Nothing Much Going On So Here's A Thought...

[simba43]

You aren't really discounting the rotation because of one guys win total from last year, are you?

No but how can people say its a great rotation Floyd has been inconsistant as to has Danks. and buehrle in recent years has been avg the second have last year was below avg . Peavy was hurt last year so his numbers are not enough to really judge . i guess what i am saying is will see . but i can't label 3 13 game winners and a hurt guy from last year an say its a great rotation. i know i will get slammed i will get what buehrle did in 2005 and no hitter perfect game . i say the rotation is good not great until they do something even cooper said that and he is there pitching coach . and i still would package danks to get AGON . We led the league in quality starts last year but we won 79 games . do you remember all thoses 2-1 3-2 games we lost or the 0-2 1-3 games we lost but were quality starts . we need another area of our team to depend on other then these 4 to 5 guys .

[Jordan4life_2007]

No but how can people say its a great rotation Floyd has been inconsistant as to has Danks. and buehrle in recent years has been avg the second have last year was below avg . Peavy was hurt last year so his numbers are not enough to really judge . i guess what i am saying is will see . but i can't label 3 13 game winners and a hurt guy from last year an say its a great rotation. i know i will get slammed i will get what buehrle did in 2005 and no hitter perfect game . i say the rotation is good not great until they do something even cooper said that and he is there pitching coach . and i still would package danks to get AGON . We led the league in quality starts last year but we won 79 games . do you remember all thoses 2-1 3-2 games we lost or the 0-2 1-3 games we lost but were quality starts . we need another area of our team to depend on other then these 4 to 5 guys .

 

I agree with you to a degree. Saying the starting pitching will be "great" in 2010 is a stretch. I thought the 2006 staff would be better than the 2005 staff. We know how that worked out. However, the starting staff is the unquestioned strength of the team. That's not up for debate. If Peavy/Buehrle do what they normally do, combined with Floyd/Danks building off of the last two years (and a solid #5 in FG, assuming he's healthy), this is undoubtedly the best starting rotation in the division. Yes, I'd love to have AGON. But to trade John Danks, as you proposed, is to open up a HUGE gaping hole in the rotation. FG's health will be a constant worry all year. And we don't know what we really have in Hudson. So you're playing with some serious fire to trade a sure thing in Danks.

[bmags]

go ahead and look around at other rotations and then say ours isn't great then. Is it the late 70s orioles? No, probably not.

[simba43]

Your perspective here is strange to me. First, your logic of if the rotation doesn't pitch well we'll have a bad season, applies to every team in baseball. It also applies to every position in baseball. So instead, tey this perspective - how many teams in baseball look to you like their rotations will be better BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW NOW. Not "if this guy does unusually bad/good".

 

Also, starting pitchers like Danks are a lot harder to replace than 1B's.

not 1st baseman like agon there not . what has danks accomplished that makes him so great ? so irreplaceable ? if he was righthanded he is avg at best so because he is lefthanded he is irreplaceable and is a great pitcher i guess its me but for me to say someone anyone is great i want to see some real serious accomplishments .

 

Danks 31-33 win loss era 4.06

 

i admit he is still young and he will get better but he is not at this time in his career a great pitcher . he is good . and like the old zen master said will see .

[qwerty]

Why is it when Boston does this they are smart. When the White Sox do it they are stupid?

 

The red sox have been a force to be reckoned with offensively since about 2002. They will have no problems scoring runs once again in this upcoming season, while we will be consistently struggling to score. Therein lies the difference, a very big difference.

[southsider2k5]

No but how can people say its a great rotation Floyd has been inconsistant as to has Danks. and buehrle in recent years has been avg the second have last year was below avg . Peavy was hurt last year so his numbers are not enough to really judge . i guess what i am saying is will see . but i can't label 3 13 game winners and a hurt guy from last year an say its a great rotation. i know i will get slammed i will get what buehrle did in 2005 and no hitter perfect game . i say the rotation is good not great until they do something even cooper said that and he is there pitching coach . and i still would package danks to get AGON . We led the league in quality starts last year but we won 79 games . do you remember all thoses 2-1 3-2 games we lost or the 0-2 1-3 games we lost but were quality starts . we need another area of our team to depend on other then these 4 to 5 guys .

 

Games won are about the worst measure of a pitching staff. You pretty much admitted the flaw in your argument when you talked about losing low scoring games. That isn't the fault of the pitching staff, and it doesn't make them mediocre, or whatever you think they are. They are a top 5 staff in all of baseball 1-4.

[southsider2k5]

not 1st baseman like agon there not . what has danks accomplished that makes him so great ? so irreplaceable ? if he was righthanded he is avg at best so because he is lefthanded he is irreplaceable and is a great pitcher i guess its me but for me to say someone anyone is great i want to see some real serious accomplishments .

 

Danks 31-33 win loss era 4.06

 

i admit he is still young and he will get better but he is not at this time in his career a great pitcher . he is good . and like the old zen master said will see .

 

Throw out his rookie year, and I would bet that falls to about 3.75 or so. Quit giving his wins and losses are proof of his pitching.

