 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » AL West
| Poll: AL West | |
|---|---|
| Anaheim | 10 |
| Texas | 3 |
| Oakland | 9 |
| Seattle | 2 |
1tim412
Seattle: Added Sexson and Beltre, lost Edgar
Anaheim: Added Finley, traded away Jose Guillen
Texas: Did nothing significant (I think...)
Oakland: Traded away Redman, Hudson, Mulder, Rhodes, added Kendall, Meyer, Haren, Cruz, Calero, lost Dye (possibly 3 rookies starting pitchers or 2 and one 37 year old vet from Japan, rookie RF)
AL West
January 26, 2005 at 04:52AM View BBCode
Who is going to win the AL West this season?Seattle: Added Sexson and Beltre, lost Edgar
Anaheim: Added Finley, traded away Jose Guillen
Texas: Did nothing significant (I think...)
Oakland: Traded away Redman, Hudson, Mulder, Rhodes, added Kendall, Meyer, Haren, Cruz, Calero, lost Dye (possibly 3 rookies starting pitchers or 2 and one 37 year old vet from Japan, rookie RF)
youngallstar
My prediction
1. Anaheim (they look tough)
2. Texas (hopefully they will continue last year's success and since they almost grabbed the wild card last year I'll go ahead and give a semi-homer prediction that they take the wild card, hopefully no Pedro for Boston will help)
3. Oakland (traded away some big pitchers this offseason)
4. Seattle (might surprise me and take 1st :lol: )
January 26, 2005 at 07:02AM View BBCode
Texas acquired Hidalgo(well.. he's better than Brian Jordan...) and gave Park a pep talk ;)My prediction
1. Anaheim (they look tough)
2. Texas (hopefully they will continue last year's success and since they almost grabbed the wild card last year I'll go ahead and give a semi-homer prediction that they take the wild card, hopefully no Pedro for Boston will help)
3. Oakland (traded away some big pitchers this offseason)
4. Seattle (might surprise me and take 1st :lol: )
abarkov
2. Texas will hit their way to 2nd place
3. Oakland
4. Seattle
January 26, 2005 at 03:51PM View BBCode
1. Anaheim (as long as Colon stays healthy)2. Texas will hit their way to 2nd place
3. Oakland
4. Seattle
sfgiants4
A's
Rangers
Angels
Mariners
but Angels and Rangers have a better shot at the division title
January 26, 2005 at 11:18PM View BBCode
This what i hope:A's
Rangers
Angels
Mariners
but Angels and Rangers have a better shot at the division title
1tim412
Good speed
Solid hitting up and down with one or 2 mashers
Great bullpen
Questionable, but possibly solid rotation
Great defense
January 29, 2005 at 07:05AM View BBCode
The A's look a lot like the Angels of '02 and we all know how far they got... Look how similar they are...Good speed
Solid hitting up and down with one or 2 mashers
Great bullpen
Questionable, but possibly solid rotation
Great defense
FuriousGiorge
January 29, 2005 at 07:09AM View BBCode
Tim - the A's don't scare anyone. You can talk them up all you want, they have gotten worse (at least for this coming season). And besides which, Oakland sucks, Bubb Rubb.
1tim412
January 29, 2005 at 07:50AM View BBCode
It's not about scaring anyone, it's winning games and they are going to win a lot more games than you think. You gotta look at what they really lost over last season. Then look at what they gained over last season. Add it up and you actually have a better team.
1tim412
Pos-2004--2005---Advantage?
-C--Miller-Kendall---05
-1B-Hatte/Karros-Hatte/Johnson-05
-2B-Scutaro-Ginter-05
-3B-Chavez-Chavez-05 (broken hand for 6 weeks, but still hit 29 HRs, will probably hit 35-38)
-SS-Crosby-Crosby-05 (always better to have a year under your belt, he struggled to begin and end the season. He worked out the kinks then wore down in the long season. Endurance should be higher and swing should be good this year)
-LF-Byrnes/Kielty-Byrnes-05-(why did they insist on running Kielty out there for so long?)
-CF-Kotsay-Kotsay-same (he is in his prime and a great player)
-RF-Dye-Swisher-flipflop-(Swisher can produce better than JD did last year, but it's no guarantee. It depends...)
