PDA

View Full Version : Rick Morrissey Column


Lip Man 1
03-29-2008, 10:32 PM
Enjoy:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080329-white-sox-cubs-morrissey,1,5398318.column

Lip

DrCrawdad
03-29-2008, 11:30 PM
Enjoy:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080329-white-sox-cubs-morrissey,1,5398318.column

Lip

Mod Edit: No more quoting please. See the addendum to the things every poster should know at the top of the forum. I agree. And even in the top two the Sox are better, IMHO.

fquaye149
03-29-2008, 11:38 PM
As if that top two is even close.

Zambrano v. Vazquez is the appropriate comparison to make for ace, since they both are strikeout, low WHIP guys...

Zambrano v. Vazquez respectively:

82 wins to 115 in 3 less seasons, 3.41 ERA to 4.28, 1.28 WHIP to 1.26, 2/1 K/bb vs. 3.5/1,1042 K's to 1815

Give that one to Zambrano by a slight amount, mostly on the strength of ERA (although Z pitches in the NL)

But that leaves you with Burly v. Lilly--a fair comparison on a number of levels (left-handed, relatively soft-throwing). Yes Lilly was above average last year, but he's been a 3rd starter at best his whole career, throwing in some lousy years to boot.

Even Lilly's best season would be a run-of-the mill burly season

Hmmm...107 career wins to 74 (in one less season for Burls), 3.80 career ERA to 4.46, 1.26 career WHIP to 1.34, 3/1 career K/bb ratio to ~2/1

Burly's so far beyond Lilly it's ridiculous. Oh, and Burls is CONSISTENT.

Meanwhile, the rest of the Cubs rotation is, if nothing else, as spotty and unproven as the Sox's.

Lucky for them they play in the NL comedy central

WhiteSox5187
03-30-2008, 01:15 AM
As if that top two is even close.

Zambrano v. Vazquez is the appropriate comparison to make for ace, since they both are strikeout, low WHIP guys...

Zambrano v. Vazquez respectively:

82 wins to 115 in 3 less seasons, 3.41 ERA to 4.28, 1.28 WHIP to 1.26, 2/1 K/bb vs. 3.5/1,1042 K's to 1815

Give that one to Zambrano by a slight amount, mostly on the strength of ERA (although Z pitches in the NL)

But that leaves you with Burly v. Lilly--a fair comparison on a number of levels (left-handed, relatively soft-throwing). Yes Lilly was above average last year, but he's been a 3rd starter at best his whole career, throwing in some lousy years to boot.

Even Lilly's best season would be a run-of-the mill burly season

Hmmm...107 career wins to 74 (in one less season for Burls), 3.80 career ERA to 4.46, 1.26 career WHIP to 1.34, 3/1 career K/bb ratio to ~2/1

Burly's so far beyond Lilly it's ridiculous. Oh, and Burls is CONSISTENT.

Meanwhile, the rest of the Cubs rotation is, if nothing else, as spotty and unproven as the Sox's.

Lucky for them they play in the NL comedy central
Please, the back end of the Cubs rotation is proven in mediocrity if not worse. The White Sox are not provenly mediocre, they might be better, they might be a lot worse...it certainly is as spotty though, the Cubs are one major injury away from an under .500 season.

I was reading USA Today's baseball preview and one guy had the Sox winning the Central and another had us being the "surprise" team. I personally don't think we're going to win it unless Gavin Floyd and Danks go crazy and pitch way above their heads. But I think we'll cause problems for the Indians and the Tigers and maybe even be posed for a good division run with some minor tweaks in '09. But I'm not expecting great things out of this team.

chisoxfanatic
03-30-2008, 01:29 AM
His mentioning that Jose Contreras was probably around to witness Cuba circa 1908 just cracked me up!!! :D:

The Cubs are gonna find a way to screw this season up as well...but they DO have that high school division they're in, while we're in the toughest in the game.

ChiTownTrojan
03-30-2008, 08:48 AM
His mentioning that Jose Contreras was probably around to witness Cuba circa 1908 just cracked me up!!! :D:

The Cubs are gonna find a way to screw this season up as well...but they DO have that high school division they're in, while we're in the toughest in the game.
And that is exactly why there is (and should be) a lot more hope on the North side of town than the South. The Cubs might not have a better team, but they've got a much better shot at making the playoffs.

It's Dankerific
03-30-2008, 09:36 AM
The best part was the last sentence. NEVER CHANGE THE NAME OF US CELLULAR!!! =) rofl

fquaye149
03-30-2008, 09:36 AM
Please, the back end of the Cubs rotation is proven in mediocrity if not worse. The White Sox are not provenly mediocre, they might be better, they might be a lot worse...it certainly is as spotty though, the Cubs are one major injury away from an under .500 season.

I was reading USA Today's baseball preview and one guy had the Sox winning the Central and another had us being the "surprise" team. I personally don't think we're going to win it unless Gavin Floyd and Danks go crazy and pitch way above their heads. But I think we'll cause problems for the Indians and the Tigers and maybe even be posed for a good division run with some minor tweaks in '09. But I'm not expecting great things out of this team.

What are you "Please"ing me about? You're agreeing with me.

Rich Hill is largely unproven as a starter and Marquis and Dumpster are spotty.

The Cubs are the most overrated team in baseball this year and could very easily finish third in their division.

To be fair though, our rotation, just like the Cubs, is nothing to hang our hat upon beyond the 1-2 spots. Unlike the Cubs though, we at least have someone to hang our hat upon at the 2 spot