witesoxfan Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 It's a little early for anyone to be making World Series predictions....but if you did....a smart choice would be a favorite(Arizona, New York, Oakland....maybe SF again....something like that).....yet, he picks the Twins. What a dumbass. link 1 link 2 He's talking about your next World Series champion, the Twins I just put the stupidest quote of them all in there....but there were other dumb things he talked about. How the Twins apparently didn't get lucky at all last year....their starters went down, and that was unlucky....and that's true, but what he doesn't mention is how lucky the Twins got that Johan Santana stepped up and became a dominant starter for the second half....how Kyle Lohse stepped up and pitched huge....how Matt Kinney had a big win or two in there....how Juan Rincon came out of nowhere....and how Rick Reed's arm managed to somehow, some way stay on and throw up 15 wins. He also failed to mention how LaTroy Hawkins had a career year(putting up like a 2.14 ERA and a 1.00 WHIP, a year after having a 5.97 ERA and a 1.96 WHIP), how Eddie Guardado had a career year, how JC Romero had a career year(though I think it was more a breakthrough year than anything), and how at the end of the year their bullpen, which had carried them to that point along with good timely hitting and stellar defense, started to wear down and started to fail from being WAY overworked. They also replaced Mike Jackson with Mike Fetters.....and I don't know how to put that one. Jackson is a more effective pitcher, but less durable. Anyways....he's also failing to mention that somehow, their platoon in RF managed to hit about .315 with 25 homers and 100 RBI. The way he speaks in half-truths pisses me off....and I'll never take anything he ever says seriously again. It really is a terrible article, and when I opened the second part(which was really the first part for me, because I opened it first), and I saw that he said the Twins didn't get lucky....I knew it was a s***ty article. Anyone who says that the Twins didn't get lucky is truly an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 the twins are decent pick i still think if the sox can get it if garland or wright steps up big (both i think could be 20 game winners with this offense) we will win but if they dont step it up we wont beat the twins with just a 1-2 punch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 the twins are decent pick i still think if the sox can get it if garland or wright steps up big (both i think could be 20 game winners with this offense) we will win but if they dont step it up we wont beat the twins with just a 1-2 punch. Our offense is better than theirs and is probably the best in the league(atleast in the top 2 or 3), and our bullpen is deeper as well. Also....one thing I forgot to mention....in one of the two parts, he mentions that Kyle Lohse winning 13 games in his first full season as a starter is impressive....nice analysis Ken....also, way to be ignorant and forget that Wright and Garland won a combined 26 games....which is an average of 13 wins each. Given, Wright won 14 and Garland won 12....but who gives a s***? Having 1 starter on a team win 13 games in his first full season is not as impressive as having 2 starters on the same team win 12 and 14 games respectively in their first full seasons as starting....and having 3 in 2 years do the exact same thing(Buehrle won 16 in 01 though....and had an ERA below 3.30). Rosenthal doesn't know how to analyze fairly at this point in time. His obvious bias towards the Twins is showing. Also....if he wants to compare a team to the Angels....look at the White Sox. The Sox have the same type of leadoff hitter(a guy who just wants to get on base, but isn't incredibly fast), a veteran hitter who has struggled in the past year(Salmon had a frickin terrible year in 01....and then comes back and puts up .280 22 90 or so....if Thomas can put up .315 30 110....a shadow of some of his former stats....than it would be almost the exact same as Salmon)....both have good young cleanup hitters who play solid defense and drive in a boatload of runs.....both have a player that won the Big League challenge going into the year....both have a good lefty with good stuff....both brought in a RH starter who has been on winning teams in the past....both have a closer who throws hard as hell....both have a catcher who plays good defense and has a cannon for an arm....both have a CF who hustles his ass off all the time....that's more than what the Twins can be compared to the Angels for. Ken Rosenthal is not doing that great of a job....and he didn't on this article either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 we have a better offense yes, but they have pitching just has we do(i think ours is better) because there deffense is so good and covers so much ground it lowers there eras by probally 1 full run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 the twins are decent pick i still think if the sox can get it if garland or wright steps up big (both i think could be 20 game winners with this offense) we will win but if they dont step it up we wont beat the twins with just a 1-2 punch. Our offense is better than theirs and is probably the best in the league(atleast in the top 2 or 3), and our bullpen is deeper as well. Also....one thing I forgot to mention....in one of the two parts, he mentions that Kyle Lohse winning 13 games in his first full season as a starter is impressive....nice analysis Ken....also, way to be ignorant and forget that Wright and Garland won a combined 26 games....which is an average of 13 wins each. Given, Wright won 14 and Garland won 12....but who gives a s***? Having 1 starter on a team win 13 games in his first full season is not as impressive as having 2 starters on the same team win 12 and 14 games respectively in their first full seasons as starting....and having 3 in 2 years do the exact same thing(Buehrle won 16 in 01 though....and had an ERA below 