PDA

View Full Version : White Sox vs the AL Central


JohnTucker0814
01-24-2008, 11:19 AM
I know there have been threads on this in the past... but here goes again...

I think we have a real shot at the division. Of course we need a few things to work out with our pitching staff but looking over the Tigers/Indians/Twins deptch charts... We are going to be competitive...

These are my rankings from best to worst...

C - Mauer, Martinez, Pierzynski, Rodriguez
1b - Morneau, Konerko, Guillen, Garko
2b - Polonco, Richar, Cabrera, Harris
ss - Cabrera, Renteria, Peralta, Everett
3b - Cabrera, Fields/Crede, Blake, Lamb
lf - D. Young, Quentin, Jones, Michaels
cf - Sizemore, Granderson, Swisher, Monroe
rf - Ordonez, Dye, Cuddyer, Gutierrez
dh - Thome, Hafner, Sheffield, Kubel

1 sp - Santana, Sabathia, Verlander, Buehrle
2 sp - Vazquez, Carmona, Rogers, Bonser
3 sp - Bonderman, Contreras, Byrd, Baker
4 sp - Willis, Danks, Westbrook, Slowey
5 sp - Robertson, Floyd, Laffey, Twins ??
closer - Nathan, Jenks, Jones, Borowski
bullpen - Twins, White Sox, Indians, Tigers

If you rate on a point system of 4 points for best down to 1 point for worst...

White Sox = 47 points
Tigers = 44 points
Twins = 35 points
Indians = 34 points...

Looking at the starting staffs, which I think is our weakness, we are not that bad off... I think the Indians are looking good with Sabathia and Carmona... but to follow with Byrd, Westbrook and Laffey????

The Twins have Santana... but who after that? Can they count on Liriano even being healthy for this year?

The Tigers start with Verlander... but they are following with Rogers and Willis....

I think we are going to be more competive than people think.

I have high hopes for this year... I'd like to see how everyone else ranks these 4 teams...

oeo
01-24-2008, 11:25 AM
I know there have been threads on this in the past... but here goes again...

I think we have a real shot at the division. Of course we need a few things to work out with our pitching staff but looking over the Tigers/Indians/Twins deptch charts... We are going to be competitive...

These are my rankings from best to worst...

C - Mauer, Martinez, Pierzynski, Rodriguez
1b - Morneau, Konerko, Guillen, Garko
2b - Polonco, Richar, Cabrera, Harris
ss - Cabrera, Renteria, Peralta, Everett
3b - Cabrera, Fields/Crede, Blake, Lamb
lf - D. Young, Quentin, Jones, Michaels
cf - Sizemore, Granderson, Swisher, Monroe
rf - Ordonez, Dye, Cuddyer, Gutierrez
dh - Thome, Hafner, Sheffield, Kubel

1 sp - Santana, Sabathia, Verlander, Buehrle
2 sp - Vazquez, Carmona, Rogers, Bonser
3 sp - Bonderman, Contreras, Byrd, Baker
4 sp - Willis, Danks, Westbrook, Slowey
5 sp - Robertson, Floyd, Laffey, Twins ??
closer - Nathan, Jenks, Jones, Borowski
bullpen - Twins, White Sox, Indians, Tigers

If you rate on a point system of 4 points for best down to 1 point for worst...

White Sox = 47 points
Tigers = 44 points
Twins = 35 points
Indians = 34 points...

Looking at the starting staffs, which I think is our weakness, we are not that bad off... I think the Indians are looking good with Sabathia and Carmona... but to follow with Byrd, Westbrook and Laffey????

The Twins have Santana... but who after that? Can they count on Liriano even being healthy for this year?

The Tigers start with Verlander... but they are following with Rogers and Willis....

I think we are going to be more competive than people think.

I have high hopes for this year... I'd like to see how everyone else ranks these 4 teams...

I think you were awfully nice to the Sox in a few of those positions (just as an example: Richar is better than Asdrubal Cabrera?? He has work to do to pass up Harris, as well). Also, it's hard to rank a lot of these guys. In some cases, each team has a player that has strengths that are better than the others' (ex: CF).

BTW, Liriano is supposed to be healthy, and Delmon Young is supposed to be in RF with Cuddyer in LF, I'm pretty sure.

CashMan
01-24-2008, 11:25 AM
I know there have been threads on this in the past... but here goes again...

I think we have a real shot at the division. Of course we need a few things to work out with our pitching staff but looking over the Tigers/Indians/Twins deptch charts... We are going to be competitive...

These are my rankings from best to worst...

C - Mauer, Martinez, Pierzynski, Rodriguez
1b - Morneau, Konerko, Guillen, Garko
2b - Polonco, Richar, Cabrera, Harris
ss - Cabrera, Renteria, Peralta, Everett
3b - Cabrera, Fields/Crede, Blake, Lamb
lf - D. Young, Quentin, Jones, Michaels
cf - Sizemore, Granderson, Swisher, Monroe
rf - Ordonez, Dye, Cuddyer, Gutierrez
dh - Thome, Hafner, Sheffield, Kubel

1 sp - Santana, Sabathia, Verlander, Buehrle
2 sp - Vazquez, Carmona, Rogers, Bonser
3 sp - Bonderman, Contreras, Byrd, Baker
4 sp - Willis, Danks, Westbrook, Slowey
5 sp - Robertson, Floyd, Laffey, Twins ??
closer - Nathan, Jenks, Jones, Borowski
bullpen - Twins, White Sox, Indians, Tigers

If you rate on a point system of 4 points for best down to 1 point for worst...

White Sox = 47 points
Tigers = 44 points
Twins = 35 points
Indians = 34 points...

Looking at the starting staffs, which I think is our weakness, we are not that bad off... I think the Indians are looking good with Sabathia and Carmona... but to follow with Byrd, Westbrook and Laffey????

The Twins have Santana... but who after that? Can they count on Liriano even being healthy for this year?

The Tigers start with Verlander... but they are following with Rogers and Willis....

I think we are going to be more competive than people think.

I have high hopes for this year... I'd like to see how everyone else ranks these 4 teams...

2 things:

Buehrle would be #2 in the AL central for #1 pitcher, and I would take Hafner over Thome for a DH.

oeo
01-24-2008, 11:31 AM
Buehrle would be #2 in the AL central for #1 pitcher

How so? :?:

It's not even a knock on Buehrle, it's the amount of talent in the division.

balke
01-24-2008, 11:51 AM
This thread is nice because it makes the Sox sound great, but to be fair this is very biased.

A 4 point system doesn't account for how much better X player is than Y player, and in what ways.

The difference between the #1's isn't that much once Santana leaves the division. Any season one of those guys could be better than the others. But Polanco is 3x better all around than Richar if we are going off of last season's stats. And Cabrera's bat is 3x better than Crede's, and twice as good as Fields'.



What's good about this thread, it proves a point that the Sox are close enough to compete. Baseball is full of slumps and injuries. Anything can happen from this point on that will catapult the Sox to taking the division.

CashMan
01-24-2008, 11:56 AM
How so? :?:

It's not even a knock on Buehrle, it's the amount of talent in the division.


Sabathia is fat and injured, and I don't think Verlander is an Ace. I mean, if you looking at a pitcher to throw 100mph it is nice to see, but Buehrle's game is letting the hitters put the ball into play.

oeo
01-24-2008, 12:01 PM
Sabathia is fat and injured, and I don't think Verlander is an Ace. I mean, if you looking at a pitcher to throw 100mph it is nice to see, but Buehrle's game is letting the hitters put the ball into play.

I'll just leave it at one of these guys: :?:

skottyj242
01-24-2008, 12:04 PM
I'll just leave it at one of these guys: :?:

I concur. :?::?:

thedudeabides
01-24-2008, 12:04 PM
Sabathia is fat and injured, and I don't think Verlander is an Ace. I mean, if you looking at a pitcher to throw 100mph it is nice to see, but Buehrle's game is letting the hitters put the ball into play.


Sabathia has made 219 starts since 2001. He hasn't had any major injury issues. I love Buerhle, but he's not better than Sabathia. :rolleyes:

skobabe8
01-24-2008, 12:12 PM
I have a hard time putting Carlos Quentin the second best left fielder in the division over proven major leaguers.

munchman33
01-24-2008, 12:24 PM
Sabathia is fat and injured, and I don't think Verlander is an Ace. I mean, if you looking at a pitcher to throw 100mph it is nice to see, but Buehrle's game is letting the hitters put the ball into play.

Wow.

I hope fans of other teams don't read your posts in this thread and think we're all that delusional.

rdivaldi
01-24-2008, 12:28 PM
I love Buerhle, but he's not better than Sabathia. :rolleyes:

Hmmmm...

Which player is better over his career?

107- 75, 234 GS, 22 CG, 7 SHO, 3.80 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, .268 BAA

or

100- 63, 219 GS, 16 CG, 5 SHO, 3.83 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, .249 BAA

If you want to pick one over the other, have at it, but those are strikingly similar statistics....

pjchisox13
01-24-2008, 12:35 PM
2b - Polonco, Richar, Cabrera, Harris
ss - Cabrera, Renteria, Peralta, Everett
lf - D. Young, Quentin, Jones, Michaels
dh - Thome, Hafner, Sheffield, Kubel
4 sp - Willis, Danks, Westbrook, Slowey


2B hate to say it but Richar probably on experience would be last

SS Cabrera and Renteria might flip flop but tough call Renteria is coming back to the AL where he didn't do too well before so maybe your right

LF Quentin would 3rd or probably 4th

DH Hafner is top, Thome would battle it out with Sheffield for 2nd but think Thome is deserving of 2nd

4 sp Does Danks rank above Westbrook, yes potential wise but maybe still 3rd until Danks shows more

thedudeabides
01-24-2008, 12:41 PM
Hmmmm...

Which player is better over his career?

107- 75, 234 GS, 22 CG, 7 SHO, 3.80 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, .268 BAA

or

100- 63, 219 GS, 16 CG, 5 SHO, 3.83 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, .249 BAA

If you want to pick one over the other, have at it, but those are strikingly similar statistics....

That is eerily similar. I do not underrate Buehrle, I just think Sabathia is a little more overpowering. I also wanted to point out to the previous poster it is ignorant to call him fat and injured. He has been very durable.

CashMan
01-24-2008, 12:56 PM
That is eerily similar. I do not underrate Buehrle, I just think Sabathia is a little more overpowering. I also wanted to point out to the previous poster it is ignorant to call him fat and injured. He has been very durable.