DH-Durazo/Karros-Durazo/Johnson-05
2004 Starting staff
Hudson-3.53 ERA
Harden-3.99 ERA
Mulder-4.43 ERA
Zito-4.48 ERA
Redman-4.71 ERA
2005 Starting staff
Harden~3.60 ERA
Zito~3.30-4.00 ERA (probably 3.85)
Haren~4.20 ERA
Blanton~4.60 ERA
Yabu~who knows, but they have a lot of fall backs here.
Meyer comes up halfway through the season and replaces Yabu...
2004 vs. 2005 Bullpen Adv
Rhodes/Dotel vs. Dotel Adv. 05 (is this really a question?)
Bradford vs. Cruz Adv. 05 (Bradford is serviceable as a setup against righties but is better suited as a specialist)
Rincon vs. Calero Adv. 05 (Calero is equally nasty against righties and lefties)
Mecir vs. Bradford Adv. 05 (Bradford will do better in the 7th inning against the righties alone than Mecir)
Mecir vs. Rincon Adv. 05 (Mecir was treated as a lefty/righty specialist seemingly based on how the moon was aligned last year. Sometimes he was used solely against lefties then others solely against righties... Rincon can take over the duties he should have been given long ago and that is getting the LHB out, that's all)
Duchscherer vs. Duchscherer... it's a wash here... After you get past here they don't really matter that much, but the A's bullpen is definitely more deep, I just don't want to do this anymore.
So, look, it's not like the A's got worse really anywhere other than slightly in the rotation although not that much, and everywhere else got better. The A's rotation wasn't that great anyway, nobody in the Big 3 pitched like it, Hudson was only mildly close to his former success, Mulder and Zito were downright mediocre, and Redman loved those gopher balls but they still only missed out on the playoffs by 1 game. How is it that this A's team magically is going to lose 95 games next year?
January 29, 2005 at 08:22AM View BBCode
A position by position analysis of the Oakland A'sPos-2004--2005---Advantage?
-C--Miller-Kendall---05
-1B-Hatte/Karros-Hatte/Johnson-05
-2B-Scutaro-Ginter-05
-3B-Chavez-Chavez-05 (broken hand for 6 weeks, but still hit 29 HRs, will probably hit 35-38)
-SS-Crosby-Crosby-05 (always better to have a year under your belt, he struggled to begin and end the season. He worked out the kinks then wore down in the long season. Endurance should be higher and swing should be good this year)
-LF-Byrnes/Kielty-Byrnes-05-(why did they insist on running Kielty out there for so long?)
-CF-Kotsay-Kotsay-same (he is in his prime and a great player)
-RF-Dye-Swisher-flipflop-(Swisher can produce better than JD did last year, but it's no guarantee. It depends...)
DH-Durazo/Karros-Durazo/Johnson-05
2004 Starting staff
Hudson-3.53 ERA
Harden-3.99 ERA
Mulder-4.43 ERA
Zito-4.48 ERA
Redman-4.71 ERA
2005 Starting staff
Harden~3.60 ERA
Zito~3.30-4.00 ERA (probably 3.85)
Haren~4.20 ERA
Blanton~4.60 ERA
Yabu~who knows, but they have a lot of fall backs here.
Meyer comes up halfway through the season and replaces Yabu...
2004 vs. 2005 Bullpen Adv
Rhodes/Dotel vs. Dotel Adv. 05 (is this really a question?)
Bradford vs. Cruz Adv. 05 (Bradford is serviceable as a setup against righties but is better suited as a specialist)
Rincon vs. Calero Adv. 05 (Calero is equally nasty against righties and lefties)
Mecir vs. Bradford Adv. 05 (Bradford will do better in the 7th inning against the righties alone than Mecir)
Mecir vs. Rincon Adv. 05 (Mecir was treated as a lefty/righty specialist seemingly based on how the moon was aligned last year. Sometimes he was used solely against lefties then others solely against righties... Rincon can take over the duties he should have been given long ago and that is getting the LHB out, that's all)
Duchscherer vs. Duchscherer... it's a wash here... After you get past here they don't really matter that much, but the A's bullpen is definitely more deep, I just don't want to do this anymore.
So, look, it's not like the A's got worse really anywhere other than slightly in the rotation although not that much, and everywhere else got better. The A's rotation wasn't that great anyway, nobody in the Big 3 pitched like it, Hudson was only mildly close to his former success, Mulder and Zito were downright mediocre, and Redman loved those gopher balls but they still only missed out on the playoffs by 1 game. How is it that this A's team magically is going to lose 95 games next year?
FuriousGiorge
Kendall is an improvement behind the plate. First and Second Bases are a wash, and still unimpressive. Chavez had his best year ever last year in terms of OBP, but he only slugged .501 - good, but not "masher" good. Crosby could be better this year than he was last season or he might be worse - don't assume that a young player takes a straight line to the top (Carlos Beltran, a better player than Crosby, went to shit in his sophomore year). The outfield is still a problem. Kotsay is not a "great" player, he's a good one. He also has limited power, which might be true for the entire outfield. Maybe Swisher comes up and plays great, or maybe he struggles and the A's go scrambling for a replacement so he can work it out in the minors.
The rotation - you are being WAY too optimistic here. Zito had an ERA of 4.48 last year, but this year you KNOW he won't be above 4? Harden is good, but 3.60 is still optimistic for a player with one full year under his belt. He could beat that though. Danny Haren is a huge question mark with very limited major league experience, yet you assume he's going to pitch better than he ever has. Same with Blanton. Bullpen - I think it's stupid when people go through a player-by-player comparison of the bullpen, saying this guy is better than this guy from last year on down the list. The bullpen is a unit. Last year they had some problems but were generally better than people gave them credit for. This year it'll probably be about the same.
That's the problem with your projection - you assume best-case scenario for everyone. Best-case scenario is that yes, the A's roll with the changes and still win 95 games. But this is a team that could just as easily crater, the major players in the lineup regressing (a lot of guys had career years last year) and the rotation pitching like the young and inexperienced bunch they are. So I'll split the difference, figure the 50% point for the A's is about 85 wins. Pretty good, but not good enough to win what will be a pretty tough division.
[Edited on 1-29-2005 by FuriousGiorge]
January 29, 2005 at 05:48PM View BBCode
You're so optimistic about everyone...I wonder if your fellow A's fans feel this way.Kendall is an improvement behind the plate. First and Second Bases are a wash, and still unimpressive. Chavez had his best year ever last year in terms of OBP, but he only slugged .501 - good, but not "masher" good. Crosby could be better this year than he was last season or he might be worse - don't assume that a young player takes a straight line to the top (Carlos Beltran, a better player than Crosby, went to shit in his sophomore year). The outfield is still a problem. Kotsay is not a "great" player, he's a good one. He also has limited power, which might be true for the entire outfield. Maybe Swisher comes up and plays great, or maybe he struggles and the A's go scrambling for a replacement so he can work it out in the minors.
The rotation - you are being WAY too optimistic here. Zito had an ERA of 4.48 last year, but this year you KNOW he won't be above 4? Harden is good, but 3.60 is still optimistic for a player with one full year under his belt. He could beat that though. Danny Haren is a huge question mark with very limited major league experience, yet you assume he's going to pitch better than he ever has. Same with Blanton. Bullpen - I think it's stupid when people go through a player-by-player comparison of the bullpen, saying this guy is better than this guy from last year on down the list. The bullpen is a unit. Last year they had some problems but were generally better than people gave them credit for. This year it'll probably be about the same.
That's the problem with your projection - you assume best-case scenario for everyone. Best-case scenario is that yes, the A's roll with the changes and still win 95 games. But this is a team that could just as easily crater, the major players in the lineup regressing (a lot of guys had career years last year) and the rotation pitching like the young and inexperienced bunch they are. So I'll split the difference, figure the 50% point for the A's is about 85 wins. Pretty good, but not good enough to win what will be a pretty tough division.
[Edited on 1-29-2005 by FuriousGiorge]
whiskybear
January 29, 2005 at 06:57PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
When it comes to Sports Talk, nobody---but I mean, nobody---is more articulate than Mr. Huddie Ledbetter himself.
1tim412
Wow, so 19 HRs and .812 OPS is the same as 7 HRs and .690 OPS?
Yes, and he missed 6 weeks because of a broken hand... What does this matter since slugging is a percentage stat rather than a totals stat? I'll tell you why, because for the first month and a half he turned into a slaphitter because the hand wasn't totally better. Then once the hand fully healed and he got his strength back he started hitting for power again and he still hit 29 HRs. Take away that broken hand and he probably hits close to 40.
Here is why I think Crosby of 2005 will be better than Crosby of 2004: In the first month he hit exactly .200 because he was swinging at sliders far out of the strikezone. Halfway into May something clicked and he started laying off those hotuside pitches and he started hitting. But then the end of the year started approaching and the length of the 162 game season started affecting him and he tired out. Next year he should skip the first month and a half of batting futility because of his swing getting fixed and then we can hope that having more depth he will get more rest and have better stamina for the stretch.
Kotsay was 6th among CF last year in OPS and he had some of the best defense out there. He may not be Junior Griffey or Jim Edmonds, but he is very good.
He could very easily have an ERA under 3.50 next year. Why? Because last year was the first year in his career that he had an ERA over 3.49. Even with his ERA of 4.48 last year, his career ERA is 3.41 and he is hardly old at 27. The odds are far more in favor of his ERA being 3.50 than 4.10.
Hudson did it. Mulder did it. Zito did it. Roy Oswalt did it. Freddie Garcia did it. It is the consensus that Harden has better stuff than all these guys, what makes it so hard to think that he won't get down to 3.60 ERA?
Danny Haren is a huge question mark with very limited major league experience, yet you assume he's going to pitch better than he ever has. Same with Blanton.
They had 28 blown saves last year. What do you mean that's better than most people give them credit for? A lot of those games were games they should have won, but guys like Mecir, Bradford and Rhodes gave up the win. This group is a LOT better than last year's group.
Yeah? Like who? Chavez improved, but he's 27, Durazo was only 29, Byrnes had the best year of his career, but he's only 28, just reaching his prime, Kotsay was only 28 and he actually only played up to his past years according to OPS+, Hatte played pretty even with the last 2 years, Crosby was a rookie so of course he had the best year of his career, Ginter had a much better year last year than Scutaro and he's only 28 so I don't see regressing there, Miller most likely had a career year, but Kendall is better behind the plate and at the plate than him so there's an upgrade there too. All the guys are either before or at their prime ages with the exception of perhaps Hatteberg, how can you say they had career years? You need to check your stuff before you say all the guys ahd career years.
January 29, 2005 at 11:11PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
First and Second Bases are a wash, and still unimpressive.
Wow, so 19 HRs and .812 OPS is the same as 7 HRs and .690 OPS?
Chavez had his best year ever last year in terms of OBP, but he only slugged .501 - good, but not "masher" good.
Yes, and he missed 6 weeks because of a broken hand... What does this matter since slugging is a percentage stat rather than a totals stat? I'll tell you why, because for the first month and a half he turned into a slaphitter because the hand wasn't totally better. Then once the hand fully healed and he got his strength back he started hitting for power again and he still hit 29 HRs. Take away that broken hand and he probably hits close to 40.
Crosby could be better this year than he was last season or he might be worse - don't assume that a young player takes a straight line to the top (Carlos Beltran, a better player than Crosby, went to [Censored] in his sophomore year).
Here is why I think Crosby of 2005 will be better than Crosby of 2004: In the first month he hit exactly .200 because he was swinging at sliders far out of the strikezone. Halfway into May something clicked and he started laying off those hotuside pitches and he started hitting. But then the end of the year started approaching and the length of the 162 game season started affecting him and he tired out. Next year he should skip the first month and a half of batting futility because of his swing getting fixed and then we can hope that having more depth he will get more rest and have better stamina for the stretch.
The outfield is still a problem. Kotsay is not a "great" player, he's a good one.
Kotsay was 6th among CF last year in OPS and he had some of the best defense out there. He may not be Junior Griffey or Jim Edmonds, but he is very good.
