosz
03-05-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Ideally you want both. You have to have guys who are capable of rising to the moment. That is why every team that wants to go somewhere in the postseason needs at least one pitcher who is "ace" caliber.

The other side of the coin is you have to have a certain level of talent as a whole on the team to even make the playoffs.

I personally would rather have a good team with a few spectacular players (Buehrle, Colon, Maggs, Frank) than a team that is very good across the board. IMO, depth is overrated... of course someone needs to tell that to Manuel...

It's tough to say... the Angels last year didn't have any "stars", but they did okay.

Really, the key is getting into the playoffs. Once there, your odds are about as good as anyone's.

fuzzy_patters
03-05-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
It's tough to say... the Angels last year didn't have any "stars", but they did okay.

Really, the key is getting into the playoffs. Once there, your odds are about as good as anyone's.

BS, the Angels have stars. Glaus, Salmon, Erstad, and Anderson would all be far and away the best hitter on the Twins.

czalgosz
03-05-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
BS, the Angels have stars. Glaus, Salmon, Erstad, and Anderson would all be far and away the best hitter on the Twins.

Well, by "stars", I meant names that people would immediately know, like Bonds or Clemens or Arod. The Angels don't have anyone like that.

Noone who doesn't follow baseball would have any idea who any of those people were.

And the Angels are a much better team than the Twins. The Twins don't have any "stars", either.

fuzzy_patters
03-05-2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Well, by "stars", I meant names that people would immediately know, like Bonds or Clemens or Arod. The Angels don't have anyone like that.

Noone who doesn't follow baseball would have any idea who any of those people were.

And the Angels are a much better team than the Twins. The Twins don't have any "stars", either.

The question was whether or not the Twins depth could beat the Sox stars. I don't care what non-baseball people think. The question was about which wins more games. Non-baseball peoples' perceptions are not relevant as too which wins more games. The Angels have several players who have been stars (former All Stars Salmon and Anderson, batting title winner Erstad, and home run champ Glaus) which led them to the World Series. This makes them similar to the Sox. The Twins do not have guys capable of hitting .330 or hitting 45 homeruns the way the Angels do.

czalgosz
03-05-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
The question was whether or not the Twins depth could beat the Sox stars. I don't care what non-baseball people think. The question was about which wins more games. Non-baseball peoples' perceptions are not relevant as too which wins more games. The Angels have several players who have been stars (former All Stars Salmon and Anderson, batting title winner Erstad, and home run champ Glaus) which led them to the World Series. This makes them similar to the Sox. The Twins do not have guys capable of hitting .330 or hitting 45 homeruns the way the Angels do.

Just a question of your definition of "star", I guess.

I actually take issue with the assumption - that the Twins have more depth than the Sox. I don't think that's true.

fuzzy_patters
03-05-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Just a question of your definition of "star", I guess.

I actually take issue with the assumption - that the Twins have more depth than the Sox. I don't think that's true.

I agree with your last statement. The Twins depth is overrated. The Twins win more games due to the rollerdome than they do to depth.

maurice
03-05-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Glaus, Salmon, Erstad, and Anderson would all be far and away the best hitter on the Twins.

:?:

Erstad wouldn't even be the best hitting CF on the Twins. Unless he turns things around soon, Erstad = Brady Anderson, Part Deux.

BTW, Koskie had a higher OPS than Glaus in 2002, and their career OPSs (OPSes? OPSises? OPSii?) are similar. While Glaus has the potential to post huge power numbers, he's been a bit of a disappointment offensively so far.

gosox41
03-05-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Just a question of your definition of "star", I guess.

I actually take issue with the assumption - that the Twins have more depth than the Sox. I don't think that's true.

I think the Sox have a ton more talent then the Twins. The reason the Sox don't fare better are 2 fold:

1. Selfishness of players. Bad chemistry does play some role for some teams. Maybe the A's of the early '70's have fought through it but that was rare. If a clubhouse is split or if there are cliques then I feel it effects on the field performance. I can't prove it, but players aren't robots and it's ridiculous to think that on any given day they're going to be at their peak performance.

2. Inept management. From KW to JM and his tinkering to the base running coach. While a good manager can only add 5 wins or so, how many games can be lost to bad coaching? Look at the Sox base running.

Last year, the Sox top 3 starters put up overall equivalent numbers to the Twins top 3. While the Twins bull pen was lights out, the Sox bull pen was quite strong. The Sox offense is a ton more potent then the Twins. Did the Sox essentially finish 13 games worse then the Twins due to #4 and 5 starters? I don't think there was that big of a difference, though I don't have the numbers.