290lb SP, what would you call that? And the injured part, I could be mistaken, I thought he had some back problems, I might be thinking of someone else.

rdivaldi
01-24-2008, 12:59 PM
290lb SP, what would you call that? And the injured part, I could be mistaken, I thought he had some back problems, I might be thinking of someone else.

David Wells maybe?

Anyway, outside of 2006 CC has been extremely durable. He's getting better every year as of late. :(:

Zisk77
01-24-2008, 01:32 PM
I would have Westbrooke as the best # 4...but he is actually Cle # 3 I would think...Bryd would then probably be the best # 4 ... if he isn't suspended for GHB.

The key to the division is whoever plays the Royals the best.

JohnTucker0814
01-24-2008, 02:30 PM
This thread is nice because it makes the Sox sound great, but to be fair this is very biased.

A 4 point system doesn't account for how much better X player is than Y player, and in what ways.

The difference between the #1's isn't that much once Santana leaves the division. Any season one of those guys could be better than the others. But Polanco is 3x better all around than Richar if we are going off of last season's stats. And Cabrera's bat is 3x better than Crede's, and twice as good as Fields'.



What's good about this thread, it proves a point that the Sox are close enough to compete. Baseball is full of slumps and injuries. Anything can happen from this point on that will catapult the Sox to taking the division.

You make an excellent point... but really the only place I see that happening is at 3B with Cabrera... and Santana... other than that... Not a lot of difference. Ordonez isn't THAT much better than Dye. He is better, but Dye can get on tears...

I guess my post was to prove that this division is NOT out of our reach. I an starting to think I woulnd't even mind Owens in LF and batting in the 9 hole. That way he is not leading off the game, but we get his speed in the line-up with as little pressure as possible. I think Quentin may be out for the first month because of injury, so it's a good time to figure it out. We also need a big year from Contreras. I think this is bigger than Floyd or Danks. If we have 3 solid starters our bullpen will be rested for the 5 good innings Danks and Floyd can give us.

I'm not opposed to having the rotation set up like:
Buehlre
Contreras
Vazquez
Danks
Floyd

This puts Buehrle and Vazquez pitching a couple days apart so the bullpen may have better rest.

WhiteSox5187
01-24-2008, 02:59 PM
I would have Westbrooke as the best # 4...but he is actually Cle # 3 I would think...Bryd would then probably be the best # 4 ... if he isn't suspended for GHB.

The key to the division is whoever plays the Royals the best.
You put that last part in teal, but I know people high up in the Tigers system and before the Sox fell completely apart (which they were just as baffeled by) I was asking them "So, how about this division?" and he said "You know what? The winner of the AL Central is going to be whoever beats up on the Royals." Now, obviously the Sox completely imploded and the Tigers fell victim to a lot of injuries but assuming everyone stays healthy for all teams and there aren't any major drop offs (like say Konerko or Granderson all of a sudden hitting .250ish) the key to the central could be who beats up on the Royals (and maybe even the Twins) the most.

captainclutch24
01-24-2008, 03:27 PM
C - Mauer, Martinez, Pierzynski, Rodriguez
1b - Morneau, Konerko, Guillen, Garko
2b - Polonco, Cabrera, Richar Harris
ss - Cabrera, Renteria, Peralta, Everett
3b - Cabrera, Fields/Crede, Blake, Lamb
lf - Swisher, D. Young, Jones, Michaels
cf - Sizemore, Granderson, Monroe, Owens
rf - Ordonez, Dye, Cuddyer, Gutierrez
dh - Hafner, Thome , Sheffield, Kubel

1 sp - Santana, Buerhle, Verlander, Sabathia
2 sp - Vazquez, Carmona, Rogers, Bonser
3 sp - Bonderman, Byrd, Contreras Baker
4 sp - Willis, Westbrook, Danks Slowey
5 sp - Robertson, Floyd, Laffey, Twins ??
closer - Nathan, Jenks, Jones, Borowski
bullpen - Twins, White Sox, Indians, Tigers

turners56
01-24-2008, 04:33 PM
I think you did a good job on the positions players, but putting Vazquez ahead of Carmona is just...***??? Carmona is a 19 game winner with a 3.06 ERA, no doubt Javy is good, but he's no where near as good as Fausto. Plus I think you overly estimated Contreras, Danks, and Floyd.

santo=dorf
01-24-2008, 04:54 PM
Why are people putting Hafner over Thome?

Last year Hafner's OPS dropped 260 points from the previous season. What's his excuse? I can only imagine the reaction on this board if that happened to Thome last season without any major injuries.

Just for some perspective, Hafner's OPS was closer to AJ Pierzynski's than Jim Thome's. :o:

doublem23
01-24-2008, 05:11 PM
Why are people putting Hafner over Thome?

Last year Hafner's OPS dropped 260 points from the previous season. What's his excuse? I can only imagine the reaction on this board if that happened to Thome last season without any major injuries.

Just for some perspective, Hafner's OPS was closer to AJ Pierzynski's than Jim Thome's. :o:

:thumbsup: Great post. The only reason I could see a rational human being putting Hafner over Thome is Thome's injury risk is greater than Pronk's, but sometimes you have to throw caution to the wind and ****ing go for it. If you're taking them when they're both healthy, only a fool would want Hafner.

MISoxfan
01-25-2008, 07:38 AM
That is eerily similar. I do not underrate Buehrle, I just think Sabathia is a little more overpowering. I also wanted to point out to the previous poster it is ignorant to call him fat and injured. He has been very durable.

