2006 Power Rankings

[KevHead0881]

OK, you're on - KC will not finish in last place in the division in 2006.  Um... what are we betting?  One of those sig bets people do?  Or just a gentlemen's bet that we remember at the end of the year?

 

I think MIN will be a bit under .500, and I think DET will finish last.  KC will beat out DET and, possibly, give MIN a run for 3rd place.  CLE will finish 2nd, no surprise there, but I think they will not be as good as last year.  I don't see a wild card from the Central.

 

A sig bet will work. I'll let you decide.

[ZoomSlowik]

Is it just me, or does there seem to be just a little too much Indians' love after last season? I find it hard to believe that they're going to do much better than last season, if they even do that. People seem to be willing to accept that the slow start was a fluke but aren't willing to accept the same thing about their ridiculous hot streak. Their starting pitching is only passable, and things will get interesting with Wickman as their closer. They obviously have a few guys that can hit, and they have some good young arms in the pen, but they remind me too much of the Sox teams from recent years, only with less power and arguably weaker pitching.

 

As for the Yankees, whenever you can hit like they can, they're not going to slip too far. Their rotation is a bit of a mess, but they still have more talent there than most teams, and they still have Rivera at the back of the pen. They've had a similar or worse staff than this for the last several years, and it hasn't stopped them from winning the division. They should still make the playoffs again, and follow it up with an early exit because of weak pitching and an offense that doesn't produce when it matters. The only teams that I think are definitely better than them are the Sox and the Cards. After that, they're in that group that includes Cleveland, Boston, Oakland, and the Mets. All of those teams have some major flaws. That doesn't necessarily mean New York will finish with the best record out of those teams, but on paper they compare fairly well.

 

The NL blows outside of the Cardinals though. Seriously, the Braves? They have two starters and no bullpen, and Jones is not hitting 51 homers again. The Mets are depending on Glavine to be their #2 starter, and if anything happens to Pedro their rotation is really brutal. The Giants are another Bonds injury away from possibly finishing in 4th. I really think the Twins would win at least 90 in the NL West or NL East.

[ZoomSlowik]

EDIT:  Upon further review, I suppose that it's not really necessary for a Top 5 team to have Top 5 pitching.  A good example would be the '97 Indians.  (Of course, they also played in a weak division and didn't get hot until late in the season.)  My point was that one typically needs very good pitching to be an elite team.

 

Not really. In fact, it's usually more advantageous to have a strong lineup during the regular season, since you have 5 starters instead of 4 and your top guys don't always face each other. The Yankees have made the playoffs regularly without strong starting pitching. The Red Sox have done it largely with their lineup of late. The Indians' pitching was highly mediocre last year. The Cardinals have gotten by with several journeymen and slugged people to death. The same was true of the 2000 Sox and the Angels and Giants the year they met in the Series. Even the Marlins' staff wasn't very good during the regular season when they won it.

 

The only teams that really had strong pitching that made the playoffs without at least a decent offense of late were the White Sox and the Dodgers 2 years ago. I guess the Astros and Angels count too, but the latter was producing a little better during the regular season. Even the Twins were decent at putting runs on the board in past years. They had to be since their starting staff wasn't very good outside of Johna. Granted good starting pitching is a major benefit once you make the playoffs, but it isn't the be all and end all, and the best staff doesn't always win.

Edited March 22, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[NorthSideSox72]

Not really. In fact, it's usually more advantageous to have a strong lineup during the regular season, since you have 5 starters instead of 4 and your top guys don't always face each other. The Yankees have made the playoffs regularly without strong starting pitching. The Red Sox have done it largely with their lineup of late. The Indians' pitching was highly mediocre last year. The Cardinals have gotten by with several journeymen and slugged people to death. The same was true of the 2000 Sox and the Angels and Giants the year they met in the Series. Even the Marlins' staff wasn't very good during the regular season when they won it.

 

The only teams that really had strong pitching that made the playoffs without at least a decent offense of late were the White Sox and the Dodgers 2 years ago. I guess the Astros and Angels count too, but the latter was producing a little better during the regular season. Even the Twins were decent at putting runs on the board in past years. They had to be since their starting staff wasn't very good outside of Johna. Granted good starting pitching is a major benefit once you make the playoffs, but it isn't the be all and end all, and the best staff doesn't always win.

 

This isn't really true. It was posted in an earlier thread - if you look at the team ERA numbers from last year, 4 of the top 5 teams MLB were playoff teams (plus CLE who almost made it), and in the AL, the playoff teams were 1(t), 3, 9 and 11. Looking at team OPS, on the other hand, there were four playoff teams in the top half of the league, and 4 in the bottom half. Runs scored? 5 in top half, only 2 in top 5.