3.30). Rosenthal doesn't know how to analyze fairly at this point in time. His obvious bias towards the Twins is showing. Also....if he wants to compare a team to the Angels....look at the White Sox. The Sox have the same type of leadoff hitter(a guy who just wants to get on base, but isn't incredibly fast), a veteran hitter who has struggled in the past year(Salmon had a frickin terrible year in 01....and then comes back and puts up .280 22 90 or so....if Thomas can put up .315 30 110....a shadow of some of his former stats....than it would be almost the exact same as Salmon)....both have good young cleanup hitters who play solid defense and drive in a boatload of runs.....both have a player that won the Big League challenge going into the year....both have a good lefty with good stuff....both brought in a RH starter who has been on winning teams in the past....both have a closer who throws hard as hell....both have a catcher who plays good defense and has a cannon for an arm....both have a CF who hustles his ass off all the time....that's more than what the Twins can be compared to the Angels for. Ken Rosenthal is not doing that great of a job....and he didn't on this article either. i see your side of the arguement and his the twins are still the favorites until we beat them. we didnt beat them last year or the year before, we need to win against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 I don't think that's a biased pick. I don't see any disrespect towards the Sox or anyone else. He analyzed their team pretty clearly, and I think it can easily be said that the Twins having good pitchers step in to replace the injured guys is not so much luck as it is good player development. The deciding factor in the AL Central race is obviously going to be the head-to-head between the Sox and Twins. Both teams should pummel the rest of the division, so their season series should decide the race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted March 26, 2003 Author Share Posted March 26, 2003 Maybe it's not the bias.....because there is no bias....you are right....and I was wrong However....it was the half-truths that pissed me off, or him leaving out key details. Or maybe it was just because he was a dumbass and said that the Twins got unlucky last year....being the worst half-truth in the entire thing. He said they got unlucky because their starters went down, but doesn't let the world know that they got lucky because two unprovens got very lucky and won them some ballgames and pitched well in Radke, Milton, and Mays's absences. They also got very lucky that their bullpen, specifially LaTroy Hawkins, pitched very well....Hawkins threw up a 2.14 ERA and a WHIP somewhere around 1.00 a year after he put up an ERA of 5.97 and a WHIP of 1.96. Guardado had a career year....Fiore had a career year....Jackson pitched lights out until his injury....Romero broke through. Another half-truth was him not mentioning that the White Sox also had two very young pitchers win atleast 12 games(Garland winning 12, and Wright winning 14) in their first full year in starting. He sugar-coated the article to make it sound like the Twins can do no wrong.....when that is very untrue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac9001 Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Looking at last season the Twins were VERY lucky, but like people say "better lucky then good". Let's just hope there luck runs out this year and they fall on there ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 i see your side of the arguement and his the twins are still the favorites until we beat them. we didnt beat them last year or the year before, we need to win against them. And, until we do that, the Twins are the favorite and, thusly, the team to beat. As far as the Twins in the WS goes..... Rosenthal must have gotten hold of a good crop of wacky tabaccy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 i see your side of the arguement and his the twins are still the favorites until we beat them. we didnt beat them last year or the year before, we need to win against them. And, until we do that, the Twins are the favorite and, thusly, the team to beat. As far as the Twins in the WS goes..... Rosenthal must have gotten hold of a good crop of wacky tabaccy I agree. Until we can beat them head to head, we can't claim anything. Also agree on the WS assessment. The Twins starting pitching is good over the long haul, but in a short series situation, they are vulnerable because they really don't have an "ace". We've got 2, Oakland 3, NY has 17! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 One thing about that Rosenthal article that I didn't like is that he assumes what most writers mistakenly assume--that the Twins starters were all that good to begin with. IMO, and if you look at their numbers, only Radke stands out as being anything close to above-average. Milton's career numbers are weak, Mays only pitches well against the Sox, Reed is average, and Lohse/Kinney are unproven rookies. The reason the Twins could win without those starters is because the guys they replaced them with were probably better pitchers(except in Radke's case.) That bullpen really is what did it for them last year, and you guys are right, Hawkins, Guardado, etc. were all pitching out of their minds at the same time. However, since the Sox are something like 11-36 against the Twins over the last few years, I think anybody who would pick us over them is just hedging their bets. It's always easier to pick the team that was better last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted March 26, 2003 Author Share Posted March 26, 2003 Mays went like 17-11 with a 3.17 ERA in 01.....he did well against other teams as well then too. Kinney was shipped to Milwaukee....but I agree on Lohse. People constantly say that Garland and Wright are unproven....yet, seem to think that Lohse is great already.....when in reality, he's just as proven as Garland and Wright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.