Not to mention Buehrle has pitched about 200 innings more than Sabathia since 2001. But lets go ahead and throw some eye rolls at Buehrle.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 07:43 AM
Hmmmm...

Which player is better over his career?

107- 75, 234 GS, 22 CG, 7 SHO, 3.80 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, .268 BAA

or

100- 63, 219 GS, 16 CG, 5 SHO, 3.83 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, .249 BAA

If you want to pick one over the other, have at it, but those are strikingly similar statistics....

How about including strikeouts?

How about considering their #'s over the last 2 years to inform the recent success of young pitching. That is to say, though Burly was more consistent from 2000-2005, Sabathia has been much much better recently, something unsurprising for a 26-year old pitcher with great stuff

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 07:46 AM
:thumbsup: Great post. The only reason I could see a rational human being putting Hafner over Thome is Thome's injury risk is greater than Pronk's, but sometimes you have to throw caution to the wind and ****ing go for it. If you're taking them when they're both healthy, only a fool would want Hafner.

:?: Hafner had a bad year last year, but Thome played in 130 games last year, and I would expect him to play in no more than 120.

I hardly think, furthermore, only a "fool" would want a player who, despite having a lousy 2007, in 2004,2005, AND 2006, posted increasing OPS, beginning in 2004 at 993 and culminating in a 1097 OPS in 2006. Thome hasn't had those kind of years in a while. Oh and Hafner is 30 while Thome is 36.

Now, that's not to say Hafner's necessarily better. He's coming off a very poor year by his standards, but let's not say that it's silly to prefer Hafner over Thome

raven1
01-25-2008, 08:29 AM
The key to the division is whoever plays the Royals the best.

I agree, plus it will be whoever beats up the National League in interleague play the most. The Royals & the NL are at about the same level, and the Sox would have finished at or above .500 last year if they had simply won most of the games that they lost against those pathetic teams.

sullythered
01-25-2008, 08:37 AM
That is eerily similar. I do not underrate Buehrle, I just think Sabathia is a little more overpowering. I also wanted to point out to the previous poster it is ignorant to call him fat and injured. He has been very durable.
He is very durable from a taking the mound standpoint, but his stuff varies wildly from start to start.

I'd take Mark. I really think he's always been vastly under-rated because people fall in love with the radar gun.

Also, if the Twins move Nathan, like I think they will, we have the better bullpen.

balke
01-25-2008, 08:50 AM
:?: Hafner had a bad year last year, but Thome played in 130 games last year, and I would expect him to play in no more than 120.

I hardly think, furthermore, only a "fool" would want a player who, despite having a lousy 2007, in 2004,2005, AND 2006, posted increasing OPS, beginning in 2004 at 993 and culminating in a 1097 OPS in 2006. Thome hasn't had those kind of years in a while. Oh and Hafner is 30 while Thome is 36.

Now, that's not to say Hafner's necessarily better. He's coming off a very poor year by his standards, but let's not say that it's silly to prefer Hafner over Thome


Thome had that kind of year in 06' with a 1.014 OPS. And let's be honest here, Hafner is a great hitter, but he gets injured every season it seems like. He plays through it a lot, but he does have a knack for hurting his wrist. How he's hurt that much as a young DH? I'll never know. But to expect him to play more games than Thome is a little hopeful IMO.


I think this is another case where either could be better than the other. I think the same with Morneau and Konerko. Konerko is due for a big year, and Morneau wasn't superman last season unless he was playing us.

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 10:36 AM
Thome had that kind of year in 06' with a 1.014 OPS. And let's be honest here, Hafner is a great hitter, but he gets injured every season it seems like. He plays through it a lot, but he does have a knack for hurting his wrist. How he's hurt that much as a young DH? I'll never know. But to expect him to play more games than Thome is a little hopeful IMO.


I think this is another case where either could be better than the other. I think the same with Morneau and Konerko. Konerko is due for a big year, and Morneau wasn't superman last season unless he was playing us.

Like I said, I'm not necessarily advocating Hafner over Thome, but it seems silly to me to say "only a fool would prefer Hafner over Thome"

sircaffey1
01-25-2008, 11:53 AM
Thome had that kind of year in 06' with a 1.014 OPS. And let's be honest here, Hafner is a great hitter, but he gets injured every season it seems like. He plays through it a lot, but he does have a knack for hurting his wrist. How he's hurt that much as a young DH? I'll never know. But to expect him to play more games than Thome is a little hopeful IMO.


One of those injuries was Hafner getting nailed in the head by Buehrle a few seasons ago...Maybe Mark should...hmmm, no no, I never want to see our opponents get injured (wink, wink).

Thome is good vs RHP, but I can't ignore the fact that he's absolutely horrible vs LHP. You have to platoon him. Hafner is equally good vs LHP and RHP. Granted, he had a down year last season, but finished more like himself in his last 100 AB. It's not like Hafner had one fluke season. Perhaps his on-going contract negotiations throughout the season had a little bit of an effect on him, I don't know...But I'd put Hafner ahead of Thome at this point.

areilly
01-25-2008, 12:23 PM
If you rate on a point system of 4 points for best down to 1 point for worst...

White Sox = 47 points
Tigers = 44 points
Twins = 35 points
Indians = 34 points...


