PDA

View Full Version : White Sox vs. Cubs Pitching Probables


Foulke You
06-17-2003, 12:56 PM
Here are the probable pitching matchups for round 1 of the crosstown showdown this weekend at the urinal.

Game 1
Sox
Jon Garland 4.84 E.R.A. (4W-6L)

vs.

Cubs
Shawn Estes 5.20 E.R.A. (6W-5L)


Game 2
Sox
Mark Buehrle 4.85 E.R.A. (3W-10L)

vs.

Cubs
Matt Clement 4.48 E.R.A. (5W-6L)


Game 3
Sox
Bartolo Colon 3.99 E.R.A. (6W-6L)

vs.

Cubs
Carlos Zambrano 3.31 E.R.A. (5W-6L)


Should be a good series as usual. I figure we have a decent shot to take Game 1 with Garland pitching well and Estes's high E.R.A.

We struggled mightily against Clement last year because he throws a ton of slow breaking balls which as we know, gives Sox hitters fits. I think Game 2 will go to the Cubs.

Game 3 looks to be a 50/50 shot. Colon gives us a chance to win every time he pitches and the Cubs haven't seen much of his stuff. That being said, I don't believe the Sox have seen Zambrano and we tend to have trouble against young pitchers we haven't seen before. We'll have to tune in and see how our Sox handle this "road trip" 8 miles north.

A.T. Money
06-17-2003, 01:04 PM
We saw Zambrano in Spring Training in 2002 and we opened a serious can of whoop @ss on him scoring like 20 runs or something like that. If we're not seeing Wood or Prior, I don't see why we can't take all 3.

Foulke You
06-17-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
We saw Zambrano in Spring Training in 2002 and we opened a serious can of whoop @ss on him scoring like 20 runs or something like that. If we're not seeing Wood or Prior, I don't see why we can't take all 3.

I would much rather face Wood than Clement. Wood throws heat, has had a history of control problems, and is 0W-3L versus the White Sox in his career. Clement throws slow breaking pitches and made some of our hitters look bad in the Cell finale from last year where the Cubs avoided a sweep. I like to think optimistically (or as Sosa says "Ostimistically") but the Saturday game could be a problem for our anemic offense. You also have to keep in mind that we are pretty dreadful playing away from the Cell this year.

pudge
06-17-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
If we're not seeing Wood or Prior, I don't see why we can't take all 3.

Ha! Other than the fact that our team can't hit its way out of a paper bag??

34 Inch Stick
06-17-2003, 01:52 PM
Game 1: W

Game 2: W

Game 3: W

DrCrawdad
06-17-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
...That being said, I don't believe the Sox have seen Zambrano and we tend to have trouble against young pitchers we haven't seen before...

Carlos Lee faced Carlos Zambrano last year at Wrigley. IIRC Zambrano was relieving Wood. Carlos Lee pounded Carlos Zambrano for a Grand Slam.

JustJim35
06-17-2003, 01:59 PM
I just hope this is a repeat of the series in 1999. Time to stuff the flubbies in the tank and get our boys on a roll. With the Twinkies stumbling around, this division is ripe for the taking. No, the Sox don't look like world beaters, but a lot can change with one overhyped series...

GO SOX!

DrCrawdad
06-17-2003, 02:00 PM
http://www.networkirc.com/grobber/images/les1000sm.jpg

Cub fan Les Grobstein predicted a split and is taking the usual Cub stance of, 'This series means more to Sox fans...'

Of course should the Cubs win either or God forbid both series then of course Les will ditch that stance for a celebratory rub-your-face-in-it routine.

Les, give up the pretense! This series means so very much to you and we know it!

MRKARNO
06-17-2003, 02:02 PM
I wouldnt be shocked if the sox took 4 of 6

boog_alou
06-17-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
I figure we have a decent shot to take Game 1 with Garland pitching well and Estes's high E.R.A.


I have two problems with predicting a win in this game for the Sox. First, Garland is wildly inconsistent, so I would never expect a good start from him. He definitely makes some good starts, but he is always as likely to implode as he is to have a quality start. For Jonny, a streak of good starts only means he is that much more likely to have a bad one. Second, Garland has bad career numbers against the Cubs. His career ERA against them is 6.91 and last year it was 8.10 in two starts.