The rotation - you are being WAY too optimistic here. Zito had an ERA of 4.48 last year, but this year you KNOW he won't be above 4?
He could very easily have an ERA under 3.50 next year. Why? Because last year was the first year in his career that he had an ERA over 3.49. Even with his ERA of 4.48 last year, his career ERA is 3.41 and he is hardly old at 27. The odds are far more in favor of his ERA being 3.50 than 4.10.
Harden is good, but 3.60 is still optimistic for a player with one full year under his belt. He could beat that though.
Hudson did it. Mulder did it. Zito did it. Roy Oswalt did it. Freddie Garcia did it. It is the consensus that Harden has better stuff than all these guys, what makes it so hard to think that he won't get down to 3.60 ERA?
Danny Haren is a huge question mark with very limited major league experience, yet you assume he's going to pitch better than he ever has. Same with Blanton.
Bullpen - I think it's stupid when people go through a player-by-player comparison of the bullpen, saying this guy is better than this guy from last year on down the list. The bullpen is a unit. Last year they had some problems but were generally better than people gave them credit for. This year it'll probably be about the same.
They had 28 blown saves last year. What do you mean that's better than most people give them credit for? A lot of those games were games they should have won, but guys like Mecir, Bradford and Rhodes gave up the win. This group is a LOT better than last year's group.
(a lot of guys had career years last year)
Yeah? Like who? Chavez improved, but he's 27, Durazo was only 29, Byrnes had the best year of his career, but he's only 28, just reaching his prime, Kotsay was only 28 and he actually only played up to his past years according to OPS+, Hatte played pretty even with the last 2 years, Crosby was a rookie so of course he had the best year of his career, Ginter had a much better year last year than Scutaro and he's only 28 so I don't see regressing there, Miller most likely had a career year, but Kendall is better behind the plate and at the plate than him so there's an upgrade there too. All the guys are either before or at their prime ages with the exception of perhaps Hatteberg, how can you say they had career years? You need to check your stuff before you say all the guys ahd career years.
FuriousGiorge
(sigh)
Screw that. I don't feel like it. You're determined to only see the upside of all the players on your favorite team without acknowledging the possible downside. The general consensus is that Billy Beane's moves put them in better position going forward but in worse position in the near-term. Maybe they can win 100 games with untested arms, but would you bet money on this rotation of unproven pitchers? If everything breaks right for this team they can win the West, but everything won't break right. There will be injuries to a team that is very thin anyway, there will be struggles for one or more young players, there will be regression by one or more veterans.
I'm tired of talking about the A's. There are plenty of teams who had interesting off-seasons, so who cares about a 91-win team that doesn't spend any money?
January 29, 2005 at 11:45PM View BBCode
God, I have to go over this point by point? I don't care about the A's.(sigh)
Screw that. I don't feel like it. You're determined to only see the upside of all the players on your favorite team without acknowledging the possible downside. The general consensus is that Billy Beane's moves put them in better position going forward but in worse position in the near-term. Maybe they can win 100 games with untested arms, but would you bet money on this rotation of unproven pitchers? If everything breaks right for this team they can win the West, but everything won't break right. There will be injuries to a team that is very thin anyway, there will be struggles for one or more young players, there will be regression by one or more veterans.
I'm tired of talking about the A's. There are plenty of teams who had interesting off-seasons, so who cares about a 91-win team that doesn't spend any money?
1tim412
And the general consensus in 2002 was that the Angels weren't even close to being good enough for the World Series. And the general consensus in 2003 was that the Marlins had no shot to come within 20 games of the Wild Card, much less win the World Series. And the general consensus for the last 4 years has been that the Yankees have the best team, but they haven't won a WS in this millenium. What's your point?
January 29, 2005 at 11:50PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
The general consensus is that Billy Beane's moves put them in better position going forward but in worse position in the near-term.
And the general consensus in 2002 was that the Angels weren't even close to being good enough for the World Series. And the general consensus in 2003 was that the Marlins had no shot to come within 20 games of the Wild Card, much less win the World Series. And the general consensus for the last 4 years has been that the Yankees have the best team, but they haven't won a WS in this millenium. What's your point?
