PDA

View Full Version : Why is everyone so down on ELO.


munchman33
12-28-2003, 09:40 AM
Why is everyone so down on ELO?

Both media and White Sox fan alike are both expecting a slide of some sort from him, and many have Mark Buerle penciled in as the opening day starter.

Sure, last year was out of the ordinary for him. But he had more than a good year. He had an exceptional year, in which he dominated in almost every performance. He never had a month with an ERA over 3.00. Many players have good years that are out of the ordinary and then come back to Earth. But none have as good a year as Elo did. I for one believe we can expect more of the same from him.

TornLabrum
12-28-2003, 09:50 AM
What usually happens when a pitcher or hitter has an uncharacteristically good year is that the league adjusts, forcing the player to adjust.

I think most people figure the league will adjust to Loaiza and that he'll come back to earth. This is possible. It is also possible that Don Cooper let him use his cutter, which the Jays wouldn't do, because it is so wicked a pitch that it is next to unhittable. That cutter is the wild card Loaiza's critics seem to forget. He never through it in a game before last year.

idseer
12-28-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by munchman33
Why is everyone so down on ELO?

Both media and White Sox fan alike are both expecting a slide of some sort from him, and many have Mark Buerle penciled in as the opening day starter.

Sure, last year was out of the ordinary for him. But he had more than a good year. He had an exceptional year, in which he dominated in almost every performance. He never had a month with an ERA over 3.00. Many players have good years that are out of the ordinary and then come back to Earth. But none have as good a year as Elo did. I for one believe we can expect more of the same from him.

while i hope you're right about him i have to prepare myself for the odds on probability he will take a step backward. how far back is the real question. i'll be pleasantly surprised if he gives us 13 wins and keeps us in most of his other starts.

mark has been our number 1 pitcher for 3 years. why shouldn't he get the nod for opening day? i don't believe any team bases the starting pitcher on wins in the previous season. you go with who you believe your best pitcher is. right now i doubt too many people think elo is better than buehrle.

jabrch
12-28-2003, 10:25 AM
Quite simply - Loaiza has to do it for two seasons before anyone believes it wasn't just a fluke. Nobody is down on him - we just want to see it again.

As far as the opening day starter, I think that is one of the most overrated things in baseball. Who really cares? In a 7 game series it is important who starts game 1. But in a 162 game season, the opening day starter is wholly irrelevant.

kermittheefrog
12-28-2003, 10:49 AM
I'm sold on Loaiza. There have been cases in the past of pitchers taking a step forward seemingly out of nowhere. Remember when Woody Williams sucked? Williams was so bad he was traded for a washed up Ray Lankford. The Cardinals made a few quick changes with Williams, taught him a new breaking ball and he pitches like a star, whenever he is healthy. I think E-Lo will be good next year but with numbers not as good as last year's. Loiaza's year was a little less impressive than the numbers look because he threw A TON of innings against Detroit, something like a fourth of his innings. Since he's unlikely to get so much work against a AAA team, his numbers should take a slight tumble but not a major one.

Grobber33
12-28-2003, 11:47 AM
Nobody should be down on ELO. They had some good hits in the late 70's and early 80's.

SERIOUSLY, Esty had to be one of the best stories in Baseball this past season and he's just as good a person as he is a Pitcher.

CubKilla
12-28-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Quite simply - Loaiza has to do it for two seasons before anyone believes it wasn't just a fluke. Nobody is down on him - we just want to see it again.

Agreed. But there are some that would argue that unless Loaiza has 19-21 wins again in '04, considering Loaiza lost two games to Detroit 1-0 in '03, then '03 was a fluke.

Personally, I'd be happy with 15 wins out of Loaiza in '04. With the team shaping up as it is, 15 wins could be a huge year for an '04 White Sox pitcher considering 3 teams from the AL East and 2 teams from the AL West should wipe the field w/the White Sox this season.

mike squires
12-28-2003, 12:33 PM
ELO pitches with confidence and usually has pin point control. If the Sox could have scored just 2 runs in those 1 to nothing games against the Tigers he is the AL CY YOUNG. He did tail off a bit toward the end of the second half however it's hard to dominate in todays game. Even Pedro and Johnson hae their off days.

TheRockinMT
12-28-2003, 01:24 PM
I think we as Sox fans are just to critical of all our players and not just Esteban Loaiza. We talk about the league adjusting to E Lo so we don't think he will be as effective in '04, we say that 2003 was a fluke, we say we want to see a second 21-7 year, etc, etc.

The league had 162 games to adjust to E Lo and couldn't. He worked hard and added the new pitch and used it to his advantage. He will continue to do so. Good pitching beats good hitting every time and E Lo is a great pitcher who never gives in and never moves away from what works. I think that is key. A bad game or two and some pitchers start tinkering around. Esteban could have easily won the Cy Young if we had given him some more run support enabling a 23-24 win season. I thin the same can be said about Buerhle also. We have a great 1-2 punch there. I hope Garland develops this year into the starter I think he can be and wins 15 plus at least.

Huisj
12-28-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by TheRockinMT
Good pitching beats good hitting every time

i wonder sometimes if this hasn't become a bad cliche that everyone throws around way too much now. is it really true? where's the actual evidence of it?

Daver
12-28-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
i wonder sometimes if this hasn't become a bad cliche that everyone throws around way too much now. is it really true? where's the actual evidence of it?

You can see the evidence just about every time Pedro Martinez,Curt Schilling,Randy Johnson,et al take the mound.

idseer
12-28-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by TheRockinMT

The league had 162 games to adjust to E Lo and couldn't.

the fact is each team not in our division had about 1 look at him. and in our division either 2 or 3 looks.
and the 2nd or 3rd look was when he wasn't so dominant.

poorme
12-28-2003, 03:47 PM
If he does well again this year, are we going to pay him what he'll deserve in 2005? I doubt it. Trade him now.

MarkEdward
12-28-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
i wonder sometimes if this hasn't become a bad cliche that everyone throws around way too much now. is it really true? where's the actual evidence of it?

I don't think there is any real evidence suggesting that good pitching will *always* beat good hitting. However, I haven't seen any in-depth study on the subject either. Many tend to underrate hitting, though. For instance, I'd definitely take Magglio Ordonez over the combination of Odalis Perez and Guillermo Mota.

For what it's worth, I remember someone on Baseball Primer doing a quick and dirty study on that cliche. In World Series match-ups, the team with the better OPS+ beat the team with the better ERA+ about 50% of the time.

munchman33
12-28-2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by idseer
the fact is each team not in our division had about 1 look at him. and in our division either 2 or 3 looks.
and the 2nd or 3rd look was when he wasn't so dominant.

That's absolutely not true. In fact, Loaiza pitched exceptionally well all year against our division rivals, with the only exception being his last start against Minnesota.

His only other two really bad outings were against Seattle and the Cubs, and in both it was obvious that his control was just off, not that teams were making adjustments to him.

MarkV
12-28-2003, 09:07 PM
I fully expect Loaiza to win 15-18 games.

jabrch
12-28-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Grobber33
Nobody should be down on ELO. They had some good hits in the late 70's and early 80's.

SERIOUSLY, Esty had to be one of the best stories in Baseball this past season and he's just as good a person as he is a Pitcher.


There is no doubt that what you said is true Les. HOWEVER, we have all season guys who have struggled all their career, had a good season, and then were never heard from again. I hope Loaiza isn't one of those people.

ma-gaga
12-29-2003, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I don't think there is any real evidence suggesting that good pitching will *always* beat good hitting. However, I haven't seen any in-depth study on the subject either.

What I think it comes down to is that a pitcher that pitches 240 innings and throws 240 strikeouts a year is more valuable to a team than a 0.300/0.400/0.500 hitter with 500 plate appearances.