MHOUSE
06-17-2003, 02:04 PM
Estes has been shaky this season, but he's a veteran and if he shows up then he can be good. Clement has had Jon Garland syndrome and like Jon has put it together the last couple of times out. Zambrano was lights out early on, but his last 2-3 starts have seen him struggle so if we catch a bad day then we'll rock him. I think this could either be a sweep or a series loss 2-1. The matchups are more or less even, but it all depends on our offense.

thecell
06-17-2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Game 1: W

Game 2: W

Game 3: W

ditto...our sweep will send the flubbies into a tailspin from which they will not recover

Gumshoe
06-17-2003, 02:36 PM
I know that the Sox rightly have big time doubters, but don't kid yourself, in terms of starting pitching, the Sox have a HUGE advantage in this series. That doesn't mean they'll win the games, because we know Manuel loves blowing close ones. The Cubs aren't going to hit Buehrle. They won't hit Colon. I think JG is going to show his new form ... approaching consistency Boog. I say the Cubs score at most 7 ER off of our starting pitching, and that's giving them a lot because they have no offense. Anything can happen in that popsicle stand/minor league field called Wrigley, though.

Gumshoe

boog_alou
06-17-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
I know that the Sox rightly have big time doubters, but don't kid yourself, in terms of starting pitching, the Sox have a HUGE advantage in this series. That doesn't mean they'll win the games, because we know Manuel loves blowing close ones. The Cubs aren't going to hit Buehrle. They won't hit Colon. I think JG is going to show his new form ... approaching consistency Boog. I say the Cubs score at most 7 ER off of our starting pitching, and that's giving them a lot because they have no offense. Anything can happen in that popsicle stand/minor league field called Wrigley, though.

Gumshoe
The Sox have a huge advantage? Buerhle has been unreliable to say the least. Zambrano has pitched as well as Colon this season. And I'll believe Judy is consistent as soon as he actually shows it. I have yet to see it in his career.

So no, I don't think the Sox starters have a huge advantage in this series. Nor do I think the Cubs starters have a huge advantage. They are good match ups and it should be a good, competitive series. But, if the Sox bats don't wake up, it could get ugly...and fast.

Blueprint1
06-17-2003, 03:08 PM
What sucks is the Sox seem to hit good pitchers and can't figure out bad pitching.

maurice
06-17-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
For Jonny, a streak of good starts only means he is that much more likely to have a bad one.

Sports actually don't work that way. On the contrary, a player on a hot streak is likely to continue playing well in his very next start (though he probably will perform worse eventually, thereby offsetting his hot streak). Momentum is key. Garland, therefore, COULD pitch badly in his very next start, but (all other things being equal) is more likely to stay hot and continue to pitch well. That's why good managers in all team sports play out the hot hand, instead of benching hot players before they get the opportunity to start sucking again.

A good example is EL. While he is almost certain to finish the season with a significantly higher ERA than his present ERA, that doesn't mean that he's likely to suck in his very next start. On the contray, he's likely to pitch well in his next start but regress to his mean performance (whatever that might be) over the course of a full season. His next sucky start is impossible to predict, though reporters have been trying (and failing) to do just that for weeks now.

The inverse also is true. Players on cool streaks tend to stay cool in their very next start (see Konerko, Paul), but eventually regress to the mean. Finally, it is also true on larger levels. For example, teams on long winning streaks are likely to continue their streak for at least one more game before regressing.

boog_alou
06-17-2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Sports actually don't work that way. On the contrary, a player on a hot streak is likely to continue playing well in his very next start (though he probably will perform worse eventually, thereby offsetting his hot streak). Momentum is key. Garland, therefore, COULD pitch badly in his very next start, but (all other things being equal) is more likely to stay hot and continue to pitch well.
I think your analysis of momentum is too facile. A player on a hot streak is always more likely to stay hot than not? I don't think so. My bottom line is that he is inconsistent and he always has been.

Basically what I hear from Sox fans is "Yes, he's been inconsistent throughout his career. And, yes every bunch of good starts in his career has been followed by a group of bad starts. But this time, things are magically different." Why is it different this time? Because Sox fans want it to be different?