ABDREW
January 29, 2005 at 11:54PM View BBCode
What does Seattles rotation look like? I can't think of anyone right now whch isn't a good sign.
hobos
Their middle infield isn't great hitting-wise. Boone had a big decline last year, but may bounce back and be a force. Pokey Reese is a mistake, Jose Lopez should be at short. Their OF is good, but Winn and Ibanez are fairly average. They also have to hope Sexson is healthy and that Beltre's 2004 stats were not a fluke (and I'm willing to bet they were).
January 30, 2005 at 12:02AM View BBCode
Seattle's rotation is questionable. Moyer, Piniero, Meche, Madritsch and Franklin(?) could be very good, or could be pretty horrible. Madritsch was the only one to have a good year last year, but the other 4 were pretty good in 2003.Their middle infield isn't great hitting-wise. Boone had a big decline last year, but may bounce back and be a force. Pokey Reese is a mistake, Jose Lopez should be at short. Their OF is good, but Winn and Ibanez are fairly average. They also have to hope Sexson is healthy and that Beltre's 2004 stats were not a fluke (and I'm willing to bet they were).
hobos
As
Angels
Rangers
Mariners
I say As because they look like they have the best SPs. If Seattle's SPs revert to 2003 form (except Madritsch, ne needs to stay at 2004 form), they could bounce to first. As I project them, there will only be marginal improvements, and Madritsch's stats will decline, and I see Pineiro being the best pitcher. Texas is a slightly better hitting team than Seattle, and their pitching is fairly equal to Seattle. I would not be surprised to see them in last. The As pitchers are young, and contrary to popular belief, Blanton was pretty crappy last year. The Angels are not thrilling with their rotation either
Overall, every team has good to very good offense, and above averge defense. They all have solid bullpens as well. They are so equal in those categories that I see starting pitching being the determining factor
January 30, 2005 at 12:13AM View BBCode
I'm gonna have to put them in this orderAs
Angels
Rangers
Mariners
I say As because they look like they have the best SPs. If Seattle's SPs revert to 2003 form (except Madritsch, ne needs to stay at 2004 form), they could bounce to first. As I project them, there will only be marginal improvements, and Madritsch's stats will decline, and I see Pineiro being the best pitcher. Texas is a slightly better hitting team than Seattle, and their pitching is fairly equal to Seattle. I would not be surprised to see them in last. The As pitchers are young, and contrary to popular belief, Blanton was pretty crappy last year. The Angels are not thrilling with their rotation either
Overall, every team has good to very good offense, and above averge defense. They all have solid bullpens as well. They are so equal in those categories that I see starting pitching being the determining factor
FuriousGiorge
You're pinning your hopes for the A's on teams which had everything break right for them. And no, not every team which wins the WS has everything break right. Most teams which win it all are among the favorites going in. The A's aren't.
What do you think the over/under for A's wins is? And would you be willing to take the over if money were involved?
January 30, 2005 at 12:20AM View BBCode
Originally posted by 1tim412
And the general consensus in 2002 was that the Angels weren't even close to being good enough for the World Series. And the general consensus in 2003 was that the Marlins had no shot to come within 20 games of the Wild Card, much less win the World Series.
You're pinning your hopes for the A's on teams which had everything break right for them. And no, not every team which wins the WS has everything break right. Most teams which win it all are among the favorites going in. The A's aren't.
What do you think the over/under for A's wins is? And would you be willing to take the over if money were involved?
1tim412
Am I wrong in thinking that Zito will at least be able to average his career ERA with last year's ERA next season? Am I wrong that 6 more weeks of Eric Chavez is better for the team? Is it too much to assume that 2 of the top pitching prospects in baseball will be able to pitch just under league average with a good defense behind them? Am I wrong that .812 OPS is good at 2B and better than a .690 OPS? Am I wrong that 28 is just entering a player's prime? Then how can you assume that all the A's players had career years last year when none of the returners were over 28 and they will all regress? Are you saying that a combination of Dotel, Calero, and Cruz will blow just as many saves as Rhodes, Mecir, Bradford and Rincon?
January 30, 2005 at 03:44AM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Originally posted by 1tim412
And the general consensus in 2002 was that the Angels weren't even close to being good enough for the World Series. And the general consensus in 2003 was that the Marlins had no shot to come within 20 games of the Wild Card, much less win the World Series.