The problem with all of this is that you're using a fantasy baseball approach to evaluate where each team stands, when the reality is that a good team needs a balanced set of skills and players whose strengths complement each other and correct others' weaknesses (2005 was a perfect example of this). You can sit here and tell me all day whose DH can hit more home runs, but if the guys in front of him aren't getting on base it's a moot point.

The Sox, while slightly more fleet of foot than previous editions, still more closely resemble the station-to-station teams of yore. They might win a lot of 9-7 games, but all those 3-1 losses are going to be brutal. Cleveland, Detroit, and Minnesota have more well-rounded attacks, and this is why they are in a better position than the Sox.

The Good Guys are getting there, but getting there isn't the same as being there. End of story.

balke
01-25-2008, 12:33 PM
The problem with all of this is that you're using a fantasy baseball approach to evaluate where each team stands, when the reality is that a good team needs a balanced set of skills and players whose strengths complement each other and correct others' weaknesses (2005 was a perfect example of this). You can sit here and tell me all day whose DH can hit more home runs, but if the guys in front of him aren't getting on base it's a moot point.

The Sox, while slightly more fleet of foot than previous editions, still more closely resemble the station-to-station teams of yore. They might win a lot of 9-7 games, but all those 3-1 losses are going to be brutal. Cleveland, Detroit, and Minnesota have more well-rounded attacks, and this is why they are in a better position than the Sox.

The Good Guys are getting there, but getting there isn't the same as being there. End of story.


To be honest, I don't see this 3-1 loss season coming. There's a ton of OBP, power, and avg. potential with this team. I think the Sox can survive without Pods and Erstad type leadoff hitters. Pods caught fire once with awesome bunts and steals and good OBP and doubles, but overall the front two in our order can be better than Pods-Rowand.

rdivaldi
01-25-2008, 01:51 PM
How about including strikeouts?

Why would I?

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 01:52 PM
Why would I?

Because it's a relevant stat?

rdivaldi
01-25-2008, 02:00 PM
Because it's a relevant stat?

Is it? In discussing whether or not a pitcher has been successful overall, I'd think we'd be more interested in numbers like ERA and WHIP. But that's just my opinion, I tend to be more focused on pitchers getting guys out over how it is done. I'd probably be more interested in their K/BB than pure K numbers.

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 02:10 PM
Is it? In discussing whether or not a pitcher has been successful overall, I'd think we'd be more interested in numbers like ERA and WHIP. But that's just my opinion, I tend to be more focused on pitchers getting guys out over how it is done. I'd probably be more interested in their K/BB than pure K numbers.

Sabathia's K/BB is outstanding. As is his K/9. Burly's is good, but nowhere near the range.

But the K's thing wasn't the big one. Compare their last two seasons. Sabathia has had two great seasons in a row, something when, coupled with the projections scouts have made for his career plus his age, suggest that's a better way to compare him and Burly than career #'s.

I love Burly, but Burly as an ace doesn't stack up with Sabathia. Burly's a great, consistent, nasty pitcher, but Sabathia is a Cy Young winner, and has Cy Young stuff. Burly, not so much...

sullythered
01-25-2008, 02:18 PM
Sabathia's K/BB is outstanding. As is his K/9. Burly's is good, but nowhere near the range.

But the K's thing wasn't the big one. Compare their last two seasons. Sabathia has had two great seasons in a row, something when, coupled with the projections scouts have made for his career plus his age, suggest that's a better way to compare him and Burly than career #'s.

I love Burly, but Burly as an ace doesn't stack up with Sabathia. Burly's a great, consistent, nasty pitcher, but Sabathia is a Cy Young winner, and has Cy Young stuff. Burly, not so much...

Yeah, because 300 pound pitchers historically have awesome post age 30 durability. Mark's K/BB is pretty damn good too. And his WHIP is better (by a hair.)

I don't give a rat fart about stuff, I care about results. And the results these two guys haver produced are virtually identical. Oh, except Mark is a way, way better post-season pitcher.

Edit: Actually, their K/BB is essentially identical, too. If it's basically two of the same guy, except one has perfect durability and the other has pretty good durability and he's super fat, I'll go with choice number one. Yes, even with the arbitrary award.

MISoxfan
01-25-2008, 02:19 PM
But he does stack up to Sabathia. You can go ahead and look at how many more guys Sabathia strikes out than Buehrle and say that Sabathia will be better in the future.

However if they both were to retire today Buehrle was the better pitcher.

rdivaldi
01-25-2008, 02:20 PM
Sabathia's K/BB is outstanding. As is his K/9. Burly's is good, but nowhere near the range.

Actually over their careers Buehrle has a better K/BB....

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 02:21 PM
Yeah, because 300 pound pitchers historically have awesome post age 30 durability. Mark's K/BB is pretty damn good too. And his WHIP is better (by a hair.)

Sabathia's 26. He won't be post-30 for 3+ years. At any rate, physical fitness doesn't seem to have much of a correlation to durability among pitchers anyway...so, let's quit the hyperbole with the "300 pound pitchers" crap


I don't give a rat fart about stuff, I care about results. And the results these two guys haver produced are virtually identical. Oh, except Mark is a way, way better post-season pitcher.I didn't say make the judgment based on "stuff". I said base it off the results a young pitcher has had in his past 2 seasons rather than his whole career. Sabathia got off to a slow start and yet his career numbers are still comparable to Burly's. That suggests that once he hit his stride he was much better than Burly, and if you look at his last two seasons (when he was 25 and 26 years old) you can see that in those seasons he was much better than even Burly's best season (2005).

