PDA

View Full Version : Our lineup vs. Detroit's


shavo2k2
01-03-2008, 11:00 PM
This is by no means a negative thread, let's just try to gauge the advantages/disadvantages our team has to our biggest rival. I think we could see cleveland with an off year with questionable bullpen and defense (please agree, disagree, interject at will)

let's start with hitting:

1. Cabrera, swisher < Granderson
2. Cabrera, swisher < Polanco
3. Thome < Sheffield
4. Konerko < Mags
5. JD < Cabrera
6. Fields < Pudge (I think fields might bat better next yr. but for now...)
7. AJ = Renteria (not sure on this one)
8. Quentin = Jaque Jones (not sure / don't care / equal enough)
9. Richar < Thames???

Wow....looking at their hitting, they don't really need to use their DH until 8th or 9th on their lineup......pretty insane....Maybe I left out a player or two??

Fielding :

JD > Mags
swisher < granderson
quentin > sheffield
fields = cabrera
cabrera = renteria
richar < polanco
pauly > thames
AJ < Pudge


Pitching :
I'll let someone else go there, because I don't want to be even more pissed off after writing this thread......


Hitting : them 7 , us 0 , tied 2
Fielding : them 3, us 3, tied 2
Pitching : them a lot, us a little

:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:

gogosox16
01-03-2008, 11:02 PM
This is by no means a negative thread, let's just try to gauge the advantages/disadvantages our team has to our biggest rival. I think we could see cleveland with an off year with questionable bullpen and defense (please agree, disagree, interject at will)

let's start with hitting:

1. Cabrera, swisher < Granderson
2. Cabrera, swisher < Polanco
3. Thome < Sheffield
4. Konerko < Mags
5. JD < Cabrera
6. Fields < Pudge (I think fields might bat better next yr. but for now...)
7. AJ = Renteria (not sure on this one)
8. Quentin = Jaque Jones (not sure / don't care / equal enough)
9. Richar < Guillen

Wow....looking at their hitting, they don't really need to use their DH until 8th or 9th on their lineup......pretty insane....Maybe I left out a player or two??

Fielding :

JD > Mags
swisher < granderson
quentin > sheffield
fields = cabrera
cabrera = renteria
richar < polanco
pauly > thames
AJ < Pudge


Pitching :
I'll let someone else go there, because I don't want to be even more pissed off after writing this thread......


Hitting : them 7 , us 0 , tied 2
Fielding : them 3, us 3, tied 2
Pitching : them a lot, us a little

:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:
fixed the Thames thing at first...Carlos Guillen is there first basemen

Brian26
01-03-2008, 11:05 PM
fixed the Thames thing at first...Carlos Guillen is there first basemen

Thanks. Now the post makes perfect sense.

batmanZoSo
01-03-2008, 11:08 PM
The simplified version:

"Detroits" > ours.

btrain929
01-03-2008, 11:10 PM
This is by no means a negative thread, let's just try to gauge the advantages/disadvantages our team has to our biggest rival. I think we could see cleveland with an off year with questionable bullpen and defense (please agree, disagree, interject at will)

let's start with hitting:

1. Cabrera, swisher < Granderson
2. Cabrera, swisher < Polanco
3. Thome < Sheffield
4. Konerko < Mags
5. JD < Cabrera
6. Fields < Pudge (I think fields might bat better next yr. but for now...)
7. AJ = Renteria (not sure on this one)
8. Quentin = Jaque Jones (not sure / don't care / equal enough)
9. Richar < Thames???

Wow....looking at their hitting, they don't really need to use their DH until 8th or 9th on their lineup......pretty insane....Maybe I left out a player or two??

Fielding :

JD > Mags
swisher < granderson
quentin > sheffield
fields = cabrera
cabrera = renteria
richar < polanco
pauly > thames
AJ < Pudge


Pitching :
I'll let someone else go there, because I don't want to be even more pissed off after writing this thread......


Hitting : them 7 , us 0 , tied 2
Fielding : them 3, us 3, tied 2
Pitching : them a lot, us a little

:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:

Bold = you're wrong, in my opinion. Plus, I think the pitching would be a lot closer than you think.

Brian26
01-03-2008, 11:15 PM
The simplified version:

"Detroits" > ours.

:ass
"Da Detroits Tiger will beat the Sox this year."

Corlose 15
01-03-2008, 11:19 PM
With the addition of Swisher and Cabrera, and Paulie, Dye, Thome, and AJ returning closer to their career averages. I think the lineup rebounds big time in '08.

Tragg
01-03-2008, 11:23 PM
If this Quentin can hit, we're competitive with Detroit. That will leave it up to Contreras, Danks and, the real Mr Floyd.

HaroMaster87
01-03-2008, 11:46 PM
hmmmm...that whole position by position comparison thing is interesting and all but how did that work out last year? AND the year before? Without being able to quote the exact record, (and being too lazy to look it up), I believe we hold a significant edge in victories - both years....Good thing the season isn't played on paper.

It's about the sum of the parts....

btrain929
01-04-2008, 12:11 AM
And if we would have done this in '05, we would have lost a lot of the position battles as well.

We all know how that turned out.

Cuck the Fubs
01-04-2008, 12:38 AM
Season is not played on paper........

File this & revisit in September 2008

WhiteSox5187
01-04-2008, 12:41 AM
And if we would have done this in '05, we would have lost a lot of the position battles as well.

We all know how that turned out.
But this isn't '05 is it? Also that year we had three really solid starters going into the year, this year...we have two (and one is iffy). Granted there were questions going into that year, but I felt a hell of a lot better about the pitching then than I do now. And pitching is the name of the game.

The Sox are going to score runs, I'm not worried about that at all. Now, will they manufacture runs? I'm not so sure about that, that could be a cause for worry. But the pitching is just paper thin, paper thin. And Detroit is a hell of a lot better now then they were in '06 or '07 (on paper at least), Cleveland is better, christ Kansas City is better too.

But this is why we play the games...but I don't think it's unfair to say that right now the Detroit Tigers are better than the White Sox.

pdimas
01-04-2008, 08:19 AM
But this isn't '05 is it? Also that year we had three really solid starters going into the year, this year...we have two (and one is iffy). Granted there were questions going into that year, but I felt a hell of a lot better about the pitching then than I do now. And pitching is the name of the game.

The Sox are going to score runs, I'm not worried about that at all. Now, will they manufacture runs? I'm not so sure about that, that could be a cause for worry. But the pitching is just paper thin, paper thin. And Detroit is a hell of a lot better now then they were in '06 or '07 (on paper at least), Cleveland is better, christ Kansas City is better too.

But this is why we play the games...but I don't think it's unfair to say that right now the Detroit Tigers are better than the White Sox.


We didn't know that going into 05 either. Contreras was up and down before that. People thought El Duque was pretty much done. There were a lot of question marks about the rotation in '05...

btrain929
01-04-2008, 08:30 AM
We didn't know that going into 05 either. Contreras was up and down before that. People thought El Duque was pretty much done. There were a lot of question marks about the rotation in '05...

Exactly. We had Buehrle and Garcia. Contreras and El Duque were huge question marks. And before '05, Garland was just same ole' bla Garland.

balke
01-04-2008, 08:31 AM
Though Polanco had a great season last year, I fail to see how he's a "better" hitter than Swisher. You're talking about a 15+ HR differential there.

Yes the Tigers lineup is better than the Sox. Injuries happen, slumps happen, and the Sox aren't that far back lineup wise. Quit pissing down your leg and be thankful the Sox have as good of hitters they do. This is a pretty damn good lineup.

cws05champ
01-04-2008, 08:41 AM
Though Polanco had a great season last year, I fail to see how he's a "better" hitter than Swisher. You're talking about a 15+ HR differential there.

Yes the Tigers lineup is better than the Sox. Injuries happen, slumps happen, and the Sox aren't that far back lineup wise. Quit pissing down your leg and be thankful the Sox have as good of hitters they do. This is a pretty damn good lineup.

Amen brother:thumbsup: Can I get a Hell yeah!!!

chisox77
01-04-2008, 03:31 PM
I was just listening to Boers and Bernstein, and though they stated that the White Sox may not have a lineup quite as good as Detroit or Cleveland, they made a strong case for the Sox making the deal they made to get Swisher.

Boers kept saying that "you never know how things are going to happen." That is so true. KW will make another move or two before the season starts, but as of now, the Sox look pretty comptetive. Pitching is the big question mark since there are some young arms in the mix.

Personally, I think the Sox have enough quality position players. They need an experience pitcher or two (either a starter, or another reliever - preferably both, though they may end up getting just one or the other).



:cool:

Grzegorz
01-04-2008, 08:58 PM
That is so true. KW will make another move or two before the season starts, but as of now, the Sox look pretty comptetive. Pitching is the big question mark since there are some young arms in the mix.

I don't get it; looking pretty competitive and having pitching that is suspect are diametrical opposites.

