SI, AL Rotation Rankings

[shakes]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...ions/index.html

 

Ahaheim, Toronto, Cleveland, and Oakland? The A's have three minor leaguers in their rotation. These moneyball freaks will always hail Billy.

[santo=dorf]

Maybe he's better off coming out of the bullpen like he did in 2003.

 

Contreras was better as a starter in 2003, and what about Garland as a fifth starter?

Edited February 10, 2005 by santo=dorf

[ihatethecubs]

i cant stand how some people dont realize how strong our rotation actually is, i mean oakland and toronto?

[AddisonStSox]

My list.

 

1. Yankees

2. Red Sox

3. Twins

4. White Sox (We have a lot of question marks fellas, sorry.)

5. Angels

[Wise Master Buehrle]

LOL

 

"experts".

[Rowand44]

My list.

 

1.  Yankees

2.  Red Sox

3.  Twins

4.  White Sox (We have a lot of question marks fellas, sorry.)

5.  Angels

I have no problem with that list but all the teams you mentioned have as many if not more question marks in their rotation then the sox.

[CanOfCorn]

My list.

 

1.  Yankees

2.  Red Sox

3.  Twins

4.  White Sox (We have a lot of question marks fellas, sorry.)

5.  Angels

 

So do the Twins after Santana and Radke.

[JUGGERNAUT]

-Cliff Lee has Contreras type #'s with less experience.

-Milwood is moving to a more favorable hitters park than Philly.

-Elarton washes out of COL but has respectible #'s in 1/2 a season.

 

Sorry I don't but it.

 

CC vs Buerhle : adv MarkB

JW vs Garcia : adv Garcia

KM vs Hernandez : even

CL vs JC : adv Contreras

SE vs JG : adv Garland (All of the AL hasn't even seen Elarton yet!)

[AddisonStSox]

I have no problem with that list but all the teams you mentioned have as many if not more question marks in their rotation then the sox.

 

Of couse they do. No need of mentioning.

 

However, how could they have "more" question marks than the Sox?

[3E8]

Cleveland has no business being in the top 5.

[shakes]

My list.

 

1.  Yankees

2.  Red Sox

3.  Twins

4.  White Sox (We have a lot of question marks fellas, sorry.)

5.  Angels

 

I totally agree with this list. Until we prove differently, I think 4th is a fair assesment.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 04:49 PM)

Of couse they do.  No need of mentioning.

 

However, how could they have "more" question marks than the Sox?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A Yankee forum had a story from Baseball Prospectus saying that Wade Miller won't be availble until midseason. Matt Clement is making the NL to AL transition, and Wells and Schilling are both old (Schilling had ankle surgery too.)

[KevHead0881]

"Experts" have really liked our team in recent years and look what happened. I can live with the low expectations.

[AddisonStSox]

Of couse they do.  No need of mentioning.

 

However, how could they have "more" question marks than the Sox?

 

EDIT: Eh, screw it.

 

IMHO,

 

Radke-Buehrle

Santana>Garcia

Silva-El Duque

Lohse

Mays

 

I think a pre-season #4 is fair.

 

...and Santo, all things considered, you can't possible say the White Sox have a better rotation than the Red Sox. Is that what you're implying or am I reading it wrong?

Edited February 10, 2005 by AddisonStSox

[Rowand44]

Of couse they do.  No need of mentioning.

 

However, how could they have "more" question marks than the Sox?

Well, like I said I have no problem with the way you ranked those rotations though imo I flip the sox and twins for now. Anyways with the yanks rotation you got pavano coming off a career year and switching from the nl to the al can he repeat what he did last year? Moose is coming off a injury and pitched poorly while he was healthy last year. Wright failed a physical and how's he going to pitch without mazzone? Brown is always injured. So the yanks have quite a number of ??? in their rotation also. Santo mentioned the ones with Boston's rotation. The question marks surrounding the sox are can Jose be consistant and can el duque stay healthy? All of these rotations have some questions, should be interesting to see how all of them turn out, jmo.

[JUGGERNAUT]

My List

1. Yankees (RJ goes for 30W)

2. Red Sox (Schilling starting late)

3. Twins (organizational depth)

4. Oak (organizational depth)

5. White Sox (Buehrle, Garcia)

6. Angels (Colon)

7. Blue Jays (Halladay)

8. Cle (CC, JW)

 

The report is unreal. I'm looking at these ERA's for CLE well over 5

& how he places them at 4 & then I look at the question marks on OAK with ERA's in the 4's & he places them at 7. It's a joke.

 

Until proven otherwise Beane knows what he's doing & should produce another fine rotation.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 04:53 PM)

...and Santo, all things considered, you can't possible say the White Sox have a better rotation than the Red Sox.  Is that what you're implying or am I reading it wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not, but they have just as many, or more serious question marks as we do. But I would say they have more talent to be a better rotation.

[AddisonStSox]

Well, like I said I have no problem with the way you ranked those rotations though imo I flip the sox and twins for now.  Anyways with the yanks rotation you got pavano coming off a career year and switching from the nl to the al can he repeat what he did last year?  Moose is coming off a injury and pitched poorly while he was healthy last year.  Wright failed a physical and how's he going to pitch without mazzone?  Brown is always injured.  So the yanks have quite a number of ??? in their rotation also.  Santo mentioned the ones with Boston's rotation.  The question marks surrounding the sox are can Jose be consistant and can el duque stay healthy?  All of these rotations have some questions, should be interesting to see how all of them turn out, jmo.