I also find the bolded part quite funny. Even if we ignore the fact that they each have only had one real season in which they had post season work, it's not like Burly didn't have a couple of mediocre to quite bad outings in the 2005 postseason :shrug:

balke
01-25-2008, 02:26 PM
Sabathia's K/BB is outstanding. As is his K/9. Burly's is good, but nowhere near the range.

But the K's thing wasn't the big one. Compare their last two seasons. Sabathia has had two great seasons in a row, something when, coupled with the projections scouts have made for his career plus his age, suggest that's a better way to compare him and Burly than career #'s.

I love Burly, but Burly as an ace doesn't stack up with Sabathia. Burly's a great, consistent, nasty pitcher, but Sabathia is a Cy Young winner, and has Cy Young stuff. Burly, not so much...

That's just one of the dumber things I've heard unless you are talking about a guy in his mid 30's or a guy coming off an injury.

K-ing people doesn't add to your results. Buehrle's got a nasty curve and gets outs. He's every bit as good as Sabathia, he just won't make the ESPN highlight reel because he K'd 15 people. Big whoop, what was the final score? How many hits did the other team have? How many no-hitters does Sabathia have in the majors anyhow?

Sabathia is a stud, but any given season Buehrle will be better or close to him ERA and win wise. Both are 19 game winners, they just get it done in different ways.

sullythered
01-25-2008, 02:27 PM
I also find the bolded part quite funny. Even if we ignore the fact that they each have only had one real season in which they had post season work, it's not like Burly didn't have a couple of mediocre to quite bad outings in the 2005 postseason :shrug:

And C.C. flat out choked badly in his post-season last year. My point about the durability is that Mark is arguably the most durable starting pitcher in all of baseball. Sabathia is extremely out of shape. In the long run, I'll take Buehrle, even if he is a bit older.

sullythered
01-25-2008, 02:30 PM
so, let's quit the hyperbole with the "300 pound pitchers" crap


Hyperbole?! Please. If you don't think a guy that's 6'7" with C.C.'s body isn't 3 spins you're out of your mind. The guy is significantly larger than me (around). I'm 6'3" and I weigh around 255. It's not even close.

sircaffey1
01-25-2008, 02:33 PM
Is it? In discussing whether or not a pitcher has been successful overall, I'd think we'd be more interested in numbers like ERA and WHIP. But that's just my opinion, I tend to be more focused on pitchers getting guys out over how it is done. I'd probably be more interested in their K/BB than pure K numbers.

Is is somewhat relevant. The less balls in play, the less errors being made leading to runs that don't show up in ERA. Granted, this doesn't take into account fielders and I just don't care enough to dig further, but Sabathia has given up 48 unearned runs in his career vs Buehrle's 82. While Buehrle has pitched 200 more innings, that's still a very large difference.

rdivaldi
01-25-2008, 02:35 PM
Is is somewhat relevant. The less balls in play, the less errors being made leading to runs that don't show up in ERA.

Very true...

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 02:35 PM
That's just one of the dumber things I've heard unless you are talking about a guy in his mid 30's or a guy coming off an injury.

K-ing people doesn't add to your results. Buehrle's got a nasty curve and gets outs. He's every bit as good as Sabathia, he just won't make the ESPN highlight reel because he K'd 15 people. Big whoop, what was the final score? How many hits did the other team have? How many no-hitters does Sabathia have in the majors anyhow?

Sabathia is a stud, but any given season Buehrle will be better or close to him ERA and win wise. Both are 19 game winners, they just get it done in different ways.

It's dumb to compare young pitchers by their most recent seasons rather than their entire career?

Um...ok, dude.

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 02:36 PM
Hyperbole?! Please. If you don't think a guy that's 6'7" with C.C.'s body isn't 3 spins you're out of your mind. The guy is significantly larger than me (around). I'm 6'3" and I weigh around 255. It's not even close.

Yeah, dude he's 300 pounds because you're 255. Got it.

He's 6'7" and 290, which is quite a lot of weight, but for a guy that big it isn't morbidly obese :rolleyes:

sircaffey1
01-25-2008, 02:38 PM
That's just one of the dumber things I've heard unless you are talking about a guy in his mid 30's or a guy coming off an injury.

K-ing people doesn't add to your results. Buehrle's got a nasty curve and gets outs. He's every bit as good as Sabathia, he just won't make the ESPN highlight reel because he K'd 15 people. Big whoop, what was the final score? How many hits did the other team have? How many no-hitters does Sabathia have in the majors anyhow?

Sabathia is a stud, but any given season Buehrle will be better or close to him ERA and win wise. Both are 19 game winners, they just get it done in different ways.

Actually, right now is the best time to compare the last two seasons. At 27, Sabathia is just entering his prime years. At 28, Buehrle is in them as well. Why should we take into account their career numbers? If one pitcher takes longer to develop than another, that doesn't make him worse at the current moment.

sullythered
01-25-2008, 02:41 PM
Yeah, dude he's 300 pounds because you're 255. Got it.