FarWestChicago
01-04-2008, 10:38 PM
This is by no means a negative thread,
:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:How do you equate your initial statement with ending up with your absurdly verbose regurgitation that ended with multiple anger smilies? Was your initial statement complete bull**** and disingenuous? I think the answer to this question is obvious and the answer to how to deal with you is also no mystery. Shut the **** up, Asshat. :D:

DumpJerry
01-04-2008, 10:47 PM
White Sox rool. Tigers drool.

shavo2k2
01-05-2008, 12:20 AM
How do you equate your initial statement with ending up with your absurdly verbose regurgitation that ended with multiple anger smilies? Was your initial statement complete bull**** and disingenuous? I think the answer to this question is obvious and the answer to how to deal with you is also no mystery. Shut the **** up, Asshat. :D:

Thank god not everyone on this board talks like you....tool.......

"I'm disallusioned that a fellow white sox ballclub follower would have such strongly adverse reaction to a hypothetical comparison of two franchise foes. I find you morally objectionable, exceedingly presumptious, and verbally toolish."

I'm just trying to stir up some discussion........We don't need YOUR negativity.

chisoxfanatic
01-05-2008, 12:35 AM
The important thing here is that, no matter how great the Tigers' lineup is, our Sox always play them hard. Anyone can have a bad year too, so you never know how Detroit's hitting will pan out. Our guys could have career-years too! That's why they play the games.

jabrch
01-05-2008, 12:54 AM
Thank god not everyone on this board talks like you....tool.......

"I'm disallusioned that a fellow white sox ballclub follower would have such strongly adverse reaction to a hypothetical comparison of two franchise foes. I find you morally objectionable, exceedingly presumptious, and verbally toolish."

I'm just trying to stir up some discussion........We don't need YOUR negativity.


Ruh Roh....

Optipessimism
01-05-2008, 12:57 AM
Thank god not everyone on this board talks like you....tool.......

"I'm disallusioned that a fellow white sox ballclub follower would have such strongly adverse reaction to a hypothetical comparison of two franchise foes. I find you morally objectionable, exceedingly presumptious, and verbally toolish."

I'm just trying to stir up some discussion........We don't need YOUR negativity.
West's humorous posts are one of the many sparkling ornaments on the Holiday Tree that is WSI. He'll be here for a long time, so get used to it.

munchman33
01-05-2008, 12:58 AM
Bold = you're wrong, in my opinion. Plus, I think the pitching would be a lot closer than you think.

:?:

I'd be really interested in knowing why you would draw that conclusion.

They're stronger 1-5 at every spot. Everyone. Buehrle's great and all, but show me the GM that takes him over Justin Verlander. And nobody's picking Vazquez over Bonderman. And they've got Willis, Rogers, and Robertson, all locks for above league average to round out the rotation. We've got three guys who need a lot to happen just to be at league average rounding out ours. That it's anything but a 5 - 0 victory rotation-wise for them is simply preposterous.

munchman33
01-05-2008, 01:04 AM
Yes the Tigers lineup is better than the Sox. Injuries happen, slumps happen, and the Sox aren't that far back lineup wise. Quit pissing down your leg and be thankful the Sox have as good of hitters they do. This is a pretty damn good lineup.

I'm so sick and ****ing tired of this logic. Well, we've got a good lineup. It's not as good as the Tigers or Indians. And the pitching staff is third behind them too. But at least we have some talent.

If you're third best in your division, you're third best in your division. Not first best. We don't balance a worse offense than theirs' with a worse pitching staff than theirs', or vice versa. And the injury thing is not reassuring. That we have to hope the Tigers and Indians suffer catastrophic injuries is very telling about the lack of relative talent we have. Let's face it folks, talent or not, this team is at best a longshot. We should be working towards 2010, not selling our future short for at best a third place finish.

Optipessimism
01-05-2008, 01:29 AM
:?:

I'd be really interested in knowing why you would draw that conclusion.

They're stronger 1-5 at every spot. Everyone. Buehrle's great and all, but show me the GM that takes him over Justin Verlander. And nobody's picking Vazquez over Bonderman. And they've got Willis, Rogers, and Robertson, all locks for above league average to round out the rotation. We've got three guys who need a lot to happen just to be at league average rounding out ours. That it's anything but a 5 - 0 victory rotation-wise for them is simply preposterous.
I'd take Javy over Bonderman, but I agree on all other counts.

Contreras if he rebounds could be better than any of the Tigers' bottom three, but that is no guarantee. Rogers is a health risk, but so is Jose with his sciatia or however you spell that.