 

To say having a strong lineup is more advantageous than strong pitching just doesn't hold up.

[NorthSideSox72]

A sig bet will work.  I'll let you decide.

OK, what the heck. My first sig bet. I'll add it in a minute.

[ZoomSlowik]

This isn't really true.  It was posted in an earlier thread - if you look at the team ERA numbers from last year, 4 of the top 5 teams MLB were playoff teams (plus CLE who almost made it), and in the AL, the playoff teams were 1(t), 3, 9 and 11.  Looking at team OPS, on the other hand, there were four playoff teams in the top half of the league, and 4 in the bottom half.  Runs scored?  5 in top half, only 2 in top 5.

 

To say having a strong lineup is more advantageous than strong pitching just doesn't hold up.

 

Way to use one year as an example. :headshake I just said in my last post that last year had some weaker lineups than normal. Besides, it's not entirely accurate. Cleveland tied for the lead with the Sox and fell short, and the Twins finished at 3.71 and didn't make it. Boston made the playoffs with a 4.74 ERA, and so did the Yankees at 4.52. Plus the Padres were at 4.13.

 

I can't find it right now, but one of the stat-heads wrote an article a while ago saying not only is having a strong offense statistically more advantageous during the regular season, but that having the best pitching staff doesn't equate to a playoff win as often as you'd think. If strong pitching really was the deciding factor, the Braves would have more than one ring, the Cubs would have won in 2003 :puke , and the A's actually would have won something.

Edited March 22, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[WCSox]

Not really. In fact, it's usually more advantageous to have a strong lineup during the regular season, since you have 5 starters instead of 4 and your top guys don't always face each other. The Yankees have made the playoffs regularly without strong starting pitching. The Red Sox have done it largely with their lineup of late. The Indians' pitching was highly mediocre last year. The Cardinals have gotten by with several journeymen and slugged people to death. The same was true of the 2000 Sox and the Angels and Giants the year they met in the Series. Even the Marlins' staff wasn't very good during the regular season when they won it.

 

Um, have you looked at the stats?

 

Kevin Millwood ('05): 2.86 ERA

Cliff Lee ('05): 3.79 ERA (18-5)

 

C.C. Sabathia ('05): 4.03 ERA (15-10)

Chris Carpenter ('05): 2.83 ERA (21-5)

Chris Carpenter ('04): 3.46 ERA (15-5)

Mark Mulder ('05): 3.64 ERA (16-8)

Jeff Suppan ('05): 3.57 ERA (16-10)

Jeff Suppan ('04): 4.16 ERA (16-9)

Matt Morris ('05): 4.11 ERA (14-10)

(Not bad for a bunch of "journeymen", eh?)

 

Josh Beckett ('03): 3.04 ERA

Dontrelle Willis ('03): 3.30 ERA

Mark Redman ('03): 3.59 ERA

Brad Penny ('03): 4.13 ERA

Carl Pavano ('03): 4.30 ERA

 

Much more often than not, top teams have strong starting pitching.

[GoodAsGould]

So, the Yankees were better than the White Sox, Angels, Astros, Cardinals, and Braves last season?  I'm not even sure that they were better than the Red Sox or Indians.

 

 

Id say better than the Braves easy... its debatable between them and the Angels even though the Angels beat them in the playoffs.

 

The only teams Id say that were clearly better are the Cardinals and WhiteSox. The Astros made it to the WS yes but doesnt neccesarily mean they were the better team. For example I view the Cardinals as a > than the Astros even though the Astro's beat them in the playoffs.

[ZoomSlowik]

Um, have you looked at the stats?

 

Kevin Millwood ('05): 2.86 ERA

Cliff Lee ('05): 3.79 ERA (18-5)

 

C.C. Sabathia ('05): 4.03 ERA (15-10)

Chris Carpenter ('05): 2.83 ERA (21-5)

Chris Carpenter ('04): 3.46 ERA (15-5)

Mark Mulder ('05): 3.64 ERA (16-8)

Jeff Suppan ('05): 3.57 ERA (16-10)

Jeff Suppan ('04): 4.16 ERA (16-9)

Matt Morris ('05): 4.11 ERA (14-10)

(Not bad for a bunch of "journeymen", eh?)

 

Josh Beckett ('03): 3.04 ERA

Dontrelle Willis ('03): 3.30 ERA

Mark Redman ('03): 3.59 ERA

Brad Penny ('03): 4.13 ERA

Carl Pavano ('03): 4.30 ERA

 

Much more often than not, top teams have strong starting pitching.

 

Those ERA's aren't that stellar for the NL teams. Because of the pitcher batting in the NL, their ERA's deviate as much as half a run. Plus Beckett missed some time and Willis wasn't called up until later. You also conveniently only posted 3 pitchers' ERA's for Cleveland's team. You also might as well leave off the records, those are pretty much irrelevant to the pitcher's performance. Do you really think guys like Marquis and Suppan would be winning 16 games for crap teams?

 

If you're so convinced that pitching is crucial to good teams, then tell me why the Yankees make the playoffs every year and why the Red Sox have done it as of late, and give me a response for my statement at the my last post.

[WCSox]

Id say better than the Braves easy... its debatable between them and the Angels even though the Angels beat them in the playoffs.

 

The only teams Id say that were clearly better are the Cardinals and WhiteSox.  The Astros made it to the WS yes but doesnt neccesarily mean they were the better team.  For example I view the Cardinals as a > than the Astros even though the Astro's beat them in the playoffs.

 

The Angels were clearly better than the Yankees, IMO. Even with their lineup slumping badly, they tatooed Yankee pitching. Same with the Cards and Astros. The Braves only won 90 games, but played in a much more competitive division (PHI - 88 wins; FLA - 83 wins; Mets - 83 wins; Nats - 81 wins). I think that the Red Sox and Yanks were about even and the Indians were slightly better at the end of the season (but probabably not earlier in the season).

 

I agree that the Cards were a better team than the Astros. But it was Astros pitching (Lidge notwithstanding) that made the difference. Oswalt, Clemens, and Backe were huge in the NLCS.

[ZoomSlowik]

The Angels were clearly better than the Yankees, IMO.  Even with their lineup slumping badly, they tatooed Yankee pitching.  Same with the Cards and Astros.  The Braves only won 90 games, but played in a much more competitive division (PHI - 88 wins; FLA - 83 wins; Mets - 83 wins; Nats - 81 wins).  I think that the Red Sox and Yanks were about even and the Indians were slightly better at the end of the season (but probabably not earlier in the season).

 

I agree that the Cards were a better team than the Astros.  But it was Astros pitching (Lidge notwithstanding) that made the difference.  Oswalt, Clemens, and Backe were huge in the NLCS.

 

Yeah, the Angels were so much better that they needed 5 games to beat the Yankees. They didn't exactly tatoo the Yankees either, considering that they only scored more than 5 runs in one game. Anyways, their lineup didn't really start slumping until they played the Sox. How exactly did the Cards and Astros destroy the Yankees' pitching? I don't see how you're concluding that they were better. Houston's lineup was brutal, I don't know if I would have liked their chances against the Yanks head to head.

 

As for the Braves, I don't understand how you're that impressed with the Braves. They were playing like 5 rookies, they had only 2 legit starters, and no bullpen. There's a reason that they've been losing in the first round so much.

[WCSox]

If you're so convinced that pitching is crucial to good teams, then tell me why the Yankees make the playoffs every year and why the Red Sox have done it as of late, and give me a response for my statement at the my last post.

 

Because up until about two years ago, the Yankees had top-notch starting pitching. And even when their pitching started to go south last year, they had enough cash to spend on the big hitters (A-Rod, Sheffield, etc.). That way, they could slug their way to division titles by beating up on their crappy divisional opponents (Devil Rays, Orioles, and Jays).

 

But what have the Yankees done since losing their quality pitching? Blowing a 3-0 lead in the '04 ALCS? Getting hammered by the crappy Angels hitters in the '05 ALDS?

 

Anybody can slug their way into the playoffs. But if you don't have the pitching to go along with it, you're most likely going to pay the price in the playoffs. I can't think of a team with mediocre pitching that won a WS.

 

Do you really think guys like Marquis and Suppan would be winning 16 games for crap teams?

 

You can't aruge with their low ERAs. They've pitched fantastically over the past two years, even by NL standards. The Cards to the NLCS last year because of pitching, not because of Scott Rolen or Jim Edmonds.

[ZoomSlowik]

Because up until about two years ago, the Yankees had top-notch starting pitching.  And even when their pitching started to go south last year, they had enough cash to spend on the big hitters (A-Rod, Sheffield, etc.).  That way, they could slug their way to division titles by beating up on their crappy divisional opponents (Devil Rays, Orioles, and Jays).

 

But what have the Yankees done since losing their quality pitching?  Blowing a 3-0 lead in the '04 ALCS?  Getting hammered by the crappy Angels hitters in the '05 ALDS?

 

Anybody can slug their way into the playoffs.  But if you don't have the pitching to go along with it, you're most likely going to pay the price in the playoffs.  I can't think of a team with mediocre pitching that won a WS.