You're pinning your hopes for the A's on teams which had everything break right for them. And no, not every team which wins the WS has everything break right. Most teams which win it all are among the favorites going in. The A's aren't.
What do you think the over/under for A's wins is? And would you be willing to take the over if money were involved?
Am I wrong in thinking that Zito will at least be able to average his career ERA with last year's ERA next season? Am I wrong that 6 more weeks of Eric Chavez is better for the team? Is it too much to assume that 2 of the top pitching prospects in baseball will be able to pitch just under league average with a good defense behind them? Am I wrong that .812 OPS is good at 2B and better than a .690 OPS? Am I wrong that 28 is just entering a player's prime? Then how can you assume that all the A's players had career years last year when none of the returners were over 28 and they will all regress? Are you saying that a combination of Dotel, Calero, and Cruz will blow just as many saves as Rhodes, Mecir, Bradford and Rincon?
youngallstar
Harden and Blanton will be studs for sure but im guessing that will be a few years down the line.
January 30, 2005 at 04:06AM View BBCode
1tim412, your passionate about your team and I like that. But do you really think they will be better this year than past seasons?Harden and Blanton will be studs for sure but im guessing that will be a few years down the line.
hobos
Their SPs is their biggest problem. Zito is an infamously lucky pitcher, and last year may not be an aberration. I'm convinced that Harden is the real deal. Haren was good for the Cards, especially in the playoffs, but he walked too many guys and didn't strike out enough guys. If his minor league numbers mean anything, then that is only until he adjusts. He may be no better than the 4.50 ERA pitcher he was last year. Blanton is suppose to be very good, but he had a mediocre season at Sacramento, but the PCL is a notorious hitters league, with most the teams in the Rockies or the desert. He had a good BB/K rate and only 13 homers in the PCL isn't bad. Yabu is a Moneyball pitcher (cheap, high K rate, low BB and HR rate) but Japanese players tend to be gambles. Meyer may or may not be ready, but I doubt he makes the team. Duchscherer could be a dark house candidate to make the 5th SP spot, and if he isn't, he could be valuable in trade (there's probably at least 10 teams who would like him as their 5th starter)
January 30, 2005 at 04:16AM View BBCode
The As bullpen is improved, but I'm not convinced it's a huge improvement. Dotel gave up too many homers, so I have my doubts, but a full season of Dotel is better than half a season of Rhodes and half a season of Dotel. Calero and Cruz are big improvements, but Calero was not a setup guy last year. Hammonds was arguably the As best RP last year, and he's gone. I doubt Bradford will stay with the team, Beane was trying to put him in the Cameron trade. Tim Harrikala and Justin Duchscherer could be some of the best long relievers in the game, assuming they don't have sophomore slumps (and they make the team)Their SPs is their biggest problem. Zito is an infamously lucky pitcher, and last year may not be an aberration. I'm convinced that Harden is the real deal. Haren was good for the Cards, especially in the playoffs, but he walked too many guys and didn't strike out enough guys. If his minor league numbers mean anything, then that is only until he adjusts. He may be no better than the 4.50 ERA pitcher he was last year. Blanton is suppose to be very good, but he had a mediocre season at Sacramento, but the PCL is a notorious hitters league, with most the teams in the Rockies or the desert. He had a good BB/K rate and only 13 homers in the PCL isn't bad. Yabu is a Moneyball pitcher (cheap, high K rate, low BB and HR rate) but Japanese players tend to be gambles. Meyer may or may not be ready, but I doubt he makes the team. Duchscherer could be a dark house candidate to make the 5th SP spot, and if he isn't, he could be valuable in trade (there's probably at least 10 teams who would like him as their 5th starter)
whiskybear
What would you like to bet? He only crushed the ball in one of the best pitchers' parks in the league.
January 31, 2005 at 06:24PM View BBCode
Originally posted by hobos
...that Beltre's 2004 stats were not a fluke (and I'm willing to bet they were).
What would you like to bet? He only crushed the ball in one of the best pitchers' parks in the league.
Pages: 1 2