The Twins had a great record in one run games and part of that has something to do with chemistry. It's hard to quantify, but it's even hard to quantify the "good luck" the Twins had last year, especially if you believe that you (or a team) creates it's own luck by doing the little things.

Bob

Hullett_Fan
03-05-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I think the Sox have a ton more talent then the Twins. The reason the Sox don't fare better are 2 fold:

1. Selfishness of players. Bad chemistry does play some role for some teams. Maybe the A's of the early '70's have fought through it but that was rare. If a clubhouse is split or if there are cliques then I feel it effects on the field performance. I can't prove it, but players aren't robots and it's ridiculous to think that on any given day they're going to be at their peak performance.

2. Inept management. From KW to JM and his tinkering to the base running coach. While a good manager can only add 5 wins or so, how many games can be lost to bad coaching? Look at the Sox base running.

Last year, the Sox top 3 starters put up overall equivalent numbers to the Twins top 3. While the Twins bull pen was lights out, the Sox bull pen was quite strong. The Sox offense is a ton more potent then the Twins. Did the Sox essentially finish 13 games worse then the Twins due to #4 and 5 starters? I don't think there was that big of a difference, though I don't have the numbers.

The Twins had a great record in one run games and part of that has something to do with chemistry. It's hard to quantify, but it's even hard to quantify the "good luck" the Twins had last year, especially if you believe that you (or a team) creates it's own luck by doing the little things.

Bob


The reason the Sox didn't perform well despite being equal or better than Minn. in talent and stats is.... :jerry

Hopefully the off-season addition of all this talent will render his errors and misjudgment irrelevant.

czalgosz
03-05-2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Hullett_Fan
The reason the Sox didn't perform well despite being equal or better than Minn. in talent and stats is.... :jerry

Hopefully the off-season addition of all this talent will render his errors and misjudgment irrelevant.

Bah. That's oversimplifying matters. I don't think Ron Gardenhire's a genius, but I really think the effect of a manager on a team is overvalued.

The Twins were extremely lucky last year, just like the Sox were extremely lucky in '00. The Twins are good, but not as good as their record last year. The Sox were mediocre last year, but they were better than their record. Most of that has to do with luck.

ma-gaga
03-05-2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Just a question of your definition of "star", I guess.

I actually take issue with the assumption - that the Twins have more depth than the Sox. I don't think that's true.

Well, I hear both:
"The Twins are the better team"
"The Sox have a ton more talent than the Twins"

I don't know what qualifies each. What is depth? Is it players capable of stepping in when the starters go down?
Or is it being able to have the stronger 1-9 lineup 1-5 rotation with no bench?

:)

Hullett_Fan
03-05-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Bah. That's oversimplifying matters. I don't think Ron Gardenhire's a genius, but I really think the effect of a manager on a team is overvalued.

The Twins were extremely lucky last year, just like the Sox were extremely lucky in '00. The Twins are good, but not as good as their record last year. The Sox were mediocre last year, but they were better than their record. Most of that has to do with luck.

Luck plays a large role. However, I definitetly remember a few games the Sox lost that were a result of his moves (allowing Foulke to stay in too long vs. Yanks for one).

I think there are great managers (Whitey Herzog) and terrible managers (Terry Bevington). JM is really right in the middle (we wouldn't pay the salary for a manager at the great end). If I could quantify it...given two equal teams talent-wise, I'd say a great manager wins 5-10 more games over the course of a season vs. an average manager IMO.

czalgosz
03-05-2003, 06:44 PM
Well, here's the ol' chestnut -

Position by position -

C - Pierzynski/Prince vs. Olivo/Alomar/Paul -

Pierzynski batted a pretty empty .300 last year; he's not as good offensively as people think. Prince is a nobody. But they still get the nod (for now) over the Sox catchers. Alomar is worthless, Paul is at best as good as Prince, and Olivo hasn't proven anything yet. I predict that Olivo will be better than Pierzynski eventually, but I could be wrong.

EDGE - Twins.

1B - Mientkiewicz vs. Konerko -

No contest here. Konerko isn't a big star, but he's better all-around than Mientkiewicz, no matter how flashy Mientkiewicz is with the glove. And typing Mientkiewicz four times is a big pain in the butt. I'm actually really surprised the Twins picked him over David Ortiz.

EDGE - White Sox.

2B - Rivas vs. Jimenez -

I'd call this a wash, but for the fact that Jimenez hasn't done it yet over the long-term for the Sox. I think Jimenez has the potential to be a lot better than Rivas, but for now, I'll give the edge to the Twins.

EDGE - Twins.

SS - Guzman vs. Valentin -

Guzman's overrated, although he's definitely better defensively than Valentin. Only because I gave Rivas the benefit of the doubt will I give Valentin the edge here on "intangibles".

EDGE - White Sox.

3B - Koskie vs. Crede -

Wow. There's a lot of close races going on here. Gotta give the nod to the veteran, as Crede hasn't even played a full season yet. Again, Crede will almost definitely outplay Koskie over the course of their careers, although a Corey Koskie career is nothing to be ashamed of.

EDGE - Twins.

LF - Jones vs. Lee -

Closer than it looks at first glance. Jones is worthless against left-handed pitchers (a fact that Gardenhire apparently hasn't figured out yet) but is otherwise better than Lee. If he wasn't playing next to Torii Hunter, he'd be in center. I don't expect him to be quite as good in 2003.

EDGE - Twins.

CF - Hunter vs. Rowand -

This is just a joke. Like Jones, Hunter probably won't be as productive offensively in 2003, but even at his worst, he's a big upgrade over Rowand. If Borchard takes over the position, it might create an interesting offense/defense debate.

EDGE - Twins.

RF - Kielty/Cuddyer/Mohr/whoever Gardenhire draws out of a hat vs. Ordonez -

Another joke. I shouldn't even have to go into this one.

EDGE - White Sox.

DH - LeCroy vs. Thomas -

See RF.

EDGE - White Sox.

Bench - Hocking/whoever's not playing right vs. Graffanino/Daubach/Harris/whoever else -

Close one, actually. They both have their pluses and minuses. But the fact that the Sox don't have to use one of their bench players in the field every day really helps. Losing David Ortiz hurts the Twins' flexibility enormously.

EDGE - White Sox.

So, it looks really close there.

If I get the time, I might look at the pitchers later.

ma-gaga
03-06-2003, 09:27 AM
I agree with what you have. I shudder at giving Rivas the 'edge' over anyone...

AJ is a lot better than his empty 0.300 looks. There are simply not a lot of good hitting catchers in the league. Plus as doublem23 can tell you, attitude goes a long way, he's one of the most aggressive SOB's out there, and backs it up. 6 fricking triples, 11 hit by pitches, the guy is annoying and gets into heads.

Losing Ortiz is bittersweet. The guy gets hurt every year. He crushes right-handed pitching and is pathetic against left-handed pitching. I don't know if losing him helps or hurts the Twins. They will not be as vulnerable to lefties this year. They won't crush righties either. Overall, I get the feeling that losing him hurts the Twins chances.

Then again they get to trot out Cuddyer/LeCroy for 450 at bats this year, and we'll find out whether or not they deserve their AAA/hot prospect hype... Kind of similar to the Borchard/Crede hype with actual MLB at bats and less defense.

:)

Juan Pizarro
03-06-2003, 09:54 AM
Writing that the Twins are the anti-Yankees is a cliche at this point.

Let 'em get all the ink. That'll make it all the sweeter when they get their butts spanked. :gulp:

czalgosz
03-06-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
I agree with what you have. I shudder at giving Rivas the 'edge' over anyone...

I know. Rivas is not very good, but Jimenez hasn't really proved anything yet. If he continues along the lines he started last year, great. If he reverts to his Padre ways, then Rivas might look good by comparison.

AJ is a lot better than his empty 0.300 looks. There are simply not a lot of good hitting catchers in the league. Plus as doublem23 can tell you, attitude goes a long way, he's one of the most aggressive SOB's out there, and backs it up. 6 fricking triples, 11 hit by pitches, the guy is annoying and gets into heads .

Pierzynski is a fan favorite, and there's nothing wrong with him, but IMO Olivo has the potential to be a lot better.

Losing Ortiz is bittersweet. The guy gets hurt every year. He crushes right-handed pitching and is pathetic against left-handed pitching. I don't know if losing him helps or hurts the Twins. They will not be as vulnerable to lefties this year. They won't crush righties either. Overall, I get the feeling that losing him hurts the Twins chances.

Then again they get to trot out Cuddyer/LeCroy for 450 at bats this year, and we'll find out whether or not they deserve their AAA/hot prospect hype... Kind of similar to the Borchard/Crede hype with actual MLB at bats and less defense.