You can't aruge with their low ERAs.  They've pitched fantastically over the past two years, even by NL standards.  The Cards to the NLCS last year because of pitching, not because of Scott Rolen or Jim Edmonds.

 

Oh really? Who was pitching so well after about 98? They got decent performances here and there from Clemens and Pettitte, but they never really had more than one solid starter, much like now. So now they can beat their division into submission by slugging them to death, regardless of their pitching? Guess it doesn't really matter that much.

 

They still made the playoffs, didn't they? That's more than you could say for 22 other teams in the league. Plus, as I said before, they didn't exactly get hammered by the Angels.

 

Okay, so now you're admitting that you can get into the playoffs without pitching. That was my entire point, it's not really as crucial to success as you think it is.

 

Yes, I can argue that their ERA's weren't that good, outside of Carpenter. None of them finished in the top 15 in ERA in the NL, which would generally be a good thing if you've got such great pitching. They put up a ton of runs, which was a major factor in the regular season. Do you really think they'd still be winning if Pujols wasn't there? They can get by with less because they score so much. The Astros couldn't do that.

 

Let's see, there's the Red Sox, who had very mediocre pitching outside of Cy Young winner Schilling, who was hurt. Their bottom 3 starters were brutal, and Pedro's ERA was almost 4. There's the Marlins, who's pitching largely underacheived until the playoffs. There are the Giants and Angels, who played each other in the series with less than stellar pitching. The 2000 Yankees won it all with only one starter with an ERA under 4, and that was Clemens at 3.70. The 1999 Yankees did that too, with only Cone under 4 (3.44). Is that enough examples?

[WCSox]

Okay, so now you're admitting that you can get into the playoffs without pitching. That was my entire point, it's not really as crucial to success as you think it is.

 

That depends on your definition of "success". I don't consider the 2005 Yankees and their $200 million+ payroll a "success", nor do I consider them an elite team.

 

Yes, I can argue that their ERA's weren't that good, outside of Carpenter. None of them finished in the top 15 in ERA in the NL, which would generally be a good thing if you've got such great pitching.

 

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That Cardinals only allowed 634 runs last year. That was better than the Sox (645). The Cards only had TWO starters with ERA's above 4.00 (Morris, 4.11; Marquis, 4.13). Those are great numbers, even for the NL. They also had one of the strongest bullpens in the league.

 

 

They put up a ton of runs, which was a major factor in the regular season. Do you really think they'd still be winning if Pujols wasn't there? They can get by with less because they score so much. The Astros couldn't do that.

 

They scored 805 runs last year, not exactly matching up to the Yankees (886 runs) or the Red Sox (901 runs) and their slugging-heavy rosters. Hell, the Indians (790 runs) almost match the Cardinals. But if you want to believe that St. Louis won 100+ games in consecutive seaons because of Pujols, go ahead.

 

There are the Giants and Angels, who played each other in the series with less than stellar pitching.

 

Wow, you didn't do your homework...

 

'02 Angels:

Appier - 3.92 ERA

Ortiz - 3.77 ERA

Washburn - 3.15 ERA

Lackey - 3.66 ERA

Percival - 1.92 ERA

Weber - 2.54 ERA

Donnelly - 2.17

 

'02 Giants:

Reuter - 3.23 ERA

Schmidt - 3.45 ERA

Ortiz - 3.61 ERA

Hernandez - 4.38 ERA

Nen - 2.20 ERA

Witasick - 2.37 ERA

Zerbe - 3.04 ERA

 

"Less than stellar", my ass.

 

Let's see, there's the Red Sox, who had very mediocre pitching outside of Cy Young winner Schilling, who was hurt. Their bottom 3 starters were brutal, and Pedro's ERA was almost 4.

 

Schilling was hurt, but still pitched... and did so brillinantly. And I didn't realize that an ERA of 3.90 was bad. Arroyo's ERA of 4.03 wasn't too shabby, either. Oh, and there was Foulke's 2.17 ERA and 32 saves and Williamson's 1.26 ERA as a set-up man. They didn't have much depth to their pitching, but they were able to run Schilling and Pedro out twice in a seven-game series. One can get by with a couple of studs in the playoffs (like Johnson and Schilling in '01).

 

The 2000 Yankees won it all with only one starter with an ERA under 4, and that was Clemens at 3.70. The 1999 Yankees did that too, with only Cone under 4 (3.44). Is that enough examples?

 

You don't need an entire rotation of studs if you have enough depth (several pitchers with ERAs of, say, 4.50 or under).

 

Oh really? Who was pitching so well after about 98? They got decent performances here and there from Clemens and Pettitte, but they never really had more than one solid starter, much like now.

 

They had more than one quality starter and much more depth in their bullpen back then...

 

Yankee pitchers who were regularly used with ERAs under 4.50:

1999: El Duque, David Cone, Rivera, Grimsley, Nelson, Stanton, Mendoza (great bullpen)

2000: Clemes, Pettite, El Duque (4.51), Rivera, Nelson, Stanton

2001: Mussina, Clemens, Pettite, Rivera, Stanton, Choate

2002: Mussina, Wells, Clemens, El Duque, Pettite, Lilly, Rivera, Standon, Karsay, Mendoza

2003: Clemens, Pettite, Mussina, Wells, Rivera, Hammond, Osuna

2004: Lieber, Brown (got hurt and tanked in the playoffs), El Duque, Gordon, Rivera

2005: Johnson (sucked in the playoffs), Wang, Chacon, Rivera, Gordon

 

From '99-'03, 6-10 pitchers who were used regularly had ERAs under 4.50. Over past two years, no more than 5 did. What I see happening around 2004 is veteran pitchers getting hurt and not pitching well in the playoffs. I also see only one reliable set-up man in the bullpen (Gordon). No wonder the Yankees can't even make it to a WS anymore.

 

So now they can beat their division into submission by slugging them to death, regardless of their pitching? Guess it doesn't really matter that much

 

Yep, not until their second-rate pitching gives it up like a $20 hooker in the playoffs.

 

Plus, as I said before, they didn't exactly get hammered by the Angels.

 

They sure as hell didn't pitch well. The Yankees gave up an average of 5.0 runs/game to a not-very-potent Angels lineup (only 761 runs scored in the regular season). Randy Johnson had a 6.14 ERA and Mussina had a 5.40 ERA in the ALDS.

[DBAHO]

They scored 805 runs last year, not exactly matching up to the Yankees (886 runs) or the Red Sox (901 runs) and their slugging-heavy rosters.  Hell, the Indians (790 runs) almost match the Cardinals.  But if you want to believe that St. Louis won 100+ games in consecutive seaons because of Pujols, go ahead. 

So if the Cards didn't have Pujols, in 2005 do you still think they would have won 100 games? They were without Rolen for a majority of 2005 as well.

[KevHead0881]

OK, what the heck.  My first sig bet.  I'll add it in a minute.

 

You're on buddy!

[NorthSideSox72]

You're on buddy! 

LOL

 

Excellent. Nice sig. I added my end of the bet to my sig, since we apparently get to be creative.

[WCSox]

So if the Cards didn't have Pujols, in 2005 do you still think they would have won 100 games? They were without Rolen for a majority of 2005 as well.

 

Oh, probably not. But I still think they would've made the playoffs, given the depth of their pitching staff and how badly the Astros sandbagged April and May.

 

I'm not trying to diminish what Pujols has contributed to the Cardinals' success. He obviously does mean a lot. I was merely debunking this idiotic theory that the Cardinals "slugged" their way to 100 wins last year and that their pitching was mediocre. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

I absolutely guarantee you that the Cards wouldn't have made the playoffs without their "journeymen" pitchers (Carpenter, Suppan, Marquis, Isringhausen, Tavarez, King, Eldred, etc.).

[DBAHO]

Oh, probably not.  But I still think they would've made the playoffs, given the depth of their pitching staff and how badly the Astros sandbagged April and May.

 

I'm not trying to diminish what Pujols has contributed to the Cardinals' success.  He obviously does mean a lot.  I was merely debunking this idiotic theory that the Cardinals "slugged" their way to 100 wins last year and that their pitching was mediocre.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

 

I absolutely guarantee you that the Cards wouldn't have made the playoffs without their "journeymen" pitchers (Carpenter, Suppan, Marquis, Isringhausen, Tavarez, King, Eldred, etc.).

In no way would i call Chris Carpenter a journeyman pitcher. He's one of the top 5 SP taken in fantasy leagues nowadays, and St. Louis are lucky to have him.

 

On the topic of the Cards' so called "journeyman pitchers" though, Dave Duncan has done a great job with the likes of Suppan who haven't had success in other places, but under his tutelage they've come in, found a role and succeeded.

 

I will be interested to see how they do without Tavarez and King this season though.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I don't doubt for a second that the Yankees won't get to the playoffs. But, once they get there, it's one and done.

[ZoomSlowik]

Wow, you didn't do your homework...  

