PDA

View Full Version : White Sox's Pitching ranked 8th in AL by SI's Jacob Luft


T-Bone
02-10-2005, 04:22 PM
:angry:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/02/10/al.rotations/index.html

Tennesse Sox fan (originally from Massachusetts) checking in.

I expect to see great things from the Sox this year, but it looks like they will continue to fly under the radar for the rest of the offseason. We are the Rodney Dangerfield of the AL. No respect, oh well.

P.S: 2005 will mark my first ever visit to the Cell (Ive seen them play a bunch of times in Boston and Cleveland).

Red Sox/White Sox July 24th, can't wait. Hopefully this will be a meaningful series.

Jabroni
02-10-2005, 04:27 PM
I love how he rates the Twins' rotation as 3rd best in the A.L. even though he even lists their 5th starter as Joe Mays (DNP -- injury). :rolleyes:

rdivaldi
02-10-2005, 04:36 PM
That had to be one of the worst analyses I've seen this offseason. Did the guy even look at the garbage in the Tribe rotation? He had to rationalize and use "ifs" to justify their ranking. And how in the world can he put the awful Blue Jays ahead of us? Pfft, :whatever:

Under the radar...

Vestigio
02-10-2005, 04:37 PM
WTH is DIPS?

Flight #24
02-10-2005, 04:41 PM
I like how he takes stats for Wells & Clement from the NL and just uses them in the AL with the comment "We bet the BoSox front office has ID'd pitchers who'll flourish at Fenway", while saying "The transition to NY can be difficult" for Pavano/Wright.

In other words "These are some rankings I pulled out of my whatever".:whatever:

rdivaldi
02-10-2005, 04:41 PM
WTH is DIPS?

I have no idea, another confusing stat for the sabre community to ooh and aah over. It looks like everyone in the national media is in love in the Tribe this offseason.

SABRSox
02-10-2005, 04:42 PM
Here's my problem. He uses dERA as a stat, which is fine, but he then fails to mention that the Twins' pitchers all had lower ERA than dERA's (exception being Kyle Lohse), which suggests they got lucky. And then his write-up on the Sox is about the Yankees. I hate this guys stuff.

Flight #24
02-10-2005, 04:42 PM
I have no idea, another confusing stat for the sabre community to ooh and aah over. It looks like the entire national media is in love in the Tribe this offseason.

DIPS = Defense Independent Pitching Stats. Something along the lines of an ERA calculated based on the # of GB, FB, BB, & K by a pitcher.

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 04:46 PM
WTH is DIPS?DIPS describes the people who wrote this garbage.:o:

DIPS: Defense Independent Pitching Statistic. It purports to account for differences in defense behind a pitcher, but actually does nothing of the sort.

depy48
02-10-2005, 04:46 PM
maybe this is why i havenever heard of "jacob luft" before. and with these kinds of rankings, i may never hear of him again

SoxxoS
02-10-2005, 04:48 PM
I have no idea, another confusing stat for the sabre community to ooh and aah over. It looks like everyone in the national media is in love in the Tribe this offseason.

You know what that reminds me of?

THE KANSAS CITY ROYALS OF 2004.

rdivaldi
02-10-2005, 04:49 PM
DIPS describes the people who wrote this garbage.:o:

DIPS: Defense Independent Pitching Statistic. It purports to account for differences in defense behind a pitcher, but actually does nothing of the sort.

I swear the statisticians are confusing themselves now. Too many numbers, too many variables, too much everything. Man, I'm starting to wish they would just all go away. Too many bloggers touting themselves as experts now-a-days.

rdivaldi
02-10-2005, 04:51 PM
You know what that reminds me of?

THE KANSAS CITY ROYALS OF 2004.

Amen to that. I was one of the nimrods who bought into the idea that the Royals were going to give the Twins the biggest challenge last year, man was I ever fooled.

ja1022
02-10-2005, 05:03 PM
Utter garbage. How the hell do guys like that get paid to write about baseball?
The best part of his article was this little tidbit: "Wins and losses aren't mentioned because they are overrated statistics"

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 05:08 PM
Utter garbage. How the hell do guys like that get paid to write about baseball?
The best part of his article was this little tidbit: "Wins and losses aren't mentioned because they are overrated statistics"Honest to God. They must go out to the missions and round up a bunch of winos to write this stuff. In fact, the winos would probably do a better job.