I don't like Floyd out of the stretch at all and would take Robertson over him in terms of results in a heartbeat, especially in a pitchers park that the Cell is where Floyd should be giving up 3-run bombs out of the stretch. And I like Danks, but again, Willis in Comerica should be better than Danks in the Cell.

Detroit just has a sick team, period, and it is built to succeed in the park they play in. On our side, our offense is built for our park but the back end of our rotation certainly isn't.

Dr_Comiskey90
01-05-2008, 01:42 AM
Amen brother:thumbsup: Can I get a Hell yeah!!!

HELL YA!

FarWestChicago
01-05-2008, 07:18 AM
Ruh Roh....

West's humorous posts are one of the many sparkling ornaments on the Holiday Tree that is WSI. He'll be here for a long time, so get used to it.He really seems to be a rather unpleasant fellow, doesn't he? I'm always a huge fan of the "I can dish it out but I can't take it" types. And he is disingenuous. :D:

santo=dorf
01-08-2008, 09:31 PM
And nobody's picking Vazquez over Bonderman.
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1667_801_P_cseason_full_6_20071001.png
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1667_801_P_aseason_full_6_20071001.png
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1667_801_P_cseason_full_0_20071001.png
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1667_801_P_aseason_full_0_20071001.png


Care for a mulligan?

Bonderman has only had 1 year where he wasn't below average.

FarWestChicago
01-08-2008, 09:51 PM
Care for a mulligan?

Bonderman has only had 1 year where he wasn't below average.Should I change your username to santo=graph? :cool:

Dan Mega
01-08-2008, 09:54 PM
Should I change your username to santo=graph? :cool:

Homefish The Return

Daver
01-08-2008, 09:54 PM
Should I change your username to santo=graph? :cool:

Not till he gets with the program on pie charts.

Dan Mega
01-08-2008, 09:55 PM
We didn't know that going into 05 either. Contreras was up and down before that. People thought El Duque was pretty much done. There were a lot of question marks about the rotation in '05...

Yup, who knows what will happen here? Floyd could finally reach whatever potential he has. Danks could have a better year.

the1tab
01-08-2008, 09:56 PM
How I would match us up as the teams stand today:

Batting Order:
1. O. Cabrera < Granderson
2. Swisher > Polanco
3. Thome = Sheffield
4. Konerko = Mags
5. JD < M. Cabrera
6. Fields = Guillen
7. AJ =Ivan Rodriguez (there is ONE pudge)
8. Quentin < Jacque Jones
9. Richar < Renteria

Fielding :
RF - JD < Mags
CF - Swisher < Granderson
LF - Quentin = Jacque Jones (pending shoulder issues w/ CQ)
3B - Fields > Cabrera (pending Cabrera's diet)
SS - O. Cabrera > Renteria
2B - Richar < Polanco
1B - Pauly > Guillen (transition from SS could be interesting)
C - AJ = Ivan Rodriguez

Dan Mega
01-08-2008, 10:00 PM
How I would match us up as the teams stand today:

Batting Order:
1. O. Cabrera < Granderson
2. Swisher > Polanco
3. Thome = Sheffield
4. Konerko = Mags
5. JD < M. Cabrera
6. Fields = Guillen
7. AJ =Ivan Rodriguez (there is ONE pudge)
8. Quentin < Jacque Jones
9. Richar < Renteria

Fielding :
RF - JD < Mags
CF - Swisher < Granderson
LF - Quentin = Jacque Jones (pending shoulder issues w/ CQ)
3B - Fields > Cabrera (pending Cabrera's diet)
SS - O. Cabrera > Renteria
2B - Richar < Polanco
1B - Pauly > Guillen (transition from SS could be interesting)
C - AJ = Ivan Rodriguez

I'd say that Maggs > Konerko because he can simply do more and is an all-around better player. Also, Quentin hasn't done anything significant at a major league level yet, so he must be a big question mark (thus Jones > Quentin).