 

'02 Angels:

Appier - 3.92 ERA

Ortiz - 3.77 ERA

Washburn - 3.15 ERA

Lackey - 3.66 ERA

Percival - 1.92 ERA

Weber - 2.54 ERA

Donnelly - 2.17

 

'02 Giants:

Reuter - 3.23 ERA

Schmidt - 3.45 ERA

Ortiz - 3.61 ERA

Hernandez - 4.38 ERA

Nen - 2.20 ERA

Witasick - 2.37 ERA

Zerbe - 3.04 ERA

 

"Less than stellar", my ass.

Schilling was hurt, but still pitched... and did so brillinantly.  And I didn't realize that an ERA of 3.90 was bad.  Arroyo's ERA of 4.03 wasn't too shabby, either.  Oh, and there was Foulke's 2.17 ERA and 32 saves and Williamson's 1.26 ERA as a set-up man.  They didn't have much depth to their pitching, but they were able to run Schilling and Pedro out twice in a seven-game series.  One can get by with a couple of studs in the playoffs (like Johnson and Schilling in '01).

You don't need an entire rotation of studs if you have enough depth (several pitchers with ERAs of, say, 4.50 or under).

They had more than one quality starter and much more depth in their bullpen back then...

 

Yankee pitchers who were regularly used with ERAs under 4.50:

1999: El Duque, David Cone, Rivera, Grimsley, Nelson, Stanton, Mendoza (great bullpen)

2000: Clemes, Pettite, El Duque (4.51), Rivera, Nelson, Stanton

2001: Mussina, Clemens, Pettite, Rivera, Stanton, Choate

2002: Mussina, Wells, Clemens, El Duque, Pettite, Lilly, Rivera, Standon, Karsay, Mendoza

2003: Clemens, Pettite, Mussina, Wells, Rivera, Hammond, Osuna

2004: Lieber, Brown (got hurt and tanked in the playoffs), El Duque, Gordon, Rivera

2005: Johnson (sucked in the playoffs), Wang, Chacon, Rivera, Gordon

 

You're picking and choosing stats on a few players that were decent. I'm pretty sure that they had more than 7 guys on each of their staffs. I could go back and fill in several others that weren't very good. Plus none of them were exactly Cy Young material as it is. So a couple of highly mediocre pitchers played fairly well in one season (and I do mean fairly, they weren't exactly Pedro in his prime), that doesn't mean that their pitching was good and that's what carried them through the playoffs. Plus if you watched the games their pitching had little to do with it. Every game in the Angels-Giants serie was like 7-5 or 8-7, not exactly pitchers' duels.

 

And on the Yankees' staffs, since when is a 4.50 ERA good? Wouldn't a slightly more impressive level of measurement make more sense? That's pretty brutal, and we constantly ripped on Garland for doing not much worse than that. How many of those guys finished between 4.00 and 4.50? By my count most of them, and that isn't that much of a difference. Their staffs were pretty weak as a whole, but it didn't matter because their offense got them through the season and El Duque pitched well in the playoffs. It also helped that they had Rivera for close games.

 

You really think the Red Sox won it because of their pitching? Their vaunted pitchers failed them miserably in the ALCS, and the only reason they won was that their monster offense bailed them out on several occasions. The great Schilling and Pedro lost, putting them in a tough bind that Big Papi had to get them out of.

 

I'd call those staffs average, but it didn't matter in their cases. I'll put this another way, how many of the teams that won it all can you say had well above average staffs? Since 1990 I've got 4: The Sox, The Diamondbacks, the first Yankees' title team, and the Braves. No one else had what I would call ace-level pitching, and only the Angels really had an elite bullpen out of the other teams. Even then they were depending on a rookie for a lot of the playoffs, and the Yankees' pen isn't exactly terrible.

 

There are a lot of different ways to put together a successful team. Not all of them have stellar pitching, and in the past teams have won even with mediocre pitching. It isn't exactly a pre-requisite for success, and it isn't all that great an indicator for who will win the series. Neither is offense either, but at least for getting to the post-season it has been more reliable. As the Yankees and Red Sox have proven the last couple of years, it's a bit easier to get by in the regular season when your offense is averaging over 5 runs a game. Yeah, their pitching will limit their chances in the postseason, but how many teams have staffs that are drastically better? Outside of the Sox, Cardinals, A's, and Angels, there aren't any. Plus 2 of those teams are a step back in offensive production, which levels the playing field a bit.

Edited March 23, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[ZoomSlowik]

Oh, probably not.  But I still think they would've made the playoffs, given the depth of their pitching staff and how badly the Astros sandbagged April and May.

 

I'm not trying to diminish what Pujols has contributed to the Cardinals' success.  He obviously does mean a lot.  I was merely debunking this idiotic theory that the Cardinals "slugged" their way to 100 wins last year and that their pitching was mediocre.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

 

I absolutely guarantee you that the Cards wouldn't have made the playoffs without their "journeymen" pitchers (Carpenter, Suppan, Marquis, Isringhausen, Tavarez, King, Eldred, etc.).

 

Without Pujols, the Cards are definitely not finishing that high. They'd be a lot worse than Houston without him.

 

As for the pitchers, I'd first like to say that I wasn't throwing Carpenter in with the other guys, or Isringhausen if you're going to add the relievers. He's been good, although he's still probably a borderline top 10 starter at best. It's the other guys that aren't all that impressive.

 

All of them are passable at best, and none is exactly a dominating pitcher. Mulder was a few years ago, but he seems to be losing it pretty fast. A lot of mediocre guys can perform reasonably well if you put them in the NL on a team like the Cardinals that puts up some pretty good offensive numbers and plays better than average defense. I really don't think they'd lose much if they lost Suppan, Marquis, Morris (who actually is gone), and most of their bullpen, because none of those guys are that hard to replace. Most of them were retreads that they picked up from other teams that didn't want them. If you gave them moderately successful guys from AL teams to replace them like Jamie Moyer, Kenny Rogers, Tim Wakefield, Brendan Donnelly, Cliff Politte, and Justin Speier, I don't think they really lose much, if anything. I'm not even sure you need that much talent, and there are also probably other similar guys on NL teams that they could grab.

 

None of the Cards' pitchers or the other guys I mentioned are that good or that expensive. It'd be one thing if they had a couple of flame-throwing youngsters with potential filling out their rotation, but none of them are exactly oozing talent. If/when any of these guys ends up on another team making more money, don't be surprised if they return to their previous career arc.

Edited March 23, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[DBAHO]

I don't doubt for a second that the Yankees won't get to the playoffs.  But,  once they get there,  it's one and done.

For them to get anywhere in the playoffs they need RJ to get back to the RJ of old, and for one other starter like Mussina or Pavano to pitch amazingly well. I'd give them a 25% chance at best of that happening.

[WCSox]

In no way would i call Chris Carpenter a journeyman pitcher. He's one of the top 5 SP taken in fantasy leagues nowadays, and St. Louis are lucky to have him.

 

Neither would I. Hence my use of quotes.

 

You're picking and choosing stats on a few players that were decent. I'm pretty sure that they had more than 7 guys on each of their staffs. I could go back and fill in several others that weren't very good. Plus none of them were exactly Cy Young material as it is. So a couple of highly mediocre pitchers played fairly well in one season (and I do mean fairly, they weren't exactly Pedro in his prime), that doesn't mean that their pitching was good and that's what carried them through the playoffs. Plus if you watched the games their pitching had little to do with it. Every game in the Angels-Giants serie was like 7-5 or 8-7, not exactly pitchers' duels.

 

Not all of them were slugfests...

 

Game 1, 4-3

Game 4, 4-3

Game 6, 6-5

Game 7, 4-1

 

Anaheim's pitching also dominated the Twins in the '02 ALCS.

 

If you don't think that the '02 Angels pitching staff was pretty freaking good (only 644 runs allowed), your perspective is waaaay off. Only ONE starter had an ERA over 4.00. Three of of their relievers had ERAs under 2.60, one of whom had 40 saves. And this was in the AL before steroid testing. And it's not like Lackey, Washburn, Donnelly, and K-Rod were one-year wonders, either. :rolly

 

And on the Yankees' staffs, since when is a 4.50 ERA good?

 

Since when is a 4.50 ERA bad in the AL during the steroid age? It's certainly not bad for a #4 or #5 pitcher.

 

That's pretty brutal, and we constantly ripped on Garland for doing not much worse than that.

 

That's because Garland was projected to be an ace, not a #4 or #5. And it took him six freaking years to to develop into someone worthy of a #1 or #2 slot.

 

Their staffs were pretty weak as a whole, but it didn't matter because their offense got them through the season and El Duque pitched well in the playoffs. It also helped that they had Rivera for close games

.

 

The Yankees pitching from '96-'03 had two important things going for them:

 

(1) Veteran starters who pitched well in the post-season. Regardless of their regular-season stats, Clemens, El Duque, and Pettitte were absolutely clutch in the playoffs. Wells and Cone weren't bad, either. We saw the same thing with the Sox last year: Contreras didn't pitch particularly well before the All-Star break, but was almost unhittable afterwards. El Duque was more or less a failure during the regular season, but delivered one of the most clutch pitching performances in Sox playoff history.

 

We haven't seen that with the Yankees teams over the past two years. Their big-money, stud veterans (Johnson, Mussina, Brown) have pitched some horrendous playoff games.

