PDA

View Full Version : BP on our fifth starter's race


jeremyb1
03-15-2004, 05:36 PM
White Sox' rotation: Scott Schoeneweis was handed the #4 spot in the off-season, although it's not clear why. He was a lousy starter before last year, and a pretty good reliever in '03. The Sox are loaded with lefty relievers, which explains why you could move Schoeneweis, but is he really worth a commitment when you have Jon Rauch, Felix Diaz and Neal Cotts in camp? Even Dan Wright has more going for him. Look for Wright to be the #5 to start the year, with Rauch taking Schoeneweis' job by mid-May.

Here's the link to the full article (http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2670), but its for subscribers only.

Lip Man 1
03-15-2004, 10:06 PM
I saw either yesterday or today some comments in the Chicago papers where Danny 'I Can't Pitch' Wright has locked up the 5th spot.

Rauch isn't mentioned anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

Let it go Jeremy, it's never going to happen. Schowenweis is going to get a ton of slack in the 4th starters role and why not? Considering the garbage the Sox have tried in the back end of the rotation the past two years, they have nothing to lose.

The 'can't miss kids,' haven't done squat there.

And realistically the Sox have no other choices.

Lip

SouthSideHitman
03-15-2004, 10:15 PM
I have never been a big fan of either Wright or Schoenweiss as starters but they seem to have the support of the organization, on top of which they are having good springs which means that they'll probably start the year as 4 and 5. The thing of it is too, that I think that they'd really make the bullpen dominant if they were there. My guess is that by June or July, they'll both be in the pen, with one of our youngsters replacing Danny and us getting a new SP for PK to replace Scott.

jeremyb1
03-15-2004, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I saw either yesterday or today some comments in the Chicago papers where Danny 'I Can't Pitch' Wright has locked up the 5th spot.

Rauch isn't mentioned anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

Let it go Jeremy, it's never going to happen. Schowenweis is going to get a ton of slack in the 4th starters role and why not? Considering the garbage the Sox have tried in the back end of the rotation the past two years, they have nothing to lose.

The 'can't miss kids,' haven't done squat there.

And realistically the Sox have no other choices.

Lip

Haha. Well in case you failed to notice from the quotation feature, I didn't write that Lip. I post most everything Sox related on the BP website so take it as what it is, something written by Joe Sheehan.

As far as Rauch goes he's not a huge longshot to make the team. He pitched well in a B game today and he can always get recalled if he starts at Charlotte. Even if Wright wins the fifth starters spot wasn't he a "can't miss kid" too?

soxfan26
03-16-2004, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Here's the link to the full article (http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2670), but its for subscribers only.

I'm with BP. I can't see any reason why Schoeny was given the #4 spot, or #5 for that matter. Then there is the matter of the contract the Sox signed him to...

sas1974
03-16-2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
I'm with BP. I can't see any reason why Schoeny was given the #4 spot, or #5 for that matter. Then there is the matter of the contract the Sox signed him to...

And on top of that, there is some rumbling that he will actually slide into the #3 spot ahead of Garland. Yikes!

joecrede
03-16-2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
I'm with BP. I can't see any reason why Schoeny was given the #4 spot, or #5 for that matter. Then there is the matter of the contract the Sox signed him to...

I think Schoenweiss is the best option to start the season as the #4 starter because of the series in Yankee Stadium where all things being equal it's preffered to throw a left-hander.

The positive thing about the 4th and 5th starters for the Sox is they have depth. If Schoenweiss and/or Wright aren't pitching well they can go to Cotts, Rauch, or Diaz. Much better options than Porzio.

CWSGuy406
03-16-2004, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I think Schoenweiss is the best option to start the season as the #4 starter because of the series in Yankee Stadium where all things being equal it's preffered to throw a left-hander.

The positive thing about the 4th and 5th starters for the Sox is they have depth. If Schoenweiss and/or Wright aren't pitching well they can go to Cotts, Rauch, or Diaz. Much better options than Porzio.