[Balta1701]

The red sox have been a force to be reckoned with offensively since about 2002. They will have no problems scoring runs once again in this upcoming season, while we will be consistently struggling to score. Therein lies the difference, a very big difference.

Really, you look at the Red Sox roster and think that they're still the offense they were last year? With another year on Ortiz and Bay gone?

[simba43]

Why is it when Boston does this they are smart. When the White Sox do it they are stupid?

he did not say the sox were stupid

[qwerty]

Really, you look at the Red Sox roster and think that they're still the offense they were last year? With another year on Ortiz and Bay gone?

 

I never claimed that they will be quite as good as they were last season, what i did say is they will have no trouble scoring runs. I envision that they will still be in the top five in the majors in scoring runs, something i am rather positive of.

[qwerty]

not 1st baseman like agon there not . what has danks accomplished that makes him so great ? so irreplaceable ? if he was righthanded he is avg at best so because he is lefthanded he is irreplaceable and is a great pitcher i guess its me but for me to say someone anyone is great i want to see some real serious accomplishments .

 

Danks 31-33 win loss era 4.06

 

i admit he is still young and he will get better but he is not at this time in his career a great pitcher . he is good . and like the old zen master said will see .

 

534.1 innings through the age of 24 is rather impressive, some would say it's a real serious accomplishment. When you factor in that he only had 70.2 innings in triple a, which could very well be one of the reasons why he was as bad as he was in 2007 (plus numerous other reasons). He has been very good for us the past two seasons. You are highly underrating him. Also, i'm gonna pretend that you ever used wins and losses as any sort of argument.

Edited January 9, 2010 by qwerty

[Balta1701]

I never claimed that they will be quite as good as they were last season, what i did say is they will have no trouble scoring runs. I envision that they will still be in the top five in the majors in scoring runs, something i am rather positive of.

When you look at the stats, once you're out of the top 3, you can legitimately feel like a team that has at least occasional trouble scoring runs. The 4-5-6 teams were Minnesota, Tampa Bay, and Toronto, none of which you sit there and think "This team's just going to outscore me". The difference between offense number 3 and offense number 4 was about the same as the difference between number 4 and number 9.

[qwerty]

When you look at the stats, once you're out of the top 3, you can legitimately feel like a team that has at least occasional trouble scoring runs. The 4-5-6 teams were Minnesota, Tampa Bay, and Toronto, none of which you sit there and think "This team's just going to outscore me". The difference between offense number 3 and offense number 4 was about the same as the difference between number 4 and number 9.

 

My point still applies. The gap is smaller if you look at more than just one years worth of data (you looked at just 2009). The red sox will have no trouble scoring runs, and when i say that, i mean compared to majority of the league. Compare the team that is fifth in the majors in scoring runs compared to the 15th, and do this yearly. The differential is anywhere from 70-90 runs. Roughly one half run per ball game. One half run can potentially make a world of a difference, and generally does.

[knightni]

Danks 31-33 win loss era 4.06

 

i admit he is still young and he will get better but he is not at this time in his career a great pitcher . he is good . and like the old zen master said will see .

 

Guess the player!

 

13-14 win loss ERA 5.77

 

 

Yes, that is the record of the first three years of

Roy Halladay

!

[qwerty]

Guess the player!

 

13-14 win loss ERA 5.77

 

 

Yes, that is the record of the first three years of

Roy Halladay

!

 

Halladay's 10.64 era in 2000 in 67.2 innings was a season to remember, as it broke records and all.

[simba43]

ok he is a great pitcher so lester must be even greater or what term do i use please don't compare stats Danks to Lester . this whole arguement is about the word its self GREAT PLEASE tell me how this pitching staff is great ? like i said its good but not great not yet and why not use wins and losses to compare a great pitcher in the end isn't that what seperates a great pitcher from good or ok pitcher. i read here before how vasques was this and that but if we don't look at his late season pitching or as most here put it the important or pressure big games then his overall numbers are well great . so that makes him great ? and some body brings up HALLADAY TO . OH please are you saying Danks will be or is in the same group of pitchers as a Roy Halladay ? then somebody takes out Danks rookie season stats why ? well we will see how great this pitching staff is i have a feeling many here will be disappointed that there not great they are good but not good enough to carry a fairly weak defensive and a low offensive production team . i don't believe our lineup as it sits now will produce enough day in a day out to win . now if this was a great pitching staff or rotation we would still win there is a big difference in being good then being great .

[knightni]

My point was that the results of a pitcher's first few seasons shouldn't be treated as how their entire career will go.

 

 

[simba43]

534.1 innings through the age of 24 is rather impressive, some would say it's a real serious accomplishment. When you factor in that he only had 70.2 innings in triple a, which could very well be one of the reasons why he was as bad as he was in 2007 (plus numerous other reasons). He has been very good for us the past two seasons. You are highly underrating him. Also, i'm gonna pretend that you ever used wins and losses as any sort of argument.

thats just it im not underrating him i said he was good others here are overrating him

[simba43]

Games won are about the worst measure of a pitching staff. You pretty much admitted the flaw in your argument when you talked about losing low scoring games. That isn't the fault of the pitching staff, and it doesn't make them mediocre, or whatever you think they are. They are a top 5 staff in all of baseball 1-4.

there a top five staff in all of baseball why because some sports writer said so ? like i said let the season play out then lets talk

[knightni]

If the season's over, there's nothing to talk about.