He's 6'7" and 290, which is quite a lot of weight, but for a guy that big it isn't morbidly obese :rolleyes:

No. Reading is a skill. I said he is larger (in appearance) than I am. I also pointed out that he is four full inches taller than I am. The crazy logic jump I made from that point was that he is probably significantly heavier than me. I weigh 255.

Super tall guys who are also fat, usually weigh more than 300 pounds. I didn't say he was morbidly obese, just fat. I'm fat. Big guys have (usually) more health problems earlier in life. Eye roll unnecessary.

sircaffey1
01-25-2008, 02:43 PM
If you go by career numbers to compare the 2 at the current moment, you are basically saying that Buehrle is better than Sabathia because he put up an ERA in 3's in 2001 and 2002 while Sabathia put up ERAs in the 4's. What relevance do Mark's and C.C.'s 1st and 2nd years have on their 8th seasons? It just means, Mark was better ready to perform at the Major League level.

balke
01-25-2008, 02:45 PM
It's dumb to compare young pitchers by their most recent seasons rather than their entire career?

Um...ok, dude.


When you purposely do it so you can discount or discredit Buehrle and his 4 out of 5 15+ win seasons in his young career, yes its dumb. Fireballers have peaks and valleys. Sabathia can turn into Mark Prior with one pitch.

I think pitching value wise they are equal. If we are talking long haul, I'd rather have Buehrle, as he doesn't rely so much on the heat.

balke
01-25-2008, 02:48 PM
If you go by career numbers to compare the 2 at the current moment, you are basically saying that Buehrle is better than Sabathia because he put up an ERA in 3's in 2001 and 2002 while Sabathia put up ERAs in the 4's. What relevance do Mark's and C.C.'s 1st and 2nd years have on their 8th seasons? It just means, Mark was better ready to perform at the Major League level.

You can't discount either factor. You have to look at is as Mark Buehrle has a track record better than Sabathia, but Sabathia has been great for 2 seasons.

What does that mean in the end? Noone knows, because its baseball. It means you have 2 great pitchers, and you shouldn't flinch if one has a better season than the other next season.

balke
01-25-2008, 02:51 PM
Actually, right now is the best time to compare the last two seasons. At 27, Sabathia is just entering his prime years. At 28, Buehrle is in them as well. Why should we take into account their career numbers? If one pitcher takes longer to develop than another, that doesn't make him worse at the current moment.

Because you are lumping in Buehrle's worst seasons in his career with one of his better season's to make your argument seem great. Every pitcher in the history of the universe has had a subpar season happen rather randomly. Injury, lack of focus, bad luck, age, bookies, or whatever reason, it happens.

You are also lumping in a season where Buehrle had about the worst offensive team on the planet playing behind him last year for over half a season

This is the same logic that would've discounted Konerko because of his 2 mediocre to bad seasons at 1B in 2002-2003, then he followed that up with 2 straight 40 HR seasons. Baseball is peaks and valleys.

sircaffey1
01-25-2008, 02:55 PM
Because you are lumping in Buehrle's worst seasons in his career with one of his better season's to make your argument seem great. Every pitcher in the history of the universe has had a subpar season happen rather randomly. Injury, lack of focus, bad luck, age, bookies, or whatever reason, it happens.

You are also lumping in a season where Buehrle had about the worst offensive team on the planet playing behind him last year for over half a season.

You are doing the same thing buddy. You are trying to discount the fact C.C. has had 2 really dominant years back to back by adding in seasons from 7 years ago. What have you done for me lately? Not what did you do for me 7 years ago.

Even if you take out Mark's 2006 season, and use 2005 and 2007 as his past 2 seasons, Sabathia comes out on top. Sabathia's career trend has consistently been improving, check the stats. Buehrle is the one that jumps up, down, around, left, right, backwards, forwards, blah blah...

sircaffey1
01-25-2008, 02:57 PM
You can't discount either factor. You have to look at is as Mark Buehrle has a track record better than Sabathia, but Sabathia has been great for 2 seasons.

What does that mean in the end? Noone knows, because its baseball. It means you have 2 great pitchers, and you shouldn't flinch if one has a better season than the other next season.

But why do I care about what happened 7 years ago? It proves Mark was better back then. Not now. And that's what we're discussing.

sircaffey1
01-25-2008, 03:01 PM
Don't overlook the fact that Buehrle has logged significant IP on his arm. He is certainly not a given to stay healthy the remainder of his career. In fact, he's already starting to log less innings, and the past two seasons, have been night and day in terms of the first and second halves of the season. His K's have also dropped significantly as well. These aren't good trends.

Soxfanspcu11
01-25-2008, 03:12 PM
2 things:

Buehrle would be #2 in the AL central for #1 pitcher, and I would take Hafner over Thome for a DH.


Yes and Yes. Also, there is no way that Richar can be ranked that high. NO WAY.

And by the way, "ScottyJ242", I LOVE your sig!!! Where did that come from? You make that up??

balke
01-25-2008, 03:14 PM
You are doing the same thing buddy. You are trying to discount the fact C.C. has had 2 really dominant years back to back by adding in seasons from 7 years ago. What have you done for me lately? Not what did you do for me 7 years ago.


I haven't discounted anything. I took all the stats in from both parties and am not blown away with one over the other at all.

As for Sabathia not being ready when he was called up, you both realize Sabathia was 17-5 in his first MLB season don't you? Seems to me someone is peaking and everyone's got a man crush. If the trend continues for a 3rd season I'll be on his side, but 2 season's is a drop in the bucket for an MLB pitcher.

sircaffey1
01-25-2008, 04:19 PM
I haven't discounted anything. I took all the stats in from both parties and am not blown away with one over the other at all.