Yeah, the whole Left-Hander in Yankee Stadium argument does have some merrit, but so what. He'll be facing A-Rod, Jeter, Matsui, Giambi, Sheff, Posada, etc. Some of those are lefties but I don't want to see Shoe in a game against the Yanks, he'll get pounded.

hold2dibber
03-16-2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
The positive thing about the 4th and 5th starters for the Sox is they have depth. If Schoenweiss and/or Wright aren't pitching well they can go to Cotts, Rauch, or Diaz. Much better options than Porzio.

I'm not exactly thrilled with that "depth". "Better than Porzio" isn't exactly a rallying cry that I can get behind. IMHO, the Sox primary problem is the thinness of the starting rotation. They have 3 guys who have established themselves as legit major league starters. That's it. In the entire organization. That strikes me as incredibly thin, not deep.

Lip Man 1
03-16-2004, 02:24 PM
I'm sure Jeremy the fact that you agreed with the analysis had nothing to do with the reason it was posted.

As far as Danny "I Can't Pitch" Wright, my opinion of him and others of his ilk are well know. I hope he does well because if he doesn't the Sox are dead. Grilli, Rauch and the other mediocrities certainly aren't going to be much help.

This whole situation could have been rendered mute just by signing Colon. Then the rotation would be Colon, Loazia, Buehrle, Garland and Schowenweis. Unless someone got hurt the questions about Rauch, Wright etc wouldn't even be an issue and that rotation certainly would have been the best in the worst division in baseball.

But of course the Sox couldn't afford it ...LOL so the Sox are again left with 'hoping' somebody comes through for them to be able to compete.

Lip

soxfan26
03-16-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
And on top of that, there is some rumbling that he will actually slide into the #3 spot ahead of Garland. Yikes!

I was pretty shocked when I heard both KW and Ozzie saying that during the Giants game last Sunday. Then Hawk went on to say how Ozzie will be so much better (as a manager) for Garland's confidence!

stillz
03-16-2004, 02:32 PM
How we passed on Ponson I'll never understand. We don't have SP depth. It's silly to think otherwise.

I still believe Wright can bounce back and be a 15-game winner. Even last year, he had flashes.

Totally unsure as to why Scott Scho inspires everyone in the organization. Was he dynamite in the minors or college?

If Garland doesn't lose his 'deer-in-the-headlights' persona on the mound, he should be dealt sooner than later. He's not the least bit intimidating.

MisterB
03-16-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by stillz
Totally unsure as to why Scott Scho inspires everyone in the organization. Was he dynamite in the minors or college?

Here's Shoney's stats (http://www.sports-wired.com/players/profile.asp?ID=500).

Pretty mediocre even in the minors. Not sure what anybody sees in this guy...

Frater Perdurabo
03-16-2004, 02:42 PM
Wait a minute. What's that sound I hear? Could it be the sound of the legions demanding a trade of Paul Konerko for Odalis Perez?

chisoxjk
03-16-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by stillz
How we passed on Ponson I'll never understand. We don't have SP depth. It's silly to think otherwise.



I am glad we passed on Ponson since I think he was completely overrated. He has been getting shelled this spring as well. 8 ER, 7 BB in 9 innings pitched.

sas1974
03-16-2004, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
I was pretty shocked when I heard both KW and Ozzie saying that during the Giants game last Sunday. Then Hawk went on to say how Ozzie will be so much better (as a manager) for Garland's confidence!

Nothing is better for a guy's confidence than to tell him that he's been demoted.

I really think that they are so hung up on the fact that they want another lefty starter that they don't even care whether or not he's any good.

hftrex
03-16-2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I'm sure Jeremy the fact that you agreed with the analysis had nothing to do with the reason it was posted.

As far as Danny "I Can't Pitch" Wright, my opinion of him and others of his ilk are well know. I hope he does well because if he doesn't the Sox are dead. Grilli, Rauch and the other mediocrities certainly aren't going to be much help.

