PDA

View Full Version : Sox Pitching


maurice
01-19-2005, 04:24 PM
In the spirit of the "Sox Power Shortage?" thread, how do you think the 2005 pitching staff compares to the 2004 staff?

There's no question that the 2005 staff is deeper, which is especially important given Hernandez's history. The new pitchers collectively replace about 5 guys from the 2004 staff who tossed 15+ innings with a ERA over 5.00: Schoeneweis, Jackson, Koch, Wright, and Grilli or Diaz. I'm assuming that either Grilli or Diaz will get a significant number of starts in place of Hernandez in 2005. Ideally, McCarthy could step in and pitch lights out, but that's really unfair to expect.

We pretty much know what to expect from Buehrle, Garcia, and Garland. Hernandez is great when healthy, while Contreras is a huge question mark. I expect Marte to improve, and Takatsu to drop off a bit. Vizcaino can be quite good . . . or not. Cotts and Diaz could improve with the MLB experience they added in 2004 . . . or not. Everybody else has a decent shot at keeping their ERA under 5.00.

IMHO, that all adds up to a huge improvement over last year's staff and more than enough to compensate for any decrease in offensive production.

santo=dorf
01-19-2005, 04:37 PM
I'm so sick of this anti-Contreras talk. Contreras is a better pitcher than Garland and 2005 will be a totally different situation now that his family is here, less pressure in Chicago, and bringing in his buddy Orlando Hernandez. Take a look at these stats.

Garland vs. Contreras (Sox numbers assuming he qualified)
(AL rank)

OPS: Contreras .772 (21)
Garland .786 (28)

K/9: Contreras 8.2 (5)
Garland 4.69 (35)

K/BB: Contreras 1.62 (35)
Garland 1.49 (37)

G/F (remember, Garland is the "groundball" pitcher): Contreras 1.51 (11)
Garland 1.27 (17)

Contreras had 3 rough outings with the Sox and a total of 9 on the year. Garland had 9 rough outings as well (one of which was a victory against the Twins) and after an impressive 2 months, Garland pretty much went 6 IP, 4 ER if he wasn't getting tattooed.

FightingBillini
01-19-2005, 05:08 PM
I'm so sick of this anti-Contreras talk. Contreras is a better pitcher than Garland and 2005 will be a totally different situation now that his family is here, less pressure in Chicago, and bringing in his buddy Orlando Hernandez. Take a look at these stats.

Garland vs. Contreras (Sox numbers assuming he qualified)
(AL rank)

OPS: Contreras .772 (21)
Garland .786 (28)

K/9: Contreras 8.2 (5)
Garland 4.69 (35)

K/BB: Contreras 1.62 (35)
Garland 1.49 (37)

G/F (remember, Garland is the "groundball" pitcher): Contreras 1.51 (11)
Garland 1.27 (17)

Contreras had 3 rough outings with the Sox and a total of 9 on the year. Garland had 9 rough outings as well (one of which was a victory against the Twins) and after an impressive 2 months, Garland pretty much went 6 IP, 4 ER if he wasn't getting tattooed.

Agreed. There is a reason why Contreras was so highly recruited. He needs to get settled down, get his confidence back, and mix up his pitches more. He has awesome stuff. He will win at least 16 games this year.

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 05:15 PM
While I like the fact that they've filled the black hole at the #5 spot, what has me really excited is the bullpen. This is probably the best, deepest bullpen they've had in years. Normally they have 2 or at most 3 solid relievers that you can count on, and they wind up working those guys until their knuckles are dragging. I got so sick of waiting to see who's going to be this year's bullpen turkey, and it's been very competitive. If you look around the league, it's unusual to find a team with more than 4 decent relievers. There just isn't enough good pitching to go around. I count at least 5 that pass the "Oh, S***!" test: Takatsu, Marte, Politte, Hermanson and Vizcaino. And for the back of the bullpen, Adkins and Cotts aren't bad. It's always tough to project how a bullpen is going to play out once the season starts, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had one of the top 3 or 4 bullpens in the league.

zach074
01-19-2005, 05:51 PM
On paper the new pitching staff is much better than the old one. But what is said on paper doesn't always hold up, we will have to wait until the season to see how good they are.

OEO Magglio
01-19-2005, 05:58 PM
While I like the fact that they've filled the black hole at the #5 spot, what has me really excited is the bullpen. This is probably the best, deepest bullpen they've had in years. Normally they have 2 or at most 3 solid relievers that you can count on, and they wind up working those guys until their knuckles are dragging. I got so sick of waiting to see who's going to be this year's bullpen turkey, and it's been very competitive. If you look around the league, it's unusual to find a team with more than 4 decent relievers. There just isn't enough good pitching to go around. I count at least 5 that pass the "Oh, S***!" test: Takatsu, Marte, Politte, Hermanson and Vizcaino. And for the back of the bullpen, Adkins and Cotts aren't bad. It's always tough to project how a bullpen is going to play out once the season starts, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had one of the top 3 or 4 bullpens in the league.
I'm in complete agreement here. Cliff Politte is our 5th option out of the bullpen and that is really saying something, I'm not sure if it's the best pen in the league but it could definitely be the deepest.

maurice
01-19-2005, 07:11 PM
I'm so sick of this anti-Contreras talk. . . .

You've made essentially the same post in about 15 threads now. Now that you posted it in one I started, I suppose I should respond. Your Contreras data conveniently ignores several obvious categories . . .
W/L: 5/4
ERA: 5.30
WHIP: 1.54
BB/9: 5.06
BTW, he's at least 33 years old. If he decides to throw strikes this year, I would not be at all shocked if he posted a 3.50 ERA. His stuff is that good. OTOH, if he keeps walking 4 or 5 guys per game while pitching at Coors East, another ERA above 5 is far more likely . . . all while collecting (IIRC) $9 million (6 from the Sox + 3 from the Yanks). That adds up to "a huge question mark," since a 5.30 ERA certainly is not better than what Garland is likely to give you.

Garland pretty much went 6 IP, 4 ER if he wasn't getting tattooed.

This is (rather obviously) total BS. If your generalization were remotely true, simple math shows that his ERA would be something like 8.00. Instead, he's been between 4.50 and 4.90 every year for the last three years (with 190+ innings / year). In other words, "[w]e pretty much know what to expect" -- a very solid ERA for a bottom-of-the-rotation starter in the AL.

Mohoney
01-19-2005, 07:25 PM
If your generalization were remotely true,

He also said "after an impressive first two months"

santo=dorf
01-19-2005, 07:26 PM
You've made essentially the same post in about 15 threads now. Now that you posted it in one I started, I suppose I should respond. Your Contreras data conveniently ignores several obvious categories . . .
W/L: 5/4
ERA: 5.30
WHIP: 1.54
BB/9: 5.06
BTW, he's at least 33 years old. If he decides to throw strikes this year, I would not be at all shocked if he posted a 3.50 ERA. His stuff is that good. OTOH, if he keeps walking 4 or 5 guys per game while pitching at Coors East, another ERA above 5 is far more likely . . . all while collecting (IIRC) $9 million (6 from the Sox + 3 from the Yanks). That adds up to "a huge question mark," since a 5.30 ERA certainly is not better than what Garland is likely to give you.

Umm, this is the first time I have posted it on this site. W-L isn't really a good indication of a pitcher's performance. Contreras had a great game going until some lazy defense in the outfield by Carl and Timo, and a ninth inning game-tying homer given up by Marte. (This was the Come on Timo! game.) I also posted these stats because they are based on averages, and it's not fair to compare the number of wins between 2 pitchers if one was with the team the entire season and one was with the team for only 2 months. This is why I also didn't post the number of home runs given up.

So essentially Contreras had 6 victories in two months with the Sox. Garland had 12 in 6 months with the Sox. Multiply that out, Contreras would have 18 wins, but if you don't want to count "the come on Timo" game, it would be 15 wins.

Contreras does walk more batters, but he is harder to hit as evident by his OPS against being lower than Garland's. He puts the ball in play less than Garland, AND he has a better groundball to flyout ratio than Judy.

Since when has age become the most important statistic for a pitcher? What difference does it make if two pitchers of different ages put up similar numbers? :?:
This is (rather obviously) total BS. If your generalization were remotely true, simple math shows that his ERA would be something like 8.00. Instead, he's been between 4.50 and 4.90 every year for the last three years (with 190+ innings / year). In other words, "[w]e pretty much know what to expect" -- a very solid ERA for a bottom-of-the-rotation starter in the AL.

I said "after an impressive 2 months," referring to his pitching in April and May. Yes it was a little bit of an exaggeration, but look at his outings on 7/15, 7/20, 7/25, 7/30, 8/05, 8/24, 8/29, 9/03, 9/16 and 9/21.

TheBull19
01-20-2005, 09:17 AM
I'm so sick of this anti-Contreras talk. Contreras is a better pitcher than Garland and 2005 will be a totally different situation now that his family is here, less pressure in Chicago, and bringing in his buddy Orlando Hernandez. Take a look at these stats.

.

He just said we know what we're getting with Garland, he didn't say it was good. I know what I'm getting when I go to the can, but that doesn't mean it's gonna be pretty. Contreras IS a question mark. Either he's gonna a be the pitcher he should be and blow Garland out of the water, or he's going to be around Garland's level. Garland may be mediocre, but he's consistently mediocre.

SoxFanTillDeath
01-20-2005, 09:18 AM
I thought that Garland was very good in the first half, then tailed off over the last few months, but when I checked the game by game log, I realized that he was pretty consistent all year. Scan down from May to the end of the season and you won't see muchchange in the the ERA. It's not like he was in the 3s with his ERA in the beginning of the season and then that ballooned late...it was the same pretty much all year. Go to his player page and you can see that for yourself:

Garland's Game by Game Log (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/stats/cws_individual_player_gamebygamelog.jsp?playerID=2 79782&statType=2)

WhiteSoxFan84
01-20-2005, 09:24 AM
I have one worry and one worry over; who is our "6th" starter? By that I mean who will be our spot starter and our replacement incase of injuries (GOD FORBID)? It might be Dustin Hermanson but then we're short 1 person in the pen. Is it Jason Grilli and/or Felix Diaz? For the love of God NO!

This is why I think the Sox should go out and throw a Minor League Contract to a pitcher like Shane Reynolds or Andy Ashby. Aaron Sele would have been PERFECT but he signed yesterday.

munchman33
01-20-2005, 09:42 AM
I have one worry and one worry over; who is our "6th" starter? By that I mean who will be our spot starter and our replacement incase of injuries (GOD FORBID)? It might be Dustin Hermanson but then we're short 1 person in the pen. Is it Jason Grilli and/or Felix Diaz? For the love of God NO!

This is why I think the Sox should go out and throw a Minor League Contract to a pitcher like Shane Reynolds or Andy Ashby. Aaron Sele would have been PERFECT but he signed yesterday.

If Jason Grilli is our sixth starting option, I'm not gonna complain. At least he's not going in as the fifth starter. Baby steps, people.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-20-2005, 09:48 AM
If Jason Grilli is our sixth starting option, I'm not gonna complain. At least he's not going in as the fifth starter. Baby steps, people.

Grilli, 2005; 2-2, 7.20 ERA

You're WHAT hurts?

Ol' No. 2
01-20-2005, 09:52 AM
I have one worry and one worry over; who is our "6th" starter? By that I mean who will be our spot starter and our replacement incase of injuries (GOD FORBID)? It might be Dustin Hermanson but then we're short 1 person in the pen. Is it Jason Grilli and/or Felix Diaz? For the love of God NO!

This is why I think the Sox should go out and throw a Minor League Contract to a pitcher like Shane Reynolds or Andy Ashby. Aaron Sele would have been PERFECT but he signed yesterday.I think they'll cross that bridge when they get to it based on the situation at the time. Hermanson would be an ideal candidate, but they could choose from Grilli, Diaz, Cotts, Munoz or someone else, depending on how they've been performing.

Flight #24
01-20-2005, 09:55 AM
I think they'll cross that bridge when they get to it based on the situation at the time. Hermanson would be an ideal candidate, but they could choose from Grilli, Diaz, Cotts, Munoz or someone else, depending on how they've been performing.

*Cough*
*Cough*
*BMac*
*Cough*

Ol' No. 2
01-20-2005, 10:00 AM
*Cough*
*Cough*
*BMac*
*Cough*Could be. If he's lights-out in AAA, he'll get serious consideration. OTOH, they might not want to throw him right into a starting role in the bigs. At SoxFest Kenny talked about the old practice of letting pitchers get their feet wet in the BP before they started games. I always thought that was a good way to go. Learn to pitch an inning at a time.

I'm sure they're going to look around and see what they've got and choose the one who gives them the best chance. There's just no way to determine that now.

maurice
01-20-2005, 01:48 PM
Since when has age become the most important statistic for a pitcher? What difference does it make if two pitchers of different ages put up similar numbers? :?:

Age is not "the most important statistic," but it's certainly a relevant predictor. IMHO, Contreras would be far more likely to improve on his 5+ ERA if he were 24 years old -- an age when most successful pitchers have not yet reached their peak. A 33-38 year old is less likely to suddenly improve for both physical and mental reasons. For example, it looks like he's always gone with the splitter on a 3-and-1 count. If I'm right, it explains why he frustrates Ozzie, et al. by shaking off the fastball. A 24 year old is far more likely to simply throw whatever AJ or Davis puts down.

Like I said, I agree that he's got great stuff and the capability to post a 3.50 ERA. He also (obviously) has the potential to post a 5+ ERA. That's defintely "a huge question mark."

Mohoney
01-20-2005, 02:25 PM
I'm sure they're going to look around and see what they've got and choose the one who gives them the best chance. There's just no way to determine that now.

Right. Who's to say that a guy like Bobby Jenks doesn't somehow get it together in a big way?

wsbaseball9
01-20-2005, 04:38 PM
contreas has the best splitter in baseball period

RedHeadPaleHoser
01-20-2005, 08:21 PM
But as important as the rotation is, wouldn't there be a common thread(forgve the expression) as to who's catching these guys? AJ is solid - while the staff excites me to see some true talent on the mound(1-5 for the 1st time in a while), having a catcher who can manage them AND catch 120+ games a year is the real excitement.


Remember - it's called a battery, which means it has two ends to it.

You can pick the positives and negatives.

Why do I feel I'm gonna regret saying that??

nccwsfan
01-20-2005, 08:45 PM
[QUOTE=maurice]In the spirit of the "Sox Power Shortage?" thread, how do you think the 2005 pitching staff compares to the 2004 staff?[QUOTE]

I'm much happier with the pitching rotation for 2005. Markedly improved, and with Garland established as the #5 guy we no longer have to sweat bullets every 5th day. There is a potential to put together a few impressive winning streaks.

I also like the one who posted about Pierzynski- a solid upgrade at the C spot. I'm really liking our chances for a good 2005....