It just is a function of outs created vs runs scored. The rest is just stupid cliche that works. Kind of like saying, 'you need a defense that can stop the run' for football teams. It's correct, history has shown that the team that rushes for more yards than their opponents usually win the game. In baseball, the team that gets better pitching usually wins the game/division/series.

munchman33
12-29-2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
There is no doubt that what you said is true Les. HOWEVER, we have all season guys who have struggled all their career, had a good season, and then were never heard from again. I hope Loaiza isn't one of those people.

I don't think it's fair to lump Loaiza with guys who only have one "good" year. Loaiza did not have a good year. He did not have a great year. He had an EXCEPTIONAL year.

Bad players do not have exceptional years. Good players do not have exceptional years. Great and exceptional players have exceptional years.

TheRockinMT
12-29-2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Huisj
i wonder sometimes if this hasn't become a bad cliche that everyone throws around way too much now. is it really true? where's the actual evidence of it?


I know you want present day examples and people can give you those if they want to break down games, but the year I remember the most was 1967. The Sox had something like a 2.40 team ERA and 3 out of the top 4 for the lowest ERA in the AL lead by Joel Horlen with 2.06. They had the worst hitting team and their "power line up" was led by Pete Ward with 18 dingers. They were in contention unitl the last 5 games and in fact should have won the AL pennant, but "good" pitching by KC and Washington shut them down.

I don't think you can over value or emphasize enough the need for top notch pitching. Of course having both good pitching and a good hitting line up is a plus, but if I had my druthers I would take the pitching first. Look at our results since 2000.

washington
12-29-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Grobber33
Esty had to be one of the best stories in Baseball this past season and he's just as good a person as he is a Pitcher.

Agree totally, the guy was pretty much automatic all year. Pitchers sometimes develop relatively late in their careers, for example Dave Stewart was a bum until he hit 29, then won 20 games four years in a row

Lip Man 1
12-29-2003, 01:00 PM
Dave Stewart also had World Championship caliber teams around him in Oakland and Toronto....can Loazia say that about the 2004 Sox?

Lip

washington
12-29-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dave Stewart also had World Championship caliber teams around him in Oakland and Toronto....can Loazia say that about the 2004 Sox?

Lip

Not even close. But Loaiza didn't in 2003 either.

Iwritecode
12-29-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dave Stewart also had World Championship caliber teams around him in Oakland and Toronto....can Loazia say that about the 2004 Sox?

Lip

Well, there will be World Championship caliber teams around him this year.

He just won't be on any of them...

munchman33
12-29-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dave Stewart also had World Championship caliber teams around him in Oakland and Toronto....can Loazia say that about the 2004 Sox?

Lip

And for Loaiza to do what he did should set him apart from guys like Stewart. Everything was laid out for Stewart. Estaban had to earn his wins.

Don't forget that this team forced him to take some pretty tough losses that Stewart wouldn't have had to.

TornLabrum
12-29-2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
I don't think it's fair to lump Loaiza with guys who only have one "good" year. Loaiza did not have a good year. He did not have a great year. He had an EXCEPTIONAL year.

Bad players do not have exceptional years. Good players do not have exceptional years. Great and exceptional players have exceptional years.

And then there was the year Steve Stone won the Cy Young.

munchman33
12-29-2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
And then there was the year Steve Stone won the Cy Young.

Good point. I forgot about that one. :o:

RKMeibalane
12-29-2003, 01:55 PM
I don't expect another twenty-win season from Esteban. I do think that he should be able to win win fifteen games. Assuming that Buehrle bounces back, the pitching staff may not be as bad as we think.

The key is Garland, IMHO. He has been teasing us for years with his potential. The 2004 season is his put-up or shut-up year. If he can win fifteen games, then that will take a lot of the pressure off of Loaiza and Buehrle.

As for the remaining starters, I don't know what to think.

washington
12-29-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
And then there was the year Steve Stone won the Cy Young.

