Jump to content

ESPN "Expert" Picks


Winning Ugly

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 06:19 PM)
Twins will be lucky to finish third.  They look terrible.  I don't think they will play .500 ball.

I don't want to sound like an ass or anything but you're just wrong here. There is no way the Twins finish under .500, it's not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as seeing those predictions makes me mad, last year was the same no respect, and look how that turned out. Predictions are meaningless, if predictions mattered they wouldn't play the games at all. The Sox just have to go out there and prove their doubters wrong again. I would like to see where the experts that didn't pick the Sox to make the playoffs have the Sox finishing in the Central this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Predictions are meaningless, if predictions mattered they wouldn't play the games at all.

 

You don't say? I think we should just do the Diamond Mind simulation 1000 times and see who wins the world series the most in 1000 seasons. That team is thus crowned the 2006 champion. It could even be like when Kasparov played "Big Blue", and we could all watch on TV as the simulated baseball played out. They could sell tickets and Joe Morgan would announce that he's boycotting the event because "computers didn't play The Game".

 

I really think that would be a good idea. Screw the actual games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 08:52 PM)
I don't want to sound like an ass or anything but you're just wrong here.  There is no way the Twins finish under .500, it's not going to happen.

I'm wondering why the hell Francisco Liriano is in their bullpen. Must be due to a desire to limit innings, because it sure as hell isn't performance based.

 

A rotation of Santana/Liriano/Baker/Radke/Silva sure as hell beats Santana/Lohse/Baker/Radke/Silva

 

Liriano will do well no matter where he pitchers, but it's not like comparing our situation with Contreras and McCarthy. Lohse won't confuse anyone for an ace, and Liriano could definitely be counted upon to provide better numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 06:19 PM)
:huh:

 

Only one person, Neyer, picked the Twins to win the Central.

 

8 of 13 have the Sox winning the Central, 9 of 13 have us going to the playoffs.

 

But I must say, I don't get the Indians love.  Every indication, to me, says they will likely be worse this year instead of better.  Their offseason was not good.  And I am very surprised that only Rogers has the Sox even making the WS, even though it seems in nearly every way, the Sox are a better team this year than last year.

 

I can very easily see the Indians receding this year...losing a very solid outfielder in Crisp, losing the ERA king of last year(who, BTW, didn't win double digit games) in Millwood, losing their "stud" of a 5th starter in Scott Elarton, losing two good relievers in Howry and Rhodes, and replacing them with lesser talent. I can see it happening. I don't think it will happen.

 

I think 3 teams in the AL Central are going to win 90+ games next year, and one will win triple digits. As it stands right now, I have Minnesota coming in 3rd with somewhere around a 91-71 record, which would be ridiculous if I'm actually right. If the Sox pen holds up well enough and repeats enough success from last year, and they stay healthy enough, they're a 100 win team with no doubt at all in my mind. Cleveland falls somewhere between 90-97 wins, depending upon health and if they forget about Jason Johnson at about the ASB or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can very easily see the Indians receding this year...losing a very solid outfielder in Crisp, losing the ERA king of last year(who, BTW, didn't win double digit games) in Millwood, losing their "stud" of a 5th starter in Scott Elarton, losing two good relievers in Howry and Rhodes, and replacing them with lesser talent. I can see it happening. I don't think it will happen.

 

I think 3 teams in the AL Central are going to win 90+ games next year, and one will win triple digits. As it stands right now, I have Minnesota coming in 3rd with somewhere around a 91-71 record,

 

So Cleveland will "regress" by one game to 92 wins. They won 93 last year.

 

I really disagree with your whole post--the things your prodicted are extremely rare, and by your own admission, a team that won 93 last year, is in for a serious regression. You didn't say "serious", but that is how infer your comments to mean. And yet you have them winning 92 games logically.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here--no team in the AL will win 100 games. And, no division will produce three 90 games winners--not even the central.

 

These things are rare, and no team in the central looks capable of more than 95 wins right now, let alone 100. The Sox played brilliant baseball last year and still "only" won 99. If you see that happening again + some, fine, I won't waste me time saying while not--only I urge us to come back in October and see whose prediction was closer to the real outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't the Patriots taught us that nothing is more pathetic than a CHAMPION whimpering about getting no respect?

 

Crasnick meanwhile called the White Sox the strongest team in MLB. He says, "...here's a look at the 30 big-league clubs (listed by estimated strength)..." First on the list? Your Chicago White Sox.

 

Because the ESPN columnists don't take their own predictions 1/10th as seriously as many here do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 10:53 PM)
I think 3 teams in the AL Central are going to win 90+ games next year, and one will win triple digits. 

 

With an unbalanced schedule I think that's impossible without 2 teams losing a TON of games. Since I doubt either Detroit or KC will lose as many games as last year, this scenario is improbable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(G&T @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 11:23 PM)
With an unbalanced schedule I think that's impossible without 2 teams losing a TON of games. Since I doubt either Detroit or KC will lose as many games as last year, this scenario is improbable.

Detroit is a team that baffles me. With Mags healthy, Kenny Rogers, Polanco a whole year (assuming he keeps it up), Guillen healthy, Bonderman with a little less pressure, Jason Johnson gone... they could win a whole lot of games... yet at the same time, are Granderson, Verlander, and Zumaya (sp?, can't remember haha) ready, was Shelton a one time deal, Inge at 3B is still dumb to me. I don't know what to make of them. They could lose a whole lot of games too. I think they will jump the Twins for third personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 11:33 PM)
I'm wondering why they cut Pena loose, he's a solid starting 1B on a number of teams.  I wouldn't mind the Sox signing him and cutting Gload loose...

I live in Michigan, and I am not too firmilar with any Tiger fans who like him. They have too many guys similar positions too. Granderson eventually needs to be allowed to play. Shelton took Pena's job last year. Polanco could (should) go to 3B and let Infante go back to 2B. Monroe in left still? Nook won the CF job last year. I am a big Marcus Thames fan. So more or less, too many pegs, not enough spaces. Pena has always seemed a headcase to me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 10:33 PM)
I'm wondering why they cut Pena loose, he's a solid starting 1B on a number of teams.  I wouldn't mind the Sox signing him and cutting Gload loose...

 

Other then a little more power, he doesn't do anything for us that Gload doesn't.

Edited by Jordan4life_2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering why they cut Pena loose, he's a solid starting 1B on a number of teams.  I wouldn't mind the Sox signing him and cutting Gload loose...

I would rather have Gload than Pena. Pena is not the guy I would want off the bench. Sure, he can put up a decent OPS but he's strikes out far too much, hits around .240, and can only play 1B. Gload can back up 1B and at least play some LF.

 

Hee-Seop Choi would have been a better option than Carlos Pena anyways, if we actually needed another first baseman.

Edited by SSH2005
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(SuperSteve @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 10:36 PM)
I live in Michigan, and I am not too firmilar with any Tiger fans who like him. They have too many guys similar positions too. Granderson eventually needs to be allowed to play. Shelton took Pena's job last year. Polanco could (should) go to 3B and let Infante go back to 2B. Monroe in left still? Nook won the CF job last year. I am a big Marcus Thames fan. So more or less, too many pegs, not enough spaces. Pena has always seemed a headcase to me too.

Polanco >>>>>>> Infante -- Both offensively and defensively.

 

Plus why would you want to remove Inge from the line-up only to be replaced by Infante?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...