Thome is >>> Sheffield:redneck

Daver
01-08-2008, 10:03 PM
How I would match us up as the teams stand today:

Batting Order:
1. O. Cabrera < Granderson
2. Swisher > Polanco
3. Thome = Sheffield
4. Konerko = Mags
5. JD < M. Cabrera
6. Fields = Guillen
7. AJ =Ivan Rodriguez (there is ONE pudge)
8. Quentin < Jacque Jones
9. Richar < Renteria

Fielding :
RF - JD < Mags
CF - Swisher < Granderson
LF - Quentin = Jacque Jones (pending shoulder issues w/ CQ)
3B - Fields > Cabrera (pending Cabrera's diet)
SS - O. Cabrera > Renteria
2B - Richar < Polanco
1B - Pauly > Guillen (transition from SS could be interesting)
C - AJ = Ivan Rodriguez

Fields ain't better at third than Cabrera, and AJ doesn't even come close to Ivan.

chisox77
01-08-2008, 10:03 PM
I think the White Sox line up can contend, as is. That's why the games are played on the field. Though all of this makes for good posting and discussion.


:cool:

Oblong
01-08-2008, 10:04 PM
I'd call AJ and Rodriguez a wash at the plate right now... maybe giving AJ a slight edge because he's a lefty.

santo=dorf
01-08-2008, 10:08 PM
Should I change your username to santo=graph? :cool:
www.fangraphs.com (http://www.fangraphs.com)

It's so much easier than opening a stat page and looking back and forth between the number and the respective year.

I just tried out the player comparison, and it's really fun to play with.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/255_224_4730_DH_cseason_full_0_20071001.png
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/255_224_4730_DH_aseason_full_0_20071001.png

Poor Jeremy. He started off better than Frank Thomas with that future half of fame plaque in hands, but look at that freefall!!! :wired:

the1tab
01-08-2008, 10:28 PM
Fields ain't better at third than Cabrera, and AJ doesn't even come close to Ivan.

How do you figure Miguel Cabrera is better than Josh Fields at third? I did give myself some room for leverage depending on the alledged diet Cabrera has been on, but if the young stud continues to play at 30+ pounds overweight, how can you say he's better at third than Fields?

And let's not all get aroused by the legend of Ivan Rodriguez. He was the best catcher of his generation. He's old now. Is his release still great? Sure. Is it what it was in 1991? Hell no. The only leverage he gets is that managers are still scared to run on him because they buy the same hook line & sinker you do about him still being a god. I'm also not sure he calls as good of a game as AJ. Offensively I would give a slight edge to AJ because he's lefty, too.

chaerulez
01-08-2008, 11:15 PM
Detroit certainly has a better team on paper than us. But remember the years we had a better team on paper than the Twins but yet we'd keep losing the divison to them? We still got to play out the season and see what happens.

SoxSpeed22
01-08-2008, 11:51 PM
Pitching staff:
Verlander > Buehrle
Bonderman < Vazquez (check the stats)
Robertson > Danks
Rogers (healthy?) ? Contreras
Willis > Floyd

Jones < Jenks
Rodney ? Linebrink (AL/park transition)
Grilli < Thornton
Seay > Logan
Cruceta < MacDougal
? (Zumaya's hurt) < Wasserman

I think Cleveland will win this division because Detroit's pitching staff really isn't all that great. The Sox pitching staff is not great but there are question marks that could turn into positives, or negatives, I just won't crown Detroit yet.

pjchisox13
01-09-2008, 09:09 AM
Pitching staff:
Verlander > Buehrle
Bonderman < Vazquez (check the stats)
Robertson > Danks
Rogers (healthy?) ? Contreras
Willis > Floyd

Jones < Jenks
Rodney ? Linebrink (AL/park transition)
Grilli < Thornton
Seay > Logan
Cruceta < MacDougal
? (Zumaya's hurt) < Wasserman

I think Cleveland will win this division because Detroit's pitching staff really isn't all that great. The Sox pitching staff is not great but there are question marks that could turn into positives, or negatives, I just won't crown Detroit yet.
I agree totally. Cleveland has been the ones playing the better ball against Detroit and Chicago and I do see them being the major contender for the AL Central Crown. I think the additions that Detroit made make them definitely more of a headache to deal with but we still have to see if Willis can pitch in the AL and if the new Detroit gels as a team. Now with Leyland up there I'm sure they'll do just fine but still this division is the best in baseball and nothing comes that easy by adding two players.

Jurr
01-09-2008, 11:44 AM
You can play the paper games all day long, but projected numbers and past success really doesn't mean much.
It's much like Hawk says, "Don't tell me what you hit but when you hit it."
Baseball isn't just about how good a player is...success in the W/L column has to do with how well the team is doing IN ALL FACETS at ONE TIME.

If you look at the '05 Sox, there were a great deal of situations that could've changed the whole outcome of the season. Things just have to come together collectively at just the right time for success to occur. That's why it's so tough to predict and why analysis on paper (in January) is futile.

That said...GO SOX!