Hardball Times Prediction
by bigbrabbs on Mar 19, 2007 11:39 AM EDT
30 comments
An article from today on Hardball times has the Twins pretty strongly favored to win the central with the rest duking it out. They state that they are not as high on the tribe because they have very little to offer on the mound after CC, Westbrook, Sowers, & Lee. That may be true but do note that minor league players are not included (ie Fausto, Miller, Lara, Sipp, etc). Which I feel the indians will get a fairly strong contribution from (as those episodes of tendinitis come along after a bad pitching stretch).
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/division-projections-for-2007/
0 recs |
30 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
Have they noticed that the Twins are starting the season with Ramon Ortiz & Sidney Ponson in the rotation?
by zempf on Mar 19, 2007 1:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
I think the point is, that the Tribe (and don't get me wrong, there are other teams in similar situations) do not have that arm that can run out there every 5th day and pretty much garuntees the team a chance at winning. While Sabathia has made great strides, he is not in Santana's teritory. And the rest - Westbrook, Sowers Lee - while all nice pitchers, are also not in the "constantly keep you alive" mold.
Now, I'm not putting Ortiz in the same category as Lee, Westbrook or Sowers, but, if you look at his last couple of seasons as a starter in the AL, he was an effective pitcher. I think he can give the Twins Paul Byrd type numbers.
Also, the Twins have an INCREDIBLE bullpen! Nathan is the best closer in the majors, Rincon is one of the top 5 set up men in the majors. Neshek, Crain and Reyes are all very strong relievers and would be among the top 2 on nearly any other teams bullpen .
So right away, they have the advantage of shortening the game down to 6 innings.
So in terms of overall pitching staff. Unless the Indian bullpen can come together and have a dominant season, the author is correct in stating that beyong their top four starters, there isn't much to look forward to.
by Brandini on Mar 19, 2007 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
by Pronk33 on Mar 19, 2007 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
Consider that Santana is almost a lock for 7 incredible innings, where as the manager you can play matchups for the 8th and then go to your stud closer for the 9th.
Then the other 4 days you have average to below average starters whom you only ask to go 5 innings without having a 9+ era. Then you can summon a Reyes and Crain or Guerrier who can give you 2-4 "solid" innings in close, winnable games.
That puts the Twins in a VERY good situation to come out on top a good deal of the time.
As for the Indians, who are lucky that their pitchers do not have to be spectacular as their hitting is incredible. However, outside of CC, they are throwing out "average pitchers"(I use the term average very lightly for pitchers, while Westbrooks 4.10ish era is nice it is also far from spectacular - and also far for Jason Johnson). Then, to add to that, the team does not have a bullpen, that, atleast entering the season, can be assured to hold onto nearly every/any lead - as the Twins do.
Let it be known I am not agreeing with the author's rankings, rather, understanding where he is coming from. In a bubble, I would rather have CC and Westbrook over Santana and Ortiz(well, his NL version atleast). However, when you cosider that the 9th inning comparison is Nathan v. Borowski, the 8th inning is Rincon v. Hernandez, the LOOGY is Reyes v. Fultz, the scale begins to tip in the other direction.
And with so many close games, a "dominant bullpen" is vital.
by Brandini on Mar 20, 2007 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
by Jay on Mar 20, 2007 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
And they have Sidney Ponson.
by Kos on Mar 21, 2007 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
Sir: I respectfully dissent.
by fleerdon on Mar 22, 2007 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind that Neshek and Crain are far from
Hello Brandini,
You make good points, but let's keep in mind that Neshek has only had all of 32 appearances in the Majors and that he wasn't quite as unhittable late last season. It's likely at some point, he will face some hiccups - how big those hiccups will be, who knows, but heck, I'm not even sure the entire league has seen him once, and probably not more than twice for a few teams, so let's not claim he's a "Top 2" reliever just yet.
