Are we really out of contention this coming season?

[CanOfCorn]

You must be incredibly incapable of either reading correctly or understanding elementary logic. Let me break it down for you.

 

1) all five pitchers had at least 300 total inning pitches at the major league level in 2005

2) the fifth starter will have hardly any experience pitching at the major league level in 2007

 

maybe you can now see how those clauses are related.

 

I think the Cubs might have a seat for you in the upper deck.

 

/not really green

 

Seriously, are you saying that there is no way that ANY of the 5th starters are going to be good? Not even a chance? I hate to sound like I'm on Law and Order, but there's chance in everything, isn't there? Anything can happen, including a 5th starter that will step up and pitch like the wind. So, I think you writing off this season before February is pretty ridiculous.

 

Not to mention that people were picking the Indians to mount a hell of a rally last year and they did...nothing. Nobody picked the Tigers and look what they did.

[Balance]

While I agree that the Sox are going to be in contention this year, I don't necessarily agree that Detroit and Minnesota are going to regress after last year. Weren't we waiting for them each to fall down for the entire second half of last season? Most of us thought that there was no way Detroit's pitching would hold for the entire season, and most of us thought that Minny was done as soon as Liriano went down. But look what happened.

 

I think the Sox need to seriously step it up in 2007 to reach the playoffs. (I think they will, by the way.) But relying on other teams in the division to fall down seems, well, Cubbish to me....

[southsider2k5]

You must be incredibly incapable of either reading correctly or understanding elementary logic. Let me break it down for you.

 

1) all five pitchers had at least 300 total inning pitches at the major league level in 2005

2) the fifth starter will have hardly any experience pitching at the major league level in 2007

 

maybe you can now see how those clauses are related.

 

You must be incapable of having someone disagree with you, or not taking things personally.... lighten up.

[shipps]

Bottom line is that it is ridiculous to think that the Sox are out of contention.Lol.And secondly I refuse to go into another year thinking this is the year for the Indians to grow up.For the past three years I have been telling everyone this is the year for the tribe and they have continually made me look like a baseball illiterate.

[witesoxfan]

What do you project Vazquez's ERA to be, based on his career totals in the American League?

 

What do you project the fifth starter's ERA to be?

 

I project Vazquez at 5.00 and the fifth starter at about 5.00 as well AT BEST. Probably more likely is that they are around 5.25.

 

Based on peripherals, Vazquez should be in the 4.00-4.25 region. His ERA is always higher than his peripherals suggest it should be, so I project it to be anywhere from 4.50-5.00, with the potential for it to be much lower.

 

I figure whoever the 5th starter is will probably put up an ERA around 5.25 too.

 

I also figure Buehrle puts up an ERA around 3.50, Garland will be around 3.75-4.00, and Contreras will be in the same 3.75-4.00 neighborhood that Garland will be in too, depending upon health. I don't find that too unrealistic, but those expectations are a little bold. Regardless, I see a 4.50 rotation ERA as not only very possible, but quite likely.

[Hideaway Lights]

Based on peripherals, Vazquez should be in the 4.00-4.25 region. His ERA is always higher than his peripherals suggest it should be, so I project it to be anywhere from 4.50-5.00, with the potential for it to be much lower.

 

I figure whoever the 5th starter is will probably put up an ERA around 5.25 too.

 

I also figure Buehrle puts up an ERA around 3.50, Garland will be around 3.75-4.00, and Contreras will be in the same 3.75-4.00 neighborhood that Garland will be in too, depending upon health. I don't find that too unrealistic, but those expectations are a little bold. Regardless, I see a 4.50 rotation ERA as not only very possible, but quite likely.

 

Based on what peripherals? Vazquez had an ERA of 4.84 and 4.91 in the AL in the two seasons he's pitched there. He's pitching in one of the most hitter friendly parks in baseball, and someone thinks he's going to go 4.00-4.25? Weird. 4.50-5.00 is a better estimate, but I think it's way closer to 5.00.

 

Garland will be 3.75-4.00, again, based on what?

Edited January 17, 2007 by Hideaway Lights

[EvilMonkey]

Name a better AL staff, 1 thru 5. You can find much better #1's, but all 5? Not sure.

[witesoxfan]

Based on what peripherals? Vazquez had an ERA of 4.84 and 4.91 in the AL in the two seasons he's pitched there. He's pitching in one of the most hitter friendly parks in baseball, and someone thinks he's going to go 4.00-4.25? Weird. 4.50-5.00 is a better estimate, but I think it's way closer to 5.00.

 

Garland will be 3.75-4.00, again, based on what?

 

What peripherals? Have you ever looked at any number OTHER than ERA?

 

8.2 K/9

3.3 K/BB

1 HR/9

.259 BAA

1.29 WHIP

.318 OBPA

.409 SLGA

.727 OPSA

 

Those peripherals. They suggest he should be a better pitcher than his ERA indicates, but he alway spitches well above that for whatever reason. Some say it's because he's a headcase. We'll see.

 

And I think Garland will put up a 3.75-4.00 based on his last 4 months last year. Without an absolutely disgustingly bad April (say a 5.50 ERA instead of 7.11), his ERA is 4.26. If he can bring his April and May down to 4.75, his ERA for the year is down to 4.05 That's pretty much the same range I was talking about. And, IIRC, Garland was battling a little dead arm early in the year, and I seem to recall quite clearly that he couldn't go inside with any confidence. So long as he has that confidence, he'll be good.

 

That's why.

 

Name a better AL staff, 1 thru 5. You can find much better #1's, but all 5? Not sure.

 

Detroit.

 

Name me a more talented bullpen. Name me a deeper bullpen. About the only team that comes to mind initially is Minnesota, and I'm not entirely sure Dennys Reyes has another ERA

[Vance Law]

Most of us thought that there was no way Detroit's pitching would hold for the entire season

 

and we were right: they went 36 - 38 after the all-star break with a 4.29 ERA

 

unfortunately our pitching was even more brutal

Edited January 17, 2007 by Vance Law

[fathom]

Name a better AL staff, 1 thru 5. You can find much better #1's, but all 5? Not sure.

 

Detroit easily, and Cleveland is likely to have a more consistent starting 5. It's shocking how much confidence some people have in either Floyd or Haeger. I'll be shocked if Floyd could have less than a 6 ERA in the AL in 2007.

[daa84]

Detroit easily, and Cleveland is likely to have a more consistent starting 5. It's shocking how much confidence some people have in either Floyd or Haeger. I'll be shocked if Floyd could have less than a 6 ERA in the AL in 2007.

boston will be better also i think, or at least close with schilling dice k beckett papelbon and wakefield.

 

Regardless....doesnt sox talk have a front page basically saying what this entire thread is about?

[Jenksismyhero]

boston will be better also i think, or at least close with schilling dice k beckett papelbon and wakefield.

 

Regardless....doesnt sox talk have a front page basically saying what this entire thread is about?

 

No, it has an article with three bullet points from one voice about the Sox, with no discussion of the other teams in the division.

[Steve9347]

The White Sox will win the Central this year... they will be better than 2006. I know we have an unknown fifth rotation spot, but i highly doubt the rest of our starters will be as bad as they were last year, and our bullpen will have decidedly more talent this year.

 

If pods can revert back to his 2005 self, we'll be alright.

[EvilMonkey]

As far as Detroit goes 1-5 pitching wise...I'd like to see their 5 do it for another year before i say they're better than the Sox starting 5. As we proved this past year, ptiching can disappear for a year. Who's to say that Bonderman, Maroth, Rogers and even Verlander won't go back to being .500 pitchers???? I'm not saying they will or won't but some people seem to assume that they will pitch like they did in '06. If you look at some of their numbers they were career years for them....Bonderman especially.

[RockRaines]

People need to stop pretending like just because some people were down on the 05 team that being down on the 07 team is similar. For one thing, we did not have a single starter who had not pitched at least 300 innings of major league ball as a starter going into 2005. Our fifth starter situation more closely resembles 04 than 05.

 

If you think we will be as strong as either 2005 or 2006 at starting pitcher, that is seriously delusional, and starting pitching is the most important component to long term success at the major league level. Our fourth and fifth slots are going to be disaster areas for portions of the year.

 

This is an 83-87 game winner without any more moves being made.

Wow, you couldnt be more off. Every pitcher we had last year had a down year, Mark Buehrle had the worst of his career. There is no where to go but up. Our team was in it until the last week and still won 90+ games which would have made the playoffs in previous years. 83 games would be if the team bus crashed and half the team broke their arms.

 

Detroit easily, and Cleveland is likely to have a more consistent starting 5. It's shocking how much confidence some people have in either Floyd or Haeger. I'll be shocked if Floyd could have less than a 6 ERA in the AL in 2007.

Explain how Cleveland is going to have a better starting 5. Their #1 is better than anyone on our staff, but thats is. Paul Byrd is a disgrace.

[pale_hose]

Gentlemen...We will win the Central....Nobody should worry about the Indians...They're awful!...They may play good for like a month, but thats it...they do it every year...then they blow....the Tigers will be our biggest competitors, but there is no way they will be as good as last year...especially in pitching...Verlander is the best they have...and the sox destroyed the Tigers in the season series last year...It will be a battle between us and detroit, and we'll pull out a central title by 5 games or more...

[witesoxfan]

As far as Detroit goes 1-5 pitching wise...I'd like to see their 5 do it for another year before i say they're better than the Sox starting 5. As we proved this past year, ptiching can disappear for a year. Who's to say that Bonderman, Maroth, Rogers and even Verlander won't go back to being .500 pitchers???? I'm not saying they will or won't but some people seem to assume that they will pitch like they did in '06. If you look at some of their numbers they were career years for them....Bonderman especially.

 

Uhh, Bonderman's 24.

[Chet Lemon]

I have warmed up to Floyd as of late, so if he breaks camp as our #5, I'm fine with that. I think the Sox will win the division.

[witesoxfan]

Gentlemen...We will win the Central....Nobody should worry about the Indians...They're awful!...They may play good for like a month, but thats it...they do it every year...then they blow....the Tigers will be our biggest competitors, but there is no way they will be as good as last year...especially in pitching...Verlander is the best they have...and the sox destroyed the Tigers in the season series last year...It will be a battle between us and detroit, and we'll pull out a central title by 5 games or more...

 

Five games or more? Not sure how you can really say that when the Sox lost the division by 6 last year.

[EvilMonkey]

Uhh, Bonderman's 24.

 

 

so what???? because he's young guarantees him a good year????? if that were the case, everyone would have those 18 year old phenoms pitching. Granted, the trend is that he's heading into the prime years but it's still not a guarantee.

[fathom]

Explain how Cleveland is going to have a better starting 5. Their #1 is better than anyone on our staff, but thats is. Paul Byrd is a disgrace.

 

A disgraceful Byrd is very likely going to be better than anything we can throw at the #5 spot. Like you said, C.C. is the best. Westbrook is prime for a huge year, as he's heading into his FA year. Not only that, but his sinker always kicks our ass. Sowers is the best young pitcher between the two teams, and I don't believe we've faced him yet. We've had success vs Cliff Lee in the past, but he keeps beating other teams in some way that I can't fathom. I know it's blasphemy on here to suggest that all of our starting pitchers won't be magically be improved this year, but I'm not ready to start saying how we're going to have the best rotation in the division, etc. I get a kick out of how many people dislike Garland on this board, as he's the only pitcher we have who I am confident will have an ERA below 5 next year.

 

so what???? because he's young guarantees him a good year????? if that were the case, everyone would have those 18 year old phenoms pitching. Granted, the trend is that he's heading into the prime years but it's still not a guarantee.

 

How about because he has electric stuff in a pitcher's park? There's a reason why the Tigers are turning down talent like Mark Teixeira for Bonderman, and we're getting Rangers minor leaguers for McCarthy. Bonderman and Verlander are two of the best young pitchers in all of baseball.

[Hideaway Lights]

Wow, you couldnt be more off. Every pitcher we had last year had a down year, Mark Buehrle had the worst of his career. There is no where to go but up.

 

Down year compared to what? Did Contreras have a down year compared to his career averages? No, not really, he just came back to earth a bit after an unmatchable 05. Did Garland? No, Garland had the year you would expect given his career averages, not his anomylous 2005, which you will never see again. Garcia and Buehrle did have down years, but Vazquez pitched about where you should expect him to given his stint with the Yankees.

[Jenksismyhero]

Five games or more? Not sure how you can really say that when the Sox lost the division by 6 last year.

 

We lost the division by 6 when:

 

Buerhle had his worst year as a pro

Garcia was terrible until august (and even then he only had a couple good games)

Garland and Contreras didn't get hot until the summer

injuries plagued the team: Thome, Dye, Crede, contreras, etc etc missed key games in the late months of the season

the front half of the bullpen stunk worse than horse****

our starting pitching was managed poorly. how many games would we have won if ozzie doesn't stick with vazquez through 6? 5 games at least?

uribe had a terrible year, well below his averages

detroit played over their heads last year (no way rogers is half of what he was last year)

we lacked focus and made terrible errors throughout the season which was abnormal for this group

 

and thats all i can think of right now. but i'm sure there are more.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[witesoxfan]

so what???? because he's young guarantees him a good year????? if that were the case, everyone would have those 18 year old phenoms pitching. Granted, the trend is that he's heading into the prime years but it's still not a guarantee.

 

2003 - 5.56 ERA, 1.55 WHIP, 6 K/9, 1.9 K/BB, 1.28 HR/9

2004 - 4.89 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, 8.2 K/9, 2.3 K/BB, 1.17 HR/9

2005 - 4.57 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 6.9 K/9, 2.5 K/BB, 1 HR/9

2006 - 4.08 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 8.5 K/9, 3.2 K/BB, 0.76 HR/9

 

Tell me: what in those numbers indicate that he's NOT going to be good again next year?

 

I'd put money on him being better than above league average

[Hideaway Lights]

We lost the division by 6 when:

 

Buerhle had his worst year as a pro

Garcia was terrible until august (and even then he only had a couple good games)

Garland and Contreras didn't get hot until the summer

injuries plagued the team: Thome, Dye, Crede, contreras, etc etc missed key games in the late months of the season

the front half of the bullpen stunk worse than horse****

our starting pitching was managed poorly. how many games would we have won if ozzie doesn't stick with vazquez through 6? 5 games at least?

uribe had a terrible year, well below his averages

detroit played over their heads last year (no way rogers is half of what he was last year)

we lacked focus and made terrible errors throughout the season which was abnormal for this group

 

and thats all i can think of right now. but i'm sure there are more.

 

How are people always saying we won ninety games despite everything in the universe going wrong, when Thorton, Dye and Thome basically career years given their age and experience?