PDA

View Full Version : Compare to 2003! and why I predict 91 wins


MRKARNO
02-18-2004, 06:48 PM
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/whitesox03.html

This is the 2003 White Sox opening day roster.

Our rotation was:

COlon
Buehrle
Garland
Loaiza
Wright

And based on what we knew of Loaiza, We had 2 great pitchers, 2 mediocre pitchers in Wright and Garland (remember, everyone was pretty high on Wright last year) and Loaiza, whom no one knew about except that he hadn't done anything. We only failed to return Colon, but we all wish that Wright would follow.

Our opening day lineup looked something like this:

Jimenez
Rowand
Thomas
Ordonez
Konerko
Lee
Valentin
Crede
Alomar

Allow me to remind you that Jimenez had hit .252 the year before
And also allow me to remind you that 8 of these nine are still on the roster and 7 are projected to be in the 2004 opening day lineup

Here was our Bullpen:

Koch-CL
Marte-SU
Wunsch-SU
White-Mid
Gordon-Mid
Glover-Mid
Stewart-Long

Koch would become a bust. Gordon would go from rehab project to earning 5 mil a year from Steinbrenner. Marte was the second best lefty reliever in the Majors after Wagner. White, Glover and Stewart didnt finish the year while Wunsch was extremely effective in his short amount of IP. We return the first three names on the list while bolstering the pen with the career Saves leader of Japan and a reliever who had three great years before injury last year (politte). Wright could be dominant as a middle reliever.

The point is that this team was no more talented than the one that we have now and there is much reason for optimism. Based on their run differential last season, the sox should have won about 90 games and the division. I dont see any reason why this team, if KW follows a formula like last year, cant be as good or better than last years' team. That's why I predict 91 wins

Palehose13
02-18-2004, 07:18 PM
I'll bite.
I agree with you 100%, but I think you knew that already. ;)

duke of dorwood
02-18-2004, 07:26 PM
75 Wins-

MRKARNO
02-18-2004, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
75 Wins-

Because....?

Frank the Tank
02-18-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/whitesox03.html


The point is that this team was no more talented than the one that we have now and there is much reason for optimism. Based on their run differential last season, the sox should have won about 90 games and the division. I dont see any reason why this team, if KW follows a formula like last year, cant be as good or better than last years' team. That's why I predict 91 wins

Have another Beer :gulp:

poorme
02-18-2004, 07:49 PM
loaiza will not win 21 games again
buehrle has gotten worse every year
garland is garland
schoenweis?? enough said
???

MRKARNO
02-18-2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
Have another Beer :gulp:

I dont drink. I'm perfectly clear-headed

MRKARNO
02-18-2004, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by poorme
loaiza will not win 21 games again
buehrle has gotten worse every year
garland is garland
schoenweis?? enough said
???

Loiaza will still be pretty good.

Buehrle had a bad year in his third full year and all of a sudden he's a regressing pitcher?

Garland had a 4 ERA after the first two months I believe. And dont you forget how consistant he was through the middle of the year.

Schoenweis might turn out to be good, but I personally think that we have some talent from the minors or on our invitee list that could be good. Maybe Girilli can be this year's Loaiza. You just dont know.

And what if we trade for starting pitching this season just like we traded for position players and bullpen guys last year?

Let the games play out and see what happens, but I'm an optimist and I see about 91 wins

Frank the Tank
02-18-2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
I dont drink. I'm perfectly clear-headed

You better start drinking. I don't know how else your going to make it through this season.

Thunderstruck30
02-18-2004, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by poorme

buehrle has gotten worse every year



He had 16 wins in 01, 19 in 02. And his ERA only went up about .3. How is that worse?

StepsInSC
02-18-2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Thunderstruck30
He had 16 wins in 01, 19 in 02. And his ERA only went up about .3. How is that worse?

From '01 to '02 it only went up .3, then it went up .56 last year.

His K/9 innings has also gotten worse each of the last three years.

His WHIP has gotten worse each of the last three years.