As for Crain, he's been inconsistent over the past 3 seasons:
- 27.0 IP, 17 H, 12 BB, 14 K
- 79.2 IP, 61 H, 29 BB, 25 K
- 76.2 IP, 79 H, 18 BB, 60 K
In essence, these two are far from "Top 2 reliever on virtually any ML team" in my opinion, and like I've said before, it would not surprise me if the Twins' bullpen fails to live up to the lofty expectations its predecessors have performed at one of these years; you keep combining solid, but relatively inexperienced, relief prospects with past-their-prime veteran relievers, at some point, it is quite reasonable to think that they're not going to all perform at a high level every year, which is going to take away from the effectiveness of their bullpen.
Is the Twins' bullpen better than ours to start 2007? I'd say "yes," but I'm not sure the gap is THAT great, and if the Twins' bullpen does falter any and the Indians' bullpen bounces back as most think it will thanks to the veteran presence now in it, I think the Twins' edge will shrink considerably; combine that with our stronger rotation (and yes, it's stronger because Sabathia's supporting cast is considerably stronger than Santana's, plus Sabathia is still an ace, even if he's not Santana's equal as an ace - who is? Halladay, Oswalt, Johnson, Clemens, etc. aren't either, yet they're still considered aces,) that will give the Indians the edge in my opinion, especially when you consider that the Indians' offense was considerably better than the Twins' offense in 2006, and by all accounts, the Indians' offense should be as good, or even, a bit better than in 2006; the Twins' could be better, presuming that Morneau doesn't fall back a bit like some are suggesting could happen and if Mauer and Morneau get more help from the rest of their supporting cast.
That's why I think THT's prediction that the Twins will win the Central and the other 4 teams will battle it out is a bit surprising, and one I don't agree with. I think the Twins could finish 1st or 2nd if more things break right than wrong, but if they don't, I think a 3rd or 4th place finish (behind the Indians, Tigers, and possibly the White Sox) is more likely in my opinion. I think the loss of Liriano will be too great for this team to overcome to make the playoffs in 2007, especially considering that it seems that the Twins will have Matt Garza, arguably their second-best healthy pitcher from 2006, start 2007 in the Minors. I think a lot of things have to break right for this team to outperform the Indians and Tigers and win the AL Central.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
by indiansfan on Mar 20, 2007 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Keep in mind that Neshek and Crain are far fro
So if things don't break right for the Indians, Tigers and ChiSox, those three teams will still finish ahead of them?
Ofcourse things have to break properly, but that is true for each team. Certain teams have bigger holes(Indians-Pitching) while other teams can not afford a major screw up(Tigers had nothing in 06).
I'm not sure there is a team in the majors that could take their set up man, and expect to get better numbers out of him then the Twins can expect out of Neshek. Maybe Shields and Zumaya, but outside of that, I don't see many pitchers putting up Neshek's numbers.
Also, lets consider context. While Neshek was "hittable" in September, to repeat hs .114 and .137 BAA would be nearly impossible.
BP projects a 1.16 whip.
Crain has been inconsistent, but great for his major league career. His first two seasons involved great luck in having SUCH a low BABIP, but last season he regressed beyond the mean. Interesting to note that while last season was his worst in terms of ERA it was his best in terms of PERA and xFIP.
Again, back to BPs projections, 3.39 and 1.27 is probably as good as most teams can expect out of their second best reliever.
So unfortunately, the numbers (forecasts, past) do not lie. While you may not have "faith" that they can repeat based on a single month or inconsistent ratios, this team KEEPS plugging in new arms that have success. With lefty Glen Perkins the next to be up - and presumably to start in the pen - this team even has room for error.
As for the gap between their pen and the Tribes, I would say it is substantial. And in my opinion, more then enough to make up for other team "issues". The fact is, I think Betancourt is the only reliever whom the Indians can say is a lock to have a "strong" season numbers wise. The rest should hopefully do their jobs, but probably in the Bob Wickman, "i've gotta make every 9th inning exciting" mode.
Lastly, Sabathia still needs to PROVE himself to fall into the category of the Oswalts and Halladays. Consider last season was his breakout year - although the numbers suggest it easily could have happened in 2005 - and that season wasn't all THAT spectacular. This is not a slight against CC, rather a fact that he is not yet in the upper tier of pitchers. Given his age, its tough for one to EXPECT him to be there, but I would rank him with the Bondermans and Lackeys of MLB before the Oswalts and Halladays.
by Brandini on Mar 20, 2007 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some points to consider!
You make good points, but here are some counterpoints:
As we've mentioned often on this site, a bullpen is probably the most volatile area of a team in terms of performance - there are very few relievers you can virtually guarantee will perform at a high level season after season. While Neshek and Crain have had nice debuts to their careers, the sample size is way too small to say that they are that good that they are essentially a "lock" to perform at a high level each season.
Second, why did the Indians sign guys like Borowski, Hernandez, and Fultz? Just to have veteran experience - especially in the case of Hernandez, he must be doing something right - he's 42 years old - the Indians didn't sign him just so he could tutor the young pitchers - he was signed to pitch in big games and get the game to Borowski.
Would I rather have some younger arms capable of doing that, as well as a younger, harder-throwing closer like the Twins have? Of course I would. However, let's not short-change the veterans too much - they must be doing something right for them to be in baseball all these years (especially Hernandez and Fultz.) Besides, who do you have more confidence in - those three, or Cabrera and Davis? Also, presuming Miller stays healthy, he might be a "lock" for solid numbers in the bullpen, based on his 100+ ML IP track record, which is longer than both Neshek and Crain's (and matches up pretty well with Crain's as well.)
As for Sabathia, I think we can agree that his transformation occurred in August 2005, so yes, it's been a year, and yes, he needs to do it again, but personally, I'm pretty confident that 2006 was NO fluke. It's not just the numbers; it was also the way he carried himself, the way he stayed in command and didn't worry about velocity, and the way he wasn't rattled when things didn't turn out right for him like he had done in past years.
While Halladay and Oswalt both have longer track records, their K rates don't compare to CC's, and CC's might actually improve, both because he's younger and because he's actually made a point to try to increase his K rate. And, CC's injury history is actually better than Halladay's.
So while I can understand your argument about not putting him with the Oswalts and Halladays, I would put CC ahead of the Bondermans and Lackeys.
In Lackey's case, his track record isn't as long as CC's, plus he was a mid-rotation starter up until last year for the Angels. CC has been our #1 since mid-2002, so often, CC was facing off against the best pitcher on the other team (not always; I know rotations do get jumbled up, but still was matched up against better opposing pitchers more often than Lackey was facing,) which means that Sabathia had to oppose better pitching far longer than Lackey has, giving CC the edge for me.
As for Bonderman, his season last year was nice, but he hasn't matured as much as CC has (albeit, he's a bit younger than CC also,) but CC seems to have gotten past that point of letting in-game situations bother him. Bonderman hasn't demonstrated that as much, including at least one incident last year where I believe he was annoyed with his teammates for not making plays, then letting the inning explode on him.
I can understand being frustrated when your teammates falter behind you, but it's your job as a pitcher to pick your teammates up in those situations more often than not, not get angry at them. CC used to allow big innings when his defense faltered more times than not, but he seems to have overcome that more like you would expect an ace to do, and as far as I recall, he never got angry at his teammates for not making a play.
So, again, I wouldn't put Sabathia with Bonderman either. I could see Halladay and Oswalt being slightly ahead of CC, but I think CC has shown a bit more than both Lackey and Bonderman have, so CC should be ahead of them also.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
by indiansfan on Mar 20, 2007 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Some points to consider!
I agree, in a sense. But when a team like the Twins has churned out dominant bullpen after dominant bullpen you have to start giving in to MAYBE they have figured something out. I will put my money on what has proven to be a safe bet over the last 5+ seasons. So yes, volatile "area", but it seems as though this franchise has figured out how to make their bullpens less volatile. That said, one out of thirty would not change "tradition" - although, there is quite a bit of consistency in the way bullpens perform year in and year out.
Second, why did the Indians sign guys like Borowski, Hernandez, and Fultz?
They signed those guys to stabalize an awful looking bullpen. Knowing that any hopes of winning would hinge on an improved bullpen and that their minor league arms seem(ed) far from ready. However, being a 42 year old and STILL in the league does not mean much to me. A player can be bad and remain in the league for a decade, but understand, Hernandez hasn't had a good AL season in how long?!? Fultz has had how many decent major league seasons? Borowski was available to everyone for essentially a strong handshake last winter?
With all that in mind, yes there is a reason these guys have had "lengthy" major league careers, but there is also a reason they signed for such small contracts. There is a reason the O's did not hand out a 3 year deal to Borowski or Fultz. These are bargain basement players and expectations of their performance should be graded appropriately.
That said, they still MIGHT put up respectable numbers, but I would take any one of the Twins(Crain, Neshek, Nathan, Rincon and Reyes) over the three that the Indians signed. And THOSE numbers don't lie.
As for the comparisons, they are rather weak. You discount Halladay and Oswalt for having "lesser" strikeout numbers, but then ignore that fact when both Lackey and Bonderman put up superior K%s. So which is it?
As far as being "labeled" a #1, I don't buy it. The pitcher on the other side has very little to do with how CC pitches. So while his win total may be reflective upon who he faces, the rest of his numbers should be virtually identical.
However, I do believe both Bonderman and Lackey have been the "#1" guys in their respective rotations for a good chunk of time. Whether they have performed up to that level means nothing, as CC has not put up the best numbers in the Cleveland rotation annually.
Again, their is the "top teir" which right now is made up of Santana - and Rocket if he pitches - then the 2nd teir which in my opinion consists of Oswalt, Zambrano, Halladay, Carpenter and Webb and the 3rd teir which includes CC, Lackey, Bonderman, Young, Schmidt, Wang, Bedard, Peavy, Zito, Willis. As you can see, the major difference is consistency. The Oswalts and Halladays have been among the best in the majors for the last 4 or 5 years, the CCs, Peavys and Schmidts have shown flashes of dominance, but have lacked the ability to go out there every 5th day on consecutive seasons and be an "ace".
by Brandini on Mar 20, 2007 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Some points to consider!
by Brandini on Mar 20, 2007 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Some points to consider!
Gross exaggeration. "Not ready enough to be considered solid" is the conclusion that can be drawn, not "far from ready."
I agree, in a sense. But when a team like the Twins has churned out dominant bullpen after dominant bullpen you have to start giving in to MAYBE they have figured something out. I will put my money on what has proven to be a safe bet over the last 5+ seasons. So yes, volatile "area", but it seems as though this franchise has figured out how to make their bullpens less volatile. That said, one out of thirty would not change "tradition" - although, there is quite a bit of consistency in the way bullpens perform year in and year out.
You should have quit after the first sentence.
The Twins have had above-average relief for the past five seasons, but only remarkably good the past two. The Indians were better in 2005 and equal in 2003 -- when they were contending and we auditioning.
The "consistency" of the Twins bullpen, what they "maybe" have "figured out" ... is just Joe Nathan, who has dominated the last three seasons. If Jason Davis had pitched like that, who knows what the last three seasons might have looked like?
Take Nathan out of the Twins picture and you have a very ordinary looking pen -- and that's without considering the effect that downward-pressure would have had on everyone else's stats.
I give them all the credit in the world for acquiring Nathan in one of the great trade swindles of recent times. But that's pretty much where the "magic" begins and ends.
by Jay on Mar 20, 2007 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Some points to consider!
But it isn't JUST Joe Nathan. This team seems to continually spit out quality arms. JC Romero had a few strong seasons for the team. LaTroy Hawkins went from brtual starter to quality reliever.
But thank you for pointing out that the Indians TWICE had a better or equal bullpen. I'm not saying that teams can not put together a quality bullpen, but what I AM saying is that the Twins continually do it. Is your money on the team that has done it consistently, or the team that every so often manages to put it all together?
IF? If Jason Davis showed any form of consistency, the Tribe wouldn't have brought in Hernandez. If Cabrera displayed more then just ability, the team wouldn't have brought in Borowski. If Miller was able to stay healthy, the team wouldn't have brought in Fultz. If Betancourt was more consistent, the team would not have brought in Foulke.
But the fact is, those seasons were not flawless for the Indians. Davis showed little consistency, Cabrera showed nothing more then raw talent, Miller struggled to stay healthy and Betancourt juiced. On the other hand, the Twins have managed to completely revamp their 2002/03 bullpen and not lose a stride.
So yes, they have figured something out, because I can't think of another team that has completely revamped their bullpen and not lost even a bit of its quality.
Gross exaggeration. "Not ready enough to be considered solid" is the conclusion that can be drawn, not "far from ready."
"seem(ed) far from ready." Keyword, "seemed", "seemed" is what one "sees", and what one sees is that these arms are not yet ready.
However, the only pitcher who really showed anything out of the bullpen - consistently - was Betancourt. One can argue for Sikorski, but the rest all had flaws that need to be worked out before they can become quality relievers. Thus, they seem far from ready.
by Brandini on Mar 21, 2007 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Some points to consider!
That was your original quote. The Indians have a half-dozen relief prospects who are somewhere between "probably ready" and "almost ready." All of those guys put up great numbers for the 2006 season, but most of it was in the minors. There is nothing "far from ready," for example, about Mujica not giving up an earned run for five months.
How many other franchises have had 5+ seasons of being among the league leaders (top half)?
I think you would find that every team with an elite closer manages to climb into the top half in bullpen ERA, every year. So again, all you're really saying is, they have Joe Nathan.
Hawkins = Howry. Guardado = Riske. Game over.
by Jay on Mar 21, 2007 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 disagreements!
Again, you make good points, but 2 disagreements.
1. "However, I do believe both Bonderman and Lackey have been the "#1" guys in their respective rotations for a good chunk of time. Whether they have performed up to that level means nothing, as CC has not put up the best numbers in the Cleveland rotation annually."
No offense, while you could certainly make a case for Bonderman being the Tigers "#1" for the past few seasons, much like CC when he was developing, yet was filling the #1 role, it was widely considered that Bartolo Colon was the Angels' #1 starter. On top of that, guys like Kelvim Escobar were slotted ahead of Lackey until last season, so no, Lackey has been a #2 for all of 1 season, not several.
2. On top of that, if you're considering wins as part of this reasoning - "CC has not put up the best numbers in the Cleveland rotation annually," then who CC opposes on a regular basis DOES matter because CC has a lower margin of error pitching against #1s and #2s than Lackey has pitching against #3s-#5s. Granted, CC's other stats wouldn't be influenced as much, if at all, but his Ws certainly could be, and outside of CC's win totals, what other statistics were Westbrook and Lee better in than Sabathia? Certainly not the K rate, not the H rate, and Westbrook's HR rate was only slightly better than CC's in 2006 (.64 to .79; Lee's was 1.30, yet Lee won 14 games last year.) Westbrook and Lee have predominately outdone CC in the W category over the last few years, but in almost every other category, CC has outdone both of them; judging a pitcher on just his W-L record isn't the best way to indicate how well a pitcher is pitching or what his true ceiling is.
Point is, CC pitched like a #1 in 2006 (and since Aug. 2005) - even though he only won 12 games last year, I think most would agree that if the Indians had had the 2005 bullpen in 2006, CC probably wins anywhere from 17-20 games last year and is in contention for the Cy Young. In other words, you can't point to CC's W-L record and claim that he's not a #1 or not a good pitcher just because of that. And that's really the only area where Westbrook and Lee have outdone him over the past several seasons. That's why CC is your #1 pitcher, and why CC is still an ace, despite his low win total.
I think placing Schmidt in the 3rd tier might be questionable as well - his injury might have affected him somewhat, but he still put up very solid numbers for the fifth year in a row, two more years than Carpenter has, so either they both belong in that second tier, or Schmidt deserves to be in that second tier and Carpenter deserves to be in that third tier (I'm not totally convinced about Carpenter, probably because he never handled the AL even before his shoulder injury, and when he faces the AL, he doesn't always deliver "ace-like" results, so I'd really consider putting him in your 3rd tier, not your 2nd tier.)
Just my 2 cents. :-)
by indiansfan on Mar 20, 2007 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: 2 disagreements!
The frist, I actually suggested that the drop in CC's W/L record should have nothing to do with referring to him as a #1. I did agree that it would have an affect on his W/L record, but if you are judging a #1 based on wins and losses, you should reevaluate your tools.
The second, is the reasoning for placing Schmidt in the 3rd teir. I stated it because of Scmidts age, durability and up and down numbers. Over the last 5 seasons, Schmidt has had one dominant season, one strong season and a littered amount of average seasons. Carpenter on the other hand is going in an opposite direction, posting back to back dominant seasons along with his top two ML IP totals.
This is not to take anythign away from Schmidt, I think he is a solid pitcher, but who are you going to get? 170 innings of 05/06 or 210 innings of 03/04?
As for Carpenter, I would suggest he is more likely to post superior numbers to Schmidt.
So as you can see, this is about consistency, Carpenter has posted back-to-back seasons in the Oswalt/Halladay range, where as Schmidt is beginning to fade and any projections of him should have him slotted around CC and Lackey - still good, just not great/elite.
by Brandini on Mar 21, 2007 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, that's what I thought you were doing!
Actually, I thought you were the one who was implying or stating that CC wasn't a #1 based on wins and losses because of your comment of
"However, I do believe both Bonderman and Lackey have been the "#1" guys in their respective rotations for a good chunk of time. Whether they have performed up to that level means nothing, as CC has not put up the best numbers in the Cleveland rotation annually."
To me, I took it that you meant that CC wasn't a #1 because he wasn't posting the "best numbers in the Cleveland rotation annually." Like I said, outside of the W-L record, CC has outperformed Lee and Westbrook in almost every other category, validating his position as Cleveland's #1 pitcher, and since August 2005, validating that he is a true #1.
Like I also mentioned, Lackey has not been the #1 for nearly as long as CC has, not with guys like Colon and Escobar around. As for Bonderman, you could call him Detroit's #1, and has been for the last few years, but he's arguably behind CC in terms of his maturity development, as well as the fact that his numbers aren't quite as good as CC's, especially in hits allowed, walks, and consistency, especially in reference to 2006.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
by indiansfan on Mar 21, 2007 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
They do make this note in their methodology section.
by hans on Mar 19, 2007 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
Just for perspective, here are their predictions from last year:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/tht-staff-predictions/
by Pronk33 on Mar 19, 2007 1:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
It's also worth noting that the Indians remain devoid of a Scot Shields-esque elite reliever. The Twins' fireman is Pat Neshek. The Indians' is Raffy Betancourt. Ouch.
I'm not saying I agree necessarily with THT. But if their point is that the Indians' pen will still kinda suck, after last year the onus is on the Indians to prove them wrong.
by fleerdon on Mar 19, 2007 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
take a gander at the BP team audit. I have a feeling they were looking at something similar to this at THT when they made the prediction.
by fleerdon on Mar 19, 2007 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
by MTF on Mar 19, 2007 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
by Brandini on Mar 19, 2007 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
by LeftyCatcher on Mar 19, 2007 2:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
by Tribe Fan Matt on Mar 19, 2007 4:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd take our rotation over theirs!
No offense to THT, but doesn't winning start from your starting pitching? And while Santana is better than anyone in the Indians' rotation (and probably better than anyone in anybody's rotation,) what do the Twins have after Santana? It's debatable that they even have a Westbrook, Lee, and Sowers - Silva? Ponson? Ortiz? I'll take our three over that threesome any day of the week. Garza may start in AAA, and while he's better than that threesome they plan on using, he's still not an established veteran, nor is Bonser.