 

(2) The earlier Yankees teams had a ton of depth in their bullpens. During the World Series years, they could go to Mendoza, Stanton, Grimsley, or Nelson if a starter faltered. What quality long-relief options have they had over the past couple of years, besides Gordon? Felix Heredia? Tanyon Sturtze?

 

You really think the Red Sox won it because of their pitching? Their vaunted pitchers failed them miserably in the ALCS

 

And they came back and completely shut down Rolen, Edmonds, Walker, and your boy Pujols in the WS. They didn't give up more than 2 runs per game in three of four games.

 

And if you think that the '04 Red Sox won only because of their hitting, you're wrong again. Their top two starters are (arguably) future HOFers (Schilling, 3.26 ERA; Pedro, 3.90 ERA), the former winning the AL Cy Young. Arroyo (4.03 ERA) was a very decent third option. Having a semi-stud closer (Foulke, 2.17 ERA, 32 saves) was key as well.

 

However, you're correct that the '04 Red Sox didn't have a tremendous amount of pitching depth on their team. That's why the Yankees had to blow a 3-0 lead in the ALCS (one of the biggest chokes in playoff history) for the Red Sox to even get to the WS.

 

I'd call those staffs average, but it didn't matter in their cases.

 

Sure, if you discount Schilling, Pedro, and Foulke. :rolly

 

And if you think that the '02 Angels had an "average" pitching staff, you have a lot to learn about baseball.

 

I'll put this another way, how many of the teams that won it all can you say had well above average staffs? Since 1990 I've got 4: The Sox, The Diamondbacks, the first Yankees' title team, and the Braves.

 

The '02 Angels and '05 Cards sure as hell did have "well above average" staffs. To suggest otherwise is pure ignorance.

 

and only the Angels really had an elite bullpen out of the other teams.

 

Wrong again.

 

There are a lot of different ways to put together a successful team. Not all of them have stellar pitching, and in the past teams have won even with mediocre pitching. It isn't exactly a pre-requisite for success, and it isn't all that great an indicator for who will win the series.

 

Sure, you could sign an over-the-hill Orel Herscheiser and hope that your lumber-company offense delivers in the post-season, like the '97 Indians did. But you're probably not going to win a WS.

 

Pitching is still the best way to do it. One can do it by either having a number of really-good-but-not-great pitchers ('02 Angels) or a couple dominant studs that they can run out four times in a seven-game series ('04 Red Sox, '01 D-Backs).

 

Without Pujols, the Cards are definitely not finishing that high. They'd be a lot worse than Houston without him.

 

Pujols is a great player, but he's not God. If one player could do it all himself, the Giants would've easily won the '02 WS. And, for that matter, the Sox probably would've won a WS back in the early/mid '90s.

 

I'd first like to say that I wasn't throwing Carpenter in with the other guys, or Isringhausen if you're going to add the relievers. He's been good, although he's still probably a borderline top 10 starter at best.

 

"Borderline Top 10 starter"? He won the freaking Cy Young!

 

All of them are passable at best

 

 

None of the Cards' pitchers or the other guys I mentioned are that good or that expensive

.

 

 

If you think that the '02 Angels or '05 Cardinals pitching staffs were mediocre, you have a lot to learn about baseball.

[ZoomSlowik]

For them to get anywhere in the playoffs they need RJ to get back to the RJ of old, and for one other starter like Mussina or Pavano to pitch amazingly well. I'd give them a 25% chance at best of that happening.

 

I don't know if you necessarily need the Diamondbacks' era Randy, but he's got to be a bit better. That's highly possible. As for the other starters, it's a bit of a crap shoot, so it'll take a while to figure out. Mussina hasn't pitched to his abilities the last couple of years. Even if he puts up another mid-4 ERA he could still end up pitching well at the right time. I think Pavano will be better than Mussina if by some miracle he is actually healthy, but we all know that's a bit of a longshot. I don't expect much from Wang or Small, but Chacon could conceivably be a solid pitcher. He's always had some talent, but he's been stuck playing for a bad team in a real hitter's park.

 

They need to avoid playing the Sox or the A's in the playoffs. I think both of those would end poorly for the Yanks because they've both got decent offenses and strong pitching. If they play the Angels again I think the result is similar to last year: a 5 game series that is basically a toss-up. That could change in the Angels' favor if they find another hitter or two or go the other way if guys like Escobar, Santana, and Carrasco don't pan out well. Colon and Lackey are solid, but I don't think those two are quite good enough to create a significant advantage on their own. I think they have a slight advantage if they play Cleveland because the Indians don't exactly have a rotation that strikes fear in opponents either, and the Yankees are a bit more solid in the pen thanks to Rivera and have a better lineup.