T-Bone
02-10-2005, 05:08 PM
If we had gotten this:

12 Wins, 11 Losses, 217 innings pitched, 223 hits, 118, earned runs, 4.89 ERA, 34 homers, 64 walks, 113 strikeouts

instead of this:

5 Wins, 15 Losses, 116 innings pitched, 168 hits, 117 earned runs, 9.08 ERA
33 homers, 52 walks, 64 strikeouts.

we would have been division champs. I don't think most sports writers realize how improved we will be just by having a decent fifth starter (of course assuming El Duque can pitch some innings).

Someone can do the ratios over for Garlands stats if they want, so that they match 116 innings pitched.

Quite frankly I'm amazed we got five wins out of a 9.08 ERA

Corlose 15
02-10-2005, 05:15 PM
If we had gotten this:

12 Wins, 11 Losses, 217 innings pitched, 223 hits, 118, earned runs, 4.89 ERA, 34 homers, 64 walks, 113 strikeouts

instead of this:

5 Wins, 15 Losses, 116 innings pitched, 168 hits, 117 earned runs, 9.08 ERA
33 homers, 52 walks, 64 strikeouts.

we would have been division champs. I don't think most sports writers realize how improved we will be just by having a decent fifth starter (of course assuming El Duque can pitch some innings).

Someone can do the ratios over for Garlands stats if they want, so that they match 116 innings pitched.

Quite frankly I'm amazed we got five wins out of a 9.08 ERA


Part of the reason its only 116 innings is because of that 9.08 era.

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 05:16 PM
If we had gotten this:

12 Wins, 11 Losses, 217 innings pitched, 223 hits, 118, earned runs, 4.89 ERA, 34 homers, 64 walks, 113 strikeouts

instead of this:

5 Wins, 15 Losses, 116 innings pitched, 168 hits, 117 earned runs, 9.08 ERA
33 homers, 52 walks, 64 strikeouts.

we would have been division champs. I don't think most sports writers realize how improved we will be just by having a decent fifth starter (of course assuming El Duque can pitch some innings).

Someone can do the ratios over for Garlands stats if they want, so that they match 116 innings pitched.

Quite frankly I'm amazed we got five wins out of a 9.08 ERAIt was because of games like this gem (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrapup.jsp?ymd=20040513&content_id=742807&vkey=wrapup2004&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb).

Jerome
02-10-2005, 05:22 PM
Well, we do have Contreras and Garland in the rotation. I think we should be ahead of the Blue Jays certainly though. The Indians too. We should be probably a couple spots higher, but I don't know why everyone is so outraged.

T-Bone
02-10-2005, 05:23 PM
Well, we do have Contreras and Garland in the rotation. I think we should be ahead of the Blue Jays certainly though. The Indians too. We should be probably a couple spots higher, but I don't know why everyone is so outraged.

Hopefully, the Twins will have the same kind of luck "finding" a fifth starter that we had. Mays is a huge question mark, but they do have a lot more minor league depth then we do.

Soxzilla
02-10-2005, 05:38 PM
After reading that list, and actually knowing SOMETHING about baseball. I'd say we are fifth on that list.

And in terms of numero 1, that goes to the Yankees...especially after reading about what he said with the Red Sox...

"Well, I'm just speculating that Clement, Wells and Miller will do great in Fenway, because I'm a jackass. Let's not take into account the fact Wells even said he doesn't exactly LOVE pitching in Boston."

MRKARNO
02-10-2005, 05:38 PM
After reading that list, and actually knowing SOMETHING about baseball. I'd say we are fifth on that list.

And in terms of numero 1, that goes to the Yankees...especially after reading about what he said with the Red Sox...

"Well, I'm just speculating that Clement, Wells and Miller will do great in Fenway, because I'm a jackass. Let's not take into account the fact Wells even said he doesn't exactly LOVE pitching in Boston."

VORP says fourth after Minny, Yanks and Red Sox:


1. Boston 161.8 (0)
2. New York 158.6 (0)
3. Twins 138.6 (0)
4. White Sox 127.6 (+4)
5. Angels 112.3 (0)
6. Oakland 101.5 (+1)
7. Blue Jays 101.4 (-1)
8. Indians 97.5 (-4)
9. Texas 77.1 (0)
10. Mariners 72.2 (+2)
11. Tigers 70.6 (-1)
12. Royals 67.7 (+1)
13. Orioles 65 (-2)
14. Devil Rays 45.7 (0)

longshot7
02-10-2005, 05:39 PM
I think there is no question that the Sox's rotation is better than Toronto, Oakland, and arguably the Indians - but don't automatically blow off the Tribe because people are picking them. They're really that good, and I think they'll be better than the Twins this season.

ja1022
02-10-2005, 05:39 PM
Well, we do have Contreras and Garland in the rotation. I think we should be ahead of the Blue Jays certainly though. The Indians too. We should be probably a couple spots higher, but I don't know why everyone is so outraged.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not outraged. In fact, it's the first I've ever heard of Jacob Luft and based on that piece, from a baseball standpoint he must have **** for brains. For evidence, look no further than the team he has ranked directly in front of the Sox at number seven, the Oakland A's. Zito and Harden---that's all they got (I know someone here at WSI likes Blanton). The guy must be a Billy Beane kiss ass to even suggest that staff is better than the Sox.

FGarcia34
02-10-2005, 05:39 PM
So, we have 4 guys that can throw 200 innings this season; Buerhle-Garcia-Contreras-Garland. El Duque is probably capable of anywhere between 120-160 innings. We also have guys like Cotts, Vizcaino, and Hermanson that are capable of spot starting. So, lets look at the total picture here.

TWINS VS. WHITE SOX ROTATION

1) Johan Santana - (20-6) 221 IP, 2.61 era, 54 BB, and 265 SO
1) Mark Buehrle - (16-10) 245 IP, 3.89 era, 51 BB, and 165 SO

2) Brad Radke - (11-8) 219 IP, 3.48 era, 26 BB and 143 SO
2) Freddy Garcia - (13-11/9-4 W/SOX) 210 IP, 3.81 era, 64 BB, 184 SO

3) Carlos Silva - (14-8) 203 IP, 4.21 era, 35 BB, 76 SO
3) "El Duque - (8-2) 84 IP, 3.30 era, 36 BB, 84 SO

4) Kyle Lohse - (9-13) 194 IP, 5.34 era, 76 BB, 111 SO
4) Jose Contreras - (13-9/5-4 W/SOX) 170 IP, 5.50 era, 84 BB, 150 SO

5) Joe Mays - ***DNP IN 2004***
5) Jon Garland - (12-11) 217 IP, 4.89 era, 76 BB, 113 SO

TWINS TOTAL - 44-35 (Rest of stats are irrelevent sp?)
WHITE SOX TOTAL - 62-43 (Yes, I know Contreras, Garcia didnt play full season W/SOX last season and I know that El Duque didnt play for the SOX last season)

If you look at the totals, Johan has the edge over Mark, Radke and Garcia look about even, however 3,4,5 look to belong to the White Sox. I dont understand how the Twins justifiably have a better Rotation that us? And if they do, they aren't 5 spots ahead of us. That is just absurd.

OEO Magglio
02-10-2005, 05:45 PM
I think there is no question that the Sox's rotation is better than Toronto, Oakland, and arguably the Indians - but don't automatically blow off the Tribe because people are picking them. They're really that good, and I think they'll be better than the Twins this season.
The Indians really aren't good........

santo=dorf
02-10-2005, 05:46 PM
2004 Innings pitched using the rotations he listed.

1. Boston: 870.2
2. NYY: 951
3. Twins: 844.2
4. Indians: 882.1
5. Angels: 878.2
6. Blue Jays: 743
7. A's: 686.1
8. Sox 927.1
9. Texas: 560
10. Tigers: 847.1
11. Orioles:719
12. Mariners: 758.2
13. Royals: 629.1
14. D-Rays: 530.2

rdivaldi
02-10-2005, 05:51 PM
The Indians really aren't good........

Amen to that. Don't believe the hype. They aren't all that young, and they aren't all that good.

MRKARNO
02-10-2005, 05:52 PM
If you look at the totals, Johan has the edge over Mark, Radke and Garcia look about even, however 3,4,5 look to belong to the White Sox. I dont understand how the Twins justifiably have a better Rotation that us? And if they do, they aren't 5 spots ahead of us. That is just absurd.

It's absolutely absurd. The rotations are actually structured pretty similarly. I dont see how one could fairly argue the White Sox are any lower than 4th.

longshot7
02-10-2005, 05:53 PM
The Indians really aren't good........

Well, I disagree. They've got some great young players over there & remind me of the 2000 White Sox. I picked em to win the division but I hope I'm wrong.

OEO Magglio
02-10-2005, 05:56 PM
Well, I disagree. They've got some great young players over there & remind me of the 2000 White Sox. I picked em to win the division but I hope I'm wrong.
Just for you longshot, I'll guarantee they finish under .500. :cool:

eastchicagosoxfan
02-10-2005, 06:01 PM
maybe this is why i havenever heard of "jacob luft" before. and with these kinds of rankings, i may never hear of him again
The Indians are the " hot team " to like this year. Guys such as Luft look at the Indians, and sees potential in their starters, because he wants to appear as an effective prognosticator. He figures he can look smart if the Indians over-achieve this year, and point to his pre-season rankings, as an, " I told you so ". If the Sox perform as expected, which basically means that they're healthy, people such as Luft will shrug their shoulders and say, " This is what you should expect out of a team with two legitimate number ones, and three really solid guys after that. " His job is to get people to read, and generate debate.

MRKARNO
02-10-2005, 06:02 PM
The Indians really aren't good........

I don't expect their hitting to improve that much over last year. Their starting pitching hasn't really gotten that better with Millwood, unless he goes 2002 or 1999 on us, but there's no reason to anticipate that. Their bullpen still sucks. I just don't see this team winning the division. They're about a .500 team or maybe an 84 win team at best, but not much better in my estimation.

OEO Magglio
02-10-2005, 06:03 PM
I don't expect their hitting to improve that much over last year. Their starting pitching hasn't really gotten that better with Millwood, unless he goes 2002 or 1999 on us, but there's no reason to anticipate that. Their bullpen still sucks. I just don't see this team winning the division. They're about a .500 team or maybe an 84 win team at best, but not much better in my estimation.
Karno, I expect their offense to be worse. I think losing Lawton and Vizquel were huge for them, those guys were their 1 and 2 hitters, they made that offense run.

MRKARNO
02-10-2005, 06:06 PM
One of the reasons why the White Sox aren't picked very often is that they're an unexciting pick to do well. Additionally, since 2001 they've dissapointed often and they've followed the same high-offense, little pitching formula for all of the years except 2003. The White Sox are radically different this year, but not many in the national media have noticed it because the only "newsworthy" acquisition was trading away Lee. Getting rid of Maggs was the only other major story. Signing El Duque, Iguchi, Hermanson, Dye, Pierzynski....these are all under-the-radar stories that are more difficult to get excited about or mentioned because of the lack of big names, but that doesnt make them any less important. The best moves are almost never the ones the national media recognizes as such at first.

MRKARNO
02-10-2005, 06:11 PM
Karno, I expect their offense to be worse. I think losing Lawton and Vizquel were huge for them, those guys were their 1 and 2 hitters, they made that offense run.

I totally agree and forgot about that. Their SS offense could be pretty bad (unless Cora plays there, at which point it would be mediocre) and they aren't the first team to gamble on Juan Gonzalez. I would expect him to fail like he has in the past. He's had exactly one good and healthy year since 2000. They will be continually overrated and will do battle with Detroit for third place this year.

JRIG
02-10-2005, 06:13 PM
My goodness people. If the season doesn't start soon, heads are going to explode around here. These are just predictions, not actual results. One writer's opinion has no impact on how that White Sox will actually play this year.
If it makes you feel any better, make a list of your predictions every time you read one you disagree with. You're just as likely to be correct.

Predictions are like *******s. They all usually stink, some just more than others.

SoxxoS
02-10-2005, 06:14 PM
One of the reasons why the White Sox aren't picked very often is that they're an unexciting pick to do well. Additionally, since 2001 they've dissapointed often and they've followed the same high-offense, little pitching formula for all of the years except 2003. The White Sox are radically different this year, but not many in the national media have noticed it because the only "newsworthy" acquisition was trading away Lee. Getting rid of Maggs was the only other major story. Signing El Duque, Iguchi, Hermanson, Dye, Pierzynski....these are all under-the-radar stories that are more difficult to get excited about or mentioned because of the lack of big names, but that doesnt make them any less important. The best moves are almost never the ones the national media recognizes as such at first.

Good point. All the people from out of town..."you guys got rid of Lee and Maggs" ...and if you try to explain the signing/acquisition of AJP, Iguchi, Hermanson, Vizcaino, Pods, and El Duque, they aren't impressed. Whatever.

UTR. Under the Radar.

zach074
02-10-2005, 06:14 PM
See kids this is what drugs can do to you! You may end up writing articles like this!

MRKARNO
02-10-2005, 06:22 PM
My goodness people. If the season doesn't start soon, heads are going to explode around here. These are just predictions, not actual results. One writer's opinion has no impact on how that White Sox will actually play this year.
If it makes you feel any better, make a list of your predictions every time you read one you disagree with. You're just as likely to be correct.

Predictions are like *******s. They all usually stink, some just more than others.

Awww, cmon JRIG, why you gotta spoil the fun? It's not like there's a lot else to talk about anyways, and arguing with projections and backing it up with reasons is perfectly valid.

The Wunsch
02-10-2005, 06:24 PM
For comparisons sake, where would you put the indians top 2 if they were in our rotation,

certainly not in front of mark and freddy.

BigFrankRetard
02-10-2005, 06:25 PM
How the hell did the A's (after losing Hudson and Mulder), Rangers, and Tigers get into the Top 10? That's just absurd. I could maybe see the Jays and Indians sneaking into the Top 10 if they got very lucky with stud years out of their top two guys.

Wow. I've seen some real garbage analysis in the past, but this absolutely takes the cake... :o:

ja1022
02-10-2005, 06:26 PM
Predictions are like *******s. They all usually stink, some just more than others.

....and everybody has one.

JRIG
02-10-2005, 06:36 PM
Awww, cmon JRIG, why you gotta spoil the fun? It's not like there's a lot else to talk about anyways, and arguing with projections and backing it up with reasons is perfectly valid.

That's why I'm praying for the season to begin.

Have your fun. I just think it's fairly inconsequential. It's not like Phil Rogers' ridiculous "30/180" pitching stat from a few years ago, where we can tear apart a premise. This is just one east coast writer's opinion on who may end up with the best pitching staff in 2 months.

MRKARNO
02-10-2005, 06:40 PM
That's why I'm praying for the season to begin.

Have your fun. I just think it's fairly inconsequential. It's not like Phil Rogers' ridiculous "30/180" pitching stat from a few years ago, where we can tear apart a premise. This is just one east coast writer's opinion on who may end up with the best pitching staff in 2 months.

Oh I'm in the same boat for sure in terms of being overanxious for the season to begin, but we still have 3 weeks until ST games start and 7 weeks until the season starts :( . Well, 20 of the ST games are on TV, so once we get to that point I think we'll all be ok around here.

balke
02-10-2005, 06:42 PM
The onlly reason people think the Tribe will be any good is because they beat the yankees like 22-0. "If they beat the Yankees, they MUUUSSST be good". Lawton was a pretty big loss, he crushed us. I like Millwood, but man give me a break. We'll see in about 2 months who's who in the AL central.

JRIG
02-10-2005, 06:50 PM
For comparisons sake, where would you put the indians top 2 if they were in our rotation,

certainly not in front of mark and freddy.

I'm assuming you mean Sabathia and Millwood.

If so I'd bunch them very tight and have Buehrle just ahead of Sabathia just ahead of Garcia just ahead of Millwood. The biggest difference there is probably between Buehrle and the rest, and even that's not real big at all.

balke
02-10-2005, 07:06 PM
yeah I agree with JRIG. Contreres could be better than everyone... but he probably won't be. I like Sabathia and Millwood, I can't say anything bad about them.

We shouldn't blow ourselves up bigger than we are though. I like our team on paper, let's take the field for a while before we get our panties in a bunch. Just about anyone can be a dud in any given season. Especially right now, w/ steroid policies in place. I doubt any sox are on the juice, but you never know. I like evaluating the team about 15 games in

Ol' No. 2
02-10-2005, 07:22 PM
Same old same old. No respect.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=2480

FGarcia34
02-10-2005, 07:39 PM
And you know what else is absolutely baffling? How about the fact that Oakland traded away Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder. They have 2 minor leaguers taking their place. With that, they are ranked ahead of the White Sox.

...AND WE HAVE QUESTIONS IN OUR ROTATION???:angry: :rolleyes: :?:

ondafarm
02-10-2005, 07:59 PM
I've seen more competent analysts leading herds of ovines.

SEALgep
02-10-2005, 08:08 PM
The onlly reason people think the Tribe will be any good is because they beat the yankees like 22-0. "If they beat the Yankees, they MUUUSSST be good". Lawton was a pretty big loss, he crushed us. I like Millwood, but man give me a break. We'll see in about 2 months who's who in the AL central.I actually put some money on the Tribe that game. Not because I thought they'd win, but the money line wasn't accurate. Even though I didn't win any more for the blow out, it was pretty cool to watch. Especially when Loaiza helped keep the rally going.:bandance:

OEO Magglio
02-10-2005, 08:45 PM
My goodness people. If the season doesn't start soon, heads are going to explode around here. These are just predictions, not actual results. One writer's opinion has no impact on how that White Sox will actually play this year.
If it makes you feel any better, make a list of your predictions every time you read one you disagree with. You're just as likely to be correct.

Predictions are like *******s. They all usually stink, some just more than others.
I agree JRIG, that there really is no reason to worry about projections, I think everyone is just getting bored and impatiently waiting for the season to start. There is just nothing to talk about right now.

Dadawg_77
02-10-2005, 10:03 PM
3) Carlos Silva - (14-8) 203 IP, 4.21 era, 35 BB, 76 SO
3) "El Duque - (8-2) 84 IP, 3.30 era, 36 BB, 84 SO

4) Kyle Lohse - (9-13) 194 IP, 5.34 era, 76 BB, 111 SO
4) Jose Contreras - (13-9/5-4 W/SOX) 170 IP, 5.50 era, 84 BB, 150 SO

5) Joe Mays - ***DNP IN 2004***
5) Jon Garland - (12-11) 217 IP, 4.89 era, 76 BB, 113 SO

TWINS TOTAL - 44-35 (Rest of stats are irrelevent sp?)
WHITE SOX TOTAL - 62-43 (Yes, I know Contreras, Garcia didnt play full season W/SOX last season and I know that El Duque didnt play for the SOX last season)

If you look at the totals, Johan has the edge over Mark, Radke and Garcia look about even, however 3,4,5 look to belong to the White Sox. I dont understand how the Twins justifiably have a better Rotation that us? And if they do, they aren't 5 spots ahead of us. That is just absurd.

Silva vs El Duque comes down to how healthy El Duque and if Silva figured something out in Sept of last year. I think He got lucky since his strikeout rate didn't rise and the defense behind him didn't change but his BAA fell to 2.71. His September was great and help push the Twins into the playoffs. That I think is weighing too heavily in the minds of baseball people this off season. I think Silva isn't as good as hyped, but I can see how one could look at Sept 2004 and expect great things.

Lohse vs Contreras is pretty much even. Both are guys who are wild but can dominate if they are on. I would rate Contreras a little bit higher since he strikesout more people and when you are wild that helps.

Garland and Mays. Garland has been a average pitcher and that what I would expect from him for upcoming season. I wouldn't discount Mays because of the Tommy John surgery, it is common now and players come back from it on a regular basis. What I would look at is 2001 season versus 2002 and 2003 seasons. His 2001 season was great but his 2002 and 2003 seasons were horrible.

Sargeant79
02-10-2005, 10:45 PM
I think the whole article is a little ridiculous. The rankings of a few teams are completely off-base. Not to say that we have the best rotation in the AL, but I think we have potential for it to wind up in the top quarter of the league.

More importantly, I'm all for the lack of respect everyone has been giving us in the press. There's less pressure when you have the opportunity to fly under the radar. I think our pitching will work out well, and I think it will surprise a lot of people. Nobody thought the '03 Marlins or '01 Angels had all that great of a team going into spring training either.

Vestigio
02-10-2005, 10:50 PM
Nobody thought the '03 Marlins or '01 Angels had all that great of a team going into spring training either.

Hell nobody thought they were that good for the first half of the season.

Chisox003
02-10-2005, 10:54 PM
Originally Posted by Sargeant79
Nobody thought the '03 Marlins or '01 Angels had all that great of a team going into spring training either.


Hell nobody thought they were that good for the first half of the season.

The Marlins were in complete turmoil the first half of the year...I remember when they fired their manager (May or June?) and Boston Gammons said that it was a move a team cant recover from midseason...A few months later, world champs....This season also began "The Manuel Countdown"

Anything could happen

fuzzy_patters
02-10-2005, 11:03 PM
I think we have a better pitching rotation then most of those teams, but I can see the argument both ways for most of them. At this point it is all very subjective.

However, I cannot understand why this writer rated Oakland over the Sox. Is he just a Billy Bean lover, or what does he see here? Two of their listed starters are big question marks because they have not pitched in the big leagues. They are highly rated prospects but so was Jon Rauch. Those kids could turn into our fifth starters from the last few years just as easily as they could become good pitchers. I thought stat-heads believed there was no such thing as a pitching prospect. I guess that only holds true if Billy Bean isn't involved.

T-Bone
02-10-2005, 11:52 PM
The Cardinals were very under the radar last season as well.

Everyone had the Cubs or Astros winning the Central.

popilius
02-11-2005, 01:26 AM
Same old same old. No respect.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=2480

Nice! :drool:

Putting Toronto's pitching ahead of us is unbelievably ridiculous.

longshot7
02-11-2005, 04:08 AM
Hell nobody thought they were that good for the first half of the season.

Actually, the 2002 Angels won 19 of 26 in May. Not too shabby. they were only eclipsed in the news by Oakland, who won 19 in a row.

longshot7
02-11-2005, 04:09 AM
Just for you longshot, I'll guarantee they finish under .500. :cool:

wanna bet?

Jjav829
02-11-2005, 07:52 AM
You know what that reminds me of?

THE KANSAS CITY ROYALS OF 2004.

Nah, that's not a fair comparison. The Royals pitching sucked. That had what looked to be a good offense at the start of the year. But injuries and overall poor performance let them down. The Indians have much more depth on offense that even with a few injuries or underachievers, their offense will be fine. The pitching staff can't even be compared. Kansas City's opening day starter was Brian Anderson! That's pathetic. Their entire rotation was mediocre at its very best, but they all pitched even worse. Cleveland has some legitimate talent in its rotation. Sabathia is a good front line starter. Westbrook is a good #3 starter. If Millwood bounces back from his poor 2004, the top of their rotation is very good. Nowhere near Kansas City's 2004 front of the rotation. Lee had a very good run until he fell off last year. He's likely going to get better in his 2nd full season. And Elarton isn't a bad #5 starter. The Indians have a good team. They aren't even close to the Royals of 2004.

Now you want to make a good comparison to the 2004 Royals, try the Tigers. That team is set up like the Royals. No front line starter, a few guys with potential to have a good year and a few veterans who could go either way. As for the offense, they have the same potential to go down hill with an injury or some bad performances. The Tigers are your 2004 Royals comparison.

JRIG
02-11-2005, 08:12 AM
Nah, that's not a fair comparison. The Royals pitching sucked. That had what looked to be a good offense at the start of the year. But injuries and overall poor performance let them down. The Indians have much more depth on offense that even with a few injuries or underachievers, their offense will be fine. The pitching staff can't even be compared. Kansas City's opening day starter was Brian Anderson! That's pathetic. Their entire rotation was mediocre at its very best, but they all pitched even worse. Cleveland has some legitimate talent in its rotation. Sabathia is a good front line starter. Westbrook is a good #3 starter. If Millwood bounces back from his poor 2004, the top of their rotation is very good. Nowhere near Kansas City's 2004 front of the rotation. Lee had a very good run until he fell off last year. He's likely going to get better in his 2nd full season. And Elarton isn't a bad #5 starter. The Indians have a good team. They aren't even close to the Royals of 2004.

Now you want to make a good comparison to the 2004 Royals, try the Tigers. That team is set up like the Royals. No front line starter, a few guys with potential to have a good year and a few veterans who could go either way. As for the offense, they have the same potential to go down hill with an injury or some bad performances. The Tigers are your 2004 Royals comparison.

Agreed. I was one of those who bought into the Royals in 2004, overlooking the good chance the pitching would tank. Add in the injuries and they were finished.

But the Indians are different. Their rotation ::shouldn't:: fall apart and they've built a solid lineup with patient hitters who will take walks. Hafner and Victor Martinez are the real deal IMO. I'm not going to make them the favorite, but I honestly don't expect them to spit the bit like KC last year.

balke
02-11-2005, 08:38 AM
Not to mention one of their biggest offseason transactions was acquiring JUAN GONZALEZ! GOod grief I never bought into that team. People liked thier lineup, when ours was by far one of the best in the league, and definitely the best in the division. We, Frank Thomas and Maggs, them an (at that time) unproven Beltran, and Matt Stairs.

The breakdown of the Indians staff shows they could easily be put ahead of us in predictions. All you have to do is look at the #'s of some of our starters last seaon. I think our staff has better talent, and with 5 starters on full rest, those ERA's should drop considerably. But, let's just play and see. We aren't good enough to run away w/ anything. Looks like it will be a tight 4-team division. Really, we shouldn't count out the Royals either, but it's pretty likely they'll blow again.

Flight #24
02-11-2005, 10:19 AM
Cleveland has some legitimate talent in its rotation. Sabathia is a good front line starter. Westbrook is a good #3 starter. If Millwood bounces back from his poor 2004, the top of their rotation is very good. Nowhere near Kansas City's 2004 front of the rotation. Lee had a very good run until he fell off last year. He's likely going to get better in his 2nd full season. And Elarton isn't a bad #5 starter. The Indians have a good team. They aren't even close to the Royals of 2004.


FWIW: Millwood put up some very familiar stats last year: 1.46WHIP, 4.85ERA, 1.10GB/FB. Compare those to this guy: 1.38WHIP / 4.89ERA / 1.24GB/FB.
Basically, the Indians are counting on Jon Garland to be their #2 starter.

It is true that he pitched better in 2003 (4.01ERA, 1.25WHIP, 1.04GB/FB), but his consistently low GB/FB ratio seems to make him a poor fit for the Jake. That IMO will be the downfall of the Tribe unless they get someone like Westbrook to take a big step up.

longshot7
02-11-2005, 11:50 AM
Not to mention one of their biggest offseason transactions was acquiring JUAN GONZALEZ! GOod grief I never bought into that team. People liked thier lineup, when ours was by far one of the best in the league, and definitely the best in the division. We, Frank Thomas and Maggs, them an (at that time) unproven Beltran, and Matt Stairs.

True, but they're counting big time on the continued development of all their young hitters. Not just Hafner and Martinez - I like Blake, Broussard, and Belliard too. And they have chemistry, like the Twins, and hopefully now, we do too.

bobj4400
02-11-2005, 01:45 PM
Utter garbage. How the hell do guys like that get paid to write about baseball?
The best part of his article was this little tidbit: "Wins and losses aren't mentioned because they are overrated statistics"

Wins and losses are overrated statistics? Huh? What? That is the most asinine comment I have ever heard. Wins and Losses are the most important statistic!

ja1022
02-11-2005, 02:10 PM
Wins and losses are overrated statistics? Huh? What? That is the most asinine comment I have ever heard. Wins and Losses are the most important statistic!

Well, no ****. That was my point. Sometimes a point is so obvious it shouldn't need to be in teal.

JRIG
02-11-2005, 02:51 PM
Wins and losses are overrated statistics? Huh? What? That is the most asinine comment I have ever heard. Wins and Losses are the most important statistic!

Wins and losses for pitchers are overrated because they are dependent on how the offense performs. A starter could have an ERA of 1.00 and still have 0 wins if the offense never scores any runs for him.

bobj4400
02-11-2005, 04:22 PM
Well, no ****. That was my point. Sometimes a point is so obvious it shouldn't need to be in teal.

And you need to learn how to read, my comment referred to the dip**** who wrote the article. Although after your little hissy fit I am not sure that you arent one as well...

bobj4400
02-11-2005, 04:25 PM
Wins and losses for pitchers are overrated because they are dependent on how the offense performs. A starter could have an ERA of 1.00 and still have 0 wins if the offense never scores any runs for him.

Wins and Losses are not overrated. I understand your point about not getting run support, but the whole point of playing is to WIN THE GAME...if you pitch a 1 hitter and lose, that sucks, but it is still a loss. wins are all that matter.

Ol' No. 2
02-11-2005, 04:28 PM
Wins and Losses are not overrated. I understand your point about not getting run support, but the whole point of playing is to WIN THE GAME...if you pitch a 1 hitter and lose, that sucks, but it is still a loss. wins are all that matter.So then Kenny Rogers (18W) is better than Randy Johnson (16W)? Yeah. That makes sense.:?:

ja1022
02-11-2005, 05:44 PM
And you need to learn how to read, my comment referred to the dip**** who wrote the article. Although after your little hissy fit I am not sure that you arent one as well...

Sorry Bob. One of those "kick the dog kind of days". Venting.