Stone won the Cy Young award that Mike Norris earned that year

TornLabrum
12-29-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by washington
Stone won the Cy Young award that Mike Norris earned that year

But he went 25-7 with a 3.23 ERA. And the point is that nobody is ever going to call Steve Stone a great pitcher.

washington
12-29-2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
But he went 25-7 with a 3.23 ERA. And the point is that nobody is ever going to call Steve Stone a great pitcher.

I agree. Nobody but Chimp Caray Ron Santo Pat Hughes & any other joker in a booth at Cubs games

boog_alou
12-29-2003, 04:31 PM
Earlier in this thread, someone said Loaiza didn't have a single month with an ERA over 3.00. And later someone said that MLB hitters didn't figure Loaiza out for 162 games.

August ERA - 3.15
September ERA - 5.30

So, he had a couple months with an ERA over 3.00. One was still quite good. The other month was just plain bad. Does that mean hitters started to figure him out? Perhaps. One thing is certain is that the whole league has now seen his new pitch. It won't be so unhittable in 2004. He'll still be good, but not CY good. I would predict a 3.75 ERA.

TornLabrum
12-29-2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
Earlier in this thread, someone said Loaiza didn't have a single month with an ERA over 3.00. And later someone said that MLB hitters didn't figure Loaiza out for 162 games.

August ERA - 3.15
September ERA - 5.30

So, he had a couple months with an ERA over 3.00. One was still quite good. The other month was just plain bad. Does that mean hitters started to figure him out? Perhaps. One thing is certain is that the whole league has now seen his new pitch. It won't be so unhittable in 2004. He'll still be good, but not CY good. I would predict a 3.75 ERA.

That September record includes the game that in Minnesota where he threw up just prior to the start and looked like he was half dead until Manuel mercifully lifted him (after unmercifully starting him).

munchman33
12-30-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
That September record includes the game that in Minnesota where he threw up just prior to the start and looked like he was half dead until Manuel mercifully lifted him (after unmercifully starting him).

Yeah, and if it wasn't for that game, he probably wins the CY Young. Manuel lost more than just the division that day.

Grobber33
12-30-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by washington
I agree. Nobody but Chimp Caray Ron Santo Pat Hughes & any other joker in a booth at Cubs games

How about Earl Weaver who knows just a bit about Baseball,,hmmmm??? Ask him some time, he's a big Steve Stone Fan.

washington
12-30-2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Grobber33
How about Earl Weaver who knows just a bit about Baseball,,hmmmm??? Ask him some time, he's a big Steve Stone Fan.

Stone was an OK pitcher who had a brilliant season in 1980. Aside from that season his record was 82-86. I think Earl'd put a few names like Palmer Cuellar Dobson Flanagan McGregor DMartinez ahead of Stone

Huisj
12-30-2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
Yeah, and if it wasn't for that game, he probably wins the CY Young. Manuel lost more than just the division that day.

wait, didn't loaiza actually talk manual into letting him pitch that day? that's what i remember hearing.

Jjav829
12-30-2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by boog_alou
Earlier in this thread, someone said Loaiza didn't have a single month with an ERA over 3.00. And later someone said that MLB hitters didn't figure Loaiza out for 162 games.

August ERA - 3.15
September ERA - 5.30

So, he had a couple months with an ERA over 3.00. One was still quite good. The other month was just plain bad. Does that mean hitters started to figure him out? Perhaps. One thing is certain is that the whole league has now seen his new pitch. It won't be so unhittable in 2004. He'll still be good, but not CY good. I would predict a 3.75 ERA.

Unfortunately, I think you are right. I hope Loaiza can be successful next year. I don't expect 20 wins and an ERA under 3.00 next year. However, I don't know that he can even keep it under 4.00. The league has adjusted to his cutter. No one demonstrated it better than the Twins. If you lay off the cutter, you can beat him. I want to believe that he will be able to come close to his 2003 production next year. Hopefully his newfound commitment to watching tape and studying players will allow him to adjust to the adjustments the league makes. But until I see that, I can't help but doubt him. I just hope he proves me wrong...

TornLabrum
12-31-2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Huisj
wait, didn't loaiza actually talk manual into letting him pitch that day? that's what i remember hearing.

I think the conversation went something like this.

JM: How ya doin' today Esty?

EL: BRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!

JM: Hmmm...you think you can pitch today?

EL: I guess so.

JM: Okay.

munchman33
12-31-2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by boog_alou
Earlier in this thread, someone said Loaiza didn't have a single month with an ERA over 3.00. And later someone said that MLB hitters didn't figure Loaiza out for 162 games.

August ERA - 3.15
September ERA - 5.30

So in essense, Loaiza only had one bad month last season. Come on people, maybe he just got tired. He did throw over 200 innings. There's no reason to think he won't be great again.

hold2dibber
01-02-2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by munchman33
So in essense, Loaiza only had one bad month last season. Come on people, maybe he just got tired. He did throw over 200 innings. There's no reason to think he won't be great again.

That's not true - there are a lot of reasons to think he won't be great again (e.g., he was bad in September, he has been bad most of his career, etc.). But there are also a lot of reasons to think he will be great again. It's a crap shoot at this point. I don't think people assume he'll be bad next year - they just don't know what to think. So the prevailing attitude is wait and see.

munchman33
01-03-2004, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
That's not true - there are a lot of reasons to think he won't be great again (e.g., he was bad in September, he has been bad most of his career, etc.). But there are also a lot of reasons to think he will be great again. It's a crap shoot at this point. I don't think people assume he'll be bad next year - they just don't know what to think. So the prevailing attitude is wait and see.

His entire career up until this point he wasn't good, but he also did have the same repitoire of pitches. The cutter made him one of the best pitchers in baseball.

A reliever that throws only fastballs and sliders will only succeed to a certain extent. However, if he learns a good changeup he will improve. Is it correct to assume the year after the league sees that changeup he will revert to previous form? Hell no.

CWSGuy406
01-03-2004, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
I don't think it's fair to lump Loaiza with guys who only have one "good" year. Loaiza did not have a good year. He did not have a great year. He had an EXCEPTIONAL year.

Bad players do not have exceptional years. Good players do not have exceptional years. Great and exceptional players have exceptional years.

To add to that, fluke years usually don't last a full season. Loaiza dominated for the WHOLE year. He kept us alive in the beginning. I'd say he had three "bad" starts. That's awesome. He should have won 24 games, if our offense would have put up 4 runs against the great Tigers.

Garland is really the wildcard for our staff this year. He needs to breakout and have his best year this upcoming season. 15 to 20 wins from Garland, 15 to 20 from Loaiza, and Buerhle needs to be our ace, and get 20-25 out of him.

munchman33
01-03-2004, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
To add to that, fluke years usually don't last a full season. Loaiza dominated for the WHOLE year. He kept us alive in the beginning. I'd say he had three "bad" starts. That's awesome. He should have won 24 games, if our offense would have put up 4 runs against the great Tigers.

Garland is really the wildcard for our staff this year. He needs to breakout and have his best year this upcoming season. 15 to 20 wins from Garland, 15 to 20 from Loaiza, and Buerhle needs to be our ace, and get 20-25 out of him.

I don't think we need that many wins from them. Remember how bad our division is going to be. 15-18 wins each from the three of them, as well as ten apiece from the other two starters (whoever they may be) will probably be enough. This division will be uber-bad, and I think 75 wins will do it. :cool:

gosox41
01-04-2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by munchman33
I don't think we need that many wins from them. Remember how bad our division is going to be. 15-18 wins each from the three of them, as well as ten apiece from the other two starters (whoever they may be) will probably be enough. This division will be uber-bad, and I think 75 wins will do it. :cool:

I don't think the division is going to be that bad. Two teams definitely will finish about .500 (KS and Minnesota) and there's a third one with an outside chance of doing so...Cleveleand. If they're young players continue developing and they come out hungry.

