PDA

View Full Version : sleepers


Hawkeroo1980
02-27-2006, 12:19 PM
am I the only one that thinks that Pittsburgh and Milwaukee's pictching staff could run laps around the cubs? Why are the cubs getting the same over-hyped pub about their crumby staff.

i would take capuano, zach duke, Oliver perez, sheets and doug davis over ANY cub starter.

also, Mike Gonzalez, derrick turnbow over "ryan dumpster"

pitching will win you championships much like a stifiling defense will in the NFL. both these teams are stacked.....i look for one of them to suprise in the NL central. Hopefully

chisoxmike
02-27-2006, 12:30 PM
am I the only one that thinks that Pittsburgh and Milwaukee's pictching staff could run laps around the cubs? Why are the cubs getting the same over-hyped pub about their crumby staff.

i would take capuano, zach duke, Oliver perez, sheets and doug davis over ANY cub starter.

also, Mike Gonzalez, derrick turnbow over "ryan dumpster"

pitching will win you championships much like a stifiling defense will in the NFL. both these teams are stacked.....i look for one of them to suprise in the NL central. Hopefully

Yeah but if the Cubs pitching is healthy, they will be a force too.

Hawkeroo1980
02-27-2006, 01:02 PM
Yeah but if the Cubs pitching is healthy, they will be a force too.

Mark prior and Kerry wood remind me alot of Josh Beckett. Could be shut-down if they could stay healthy. Unfortunatly for them (fortunatly) they always have injury concerns. However, if they are healthy....i still see holes all over their entire pitching staff.

Zambrano is pretty damn good when he's not flying off the handle.
Prior -- injuries
Wood -- injuries
Williams -- decent at best
Rusch -- had a few great games 2 years ago but thats it....he's no good

in fact their rotation is starting to remind me of the Sox rotation that featured Loiza, Buerhle, Garland, wright, and Rausch

Tekijawa
02-27-2006, 01:18 PM
Zambrano is pretty damn good when he's not flying off the handle.
Prior -- injuries
Wood -- injuries
Williams -- decent at best
Rusch -- had a few great games 2 years ago but thats it....he's no good


I know Maddux is Old but don't forget about him.

skottyj242
02-27-2006, 02:47 PM
am I the only one that thinks that Pittsburgh and Milwaukee's pictching staff could run laps around the cubs? Why are the cubs getting the same over-hyped pub about their crumby staff.

i would take capuano, zach duke, Oliver perez, sheets and doug davis over ANY cub starter.

also, Mike Gonzalez, derrick turnbow over "ryan dumpster"

pitching will win you championships much like a stifiling defense will in the NFL. both these teams are stacked.....i look for one of them to suprise in the NL central. Hopefully

I agree with you about Ben Sheets but healthy I think you're kind of stretching it with the rest of them.

DSpivack
02-27-2006, 03:56 PM
I agree with you about Ben Sheets but healthy I think you're kind of stretching it with the rest of them.

Capuano won 18 games last year, Duke looked awesome though in just 14 starts last year, Davis is a consistent guy who isn't great but has pitched over 200 innings the last two years, and Perez was great in 2004 but sucked last year.

I'd take Capuano and Duke easily, Davis maybe because he's durable and no Cub is as durable and good, and not Perez.

Hawkeroo1980
02-27-2006, 04:09 PM
Capuano won 18 games last year, Duke looked awesome though in just 14 starts last year, Davis is a consistent guy who isn't great but has pitched over 200 innings the last two years, and Perez was great in 2004 but sucked last year.

I'd take Capuano and Duke easily, Davis maybe because he's durable and no Cub is as durable and good, and not Perez.

Perez was downright filthy in '04

he averaged double digit strikeouts and recorded a pretty good amount of wins considering the team he played for

Zach Duke was the best young pitcher in the game last year before a freakish injury shut him down.

NonetheLoaiza
02-27-2006, 04:42 PM
Dempster really isn't that bad. His statistics weren't awful, considering that he was thrust into the closer's role pretty abruptly. He struggled right out of the gate, but then he settled down, and was pretty efficient.

But, some of the pitching in the NL Central, more specifically with the Pirates and Brew Crew, as you mentioned looks like a force. Some of those staffs can have another solid year, making the Central pretty competitive.

Chicken Dinner
02-27-2006, 05:52 PM
Yeah but if the Cubs pitching is healthy, they will be a force too.

And when was the last time the Cubs staff was healthy??

Kuzman
02-28-2006, 05:59 AM
And when was the last time the Cubs staff was healthy??
2003 and look how deep in the playoffs they went

FedEx227
02-28-2006, 03:26 PM
And look what cost them any chance of going deeper, pitching.

In my opinion, not as a Sox fan, but as a general person the Cubs staff is overrated.
-Prior, yes hes awesome, we've seen that. Outside of the 2003 Playoffs he has had a fantastic career, but at this point his arm/schedule/everything has been screwed up. Can't wait to see this guy in a new organzation.
-Wood has never shown us anything more than .500 pitching and strikeouts his whole career, hes Nolan Ryan with awful mechanics.
-Zambrano is good when hes got his head in the game, but theres no excuse for some of the things he does, we can play potential game all day, but until he controls his anger hes nothing more then an inconsistent pitcher.
-Glendon Rusch is decent but doesn't get the recognition he probably deserves, but hes shown that he cannot string together 2-3 consecutive GOOD seasons.
-Williams was good but has definetly digressed from what he showed the San Fran organization in 2003.
-Maddux, Mr. Consistency, but hes getting old, as we saw last season some teams are still fooled by him, but most aren't anymore.

I do believe the Milwaukee staff could challenge the Cubs staff, but I won't say that until David Bush proves hes more then a 5-10 pitcher.

SOXintheBURGH
02-28-2006, 03:33 PM
I love the Bucs but their staff is not all that capable aside from Duke, who was good last year, and Perez, who was good two years ago and sucked last year. Brewers I can agree with, though.

Craig Grebeck
02-28-2006, 03:34 PM
For anyone saying Wood is no good because of a lack of wins...WIN TOTALS ARE THE MOST USELESS STATS TO EVALUATE PITCHERS. I'm not saying he's great, but he's pretty damn filthy and is young enough to recover from all of his problems.

rowand33
03-01-2006, 11:55 PM
copied from a post of mine at bodybuilding.com:

"look at their lineup:

Brady Clark- CF
Rickie Weeks- 2B
Carlos Lee- LF
Prince Fielder- 1B
Geoff Jenkins- RF
Corey Koskie- 3B
JJ Hardy- SS
Damien Miller- C

Clark is a pretty good leadoff man. Weeks is an uber-prospect and was a stud last year. He'll definately improve on his rookie half-season. Lee is awesome. Fielder is an uber-prospect who put up decent numbers when called up last yaer and had a great AAA season; he's supposed to be a big power bat. Jenkins will do what he always does (around 25 homers and 90 RBI), Koskie is a great fielder, Hardy is one of their top prospects and hit .308 after the allstar break. Miller puts up decent numbers for a catcher (.273 AVG, 9 HR, 43 RBI). And don't forget Bill Hall, who's an awesome utility man, and gives them pretty good injury insurance for the infield after his .291/.342/.495 line last year.

basically, as far as the offense is concerned, if the kids are alright, the offense will be really good.

and they have a decent staff too:

Sheets (10-9 3.33 ERA)
Davis (11-11 3.84 ERA)
Capuano (18-12 3.99 ERA)
Ohka (11-9 4.04 ERA overall, 4-3 3.33 ERA with Milwaukee)
Bush (5-11 4.49 ERA w/ Toronto)

their pitching in general was pretty good last year, ranking 5th in the NL with a 3.97 ERA. Turnbow was a great closer last year (7-1 1.74 ERA 39 svs). 4 other relievers on the team had ERAs in the 2s, 2 others had ERAs in the 3s.

I think that with the improvements to the rotation (full year of Ohka, Bush at 5), the acquisition of Koskie, and the (expected) development of the kids that the Brewers will improve from their 81 wins in 2005 to around 88-90 wins in 2006, which would put them in a playoff spot.

The NL is really weak, and it seems that just about every other team is getting worse. They might even win the NL Central if Fielder turns out to be the monster he's projected to be because I think that the Cards are worse than they were last year.

I like the makeup of this Brewers team and think that they should be among the class of the NL.

EDIT: frankly, both the Brewers and the Pirates remind me a lot of the 2005 White Sox. The difference is that the Pirates staff is young (Duke looks studly, so does Maholm, but who knows over a full season. will they be injured?) and the Brewers lineup is young. but find a hole on either team. you can't. the only major negative anywhere on the field for both teams is youth

not saying that the pirates will win the division or anything like that. I expect them to be at .500 though."

edit from here: I'm pretty high on the Brewers this year. I think they're, at worst, 2nd in the NL Central

palehozenychicty
03-02-2006, 08:35 AM
The Brewers have a chance to be good, but they'll have to win the division to reach the postseason. The NL East will grab the wild card this year, being either the Braves or Mets. My sleeper NL pick is the Dodgers, though. I like their staff of Lowe, Perez, Seo, and Penny. The bullpen could be excellent with Brazoban returning to setup, Baez as the 8th inning man, and Gagne throwing heat in the 9th. The lineup has a balance of speed, plate discipline, and power as well with Drew, No-mah, Kent, Lofton, Furcal, Mueller, and Izturis returning from Tommy John surgery in the summer. IF they stay healthy, look out....

SOXintheBURGH
03-02-2006, 08:54 AM
The Brewers have a chance to be good, but they'll have to win the division to reach the postseason. The NL East will grab the wild card this year, being either the Braves or Mets. My sleeper NL pick is the Dodgers, though. I like their staff of Lowe, Perez, Seo, and Penny. The bullpen could be excellent with Brazoban returning to setup, Baez as the 8th inning man, and Gagne throwing heat in the 9th. The lineup has a balance of speed, plate discipline, and power as well with Drew, No-mah, Kent, Lofton, Furcal, Mueller, and Izturis returning from Tommy John surgery in the summer. IF they stay healthy, look out....

1. Penny
2. Lowe
3. Perez
4. Seo
5. Tomko

1B Nomar
2B Kent
3B Mueller
SS Furcal
OF Drew
OF Lofton
OF Cruz/Ledee
C Alomar

Gagne
Baez
Brazoban

Looks impressive, and the West is putrid. Think Blue.

Hangar18
03-02-2006, 09:48 AM
am I the only one that thinks that Pittsburgh and Milwaukee's pictching staff could run laps around the cubs? Why are the cubs getting the same over-hyped pub about their crumby staff.

i would take capuano, zach duke, Oliver perez, sheets and doug davis over ANY cub starter.

also, Mike Gonzalez, derrick turnbow over "ryan dumpster"

pitching will win you championships much like a stifiling defense will in the NFL. both these teams are stacked.....i look for one of them to suprise in the NL central. Hopefully

Im not sold on these teams, I think Pirates might hover around .500, until they trade more players away again ...........

fquaye149
03-02-2006, 10:32 AM
For anyone saying Wood is no good because of a lack of wins...WIN TOTALS ARE THE MOST USELESS STATS TO EVALUATE PITCHERS. I'm not saying he's great, but he's pretty damn filthy and is young enough to recover from all of his problems.

a.) Wins aren't completely useless...yes there's a lot of outside factors that can hurt a pitcher's win total with no fault his own, but when you're Kerry Wood and you only go like 5 innings a game and put a lot of runners on base, you put your team in a position to lose a lot more often than a pitcher like Buehrle who doesn't make his team rely on its (in the Cubs' case, lousy) bullpen or give it the chance to make (in the Cubs' case) likely errors leading to UER

b.) Woods other important numbers like ERA and WHIP aren't all that impressive. The only numbers that are really that great are k/9...but his bb/9 is comparably high.

fquaye149
03-02-2006, 10:36 AM
EDIT: frankly, both the Brewers and the Pirates remind me a lot of the 2005 White Sox. The difference is that the Pirates staff is young (Duke looks studly, so does Maholm, but who knows over a full season. will they be injured?) and the Brewers lineup is young. but find a hole on either team. you can't. the only major negative anywhere on the field for both teams is youth

not saying that the pirates will win the division or anything like that. I expect them to be at .500 though."

edit from here: I'm pretty high on the Brewers this year. I think they're, at worst, 2nd in the NL Central

It's pretty easy to find a hole on either team. Let's not even talk about the Pirates, cuz they won't contend..but on the Brewers. Hm

does the name Joe Crede ring a bell? Remember what agreat half season he had as a rookie? All the young players are big question marks. I think Weeks, Hardy and Fielder will probably be, at worst, very solid major leaguers...but in their first full seasons? And all of them? And how about catcher? And how about middle relief? And how about the back end of the rotation?

The Brewers will contend in 2007. They are one year away in my opinion...

true if everyone plays out of their mind, they might finish 2nd...but I'll give that nod to the Astros this year. The Brewers will win at least 80 though

fquaye149
03-02-2006, 10:39 AM
Im not sold on these teams, I think Pirates might hover around .500, until they trade more players away again ...........


waaaah waaah waaah:whiner::whiner::whiner::whiner:

they traded SUPERSTARS randall simon, jeff suppan, and kris benson.

WILL YOU GET OVER THE RAMIREZ TRADE FOR GOODNESS SAKES?

palehozenychicty
03-02-2006, 10:41 AM
It's pretty easy to find a hole on either team. Let's not even talk about the Pirates, cuz they won't contend..but on the Brewers. Hm

does the name Joe Crede ring a bell? Remember what agreat half season he had as a rookie? All the young players are big question marks. I think Weeks, Hardy and Fielder will probably be, at worst, very solid major leaguers...but in their first full seasons? And all of them? And how about catcher? And how about middle relief? And how about the back end of the rotation?

The Brewers will contend in 2007. They are one year away in my opinion...

true if everyone plays out of their mind, they might finish 2nd...but I'll give that nod to the Astros this year. The Brewers will win at least 80 though


In '07, people will fear the brew crew. the bucs' lineup just looks hurt to me. they'll be excellent defensively. but jason bay needs some help. signing jack wilson to a $7 mil/year deal was pretty stupid as well, as his offensive numbers have declined. but littlefield thinks little. not surprising.

SOXintheBURGH
03-02-2006, 11:20 AM
waaaah waaah waaah:whiner::whiner::whiner::whiner:

they traded SUPERSTARS randall simon, jeff suppan, and kris benson.

WILL YOU GET OVER THE RAMIREZ TRADE FOR GOODNESS SAKES?

Seriously.. it was a GD SALARY DUMP. It happens every year around the league.

fquaye149
03-02-2006, 03:07 PM
Seriously.. it was a GD SALARY DUMP. It happens every year around the league.

For instance, the Chicago White Sox benefited from a similar dump in 2004.

Oh KW you're not a genius, other teams just are dying to give players to you

batmanZoSo
03-02-2006, 04:07 PM
Seriously.. it was a GD SALARY DUMP. It happens every year around the league.

It's still straight up bogus that a team will flat out give good players to a division rival. I'll never accept that, no matter how screwed up the Buddy Ball regime.

rowand33
03-02-2006, 04:38 PM
It's pretty easy to find a hole on either team. Let's not even talk about the Pirates, cuz they won't contend..but on the Brewers. Hm

does the name Joe Crede ring a bell? Remember what agreat half season he had as a rookie? All the young players are big question marks. I think Weeks, Hardy and Fielder will probably be, at worst, very solid major leaguers...but in their first full seasons? And all of them? And how about catcher? And how about middle relief? And how about the back end of the rotation?

The Brewers will contend in 2007. They are one year away in my opinion...

true if everyone plays out of their mind, they might finish 2nd...but I'll give that nod to the Astros this year. The Brewers will win at least 80 though

By holes I mean that you look at the lineup and are like "wow, that's a bad player starting." like looking at the Marlins lineup. I said in my post "as long as the kids are alright." I don't consider youth to be a glaring hole. These are top prospects; they are certainly question marks, but they are not holes. And let's not discount the fact that they all played pretty well last year. I feel the Brewers have a shot at high 80s wins as long as the kids perform as above average regulars, which I would expect them to.

I think the backend of the rotation is strong and I think the middle relief is good. Ohka and Bush constitutes a pretty strong backend in today's league. And their bullpen was not that bad last year. Wise, Capellan, and de La Rosa aren't bad, neither is Helling. and who knows what Kolb will do (though I expect nothing, I wasn't a Kolb fan during his monster year, but maybe going home to Milwaukee will do him some good).

don't forget that this team won 81 games last year with guys like Cirillo starting and without the current rotation, and I don't know how you can predict the Astros to finish 2nd in that division with their rotation. No Clemens=No chance in hell. You wanna talk about no backend of a rotation? Wandy Rodriguez and Ezequiel Astacio? two guys with 5+ ERAs last year. no good. And I fully believe that Brad Lidge will never be the same after last years playoffs.

The Brewers will be in the playoff hunt in 2006. For years, I've heard people say "some day the brewers are gonna be good with that farm system of theirs."
I think some day has come.

PKalltheway
03-03-2006, 11:40 AM
For anyone saying Wood is no good because of a lack of wins...WIN TOTALS ARE THE MOST USELESS STATS TO EVALUATE PITCHERS. I'm not saying he's great, but he's pretty damn filthy and is young enough to recover from all of his problems.

Exactly! That's what ERA is for! That's like saying Randy Johnson stunk in 2004 with a 16-14 record. In truth he was on a team that lost 111 games!:o: Can't blame Randy for that. Roger Clemens in 2005 is another example. He was on a good team but he didn't get a lot of run support last year. You could also look at Nolan Ryan in 1974. He won 22 games for the Angels who lost 94 games and finished in last in the AL West. In 1987, Nolan Ryan tied for the lowest ERA amongst starters in the majors and finished 8-16!:o: Even though Ryan is the all time leader in walks, you can't criticize how good of a pitcher he was just on wins and losses because he was on a lot of terrible teams that gave him no run support. I'm not supporting Kerry Wood here but you just have to be realistic. You can't judge how good a pitcher is on just wins and losses.

voodoochile
03-03-2006, 12:27 PM
Nice discussion of the Pirates and Brewers with some excellent analysis of the Dodgers too.

This belonged in TB, so I moved it...

SOXintheBURGH
03-03-2006, 12:28 PM
Freddy Garcia lost a one-hitter last season. W-L is meaningless to me in evaluating a pitcher.

voodoochile
03-03-2006, 12:31 PM
Freddy Garcia lost a one-hitter last season. W-L is meaningless to me in evaluating a pitcher.

Not totally meaningless, because good pitchers will find ways to win games they shouldn't by limiting damage when they are off or staying on track after a couple of UR runs or holding on and throwing a 1-hitter when their team is struggling to hit the ball.

Probably a better evaluation is team wins/start, but it still comes down to W-L.

ondafarm
03-03-2006, 12:38 PM
I like the Brewers, but I don't think they'll beat the Cards for the NLCD. With six teams in the division and four of them pretty good to very good (Cards, Astros, Bucs and Brewers, in no order) I don't think the wild card will come from the NLCD.

Then again, from where? Maybe the Giants or the Braves?

fquaye149
03-03-2006, 01:13 PM
Not totally meaningless, because good pitchers will find ways to win games they shouldn't by limiting damage when they are off or staying on track after a couple of UR runs or holding on and throwing a 1-hitter when their team is struggling to hit the ball.

Probably a better evaluation is team wins/start, but it still comes down to W-L.

Exactly. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because of extreme examples like Freddy's one hitter is silly.

Kerry Wood is the perfect example. His ERA is passable, but since he only goes 5 inningsish per game, he puts his team in an unfavorable position in ballgames. Someone like Buehrle, whose ERA is comparable to Wood's is a much better position because he goes much deeper into games and gives his team a much better chance to win.

Looking at a won/loss record by itself is foolish, you're absolutely right, but looking at any stat, ERA, K/9, etc. by itself is just as foolish. Pitching is less stat dependent than hitting, imo, which is why SABRmetrics doesn't make as many bold claims about it. IF you're going to use stats to evaluate pitching it's best to understand there's no one blanket stat (like OPS) that you can really use...you ought to take all things into consideration: ERA, W/L record, WHIP, K/9, etc.

ondafarm
03-03-2006, 02:46 PM
Wins is the most important stat to me for starting pitchers. For relievers innings pitched is the stat. For every starting pitcher who lost a 1-0 game he'll tell you he had several 8-5s that he shouldn't have won but did. Good pitchers figure out how to win more games than worse ones.

ode to veeck
03-03-2006, 03:05 PM
In a related note former Sox starter Kip Wells had an off season again last year and has some apparent physical issues this spring

Craig Grebeck
03-03-2006, 05:30 PM
See: Roger Clemens and Johan getting jobbed out of the Cy Young for why W/L is stupid. Kerry Wood does leave games earlier, partly because he pitches in the NL. He does get himself into trouble, but he is FILTHY and is still young enough to turn it around.

Also See: Dan Wright

fquaye149
03-03-2006, 06:25 PM
See: Roger Clemens and Johan getting jobbed out of the Cy Young for why W/L is stupid. Kerry Wood does leave games earlier, partly because he pitches in the NL. He does get himself into trouble, but he is FILTHY and is still young enough to turn it around.

Also See: Dan Wright

Of course Wood has good stuff. But he also has problems with walking batters and injury history. We could go on and on about which pitchers in history had great stuff and never panned out (Brien Taylor anyone?)...but it doesn't matter. The point is: right now Kerry Wood is not a very valuable pitcher to his team, and his w/l totals seem to reflect that.

Jurr
03-04-2006, 12:14 AM
Perez was downright filthy in '04

he averaged double digit strikeouts and recorded a pretty good amount of wins considering the team he played for

Zach Duke was the best young pitcher in the game last year before a freakish injury shut him down.
With Duke, Perez, and Maholm, and Mike Gonzalez in the pen, the Pirates are onto something. Great young pitching. Casey and Randa are clear upgrades offensively, as well as Burnitz. Bay, Doumit, and Eldred have a chance to be legitimate farm produced studs. Pittsburgh is close to being competitive.

Jjav829
03-05-2006, 11:39 AM
With Duke, Perez, and Maholm, and Mike Gonzalez in the pen, the Pirates are onto something. Great young pitching. Casey and Randa are clear upgrades offensively, as well as Burnitz. Bay, Doumit, and Eldred have a chance to be legitimate farm produced studs. Pittsburgh is close to being competitive.
I think you can already call Bay a stud, though he isn't exactly farm produced since he came over from the Padres in the Giles trade. I do think the Pirates are headed in the right direction, though I have to wonder if they'll be able to stick with this plan long enough to make it successful. Jason Bay is going to become a very rich man very soon. If they keep giving out big contracts to mediocre players like Jack Wilson, who knows if they'll be able to keep Bay around for the long haul.

As for my sleeper teams, I'd echo the sentiments expressed in this thread already. I think the Brewers can surprise, though they are probably a year away. Their lineup is very solid. Clark is a nice leadoff man. I'm a huge believed in Rickie Weeks ability to become a stud hitter (Alfonso Soriano with plate discipline). Realistically they are probably a year away from true contender status. They would need Weeks and Fielder to have huge years. They should have a solid rotation, but their bullpen is a big question mark. I like Dana Eveland, though he reported to camp out of shape. It remains to be seen if Turnbow can repeat the success he had last year or if Dan Kolb can pitch like he did in his last stint with the Brewers. There is potential for them to do well, though I still think they are well behind the Cards and probably behind the Astros if Clemens returns. They will probably be in the Wild Card race for a while, but ultimately fall out in August.

rowand33
03-05-2006, 07:11 PM
on the topic of "wins not being a good stat to evaluate pitchers"

I disagree.

1) I feel that there isn't one good stat to judge a player. That's why we have numerous stats. It takes wins, ERA, WHIP, BAA, and others looked at together to truly evaluate a player.

2) That being said, you can still tell something by wins. Bartolo Colon had 18 wins in 2004, but an ERA over 5. An ERA of 5 is bad, but can you really consider 18 wins to be a bad year? Pettite had 20 win seasons with an ERA over 4.
And on the other side of the coin, when Randy Johnson was on the awful 2004 Dbacks, he still won 16 games. Showing that good pitchers can still thrive on poor teams.

So, I think the whole "wins are a meaningless stat" thing is a little stupid. Good pitchers find ways to win.