[southsider2k5]

ok he is a great pitcher so lester must be even greater or what term do i use please don't compare stats Danks to Lester . this whole arguement is about the word its self GREAT PLEASE tell me how this pitching staff is great ? like i said its good but not great not yet and why not use wins and losses to compare a great pitcher in the end isn't that what seperates a great pitcher from good or ok pitcher. i read here before how vasques was this and that but if we don't look at his late season pitching or as most here put it the important or pressure big games then his overall numbers are well great . so that makes him great ? and some body brings up HALLADAY TO . OH please are you saying Danks will be or is in the same group of pitchers as a Roy Halladay ? then somebody takes out Danks rookie season stats why ? well we will see how great this pitching staff is i have a feeling many here will be disappointed that there not great they are good but not good enough to carry a fairly weak defensive and a low offensive production team . i don't believe our lineup as it sits now will produce enough day in a day out to win . now if this was a great pitching staff or rotation we would still win there is a big difference in being good then being great .

 

Ugh. Where to start in this slop. This staff is in the top 5 in MLB when compared to the rest of MLB. Pretty much by definition, it makes them better than good. Your strange statistical whims are what is bringing on some of the other comparisons. You seem to feel that winning or losing a game is what makes a pitcher/staff "great" or merely "good", which people are trying to tell you is a terrible way of looking at things. Losing a game 1-0 or 2-1 doesn't mean the pitcher didn't do their job. It means the offense didn't. Losing a lot of those sort of games means the exact same thing. Blaming the starting pitchers for not winning low scoring games makes less sense than the mess above.

 

Taking a career era to determine how a guy who has been in the league three years is going end up doing is just a notch less not practical. The reason Danks rookie season was brought up is because he has been around three years, and it is an obvious statistical outlier when compared to his last two years. It isn't a complex action. Halladay was mentioned in the same vein of proving that a persons early years doesn't automatically doom them to mediocrity.

 

I won't even get into the random capitalization, punctuation, and grammar that is just making my head hurt.

[southsider2k5]

there a top five staff in all of baseball why because some sports writer said so ? like i said let the season play out then lets talk

 

Then go away until the end of the season and let the rest of us talk.

[WHITESOXRANDY]

Chapman's going to start the year in AA probably. How's the plan look now?

 

From everything that I've read he seems like a Randy Johnson type. He'll eventually be great but due to control issues and makeup (read immaturity) it will be a few years before he has it together.

 

He may not make a significant impact on anyone's rotation until 2012 or later. If you're going to sign him then you probably need to get a 6 year deal for about $ 25 mil.

 

I like the idea of the Sox signing Maya better. He's not as good but a lot cheaper and could help the team this year.

Edited January 9, 2010 by WHITESOXRANDY

[witesoxfan]

ok he is a great pitcher so lester must be even greater or what term do i use please don't compare stats Danks to Lester . this whole arguement is about the word its self GREAT PLEASE tell me how this pitching staff is great ? like i said its good but not great not yet and why not use wins and losses to compare a great pitcher in the end isn't that what seperates a great pitcher from good or ok pitcher. i read here before how vasques was this and that but if we don't look at his late season pitching or as most here put it the important or pressure big games then his overall numbers are well great . so that makes him great ? and some body brings up HALLADAY TO . OH please are you saying Danks will be or is in the same group of pitchers as a Roy Halladay ? then somebody takes out Danks rookie season stats why ? well we will see how great this pitching staff is i have a feeling many here will be disappointed that there not great they are good but not good enough to carry a fairly weak defensive and a low offensive production team . i don't believe our lineup as it sits now will produce enough day in a day out to win . now if this was a great pitching staff or rotation we would still win there is a big difference in being good then being great .

 

Here are the 3 year ERAs from the top 4 starters...

 

Jake Peavy - 3.15

Mark Buehrle - 3.75

Gavin Floyd - 4.14

John Danks - 4.06

 

Find me 5 other staffs with 4 starters over the past 3 seasons who have put up ERAs under 4.15. I don't care that some seasons were shortened due to injury, pitching in the minor leagues, or protecting an arm. It's generally right around 450 innings or more, which is more than large enough sample size. Add to that Freddy Garcia as the #5 starter who was very solid last year and a nice youngster coming up in Dan Hudson, and the White Sox rotation is great.

 

I think you might be the only person on the site who has even brought into question the ability of the rotation, and it's all over the thought of bringing in Adrian Gonzalez. The difference between Adrian Gonzalez and Jim Thome is very sizeable, but it's not big enough to lose one of the top 4 starters while losing several other great prospects too, especially because resigning Adrian Gonzalez would meaning guaranteeing him somewhere around 6-8 years and $17-20 mill a year in 2 years.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

The rotation looks good going into 2010. Hopefully it looks just as good when the season is over. That's really all that matters.