The Twins are very righty-heavy, maybe even more than the Sox right now. I was kind of surprised that lefties dominated them so much last year. Cuddyer and LeCroy will help against lefties, but they need to watch out that they don't start getting dominated by good right-handed pitching.

voodoochile
03-06-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Well, here's the ol' chestnut -

Position by position -

Personally, I think your analysis if flawed for one reason. The discrepency where the Twins have the advantage between players is reletively minor in all cases, but the positons where the Sox have the advantage isn't always so.

Maggs and Frank could help the Sox put an extra 100 runs on the board this year over their Twins counterparts that isn't matched by the Twins at the other positions.

A rating of relative advantage would be more accurate, IMO.

moochpuppy
03-06-2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
Then again they get to trot out Cuddyer/LeCroy for 450 at bats this year, and we'll find out whether or not they deserve their AAA/hot prospect hype... Kind of similar to the Borchard/Crede hype with actual MLB at bats and less defense.

:)

The way Todd Sears has started out, he may finally get the opportunity to get some major league ABs.

Hangar18
03-06-2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Hullett_Fan
The reason the Sox didn't perform well despite being equal or better than Minn. in talent and stats is.... :jerry

Hopefully the off-season addition of all this talent will render his errors and misjudgment irrelevant.


DAMN What an EXCELLENT POINT. I never disliked Jerry Manuel til last year. He had a hand in helping us lose at least 8-10 games I can think of right now....
2 Yankee games...
2 Phillie games...
are the ones that come Crashing thru right away.....

ma-gaga
03-06-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Personally, I think your analysis if flawed for one reason. The discrepency where the Twins have the advantage between players is reletively minor in all cases, but the positons where the Sox have the advantage isn't always so.

Maggs and Frank could help the Sox put an extra 100 runs on the board this year over their Twins counterparts that isn't matched by the Twins at the other positions.

A rating of relative advantage would be more accurate, IMO.

But you can't bat three Magglios' in a row... Someone has to drive him in, or get on base for him to drive in. The advantage that Maglio has over Cuddyer is limited somewhat by the rest of their lineups.

Now, a TEAM EQA or position by position OPS+. I asked Sean Foreman if an "Team OPS+" would be available. He responded favorably, but it's not up yet (baseball-reference). Ok, since I'm a big believer in OPS+:

2002 ADJUSTED OPS+:
Pierzynski 106 - Olivo 83 (19 at bats)
Konerko 123 - Mientkiewicz 104
Rivas 86 - Harris 49 (163 at bats)
Guzman 80 - Valentine 104
Koskie 118 - Crede 112
J.Jones 125 - C.Lee 119
Hunter 126 - Rowand 80
Cuddyer 96 (112 at bats) - Magglio 152
LeCroy 99 (181 at bats) - Thomas 111

hmm. There's really not enough information here to quantify Olivo/Harris/Cuddyer/LeCroy. At least from their major league stats. And these are strictly last years numbers. Maybe ALL the Twins have had their career years, and are on their way down, and ALL the W.Sox are still peaking and if anything are on their way up...

voodoochile
03-06-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
But you can't bat three Magglios' in a row... Someone has to drive him in, or get on base for him to drive in. The advantage that Maglio has over Cuddyer is limited somewhat by the rest of their lineups.

Now, a TEAM EQA or position by position OPS+. I asked Sean Foreman if an "Team OPS+" would be available. He responded favorably, but it's not up yet (baseball-reference). Ok, since I'm a big believer in OPS+:

2002 ADJUSTED OPS+:
Pierzynski 106 - Olivo 83 (19 at bats)
Konerko 123 - Mientkiewicz 104
Rivas 86 - Harris 49 (163 at bats)
Guzman 80 - Valentine 104
Koskie 118 - Crede 112
J.Jones 125 - C.Lee 119
Hunter 126 - Rowand 80
Cuddyer 96 (112 at bats) - Magglio 152
LeCroy 99 (181 at bats) - Thomas 111

hmm. There's really not enough information here to quantify Olivo/Harris/Cuddyer/LeCroy. At least from their major league stats. And these are strictly last years numbers. Maybe ALL the Twins have had their career years, and are on their way down, and ALL the W.Sox are still peaking and if anything are on their way up...

No, I won't go that far, though it would be nice, but a couple of points. Thomas OPS+ will probably be closer to Maggs numbers this coming year (IMO) and Harris probably won't get the job over Jimenez. Yes, Jimenez is another of those young kids who is hard to predict, but your numbers actually support what I was saying - even more so - especially if Borchard beats out Rowand for the CF slot - which would definitely up the OPS+ number at that position.