He's not doomed, but this is certainly what I would call a 'downward trend'.

poorme
02-18-2004, 08:26 PM
well lets see, over the past 3 years:

his era has gone up every year
hits/inning has gone up every year
K's/inning has gone down every year
BB/inning has gone up every year
last year his IP/inning went way down

Palehose13
02-18-2004, 08:45 PM
I'm still with you, Karno. :)

duke of dorwood
02-18-2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Because....?

Division teams, the weakest part of schedule are stronger-teams like Toronto & Baltimore and Tampa Greatly improved, we Never beat the West anyway.

Our personnel losses and improvements in the league equal more losses.

I still feel that we are only better than Cleveland, Detroit and Texas

MRKARNO
02-18-2004, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
I'm still with you, Karno. :)

I'm glad to know that I'm not the only realistic optimist

fquaye149
02-18-2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by poorme
loaiza will not win 21 games again
buehrle has gotten worse every year
garland is garland
schoenweis?? enough said
???

i'm with you karno...though i don't necessarily think we'll win 91... i think we need a 4th starter before we can get too excited...

but poorme, buehrle has gotten worse?


he had a bad first half, but after that pitched as well as he's ever pitched in the 2nd half and finished strong as well....

garland is garland doesn't make any sense to me...garland would have probably had 15 or 16 wins last year if it hadn't have been for blown saves. i've really liked what i've seen from him last season...

your other two points seem reasonable to me...although with loaiza it's as rash to say he won't repeat as it is to say he WILL.

Kittle
02-18-2004, 09:10 PM
91 wins with this team? You're joking, right?

We could only manage 86 last year and are now without Colon, Gordon, Everett, and Alomar.

I really hope I'm wrong, but I'd say that 75 is much more realistic.

munchman33
02-18-2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
I still feel that we are only better than Cleveland, Detroit and Texas

What are you smoking? Tampa Bay may be much, much improved. But there's no way they're better than us. We're better at almost every position, and our pitching staff is deeper.

Daver
02-18-2004, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
What are you smoking? Tampa Bay may be much, much improved. But there's no way they're better than us. We're better at almost every position, and our pitching staff is deeper.

Tampa has a real manager.

SEALgep
02-18-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Tampa has a real manager. I'm not going to stomp on Lou, because any team would be lucky to have him. However, it hasn't been proven that we don't have a real manager. He has a long ways to go to get into Lou's shoes, but that doesn't mean he can't be a real good one. I expect Guillen to lead these guys and gain their respect. The results will follow.

Daver
02-18-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
I'm not going to stomp on Lou, because any team would be lucky to have him. However, it hasn't been proven that we don't have a real manager. He has a long ways to go to get into Lou's shoes, but that doesn't mean he can't be a real good one. I expect Guillen to lead these guys and gain their respect. The results will follow.

I hope Ozzie can do one thing.

I hope he can prove me wrong.

I see Terry Beavington with an accent whenever I think of Ozzie as a manager.

MRKARNO
02-18-2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
91 wins with this team? You're joking, right?

We could only manage 86 last year and are now without Colon, Gordon, Everett, and Alomar.

I really hope I'm wrong, but I'd say that 75 is much more realistic.

The White Sox offense somewhat underperfomed last year by about 30-40 runs and the run differential last year should have gotten us about 90-91 wins (Pythagorean standings)

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/standings.html

There's some proof from BP in case it helps you.

Koch will likely rebound to some degree and the additions of Takatsu and Politte will make our bullpen as good or better than we left it last year.

Everett was real good for us. I'll admit that. But we only had him for half the year.

We also only had Alomar for half a season and he hit like total crap. His defense was excellent, but I think that Willie Harris is going to hit better than Alomar's .250 and he'll be adequate defensively.

There isnt anything really to say at the loss of Colon. He was real critical. But the Downgrade to Schoenweis should only cost us about 3-4 games maximum. Colon had 17 win shares last year, so technically he alone was only responsible for 4.25 wins and Schoenweis could get 7-12 realisitcally if he pitches the whole year. Also, I think Girilli could be good and be the 4th starter.

There is plenty of reason for optimism, you just have to scrape past the surface a bit

Lip Man 1
02-18-2004, 10:18 PM
This is the same formula that said the Twins had no business winning the division the past two seasons right?