 

Totaly agree. The Yanks have just as many question marks as anyone else.

 

BUT, it terms of raw talent...Yank's question marks, or White Sox's question marks?

 

I'd choose the former.

 

Don't get me wrong, the White Sox rotation is nothing to scoff at.

[AddisonStSox]

I'm not, but they have just as many, or more serious question marks as we do.  But I would say they have more talent to be a better rotation.

 

Here Here.

 

That was my exact train of thought.

[shakes]

My List

1.  Yankees (RJ goes for 30W)

2.  Red Sox (Schilling starting late)

3.  Twins (organizational depth)

4.  Oak (organizational depth)

5.  White Sox (Buehrle, Garcia)

6.  Angels  (Colon)

7.  Blue Jays (Halladay)

8.  Cle (CC, JW)

 

The report is unreal.  I'm looking at these ERA's for CLE well over 5

& how he places them at 4 & then I look at the question marks on OAK with ERA's in the 4's & he places them at 7.  It's a joke.

 

Until proven otherwise Beane knows what he's doing & should produce another fine rotation.

 

How can any rotation be ranked 4 with three minor league starters and Zito coming off of a bad year? How do we know Beane can produce a staff? He didn't draft the big three. I know Beane has done well with his payroll, but it's not like he's won a WS.

[Rowand44]

Totaly agree.  The Yanks have just as many question marks as anyone else.

 

BUT, it terms of raw talent...Yank's question marks, or White Sox's question marks?

 

I'd choose the former.

 

Don't get me wrong, the White Sox rotation is nothing to scoff at.

I have the yankees ahead of the sox for a simple reason........Randy Johnson, Buehrle is absolutely great but he's not the Unit. I have the red sox in front because of schilling and the depth they have with 6 major league caliber starters. After that, I rank the sox 3rd because after Santana I'm skeptical on Minny's rotation, Radke had his career year last year and I'm not that high on Silva and Lohse and Mays are garbage, imo.

[AddisonStSox]

I have the yankees ahead of the sox for a simple reason........Randy Johnson, Buehrle is absolutely great but he's not the Unit.  I have the red sox in front because of schilling and the depth they have with 6 major league caliber starters.  After that, I rank the sox 3rd because after Santana I'm skeptical on Minny's rotation, Radke had his career year last year and I'm not that high on Silva and Lohse and Mays are garbage, imo.

 

Dude, what more could you possibly ask from Brad Radke?

 

You know what you're getting. No skepticism.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 05:12 PM)

Dude, what more could you possibly ask from Brad Radke?

 

You know what you're getting.  No skepticism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about winning more than 15 games in a season as a #2 starter? He has only done it once before in his career.

[santo=dorf]

He mentioned Garcia and Buehrle pitching 200 innings each, but he didn't explain much about it.

 

2004 IP with the rotations used.

 

1. Boston: 870.2

2. NYY: 951

3. Twins: 844.2

4. Indians: 882.1

5. Angels: 878.2

6. Blue Jays: 743

7. A's: 686.1

8. Sox 927.1

9. Texas: 560

10. Tigers: 847.1

11. Orioles:719

12. Mariners: 758.2

13. Royals: 629.1

14. D-Rays: 530.2

[JUGGERNAUT]

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 05:02 PM)

My List

1. Yankees (RJ goes for 30W)

2. Red Sox (Schilling starting late)

3. Twins (organizational depth)

4. Oak (organizational depth)

5. White Sox (Buehrle, Garcia)

6. Angels (Colon)

7. Blue Jays (Halladay)

8. Cle (CC, JW)

 

The report is unreal. I'm looking at these ERA's for CLE well over 5

& how he places them at 4 & then I look at the question marks on OAK with ERA's in the 4's & he places them at 7. It's a joke.

 

Until proven otherwise Beane knows what he's doing & should produce another fine rotation.

 

How can any rotation be ranked 4 with three minor league starters and Zito coming off of a bad year? How do we know Beane can produce a staff? He didn't draft the big three. I know Beane has done well with his payroll, but it's not like he's won a WS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oak SP

2004 65-46, 0 starts by a pitcher w era > 5

2003 67-52, 7 starts by a pitcher w era > 5

2002 75-41, 18 starts by a pitcher w era > 5

2001 80-39, 18 starts by a pitcher w era > 5

2000 71-53, 52 starts by a pitcher w era > 5

 

It's not all the big 3 (Hudson, Mulder, Zito).

Redman, Harden, Lidle, Lilly, Halama, Durscherer, Harang, Hiljus, Appier, Heredia have all pitched starts for the A's over the years & have all had ERA's under 5.

Beane has been masteful at finding guys to fill out the rotation year after year who produce winning records & era's < 5.

 

Beane has to be among the top GM's in getting the most out of rookie starters the past 5 yrs. Even better than Ryan of Min who has basically been doing it with a 1-2 starter punch the past 3 yrs.

Edited February 10, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT