WCSox

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 05:45 PM) Complicated? Open?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 02:52 PM) I just gave my response to a lot of those points in my last post. I'm done. Oops, guess not! :rolly QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 08:33 PM) Either you're trying to be cute or you can't detect sarcasm. And you have a really bad habit of making statements without any statistical data to back it up. Sorry, but some of us have jobs. I've been at work for almost 13 hours today and don't feel like compiling more stats for you. But unlike you, I at least cite some statistical data to back up my assertions. Of course not, but they're typically not miles apart, either. But it's a moot point anyway, since you define starters with a 4.50 ERA or higher as "bad". They may be bad in YOUR mind, but the fact remains that only the Top 31 starting pitchers in the AL did better than that. If I were to fill in the remaining 49 roster spots with the best pitchers available (skewing the data to fit your argument in the process), 61% of AL starting pitching is still "bad" by your definition. Statistically, that's just ridiculous. Do the words "average" or "mediocre" mean anything to you? Wouldn't you be a bit pissed if your professors gave 61% of your class failing grades? Again, pure speculation on your part, rather than actual data. :headshake Then I guess the Astros must've had some major issues with their starting pitching last year, especially considering that they're in the NL. Oh, wait... :rolly

QUOTE(shawnhillegas @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 07:46 PM) i cant believe im saying this, but trading joe borchard was a bad idea here. at least gload is showing some sings of life. we are going to run a terrible reliever out there for no other reason than because he throws 96 and has no options left. Um, because we're desperate for another healthy reliever? I agree that Thornton sucks, but at least he might be useful for mop-up duty. When was Borchard, who is also out of options, going to be used?

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 05:41 PM) This is the main reason it was a mistake to acquire him in the first place, IMO. I'd rather have an out-of-options relief pitcher than an out-of-options outfielder. We need another lefty in the 'pen a lot more than we need another utility outfielder.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 04:43 PM) World Series wins by the Braves in the last 15 years: 1. World Series wins by the White Sox in the last 15 years: 1. :rolly The last time I checked, "post-season success" wasn't limited to WS victories. Since 1990... Braves 6 Division Series wins 4 NL Pennants 1 WS title Sox 1 Division Series win 1 AL Pennant 1 WS title

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 03:39 PM) Braves and post-season success don't go together well. They've been a hell of a lot more successful in the post-season over the past 15 years than we have.

QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 02:39 PM) wow i had no idea you were that sore that one time in your life you cried and called for mommy. This was posted/discussed in a lot of places and in a lot of places people just laughed it off and moved on... but no sir YASNY HAS NEVER CRIED IN HIS LIFE EVERYONE ...and he will dick cheney anyone that claims otherwise... This post is a great example of why nobody votes for liberals anymore.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 05:23 AM) so you need never know the heartbreak of being trapped in a loveless marriage I wonder how Hillary would characterize her marriage?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 02:52 PM) I just gave my response to a lot of those points in my last post. I'm done. You win, everyone has great staffs and no team could possibly have 5 bad starters. See what happens when you don't look up the stats?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) It's not an even distribution though, which is the whole point. The Sox had 4 pitchers qualify as decent starters, regardless of the numbers, and there are numerous other teams that did as well. The bottom feeders mostly have one starter or less that fits that criteria, which drags down the average as well. I'm also not basing top 20 or top 30 on ERA, since that fluctuates. There are also numerous starters that would normally qualify that were hurt, like Curt Schilling and Roy Halladay. You should have abou 5 teams per year with that fit that category, which is roughly the case. It's not that hard to find teams that have several starters that fit that category. There are several every year as I listed, and there are bound to be more that I would find if I actually cared. Besides that, the NL equivalent for decent starters (roughly equal to the 4.25 number I threw out) is more like 4, which increases the numbers. The distribution is not as skewed as you think. The Rangers had a Top 10 pitcher last year (Rogers) and two in the Top 30 (Young). Tortonto had two in the Top 15 (Towers and Chacin). The Devil Rays and Orioles had two in the Top 10 (Kazmin and Chen). The lowly Tigers had FOUR (!) in the Top 37 (Robertson, Johnson, Bonderman, Maroth). Assuming five-man rotations on the 16 AL teams, there are 80 starting pitchers in the league. Using your definition of 4.50 being a "bad" ERA, 49 of those pitchers (61%) fall into that category. Given that performance is rated relative to how others pitch, there's no way, by definition, that 61% of American League starting pitching could be below average. The 61st percentile should fall into the "average" category. If you don't care, why are you still responding to my posts? I'd rather take the time to actually look at the data than be proven wrong time and time again by the facts.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 02:13 PM) Yeah, your point? How many really good pitchers do you think there are out there? I'm actually kind of surprised it's as high as one per team, given how crappy the staffs are on a lot of them are. There are 16 teams in the AL and there were only 31 starting pitchers with an ERA below 4.50 last year. If pitching talent were equally distributed, every team's #3, #4, and #5 pitcher would be "bad" by your definition. And by your recently-made-up definition of "OK" for starting pitchers in the AL (4.25), only 25 exist (not even two per team if talent were distributed equally). And even though pitching talent is not equally distributed, 12 of the 16 teams own one of the Top 20 pitchers in the AL. Your definitions of "good" and "decent" are not supported by the statistics.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 01:49 PM) Plus I'd say 3.75 is a better benchmark for decent contributions in the NL, since their ERA's are typically lower, with under 3.50 being good. Food for thought... In the NL last year, only 12 pitchers (qualified) had ERAs under 3.50. Only 20 had ERAs below 3.75. There are only 16 teams in the NL. Do the math. In the AL, only 21 pitchers (qualified) had ERAs below 4.00. Only 31 pitchers had ERAs under 4.50. There are only 16 teams in the AL. Again, do the math.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 01:49 PM) By your own criteria, the 2002 Angels wouldn't qualify anyways. What I find funny is neither did the Cardinals, since Marquis and Morris were over 4 last year and Morris, Suppan, and Williams were the previous year. Why mention some sort of benchmark when it doesn't support the argument you're trying to make? Because you seem to think that any pitcher with an ERA of over 4.00 (or 3.75 by your NL standards) isn't that good. I'm saying that your standard of "good" is ridculously high. My "benchmark" was designed to show you that, on even very good pitching staffs, it's very difficult to find four or more starters with ERAs below 4.00 (by AL standards).