Games are played on the field not in some science lab's computer. Things that can't be measured like heart, attitude, guts, the weather and injuries all have a very big factor in who wins, loses and just stays the same.

If science is that good at predicting how individual players are going to do, then why isn't everyone grabbing a slide rule and going to Vegas to drop down some real money since it's already been fortold?

Lip

MRKARNO
02-18-2004, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
This is the same formula that said the Twins had no business winning the division the past two seasons right?

Games are played on the field not in some science lab's computer. Things that can't be measured like heart, attitude, guts, the weather and injuries all have a very big factor in who wins, loses and just stays the same.

If science is that good at predicting how individual players are going to do, then why isn't everyone grabbing a slide rule and going to Vegas to drop down some real money since it's already been fortold?

Lip

I'm just saying what is behind my prediction and why I could possibly feel this way. Teams that had a run differential like the sox would on average win about 90.5 games. The Sox could have won 95 games last year. I am only using those stats as justification to why I predict the Sox will win 91 games.

I am only trying to demonstrate that there is a genuine reason for hope. I'm also just trying to inspire hope in other sox fans as well, because if you just look at the media coverage and what people are saying, the sox had a terrible offseason and there is no hope for them to make the playoffs. Clearly, there is plenty of reason for optimisim and that is the message that I am trying to get across.

Maybe you think they'll only win 80 games. I respect that, but I do not see this team finishing below .500 and I think any lower than 80 wins is plain old irrational and someone who is predicting based on emotional reactions instead of looking at the stats and the other teams that we'll have to play nearly 80 times (Divisional opponents).

Kittle
02-18-2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Koch will likely rebound to some degree and the additions of Takatsu and Politte will make our bullpen as good or better than we left it last year.

What makes you think that Koch will rebound? He lost 10 mph off his fastball between '02 and '03. Is that velocity supposed to just magically reappear? Unless he can develop Greg Maddux's movement and command, he's probably finished as a major league closer. Takatsu is 35 (or something like that) and can barely throw 90 mph. I don't see him being a legitimate closer either. Outside of Marte, our bullpen is shaky at best.

And I completely disagree that the loss of Colon will only cost us 3 or 4 games. Colon was a rock-solid stud who'd throw 8 innings almost every start. Being able to rest your bullpen like that every fifth day is HUGE. The loss of him AND Gordon, coupled with the potential of Koch being only used in mop-up duty, will cost us at least a good 7-8 games.

And let us not forget that Loaiza had a career year last season. I'm not necessarily saying that he's going to fall back to mediocrity, but 12-15 wins is much more reasonable than 21 again, IMO.

I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud, but we were MUCH better off at this time last year. Unless some of our guys have career years or some of our rookies develop quickly, we might be in A LOT of trouble.

3rdgensoxfan
02-18-2004, 10:43 PM
162-0

You never know what might come. The pitchers and catchers still haven't reported. The current line up reminds me of the 2000 Division Championship team when Spring Training started. As Lip noted, it is impossible to measure the intangibles.

I'll go with 90-72 even though I put little stock in predictions.

Tragg
02-18-2004, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/whitesox03.html

This is the 2003 White Sox opening day roster.

Our rotation was:

COlon
Buehrle
Garland
Loaiza
Wright

And based on what we knew of Loaiza, We had 2 great pitchers, 2 mediocre pitchers in Wright and Garland (remember, everyone was pretty high on Wright last year) and Loaiza, whom no one knew about except that he hadn't done anything. We only failed to return Colon, but we all wish that Wright would follow.

Our opening day lineup looked something like this:

Jimenez
Rowand
Thomas
Ordonez
Konerko
Lee
Valentin
Crede
Alomar

Allow me to remind you that Jimenez had hit .252 the year before
And also allow me to remind you that 8 of these nine are still on the roster and 7 are projected to be in the 2004 opening day lineup

Here was our Bullpen:

Koch-CL
Marte-SU
Wunsch-SU
White-Mid
Gordon-Mid
Glover-Mid
Stewart-Long

Koch would become a bust. Gordon would go from rehab project to earning 5 mil a year from Steinbrenner. Marte was the second best lefty reliever in the Majors after Wagner. White, Glover and Stewart didnt finish the year while Wunsch was extremely effective in his short amount of IP. We return the first three names on the list while bolstering the pen with the career Saves leader of Japan and a reliever who had three great years before injury last year (politte). Wright could be dominant as a middle reliever.

The point is that this team was no more talented than the one that we have now and there is much reason for optimism. Based on their run differential last season, the sox should have won about 90 games and the division. I dont see any reason why this team, if KW follows a formula like last year, cant be as good or better than last years' team. That's why I predict 91 wins

Compare us to 2000.

Weaker at closer, middle relief, and 2b. We have a better top of the rotation this year. What did we win in 2000? 92, 93, 94, something like that?

I'll say 85 -77.

MRKARNO
02-18-2004, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
Compare us to 2000.

Weaker at closer, middle relief, and 2b. We have a better top of the rotation this year. What did we win in 2000? 92, 93, 94, something like that?

I'll say 85 -77.

But the better comparison is to 2003, because most of the players on the 2003 roster are on this roster and only a year older.

And Remember, The 2000 team was lucky and had no pitching. The 2004 rotation is primed to be a TON better than the 2000 rotation. Sirotka was the only starter under 4 ERA but I think we have 2, maybe 3 people who can do that this year in Buehrle, Loaiza and maybe Garland.

Our pitching is worse than last year, but certainly better than the staff of 2000

Tragg
02-18-2004, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
But the better comparison is to 2003, because most of the players on the 2003 roster are on this roster and only a year older.

And Remember, The 2000 team was lucky and had no pitching. The 2004 rotation is primed to be a TON better than the 2000 rotation. Sirotka was the only starter under 4 ERA but I think we have 2, maybe 3 people who can do that this year in Buehrle, Loaiza and maybe Garland.

Our pitching is worse than last year, but certainly better than the staff of 2000

Last year is a tough comparison because we WAAAY underachieved (and severely undermanaged), especially after the 2 trades. We easily had the best team on paper.

But, we lost a lot
This team could have severe offensive problems- C, 3B, SS, 2b, CF-they can't hit (yet, all but SS could break out). That's over 1/2 of the lineup. Jose can go deep but we have no one (again yet) that can get on base to let the sluggers drive them in. And our manager's pedigree as a hitter himself doesn't give confidence that he understands the offensive missing ingredients. It isn't sluggers, it isn't rah-rah swing at everything types, it is guys who can work the bat and take walks.

Lip Man 1
02-18-2004, 11:42 PM
83-79....that's what they've done for the past six years. At least that's a track record. (for mediocrity)

Lip

SoxRulecubsdrool
02-18-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
Have another Beer :gulp:

Sounds good to me! I'll say 127 wins.
:gulp:

Kittle
02-19-2004, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Our pitching is worse than last year, but certainly better than the staff of 2000

Again, I don't agree. Our starting pitching right now isn't much better than 2000's staff. While we have two guys this season who are legitimate 15-20 game winners (Buehrle, Loaiza) and we only had one back then (Siro), Baldwin and Eldred had career years. Unless we get a really good season out of one more of our starters, our rotation will probably not achieve what it did four years ago.

And our bullpen is MUCH WORSE now than it was in 2000. Back then, we had a proven stud closer (Foulke), a great long reliever/spot starter (Lowe), and a fantastic lefhanded specialist (Wunsch in his prime). Now we have ONE guy right now who MIGHT be a legitimate major league closer and maybe one or two other guys who will be good in long relief. The rest of them are question marks.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but this team just isn't very strong on paper. I hope that they surprise us again, like in 2000, but I'm not counting on it.

