White Sox @ Giants, 3/26/07

[G&T]

I've suggested this elsewhere and people were unimpressed, but my solution to the backup cathcing situation is...Aaron Rowand. mlbtraderumors today posted that a trade was getting closer. You know Aaron would do anything for the team -- he'd get behind the plate and sacrifice his body to stop a Contreras forkball from becoming a wild pitch. Just imagine him running headlong into the backstop chasing a foul ball. It'd be awesome.

 

I'll bet he'd call a great game too.

Edited March 26, 2007 by G&T

[WHarris1]

How about we win 45-1 today or something. I'm lacking on the Kool-Aid, I need a reason to be optimistic.

[fathom]

Ironic that if Rowand was catching, he'd still not catch anything when Jenks is pitching.

[jphat007]

How about we win 45-1 today or something. I'm lacking on the Kool-Aid, I need a reason to be optimistic.

 

Winn with a 2-run triple. Giants up 3-1

[NorthSideSox72]

Now 3-1 Giants, some guy named Winn did something to knock in 2 runs.

Edited March 26, 2007 by NorthSideSox72

[Flash Tizzle]

I've suggested this elsewhere and people were unimpressed, but my solution to the backup cathcing situation is...Aaron Rowand. mlbtraderumors today posted that a trade was getting closer. You know Aaron would do anything for the team -- he'd get behind the plate and sacrifice his body to stop a Contreras forkball from becoming a wild pitch. Just imagine him running headlong into the backstop chasing a foul ball. It'd be awesome.

I'm actually afraid after reading that post on MLBtraderumors. Nothing is definite, but just the fact Philadelphia is attempting to trade him if frightening.

 

Please Williams, prove to me you realize Anderson is no worse of a solution than Rowand.

[WHarris1]

Winn with a 2-run triple. Giants up 3-1

Perfect.

[Flash Tizzle]

God dammit Vazquez. We're only a week away from the season. 6 hits in 3.2 innings is entering Buehrle territory.

[G&T]

I'm actually afraid after reading that post on MLBtraderumors. Nothing is definite, but just the fact Philadelphia is attempting to trade him if frightening.

 

Please Williams, prove to me you realize Anderson is no worse of a solution than Rowand.

 

All it says is that the Phils don't want him to get hurt before they trade him, and the crazy guy running the site thinks the Sox are the top suitor. Blah.

[fathom]

FWIW, there have been 3 more computer models that have run projections for the 2007 MLB standings. The highest White Sox record was 74-88 in the models, and they didn't make the playoffs one time out of the 1,000 times the projections were run. Look for these projections to be released in the next few days.

 

And BTW, Phil Rogers predicted a Wisconsin/Texas championship game. Shows how smart he is.

[NorthSideSox72]

FWIW, there have been 3 more computer models that have run projections for the 2007 MLB standings. The highest White Sox record was 74-88 in the models, and they didn't make the playoffs one time out of the 1,000 times the projections were run. Look for these projections to be released in the next few days.

 

And BTW, Phil Rogers predicted a Wisconsin/Texas championship game. Shows how smart he is.

Where are these models and what do they take into account?

[Rowand44]

FWIW, there have been 3 more computer models that have run projections for the 2007 MLB standings. The highest White Sox record was 74-88 in the models, and they didn't make the playoffs one time out of the 1,000 times the projections were run. Look for these projections to be released in the next few days.

I feel better about our chances now. Seriously.

[Flash Tizzle]

FWIW, there have been 3 more computer models that have run projections for the 2007 MLB standings. The highest White Sox record was 74-88 in the models, and they didn't make the playoffs one time out of the 1,000 times the projections were run. Look for these projections to be released in the next few days.

From which websites/publication are these models associated with?

[fathom]

Where are these models and what do they take into account?

 

I have no clue....they're similiar to the Baseball Prospectus models.

 

From which websites/publication are these models associated with?

 

I think they'll be ones used by Baseball America for their projections, etc. I got them from my contact with the company.

[JohnCangelosi]

You guys can't really believe this team would go 74-88. They have essentially the same starting staff as last year, a better bullpen, all key players back and about the same depth (losing Hall does hurt). They absolutely played the worst baseball they could have played in the second half and still won 90 games. This team will be in the 90+ win category again this year. The big surprise for people will be when the Tigers suck a dutch d**k this year...

Edited March 26, 2007 by JohnCangelosi

[Flash Tizzle]

Looks like Vazquez calmed down after the third inning.

 

5.1IP, 7 hits, 3ER, 2 BB, 6 SO (2 against Cain)

 

Final line isn't tremendous, but considering his past performances its a good sign. Unlike Buehrle yesterday and his 12 hit parade.

[Kalapse]

You guys can't really believe this team would go 74-88. They have essentially the same starting staff as last year, a better bullpen, all key players back and about the same depth (losing Hall does hurt). They absolutely played the worst baseball they could have played in the second half and still won 90 games. This team will be in the 90+ win category again this year. The big surprise for people will be when the Tigers suck a dutch d**k this year...

Why would the Tigers suddenly suck and the Sox improve despite being a less talented team than they were last year?

[hitlesswonder]

You guys can't really believe this team would go 74-88. They have essentially the same starting staff as last year, a better bullpen, all key players back and about the same depth (losing Hall does hurt). They absolutely played the worst baseball they could have played in the second half and still won 90 games. This team will be in the 90+ win category again this year. The big surprise for people will be when the Tigers suck a dutch d**k this year...

 

I can believe it. I'd pick them to be .500, so 74 wins isn't out of the question. The starting staff last year sucked. And they replaced Garcia with Danks who will be lucky to post an ERA a full run higher than Garcia, and pitch 60 innings less. Why is bullpen improved? I see MacDougal being around for a full year as an improvement but that's all. And Jenks is worrisome -- terrible 2nd half and bad spring training. The back end of the pen is a 3 question marks. The Sox have downgraded the OBP at the top of the order by having Erstad and Pods bat there. And I really doubt that Dye and Thome can replicate last year's numbers. This is an old team, and it wouldn't be shocking for performances to fall off significantly.

[Rowand44]

Why would the Tigers suddenly suck and the Sox improve despite being a less talented team than they were last year?

The Tigers will regress. And the Sox are less talented than last year? I don't know if I agree with that, less proven for sure but I wouldn't say less talented.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Rowand44

[Kalapse]

The Tigers will regress. And the Sox are less talented than last year? I don't know if I agree with that, less proven for sure but I wouldn't say less talented.

Why would the Tigers suddenly suck and the Sox improve despite having a roster with less proven talent than last year?

 

I think that's better.

 

They weakened the lineup and starting rotation from last year also filling the bullpen with a bunch of huge question marks.

[Rowand44]

Why would the Tigers suddenly suck and the Sox improve despite having a roster with less proven talent than last year?

 

I think that's better.

Works for me I don't think the Tigers will suck, I want to make that clear, I do however think they'll regress. JMO.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Rowand44

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't see this as being a less talented team than last year's squad...

 

LOSSES: Garcia, McCarthy, Gload, Cotts

 

GAINS: Erstad, Danks, Sisco*, Masset*, Floyd*, Aadrsma*, Hall**

 

* = if makes team

** = if shoulder functional

 

Here is what strikes me from the above - look at the losses. Cotts proved 2005 was probably a fluke, and Gload while talented, wasn't going to get any real playing time. So the only losses of any consequence were Garcia and McCarthy. And I think it was pretty well established even last year that Garcia was headed downhill fast. The only USEFUL talent we lost, really, is McCarthy. And even he is struggling.

 

The gains aren't overwhelming, for 2007 (though we put ourselves in a much better place for 2008 and beyond), but there rae some there.

 

Most importantly - the team was already immensely talented, and we lost none of that core of talent. No one we really needed.

 

So I guess we disagree here - I think this team is about as talented as 2006's team, maybe slightly more.

[CanOfCorn]

Why even make a prediction? What's the point? No one predicted the Sox to win in 2005. MANY predicted the Sox to win in 2006.

 

(Not us, but these so-called pundits)

 

No one thought an 83-79 team would win teh World Series, but...look what happened...they did. The Sox and Tigers had pretty good first halves, and kinda tanked in the 2nd half. The Twins had an average first half and blew up in the second half.

 

Let's look at Prospectus and Baseball America and find out EXACTLY what the Sox are going to do this year.

 

On March 26th, I don't care if they say the Sox are going to go 162-0 or 0-162...it doesn't matter to me at all...and it shouldn't matter to anyone else except statheads who believe OPS+ can tell the true value of any player.

[NorthSideSox72]

Gooch homered, 3-2 Giants now.

[Kalapse]

I don't see this as being a less talented team than last year's squad...

 

LOSSES: Garcia, McCarthy, Gload, Cotts

 

GAINS: Erstad, Danks, Sisco*, Masset*, Floyd*, Aadrsma*, Hall**

 

* = if makes team

** = if shoulder functional

 

Here is what strikes me from the above - look at the losses. Cotts proved 2005 was probably a fluke, and Gload while talented, wasn't going to get any real playing time. So the only losses of any consequence were Garcia and McCarthy. And I think it was pretty well established even last year that Garcia was headed downhill fast. The only USEFUL talent we lost, really, is McCarthy. And even he is struggling.

 

The gains aren't overwhelming, for 2007 (though we put ourselves in a much better place for 2008 and beyond), but there rae some there.

 

Most importantly - the team was already immensely talented, and we lost none of that core of talent. No one we really needed.

 

So I guess we disagree here - I think this team is about as talented as 2006's team, maybe slightly more.

Proven talent is more or less what I meant. There's no doubt the players coming in (sans Erstad) are more talented tan those who are now elsewhere but this team has even more question marks than last season and less players who have proven they can produce at the major league level.

 

With the Hall injury the bench is about equal to what it was last year so that's a wash.

 

I think the lineup is weaker with an older Dye (most likely to regress) and Thome as well as the addition of Erstad who is only going to leave this team with no 4th OF when he goes down some time in mid April. I also think Iguchi will struggle this year for as long as he's at the bottom of the order.

 

Danks will be lucky to come close to Garcia's s*** production from last season and there are no indications that the others will revert back to their previous form.

 

The bullpen is more talented but not necessarily improved. Jenks is a major question mark, his bad 2nd half last season, s*** spring training and the hardware keeping his elbow attached to the rest of his arm scare me. I full season of MacDougal should be a big upgrade as with a full year of Thornton but the backend is just as much of a question mark as last season. So more talented bullpen? Yes. Improved? Who knows.

 

So in all I think the team is weaker than it was going into last season but more set for the future because of it.