Right now I figure the sox for a 75 win team based on the simple fact that there a much weaker team then when they ended 2003. If they make a good move or 2, or if Harris, Rowand, Garland, Olivo, etc. all exceed my espectations I can see them over .500. But I wouldn't bet on that.

Bob

The Critic
01-04-2004, 08:47 AM
I'm not down on E-Lo, I'm down WITH E-Lo!
There's always a chance that he'll regress, but his control is good and he has decent velocity, so I think he'll be just fine.
15-18 wins sounds optimistic, but not outrageous.
How the team hits and fields behind him will determine how many games he wins, as well, which seems like BAD news right now...

munchman33
01-04-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I don't think the division is going to be that bad. Two teams definitely will finish about .500 (KS and Minnesota) and there's a third one with an outside chance of doing so...Cleveleand. If they're young players continue developing and they come out hungry.

Right now I figure the sox for a 75 win team based on the simple fact that there a much weaker team then when they ended 2003. If they make a good move or 2, or if Harris, Rowand, Garland, Olivo, etc. all exceed my espectations I can see them over .500. But I wouldn't bet on that.

Bob

You don't think that the Twins are significantly weaker??? The lost their two best bullpen pitchers from a pen that helped overcome a merely adequate rotation. Now that rotation lost Rogers, Reed, and Milton, with no replacements but what's in the system. Sounds a lot like us.

As for K.C., I really think they did overachieve last year, and will come back to Earth.

I do, however, I agree that the Indians are the wild card, and will be better than everyone expects. But .500 will be a miracle for any of these teams with the amount of holes each team has.

God bless the AL Central!

MarkEdward
01-04-2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
You don't think that the Twins are significantly weaker??? The lost their two best bullpen pitchers from a pen that helped overcome a merely adequate rotation. Now that rotation lost Rogers, Reed, and Milton, with no replacements but what's in the system. Sounds a lot like us.


The Twins' staff does look very similar to ours. Each team already has their top three in place: Santana, Radke, and Lohse for the Twins; Buehrle, Loaiza, and Garland for the Sox. The other two spots in the rotations are question marks for both teams. Like us, the Twins should probably go after a fourth starter in free agency. Also similar to us, they have many options for fifth starter: Grant Balfour, Sean Douglass, Matt Guerrier, and Adam Johnson.

I also think their bullpen will be decent, even with the loses of Guardado and Hawkins. They don't have a Marte-type ace, but they have a bunch of average pitchers in Rincon, Romero, and newly-added Nathan and Silva. Again, same as us, they could use another bullpen arm.

gosox41
01-04-2004, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
You don't think that the Twins are significantly weaker??? The lost their two best bullpen pitchers from a pen that helped overcome a merely adequate rotation. Now that rotation lost Rogers, Reed, and Milton, with no replacements but what's in the system. Sounds a lot like us.

As for K.C., I really think they did overachieve last year, and will come back to Earth.

I do, however, I agree that the Indians are the wild card, and will be better than everyone expects. But .500 will be a miracle for any of these teams with the amount of holes each team has.

God bless the AL Central!

I think the drop off betwee Mauer and Pierzinski isn't that dramatic. I think the guy they got for Pierzinski (I forget his name) is pretty good and statistically replaces Guardado. Losing Hawkins hurts them but keeping Stewart for a whole season makes them that much better. Milton pitched in like 7 agames last season. Losing Reed/Rogers isn't an ideal situation, but they're hardly lights out and age is starting to catch them.

I don't see the Twins being dramatically worse. Not as good as last season, but not a ton worse.

Bob

munchman33
01-04-2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I think the drop off betwee Mauer and Pierzinski isn't that dramatic. I think the guy they got for Pierzinski (I forget his name) is pretty good and statistically replaces Guardado. Losing Hawkins hurts them but keeping Stewart for a whole season makes them that much better. Milton pitched in like 7 agames last season. Losing Reed/Rogers isn't an ideal situation, but they're hardly lights out and age is starting to catch them.

I don't see the Twins being dramatically worse. Not as good as last season, but not a ton worse.

Bob

Yes, but Stewart is below average defensively, and they need to trade Jaque Jones to make budget.

gosox41
01-05-2004, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by munchman33
Yes, but Stewart is below average defensively, and they need to trade Jaque Jones to make budget.

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't see the Twins winning 90 games, but I seem them at around 85 or so. The Sox have definitely lost more this offseason then the Twins have.

Even if Ozzie is a great manager (something I doubt highly) are his moves going to overcome the loss of talent this team has had to even bring them back up to 2003? Losing Colon, Gordon, Sullivan, Graffanino, Everett, and Roberto Alomar hurt a lot. Who is going to pick up the slack?

Bob

CubKilla
01-05-2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Losing Colon, Gordon, Sullivan, Graffanino, Everett, and Roberto Alomar hurt a lot. Who is going to pick up the slack?

As it stands now, Schoenweiss, Harris, Uribe, Rowand and a couple of minor leaguers. I know you know the names, but typing the replacements the Sox have now for what the Sox lost this offseason makes me feel all warm inside.

ma-gaga
01-06-2004, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by munchman33
Yes, but Stewart is below average defensively

You know, I've heard this before but I've seen him play.
Oh hey, I looked it up as well.

He's better than you think (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=9&season=2003&seasonType=2&split=83&sortColumn=rangeFactor) . By range factor he's third in the league. A slightly dubious stat, but it just means that he gets too a lot of balls. He's a little below average by fielding percentage, but that just means he busts his ass to get to a lot more balls and picks up the error, rather than a slouch like Manny Ramerez or Geoff Jenkins (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=9&season=2003&seasonType=2&split=83&sortOrder=true&sortColumn=fieldingPct) .

Now if you said that he missed time due to a leg injury last year, and he's older, has a lot of years of playing on turf and is a possible injury risk, I wouldn't argue with you. Or an average hitting left fielder, (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=0&league=mlb&season=2003&seasonType=2&sort=OPS&type=reg&ageMin=0&ageMax=99&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=lf) that I could buy. But calling him a 'below average' fielder is speculation and perpetuation of a bad rumor.

I guess his arm is 'weak'. Looking at the number of assists he puts up, I can see that he'll only get you 8 assists a year to every 13 assists that the 'young guns' get. So those 5 outs are pretty significant over 1100 innings...

:)

munchman33
01-06-2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
You know, I've heard this before but I've seen him play.
Oh hey, I looked it up as well.

He's better than you think (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=9&season=2003&seasonType=2&split=83&sortColumn=rangeFactor) . By range factor he's third in the league. A slightly dubious stat, but it just means that he gets too a lot of balls. He's a little below average by fielding percentage, but that just means he busts his ass to get to a lot more balls and picks up the error, rather than a slouch like Manny Ramerez or Geoff Jenkins (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=9&season=2003&seasonType=2&split=83&sortOrder=true&sortColumn=fieldingPct) .

Now if you said that he missed time due to a leg injury last year, and he's older, has a lot of years of playing on turf and is a possible injury risk, I wouldn't argue with you. Or an average hitting left fielder, (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=0&league=mlb&season=2003&seasonType=2&sort=OPS&type=reg&ageMin=0&ageMax=99&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=lf) that I could buy. But calling him a 'below average' fielder is speculation and perpetuation of a bad rumor.

I guess his arm is 'weak'. Looking at the number of assists he puts up, I can see that he'll only get you 8 assists a year to every 13 assists that the 'young guns' get. So those 5 outs are pretty significant over 1100 innings...

:)

Yeah, but I read an article based on that stuff from a thread on this site and it said that overall, Carlos Lee was the second best defensive leftfielder in baseball last season. And yes, that is in black text. :?:

I believe what I see, and Stewart certainly is not as good as what they had in left.