This whole situation could have been rendered mute just by signing Colon.

Lip


How would resigning that fat pig underachiever who only went 15-13 last year and figures to do even worse this year, have solved the Sox pitching situation? It would have only increased the payroll and kept the same albatross at the same time.

More proof, Lipper, that you think that increasing payroll solves all problems.

MRKARNO
03-16-2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by hftrex
How would resigning that fat pig underachiever who only went 15-13 last year and figures to do even worse this year, have solved the Sox pitching situation? It would have only increased the payroll and kept the same albatross at the same time.

More proof, Lipper, that you think that increasing payroll solves all problems.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here

Resigning Colon would have been a big boost for this club because we'd get 220+ quality innings. Maybe he wasnt dominant like we would have liked, but he gave us quality innings which we will probably lack this year because of his departure. This team should have resigned him.

But here is the problem: Anaheim decided to overpay him. 4 years and 50 mil is simply too much for him. I could see 3 years 32 million being reasonable, but there was no way the sox were going to retain Colon at that price.

What the sox should have done was offer Colon arbitration where he might have made only 9-10 mil as opposed to the 12 mil he was going to get.

People need to look beyond wins when evaluating a pitcher. His K numbers and the number of innings he pitched are what makes him so good. He cant entirely help Ws and Ls

kermittheefrog
03-16-2004, 03:59 PM
Really what the Sox should have done with the money they wanted to throw at Colon was sign Matsui from Japan. Or do something drastic like trade Magglio for Arod. There were a number of possibilities KW failed to explore. Miguel Batista would have been a good addition but Kenny only brings in AL guys. Carlos Lee could have been traded while his value was high, who knows why that couldn't happen. Jeremy Reed and/or Joe Borchard could have taken his place in left (yes I still have some faith in Borchard). And I know I'm reversing what I've said before about this but even Miguel Tejada would have been a good investment. Javier Vazquez was available for trade. There was an endless list of avenues available to improving the team that Kenny passed on.

Lip Man 1
03-16-2004, 08:00 PM
HFtrxkuvwxyz (ect...) says: "More proof, Lipper, that you think that increasing payroll solves all problems.

It would solve most of the Sox problems because it would give them depth, more talent and the ability to react when the market comes available in July.

But hey who am I to argue with this franchise's outstanding average record of 83-79 over the last six years!

Lip

1951Campbell
03-16-2004, 08:15 PM
Did he mention Neal Cotts? Neal Cotts!

jeremyb1
03-17-2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Really what the Sox should have done with the money they wanted to throw at Colon was sign Matsui from Japan. Or do something drastic like trade Magglio for Arod. There were a number of possibilities KW failed to explore. Miguel Batista would have been a good addition but Kenny only brings in AL guys. Carlos Lee could have been traded while his value was high, who knows why that couldn't happen. Jeremy Reed and/or Joe Borchard could have taken his place in left (yes I still have some faith in Borchard). And I know I'm reversing what I've said before about this but even Miguel Tejada would have been a good investment. Javier Vazquez was available for trade. There was an endless list of avenues available to improving the team that Kenny passed on.

Everyone always talks about the money we were going to give to Colon but by all accounts we would've dealt Maggs to make that work financially. Landing Kaz Matsui and Batista might've been worth dumping Maggs but we do already have Jose at SS. I suppose we could've moved him to 2B or declined his option and signed more (or better) bullpen help or another starter or outfielder.

jeremyb1
03-17-2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I'm sure Jeremy the fact that you agreed with the analysis had nothing to do with the reason it was posted.

As far as Danny "I Can't Pitch" Wright, my opinion of him and others of his ilk are well know. I hope he does well because if he doesn't the Sox are dead. Grilli, Rauch and the other mediocrities certainly aren't going to be much help.

This whole situation could have been rendered mute just by signing Colon. Then the rotation would be Colon, Loazia, Buehrle, Garland and Schowenweis. Unless someone got hurt the questions about Rauch, Wright etc wouldn't even be an issue and that rotation certainly would have been the best in the worst division in baseball.

But of course the Sox couldn't afford it ...LOL so the Sox are again left with 'hoping' somebody comes through for them to be able to compete.

Hahaha. You calling me a liar Lip? You can look at baseballprospectus.com. If someone else didn't start a thread first I've posted every bit of sox related analysis from the site. There's no reason to punish me for having a worthwhile opinion on Rauch that others happen to agree with.

kermittheefrog
03-17-2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Hahaha. You calling me a liar Lip? You can look at baseballprospectus.com. If someone else didn't start a thread first I've posted every bit of sox related analysis from the site. There's no reason to punish me for having a worthwhile opinion on Rauch that others happen to agree with.

I don't get the optimism surrounding Rauch myself. He was a great prospect, he got hurt and hasn't shown a modicum of the ability he had before. He got knocked around in AAA last year. If he hadn't had that great season in 2000 no one would consider him a potential major league starting pitcher given his performance the last two seasons. And given his injury we might as well forget about 2000. It won't hurt to give Rauch some opportunity given the fact that we don't have a lot of other options but I don't expect him to be impressive.

Randar68
03-17-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I don't get the optimism surrounding Rauch myself. He was a great prospect, he got hurt and hasn't shown a modicum of the ability he had before. He got knocked around in AAA last year. If he hadn't had that great season in 2000 no one would consider him a potential major league starting pitcher given his performance the last two seasons. And given his injury we might as well forget about 2000. It won't hurt to give Rauch some opportunity given the fact that we don't have a lot of other options but I don't expect him to be impressive.

Rauch had shoulder soreness again last season, but after taking a break mid-season or so, he pitched fantastically the last 2 months.

He's a fly-ball pitcher in the smallest park in the high minors. Stats don't tell half the story in some situations.

sas1974
03-17-2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I don't get the optimism surrounding Rauch myself. He was a great prospect, he got hurt and hasn't shown a modicum of the ability he had before. He got knocked around in AAA last year. If he hadn't had that great season in 2000 no one would consider him a potential major league starting pitcher given his performance the last two seasons. And given his injury we might as well forget about 2000. It won't hurt to give Rauch some opportunity given the fact that we don't have a lot of other options but I don't expect him to be impressive.

The ERA isn't great, but he was 7-1 w/ 94 Ks.

jeremyb1
03-17-2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I don't get the optimism surrounding Rauch myself. He was a great prospect, he got hurt and hasn't shown a modicum of the ability he had before. He got knocked around in AAA last year. If he hadn't had that great season in 2000 no one would consider him a potential major league starting pitcher given his performance the last two seasons. And given his injury we might as well forget about 2000. It won't hurt to give Rauch some opportunity given the fact that we don't have a lot of other options but I don't expect him to be impressive.

I feel like health is the key with Rauch. If you look at his stats as a whole it is easy to see him as a pitcher that had serious arm surgery and will never be the same pitcher he was in '00. However, if you look at him as a somewhat healthier Jeff D'Amico, a guy who has the potential to dominate when healthy but frequently struggles with injuries there is some intrigue there.

'01 is obviously thrown out. In '02 he was coming back from injury and struggled initially but he was constantly improving the entire time he spent in Charlotte as would be expected from a pitcher coming back from a serious injury and dominanted in the majors at the end of the season. Last season wasn't great but it wasn't terrible either. You could do worse than an era of 4 and a relatively strong K/BB rate. Again, amidst reports he wasn't healthy all of last season Rauch did a Jeckyl and Hyde routine as he dominated in his last 7 or 8 starts.

Splits aren't ussually a very good indicator but when health is a variable they become important in my opinion. Now it might be the case that at this point Rauch is actually becoming like D'Amico and he won't ever be healthy long enough to be effective. However, assuming the possibility that his injury problems are related to one injury in '01, I don't think Rauch's performance from the past two seasons tells a complete story about his future performance.

I'm not sure optimism is appropriate in terms of being optimisitic he'll be an above average starter this season because injuries and ineffectiveness are quite possible but I think Rauch has upside unlike many other pitchers in the organization so optimism in the event that he does put forth his best pitching is certainly warranted.

kermittheefrog
03-17-2004, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I feel like health is the key with Rauch. If you look at his stats as a whole it is easy to see him as a pitcher that had serious arm surgery and will never be the same pitcher he was in '00. However, if you look at him as a somewhat healthier Jeff D'Amico, a guy who has the potential to dominate when healthy but frequently struggles with injuries there is some intrigue there.

'01 is obviously thrown out. In '02 he was coming back from injury and struggled initially but he was constantly improving the entire time he spent in Charlotte as would be expected from a pitcher coming back from a serious injury and dominanted in the majors at the end of the season. Last season wasn't great but it wasn't terrible either. You could do worse than an era of 4 and a relatively strong K/BB rate. Again, amidst reports he wasn't healthy all of last season Rauch did a Jeckyl and Hyde routine as he dominated in his last 7 or 8 starts.

Splits aren't ussually a very good indicator but when health is a variable they become important in my opinion. Now it might be the case that at this point Rauch is actually becoming like D'Amico and he won't ever be healthy long enough to be effective. However, assuming the possibility that his injury problems are related to one injury in '01, I don't think Rauch's performance from the past two seasons tells a complete story about his future performance.

I'm not sure optimism is appropriate in terms of being optimisitic he'll be an above average starter this season because injuries and ineffectiveness are quite possible but I think Rauch has upside unlike many other pitchers in the organization so optimism in the event that he does put forth his best pitching is certainly warranted.

Come on Jeremy, let it go. Rauch's flame was extinguished when he went under the knife. What a lot of people seem to ignore is that Rauch gave up 16 home runs in 124+ AAA innings last year. And in 28 breif major league innings he managed to surrender 7 bombs. In AAA in 2002 he gave up 14 homers in 109 innings. He can't keep the ball in the park and his strikeout numbers are a spector of what they once were. If he were 6' there wouldn't be half the interest in him. He's a soft throwing control guy who can't keep the ball in the park. At this point his upside is becoming Rick Helling.

jeremyb1
03-17-2004, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Come on Jeremy, let it go. Rauch's flame was extinguished when he went under the knife. What a lot of people seem to ignore is that Rauch gave up 16 home runs in 124+ AAA innings last year. And in 28 breif major league innings he managed to surrender 7 bombs. In AAA in 2002 he gave up 14 homers in 109 innings. He can't keep the ball in the park and his strikeout numbers are a spector of what they once were. If he were 6' there wouldn't be half the interest in him. He's a soft throwing control guy who can't keep the ball in the park. At this point his upside is becoming Rick Helling.

You're ignoring my major argument here though Kermit. I'm arguing that Rauch has struggled for large stretches over the past few seasons because of health issues and that he is unlikely to be healthy often enough to become a good pitcher but if he does shed the injury bug he should be a very good pitcher. K rates and HR rates don't mean a whole lot if all they demonstrate is that he has been unhealthy often and hence ineffective.

I guess you could argue that he'll never be the same after his surgery but I don't know how you explain the success he has had in certain stints since his injury. He was consistently hitting 94 on the gun in his two starts against the Twins at the end of '02. That doesn't sound like a lost cause of a pitcher that went from a power pitcher to a soft-tosser as a result of labrum surgery. I think those starts and his finish at Charlotte last season (I wish there were minor league splits available) demonstrate that he's not destined to be a shell of his former self after injury.

Aside from health issues, a K rate of .75 in AAA is not bad even if it is not as good as his K rates in '00. He certainly wouldn't be the first pitcher whose strikeout rates dropped as he ascended through the minors. His HR rate is disconcerting but Charlotte is a bandbox. All in all, his EqERA last season was 5.1 so how horrendous could his performance have been (and this is assuming he was pitching as well as he's capable of at this point in his career)?

kermittheefrog
03-17-2004, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
You're ignoring my major argument here though Kermit. I'm arguing that Rauch has struggled for large stretches over the past few seasons because of health issues and that he is unlikely to be healthy often enough to become a good pitcher but if he does shed the injury bug he should be a very good pitcher. K rates and HR rates don't mean a whole lot if all they demonstrate is that he has been unhealthy often and hence ineffective.

I guess you could argue that he'll never be the same after his surgery but I don't know how you explain the success he has had in certain stints since his injury. He was consistently hitting 94 on the gun in his two starts against the Twins at the end of '02. That doesn't sound like a lost cause of a pitcher that went from a power pitcher to a soft-tosser as a result of labrum surgery. I think those starts and his finish at Charlotte last season (I wish there were minor league splits available) demonstrate that he's not destined to be a shell of his former self after injury.

Aside from health issues, a K rate of .75 in AAA is not bad even if it is not as good as his K rates in '00. He certainly wouldn't be the first pitcher whose strikeout rates dropped as he ascended through the minors. His HR rate is disconcerting but Charlotte is a bandbox. All in all, his EqERA last season was 5.1 so how horrendous could his performance have been (and this is assuming he was pitching as well as he's capable of at this point in his career)?

Even bad pitchers have good stretches. It just happens that Rauch's good stretches get mistaken for him being the great prospect he was before the shoulder surgery. Just as he wouldn't be the first minor league pitcher with declining strikeout rates throughout the system, he also wouldn't be the first pitcher to have his career ruined by labrum surgery. The only guy I can think of who came back strong from a labrum tear is Sidney Ponson, who underwent non-surgical treatment. There is a laundry list of guys whose careers have been derailed by labrum tears in the last decade.

jeremyb1
03-18-2004, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Even bad pitchers have good stretches. It just happens that Rauch's good stretches get mistaken for him being the great prospect he was before the shoulder surgery. Just as he wouldn't be the first minor league pitcher with declining strikeout rates throughout the system, he also wouldn't be the first pitcher to have his career ruined by labrum surgery. The only guy I can think of who came back strong from a labrum tear is Sidney Ponson, who underwent non-surgical treatment. There is a laundry list of guys whose careers have been derailed by labrum tears in the last decade.

Well I'll be real interested to see the results when Will Carrol finally gets the injury database up and running. Labrum surgery is tough to come back from but I don't feel like its impossible. The fact that Rauch was throwing 94 the year after his surgery speaks to that in my opinion. You're correct that even bad pitchers have good stretches. The question is whether Rauch's are related to his health or natural peaks. I side towards the former. We know he wasn't 100% in '02 since he was just returning from surgery.

kermittheefrog
03-18-2004, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well I'll be real interested to see the results when Will Carrol finally gets the injury database up and running. Labrum surgery is tough to come back from but I don't feel like its impossible. The fact that Rauch was throwing 94 the year after his surgery speaks to that in my opinion. You're correct that even bad pitchers have good stretches. The question is whether Rauch's are related to his health or natural peaks. I side towards the former. We know he wasn't 100% in '02 since he was just returning from surgery.

I actually asked him once, I wish I still had the email. He said the best example of a survivor of labrum surgery was Bob Howry. Not exactly positive results.

jeremyb1
03-18-2004, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I actually asked him once, I wish I still had the email. He said the best example of a survivor of labrum surgery was Bob Howry. Not exactly positive results.

Personally I just find it real hard to believe that the best known case of labrum surgery is Howry who lost several miles off his fastball and no longer has a major league job. I mean if that's the case and no one has ever fully recovered or even been effective despite the fact that it is a common surgery why even operate? Why wouldn't labrum surgery be more widely considered the kiss of death? Also it would seem as though Rauch recovered from labrum surgery better than Howry because he regained his velocity at least temporarily.