While I'll admit that their bullpen is better than ours, our bullpen should be improved. And, like I said before, I just get the feeling that one of these years, the Twins' bullpen is NOT going to live up to the lofty expectations being put upon it each year - their bullpens have been made up of mostly solid Minor League prospects and aging veterans - that approach has worked for the last 2-3 years, but can you guarantee that it will keep working year after year, especially when there are little (with the prospects) or inconsistent track records (with the veterans) for these pitchers?
At some point, I'm thinking that their bullpen is going to underperform and not be the solid bullpen it has been the past few years - perhaps I'm thinking of the "Law of Averages" when it comes to constructing a bullpen, but when you have young, relatively unproven prospects and aging, past-their-prime veteran relievers, at some point, it likely will catch up to Minnesota. Only time will tell whether 2007 will be that year or not.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
by indiansfan on Mar 19, 2007 6:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: I'd take our rotation over theirs!
by fleerdon on Mar 22, 2007 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking more the NYY, BOS, LAD, etc.!
When I made that comment, I was thinking more of the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc., i.e. the big-market teams. Obviously, the small- and mid-market teams have to do more with the "unproven prospect" and "aging veteran" types, and those types of teams outnumber the big-market teams, so you make a good point.
Like this site has mentioned several times, and I agree with, a bullpen varies year-by-year - you can never be sure that a bullpen, even one that is pretty well-intact, will perform as well as they did the year before. That's partly why they're relievers - they didn't have enough to make it as starters - i.e. they're not as reliable in providing quality results year-in and year-out.
Look at the 2005 and 2006 Indians' bullpen - there were a few changes (Howry, Rhodes, Mota, etc.,) but most of the bullpen was still intact (Wickman, Cabrera, Davis, Miller, Riske for 2 years, etc.) yet their performances weren't anywhere near each other. Even the guys we lost, if you consider their stats with their new teams and project them to what they would have done at Jacobs Field, I don't think any of them (Howry, Rhodes, or Riske) would have duplicated or even been that close to what they did in 2005.
Therefore, you can guess that the Twins' relievers might be better, but just because they've had a string of good performances over the last few years, from a somewhat different cast of pitchers each year (outside of Nathan and Rincon; many of the others weren't up the full year with the Twins' bullpen each year or weren't with the team each year, like Romero or Reyes) doesn't guarantee that their bullpen will be THAT strong again in 2007, especially when the track records of those pitchers are either limited (ML-wise) or mixed.
Main point: You can't predict the reliability of a bullpen, no matter if they are virtually the same cast from the prior year. After all, would anyone have guessed that the 2005 Indians' bullpen would have been as good as it was before the season started, especially when considering how poorly the 2004 Indians' bullpen did? Therefore, you can't just say because one team's bullpen did better the prior year is a sure bet that they'll do better than the other team's bullpen the next year, especially when there have been changes to one or both bullpens before the following year. You can certainly guess that the Twins' bullpen will be better, but until we see how the bullpens play out, we can't say for sure that the Twins' bullpen will be excellent and the Indians' will be mediocre because there's too much uncertainty regarding bullpens from year to year, even with very little change in a bullpen's roster, and the Indians' bullpen has had several changes from its 2006 version to its 2007 version.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
by indiansfan on Mar 22, 2007 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hardball Times Prediction
anyone believing that one dominant starting pitcher and a solid bullpen can win in this meatgrinder division is kidding themselves. ortiz and ponson? dios mio, that really is good news for the rest of the division.
i think hardball times has not done their homework very well. they apparently believe that one spectacular starter is better than 5 solid ones--i beg to differ--
as to bullpens, who knows? as indiansfan points out, its pretty damn hard to get consistency in that area, as we well know from the tribe. more power to the twins if they can do that year in year out. but frankly, with ponson and ortiz as starters, they better have some really long relievers with rubber arms.
by rustyparts on Mar 21, 2007 7:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