As for Sabathia not being ready when he was called up, you both realize Sabathia was 17-5 in his first MLB season don't you? Seems to me someone is peaking and everyone's got a man crush. If the trend continues for a 3rd season I'll be on his side, but 2 season's is a drop in the bucket for an MLB pitcher.

I did not say he wasn't ready. I said one was more ready. (BTW, going off record to show how good a pitcher is, is incredibly misleading. Sabathia's 4.39 ERA that season tells a clearer story).Sabathia came up with power stuff and just tried to throw everything by every hitter. He's progressively learned how to "pitch." Just look at the stats: C.C.'s walks per season 95 (181 IP)-88-66-72-62-44-37 (240 IP). C.C. today is so ridiculously different than the C.C. back then, it's not even funny.

Pitchers like Buehrle break into the majors because they know how to "pitch." Pitchers like Sabathia break into the majors because of their "stuff" and then hopefully learn how to pitch which is where we are today with Sabathia. Buehrle is virtually the same pitcher he was when he broke in, and that is why comparing career numbers for the two are incredibly misleading when it comes to what kind of pitchers they are today.

By all means, use career numbers to explain why each have been similarly successful over the years, but don't use career numbers to argue why one is better today. Afterall, if someone asks, "How good at golf are you." You don't say, "well my handicap was 20 for the first half decade, but I've been a scratch golfer the past 3 seasons, so averaging those together, I'm like a 12 handicap."

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 04:34 PM
When you purposely do it so you can discount or discredit Buehrle and his 4 out of 5 15+ win seasons in his young career, yes its dumb. Fireballers have peaks and valleys. Sabathia can turn into Mark Prior with one pitch.

I think pitching value wise they are equal. If we are talking long haul, I'd rather have Buehrle, as he doesn't rely so much on the heat.

So what you're saying is that seasons when Sabathia was 22 are as relevant to this discussion as seasons when he was 25 and 26 respectively?

Whatever...this is ridiculous.

I love Burly. He's a great pitcher. He's just not Sabathia. Maybe in the future Sabathia will be hurt and Burly will be better, but they are both in their prime years and in their prime years, Sabathia has been significantly better.

santo=dorf
01-25-2008, 06:25 PM
Hafner is a great hitter, but he gets injured every season it seems like. He plays through it a lot, but he does have a knack for hurting his wrist.
He played in 152 games last year.
Thome is good vs RHP, but I can't ignore the fact that he's absolutely horrible vs LHP. You have to platoon him. Hafner is equally good vs LHP and RHP. Granted, he had a down year last season, but finished more like himself in his last 100 AB. It's not like Hafner had one fluke season. Perhaps his on-going contract negotiations throughout the season had a little bit of an effect on him, I don't know...But I'd put Hafner ahead of Thome at this point.
He signed his deal on july 12th.

His numbers at that time: .262/.397/.452
He finished the season: .266/.385/..451

I don't think that was a factoras his SLG and BA were about the same but his OBP actually dipped.

whitesoxfan1986
01-25-2008, 08:10 PM
One of those injuries was Hafner getting nailed in the head by Buehrle a few seasons ago.
That was in 2005. That pitch turned out to be a huge development. If Buehrle doesn't break Hafner's jaw, we don't make the playoffs in 2005. Hafner was injured until mid September, IIRC. Imagine how unreal the Indians would have been with Hafner in their lineup. They played nearly .800 ball during the 2nd half of 2005. If Hafner is in the lineup, they may have played .900 ball.:o:

balke
01-25-2008, 09:45 PM
He played in 152 games last year.


Full season and he was not as good as he has been in partial seasons. I just figured he toughed it out through injuries.

So like Buehrle being beaten out by Sabathia last season, is Swisher a better hitter than Hafner now because he was better last season?

I don't believe in 1-2 year definitions. That's nothing. Is Magglio Ordonez the second best hitter in baseball now just because he was last season? I'll take good odds he won't do that again this season.

sircaffey1
01-25-2008, 09:54 PM
He played in 152 games last year.

He signed his deal on july 12th.

His numbers at that time: .262/.397/.452
He finished the season: .266/.385/..451

I don't think that was a factoras his SLG and BA were about the same but his OBP actually dipped.

Perhaps he was pressing once he actually signed the extension as he did return to his old self about a month later. I usually don't buy this argument at all, and feel stupid trying to justify it, but Hafner's case is baffling. He starts great as April was .338/.471/.550, and he finishes great as Sept-Oct was .316/.414/.551. Something was up during the season. Perhaps he was hiding an injury trying to play through it trying to show the club he deserved that extension. That I could see making sense. Tough to justify a lucrative contract extension while you're on the DL. I don't know...

sircaffey1
01-25-2008, 10:16 PM
Full season and he was not as good as he has been in partial seasons. I just figured he toughed it out through injuries.

So like Buehrle being beaten out by Sabathia last season, is Swisher a better hitter than Hafner now because he was better last season?

I don't believe in 1-2 year definitions. That's nothing. Is Magglio Ordonez the second best hitter in baseball now just because he was last season? I'll take good odds he won't do that again this season.

I don't think anyone is saying one year makes a player. At least no one should be.