Gumshoe
06-17-2003, 04:23 PM
Boog, you are WAY off. Buehrle is one of the best pitchers in baseball the last 2 seasons. He's had good starts over his last 6, with one rough one against SF. He just won a game in which the other team started one of the best starters in modern history, and against the highest run scoring team in the AL. Come on, man ...

Clearly everything is apt to be worried about with the Sox, but two guys who you know WILL come back are Buehrle and Konerko. The season is too long to keep guys like that down that low.

Furthermore, Garland is better than Estes, flat out. Only because Clement has had the Sox number before is he a worry. But even he is not close to what he was last year. And Zambrano vs. Colon? Please.

Cubs are lucky to get more than 7 ER off Sox starters, as I said before ... lucky

Gumshoe

MRKARNO
06-17-2003, 04:42 PM
While we're on the subject, luck is really just having many good outcomes when the probability of those outcomes is low. So there is a such thing as luck, it's just not affected by a hat or a pregame routine etc.

Gumshoe
06-17-2003, 04:50 PM
the term luck has infused human language because people don't know how to explain it when a less probable event happens. There really is no such thing as luck at all. Just probability, and people that can't believe that the 10% occurence happened THIS time.

I change my statement, then, I'm sorry. 90% of the time I don't see the Cubs scoring more than 7 ER off sox starters in this series. thanks

G

maurice
06-17-2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
I think your analysis of momentum is too facile.

Because . . . :?:

A player on a hot streak is always more likely to stay hot than not?

Yes, almost by definition. A hot player is certain to cool off eventually, but the chance that he will cool off in his very next game is something less than 50%. This probability of continued success (aka momentum) is what makes hot streaks (and cold streaks) such routine occurrences in sports.

My bottom line is that he is inconsistent and he always has been.

I don't disagree (though his inconsistency is just additional proof that hot and cold streaks routinely occur). It's impossible to know whether he has turned the corner or whether his performance will regress to, say, a 5.00 ERA, especially when you consider his age. We'll just have to wait and see. It's really unfair to criticize fans for being optimistic, though.

i_luv_jgarland
06-17-2003, 05:27 PM
Listen. The fact of the matter is that the Sox are ANYTHING but predictable. At the beginning of the season, if you would have asked me where I thought we would be right now I NEVER would have said under .500. There is absolutely no reason. Not with as much talent as we have on this team.

Just when I think we suck and can't pull anything together... Thomas hits a grand slam!?!? Just when everyone on the planet is screaming for JG to get traded he strings 5/6 quality starts together!?! There is just no telling.

That being said. I say the Sox take all 6 games. :D:

Me at the game on the 27th ~~> :gulp:

Foulke You
06-17-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
Carlos Lee faced Carlos Zambrano last year at Wrigley. IIRC Zambrano was relieving Wood. Carlos Lee pounded Carlos Zambrano for a Grand Slam.

I was at that game, I thought the slam came off of Wood after he loaded the bases with 3 straight walks? I could be mistaken.

Iwritecode
06-17-2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by i_luv_jgarland
Me at the game on the 27th ~~> :gulp:

There will be a few us there on the 28...

DrCrawdad
06-17-2003, 06:57 PM
A note on Booger, he's not a Sox fan. Claims to be a D-Backs fan, probably also a Cubbie fan.

Vsahajpal
06-17-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
A note on Booger, he's not a Sox fan. Claims to be a D-Backs fan, probably also a Cubbie fan.

Nah, he's been to the Cubs ESPN board talking about Prior and Wood breaking down, and other crap. Definitely not a Cubs fan.

DrCrawdad
06-17-2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Nah, he's been to the Cubs ESPN board talking about Prior and Wood breaking down, and other crap. Definitely not a Cubs fan.

Interesting. By his own admission though he's an "anti-Sox fan".

voodoochile
06-17-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
Interesting. By his own admission though he's an "anti-Sox fan".

He just likes to rile people up. As long as he continues with the weak ass arguments, he looks like an idiot. If he trolls again, he is gone, period.

i_luv_jgarland
06-18-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
He just likes to rile people up. As long as he continues with the weak ass arguments, he looks like an idiot. If he trolls again, he is gone, period.

interesting... and by the way, where are my cornchips?? :?: