PDA

View Full Version : E-Lo and Burly-mon


beckett21
01-25-2004, 02:17 PM
Since I have grown tired of the endless Rowand/Harris debates, let's take this another direction. What are the thoughts on Buehrle and Loaiza for the upcoming season? I mostly am interested in what those who expect us to win 90 games this season expect out of those guys. To start things off and throw some chum into the water, I will offer my modest predictions for the season, in terms of W-L record and ERA.

Buerhle 17-9, 3.85

Loaiza 15-11, 4.25

I will acknowledge that these numbers are not bad at face value--as a matter of fact, they would please me. But certainly, people cannot be counting on Loaiza to win 21 games again. Or are they? I just think some people may be over-estimating the top of our rotation, particularly once you step out of our division. I have much more faith in Buerhle than Loaiza--not saying he will flop, but he most certainly is due to decline.

Anyway, just hoping to get a feel for what people expect for this year. I would also love to see what is expected of the rest of the rotation, and how people are arriving at 90+ wins (for those of you who believe that). :D:

soxfan26
01-25-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
To start things off and throw some chum into the water...


:o: I think the rest of us would be smart to stay out of the water...

Anywho, I think that Loaiza and Buehrle are both due for productive seasons. I don't agree that E-Lo will decline. I for one am counting on 15-17 wins and 200+ IP from both of them. If Loaiza turns in those kind of numbers, and keeps an ERA around 3.5 I don't think it would be really fair to call it a decline. Last season was a great surprise, but there are too many things a pitcher can't control that could cost him 4-5 wins a season.

RichFitztightly
01-25-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by beckett21


Buerhle 17-9, 3.85

Loaiza 15-11, 4.25



I can't see any way that Loazia would go from having the best ERA in the AL to a 4.25. That's a drastic drop. I'd say this, assuming there's quite a bit of run support.

Buerhle 17-6, 3.60

Loazia 18-5, 3.25

lowesox
01-25-2004, 03:25 PM
I think Buerle will go 19-9 and ELo will go 13-12.

RKMeibalane
01-25-2004, 03:29 PM
Buehrle: 18-9

Loaiza: 14-8

lowesox
01-25-2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by RichFitztightly
I can't see any way that Loazia would go from having the best ERA in the AL to a 4.25.

Unfortunately, I think a truer way to evaluate what to expect from E-lo would be his career numbers.

voodoochile
01-25-2004, 03:43 PM
Buehrle almost always get a decision when he starts the game, so I would expect him to be closer to 19-12.

Loaiza should win 17+ games I would think. This is the ALC after all.

doctor30th
01-25-2004, 03:46 PM
Buehrle: 17-10 3.90

Loaiza: 18-8 3.25

Just for kickd the rest of our current Starting pitching staff:

Garland: 14-11 4.20

SEALgep
01-25-2004, 03:47 PM
I believe E-Lo will continue his productivity. As long as his control remains the same, he will still have hitters guessing. Also the the two losses to the Tigers 1-0, a couple other close games, and the end of the season when he was very sick hurt him, but still managed 21 wins. I'm not going on a limb and saying he wil no doubt get 20 wins, but he certainly could. I have enough confidence to predict over 15 at the least. The real question is whether Garland can step up, and if Schoenweiss's new cut fastball can make a more productive starter than in the past. I think if anybody can make it happen, it's Coop, but they have to want it as well. And what about Grilli? Can he be the wild card not getting much attention?

Huisj
01-25-2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by RichFitztightly
I can't see any way that Loazia would go from having the best ERA in the AL to a 4.25. That's a drastic drop. I'd say this, assuming there's quite a bit of run support.

Buerhle 17-6, 3.60

Loazia 18-5, 3.25

Drastic drops happen all the time. Drastics jumps forward happen a lot too. What I mean is that Loaiza surprised the heck out of everyone last year with a career year. Lots of players have a career year at some point in their career. And even if they play decent after that, they can't be expected to perform to that level all the time.

I was kind of curious about how the top ERA people of the last few years did in the following years. Of course, some guys like Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson don't tend to fall off too much year to year unless they are hurt, but guys do fall back to earth.

Derek Lowe: 2.58 in 2002, 4.47 in 2003
Freddy Garcia: 3.05 in 2001, 4.39 in 2002
Mike Mussina: 3.15 in 2001, 4.05 in 2002
Roger Clemens: 3.51 in 2001, 4.35 in 2002
Greg Maddux: 2.22 in 1998, 3.57 in 1999
Odalis Perez: 3.00 in 2002, 4.52 in 2003
Tom Glavine: 2.96 in 2002, 4.52 in 2003
Kevin Millwood: 2.68 in 1999, 4.66 in 2000
Al Leiter: 2.47 in 1998, 4.23 in 1999
Roger Clemens: 2.65 in 1998, 4.60 in 1999

So, one year of super success doesn't write the next season's story.

beckett21
01-25-2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
Drastic drops happen all the time. Drastics jumps forward happen a lot too. What I mean is that Loaiza surprised the heck out of everyone last year with a career year. Lots of players have a career year at some point in their career. And even if they play decent after that, they can't be expected to perform to that level all the time.

I was kind of curious about how the top ERA people of the last few years did in the following years. Of course, some guys like Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson don't tend to fall off too much year to year unless they are hurt, but guys do fall back to earth.

Derek Lowe: 2.58 in 2002, 4.47 in 2003
Freddy Garcia: 3.05 in 2001, 4.39 in 2002
Mike Mussina: 3.15 in 2001, 4.05 in 2002
Roger Clemens: 3.51 in 2001, 4.35 in 2002
Greg Maddux: 2.22 in 1998, 3.57 in 1999
Odalis Perez: 3.00 in 2002, 4.52 in 2003
Tom Glavine: 2.96 in 2002, 4.52 in 2003
Kevin Millwood: 2.68 in 1999, 4.66 in 2000
Al Leiter: 2.47 in 1998, 4.23 in 1999
Roger Clemens: 2.65 in 1998, 4.60 in 1999

So, one year of super success doesn't write the next season's story.

Thanks for posting those numbers. That gets at the heart of my argument. Loaiza had a great year last year, no doubt. But it is also the first time he ever won more than 11 games. Historically he has been a quick starter, and usually comes to earth by June. I for one hope that he has found himself, but as the numbers posted by Huisj show he is more likely to decline, perhaps dramatically.

Also, what is to happen with the loss of Colon?? Like him or hate him, underachiever or not, he ate up a lot of innings which allowed the bullpen to rest up. Our pen does not look half as deep as last year's, IMO. Also, he usually faced the other team's #1; Buerhle and Loaiza will now each move up a slot in the rotation, and will face stiffer competition on the hill, respectively. I stand behind my numbers, and think those would be respectable. As for a margin of error, I would say +/- 3 wins each. Broad range I know, but I think they could fall anywhere in that category. Loaiza is not going to sneak up on anyone this year, either. Ultimately, the difference will come from the back half of the rotation, but I think it would be unfair to expect these guys to produce last year's numbers. Check Esty's career ERA; not exactly Cy-Young stuff. :(:

IMO this is still a .500 ballclub in desperate need of another quality starter.

beckett21
01-25-2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
I believe E-Lo will continue his productivity. As long as his control remains the same, he will still have hitters guessing. Also the the two losses to the Tigers 1-0, a couple other close games, and the end of the season when he was very sick hurt him, but still managed 21 wins. I'm not going on a limb and saying he wil no doubt get 20 wins, but he certainly could. I have enough confidence to predict over 15 at the least. The real question is whether Garland can step up, and if Schoenweiss's new cut fastball can make a more productive starter than in the past. I think if anybody can make it happen, it's Coop, but they have to want it as well. And what about Grilli? Can he be the wild card not getting much attention?

Good points on Schoenweis and Grilli. I personally think Grilli may be a diamond in the rough, but we can't count on him yet. The linchpin this year is Garland, IMO. He needs to take his game to the next level (pardon the cliche') and keep it there. He has given us glimpses of it in the past, but not enough consistency (although he did have a nice streak of quality starts IIRC). He is the guy who can take the pressure off both the top and bottom of the rotation; he is the key.

fquaye149
01-25-2004, 05:26 PM
keep in mind that loaiza should have had about 25 wins last year. remember all the quality starts he had where the sox played corpseball?

for example, he lost two games to the TIGERS 1-0....so he was actually even better than his numbers last year indicate

JRIG
01-25-2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
keep in mind that loaiza should have had about 25 wins last year. remember all the quality starts he had where the sox played corpseball?

for example, he lost two games to the TIGERS 1-0....so he was actually even better than his numbers last year indicate

The important numbers -- ERA, innings pitched, BB, K, hits allowed -- don't change because the Sox offense couldn't score. Loaiza was just as good as his numbers would indicate last year. It's just that while he was sitting on his butt on the bench, the Sox offense couldn't do jack.

southsidegirl
01-25-2004, 05:37 PM
I definitly think that Loaiza will win around 17 or 18 games this season. The thing is, he added the cut fastball during spring training. That's what makes him so effective.

Huisj
01-25-2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
keep in mind that loaiza should have had about 25 wins last year. remember all the quality starts he had where the sox played corpseball?

for example, he lost two games to the TIGERS 1-0....so he was actually even better than his numbers last year indicate

Saying that he should have won 25 games isn't quite right either. Yeah, he should have won those games against the tigers. However, maybe he should have lost a few that he came out of with wins or no decisions. I remember the saturday afternoon game against cleveland in early september where he gave up 5 runs and still won.

This sort of thing happens to every pitcher who has ever pitched. Which is why I think it's kind of a moot point arguing just how many games a pitcher should have won when the number that they did win is set in history forever. You could take every pitcher who has had a good season and find a game or two where they too got screwed and also probably a game or two where they got lucky. It's the great thing about a 162 game season that both that those things happen to pretty much everybody and that they tend to even out over time.

RichFitztightly
01-25-2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
Derek Lowe: 2.58 in 2002, 4.47 in 2003
Freddy Garcia: 3.05 in 2001, 4.39 in 2002
Mike Mussina: 3.15 in 2001, 4.05 in 2002
Roger Clemens: 3.51 in 2001, 4.35 in 2002
Greg Maddux: 2.22 in 1998, 3.57 in 1999
Odalis Perez: 3.00 in 2002, 4.52 in 2003
Tom Glavine: 2.96 in 2002, 4.52 in 2003
Kevin Millwood: 2.68 in 1999, 4.66 in 2000
Al Leiter: 2.47 in 1998, 4.23 in 1999
Roger Clemens: 2.65 in 1998, 4.60 in 1999



Point well taken. However, I'd consider anything over a run and a half difference as a drastic drop. Which not everyone on the list has. My original figure was close to a one run drop if my memory serves me. My point is, he has a very good chance of being in the low 3's. Right or Wrong, I'm actually expecting it. I'd be happy with 3.80 and below. Last year, every pitch looked the same at about 50 to the plate. Then the ball would either break right, left, down, or some combination there of. That's outstanding. Assuming (nay expecting) he gets those pitches over the plate, he could be darn-near un-hittable. Beurhle is just going to be Beurhle. Or otherwise known as the Dealer.

fquaye149
01-25-2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
Saying that he should have won 25 games isn't quite right either. Yeah, he should have won those games against the tigers. However, maybe he should have lost a few that he came out of with wins or no decisions. I remember the saturday afternoon game against cleveland in early september where he gave up 5 runs and still won.

This sort of thing happens to every pitcher who has ever pitched. Which is why I think it's kind of a moot point arguing just how many games a pitcher should have won when the number that they did win is set in history forever. You could take every pitcher who has had a good season and find a game or two where they too got screwed and also probably a game or two where they got lucky. It's the great thing about a 162 game season that both that those things happen to pretty much everybody and that they tend to even out over time.


i think it would be interesting to look at e-lo's run support as compared to other 20 game winners...or even the league average...that's all i'm saying....

i understand that pitchers will lose games in which they pitched well and win games in which they pitched poorly...it just seems to me that esteban got very little run support in the majority of the games he pitched....quite the oposite of hallady and pedro...just something i noticed, it might not even be the case.