SSN721
02-19-2004, 06:20 AM
I like how people keep comparing this lineup to the one that started last season, doesnt anyone remember how awful this team was for the first few months of the year. It was painful to watch, I dont want a repeat of that. I have no idea what to expect from Guillen other then at least himself, he will be fired up, whether he can convince the team to be the same remains to be seen. If he can and get them all fired up, have a good start of the season and stay above .500 and in 1st-2nd place til the break, maybe some more moves are made to improve the team and maybe then I will agree we could win 90-95 games. The team as is I am a little skeptical but optomistic they are still good enough to win the division, even if they only win 85 games. I'm more confident in the mediocrity of the division as opposed to the quality of the Sox. :D:

steff
02-19-2004, 07:10 AM
Colon ate 242 innings last year. We have done NOTHING to replace that. While this staff isn't the worst.. it definitely isn't much to get excited about. If they click, so be it. But, IMO, replacing Colon should have been the #1 priority.

As for the bats.. I see Maggs, Lee, Rowand having excellent years. Frank will be good for 30/100.. and if he gets ticked off early enough, maybe 40/120 :D:

Everyone else.. who knows. It's all a crap shoot at this point. But I'll bet the farm that Harris is a bust from the get go.

I'm going to go with 85-77.

Baby Fisk
02-19-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
I dont drink. I'm perfectly clear-headed
I was hoping your prediction would have something to do with drinking several glasses of absinthe beforehand... :gulp:
... but I like your theory as it stands. Personally, I see something in the 80-85 win range, but let's hope it works out better!

Lip Man 1
02-19-2004, 11:22 AM
SSN says: "I'm more confident in the mediocrity of the division as opposed to the quality of the Sox.

A fitting testament to the White Sox organization.

Lip

KingXerxes
02-19-2004, 12:33 PM
Colon gone - Schoenweiss in. MAJOR, MAJOR DOWNGRADE
Everett gone - Rowland in. WASH
Alomar gone - Harris in. MINOR DOWNGRADE
Olivo 2003 - Olivo 2004. UPGRADE
Konerko 2003 - Konerko 2004. UPGRADE (has to be)
Crede 2003 - Crede 2004. MAJOR UPGRADE (mark my words)
Valentin 2003 - Valentin 2004. MAJOR DOWNGRADE (trust me)
Koch 2003 - Koch 2004. MAJOR UPGRADE (has to be)
Manuel gone - Guillen in. LOST OPPORTUNITY

and on and on and on.........

When all is said and done, if Konerko and Koch kome through, we'll win about 88 games. If they are as they were last year, we're going to get krushed.

A. Cavatica
02-19-2004, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Colon gone - Schoenweiss in. MAJOR, MAJOR DOWNGRADE
Everett gone - Rowland in. WASH
Alomar gone - Harris in. MINOR DOWNGRADE
Olivo 2003 - Olivo 2004. UPGRADE
Konerko 2003 - Konerko 2004. UPGRADE (has to be)
Crede 2003 - Crede 2004. MAJOR UPGRADE (mark my words)
Valentin 2003 - Valentin 2004. MAJOR DOWNGRADE (trust me)
Koch 2003 - Koch 2004. MAJOR UPGRADE (has to be)
Manuel gone - Guillen in. LOST OPPORTUNITY

I like this analysis. I don't think Koch will rebound at all, because I don't expect his velocity to come back, but I mostly agree with your other evaluations. Now for mine:

Buehrle 2003 - Buehrle 2004. UPGRADE (he had a few stinkers but was generally better than his record indicates)
Loaiza 2003 - Loaiza 2004 DOWNGRADE (has to be)
Garland 2003 - Garland 2004 UPGRADE (still approaching his prime)
#5 SP 2003 - #5 SP 2004 WASH (until we know who it is)
Gordon 2003 - Politte 2004 DOWNGRADE (been listening to Tanko)
Sullivan 2003 - Takatsu 2004 DOWNGRADE (85 mph??)
Wunsch 2003 - Wunsch 2004 DOWNGRADE
Marte 2003 - Marte 2004 DOWNGRADE (just had career year)

Hence my prediction of 77 wins.

MRKARNO
02-19-2004, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica

Sullivan 2003 - Takatsu 2004 DOWNGRADE (85 mph??)


We had sullivan a little over 2 months and he seemingly didnt really help us all that much except 1 or 2 times. But also, you have to look at him (takatsu) compared to Rick White I would guess or something like that.