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) I wouldn't particularly want Marquis, Suppan, or Morris, but I'd take guys like Jason Schmidt, Javier Vazquez and C.C. Sabathia (not necessarily on the Sox staff, just in general). Schmidt and Sabathia are #1s. Why are you comparing top-of-the-rotation players like that to middle-of-the-rotation guys like Marquis, Suppan, and Morris? I'll take Santana over Vazquez! That would've been true two or three years ago, but Johnson and Mussina clearly aren't the pitchers that they used to be. A 4.50 ERA is perfectly acceptable for a #4 or #5 AL starting pitcher. First you say that having a strong rotation isn't important, and then impose these ridiculously-stringent ERA constraints on what you consider to be a "good" rotation. You flip-flop more than John Kerry. Show me an AL team that has four or more starters with at least 150 IP and ERAs below 4.00 and I'll show you a very good pitching staff.

So, if one's rotation doesn't feature Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, and Dizzy Dean in their primes, it can't be dominant, right? :rolly The Sox had what I would consider a "dominant" staff last season, yet not one of them was a "shutdown starter". A collection of very-good-but-not-future-HOF pitchers can be dominant. I'd take Capenter, Mulder, and Isringhausen any day. He just won a freaking Cy Young and had an excellent (15-5, 3.48 ERA) season in '04! Remember that it took Garland six years to develop into a top-of-the-rotation-starter as well. Not if it's your #4 or #5 guy playing in the AL during the steroid era. A 4.50 ERA means that one would give up an average of 3.5 runs over 7 innings. I'll take a performance like that from my #3-#5 pitchers any day. Then you'd have the 2005 Cardinals rotation, which you said "wasn't that good." Randy and Mussina both had some very bad outings in the regular season and absolutely sucked balls in the playoffs. So, no, those two aren't as good as Clemens, El Duque, and Pettitte back in '99-'03. Agree about Pavano, but he wasn't healthy enough to pitch for most of last season. If 36-year-old Mariano is going to pitch two-inning saves three or four times a week this season, his arm will fall off. The Yankees are SORELY missing the set-up men that they had during the WS years (Mendoza, Nelson, Stanton, Grimsley, etc.). Or a choke of epic proportions from their opponent's old, injured, and overrated pitching staff. Schilling in '04 playoffs: ALDS BOS ANA W 1 1 2.70 ALCS BOS NYY W 2 2 6.30 WS BOS STL W 1 1 0.00 Pedro in '04 playoffs: 2004 ALDS BOS ANA W 1 1 3.86 ALCS BOS NYY W 3 2 6.23 WS BOS STL W 1 1 0.00 With the exception of the ALCS, both pitched extraordinarily well. Nice attempt at cherry-picking, though. He pitched 27 innings and put up a 4.00 ERA in the playoffs, including goose eggs in the World Series. Stamina shot, my ass. Comparing Jenks to established, successful closers like Foulke and Rivera is ridiculous. The '05 Sox and '95 Braves won WS titles, despite having poor offenses. Teams with the opposite problem almost never win.

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 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. . 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? 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. 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. The '02 Angels and '05 Cards sure as hell did have "well above average" staffs. To suggest otherwise is pure ignorance. Wrong again. 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). 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. "Borderline Top 10 starter"? He won the freaking Cy Young! . If you think that the '02 Angels or '05 Cardinals pitching staffs were mediocre, you have a lot to learn about baseball.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 05:03 PM) 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.).

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 03:59 PM) 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. 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 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. 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 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. Yep, not until their second-rate pitching gives it up like a $20 hooker in the playoffs. 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.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 03:31 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 03:23 PM) 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.

QUOTE(zach61 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) What does that have to do with '93? 1993 - Failed WTC bombing 1996 - Large numbers of al Qaeda move in with Taliban. Most of the key figures all live in one general area now. Great time to attack, huh? Or, we could've waited until the Khobar Towers or U.S.S. Cole bombings. They were there until 2001! No, the Soviets did - they're the ones who occupied the country and destabilized the hell out of it.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) 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.

QUOTE(zach61 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 01:33 PM) And from what I hear, a lot of enriched uranium. We need to get in there and nip that in the bud right now. And who knows, maybe we can use the oil to help them rebuild a democracy. You're right. We should leave them alone and let them fulfill their promise of nuking Israel.

QUOTE(zach61 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) I don't follow either. How much "after" should we have invaded Afghanistan when al queda bombed the WTC in '93? How about in 1996, when the Taliban took over and many of the major al Qaeda figures lived with them?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 11:41 AM) Nope, you're right. Supporting terrorists is clearly the right thing to do. More often than not, I'll support poor terrorists who live in shacks and bathe once a month over an imperialist, communist nation with nuclear weapons.