PDA

View Full Version : Yankee Rotation



Plumpamania
12-16-2006, 06:31 PM
In another forum, that is litered with Yankee trash...well...they are arguing that the Yankee rotation is actually better than the Red Sox rotation.

Mussina = Schilling
Wang > Beckett (not on potential)
Pettite < Matsuzaka
Johnson < Papelbon
Igawa/Pavano < Wakefield

That's at least how I view it and I think I do it without bias. But they then are contingent to argue that Karstens and Rasner are good back up options if one of their starters is injured. Which I disagree with, since Hughes will almost be the top choice to be called up.

Anyways, what do you guys think?

Coco's Disciples
12-16-2006, 06:35 PM
Mussina>Schilling
-Schilling is going to decline this year. Mussina is still a real good pitcher.

Not so sure about Paps vs. Johnson...Johnson's gonna rebound to about a 4 ERA, 15 wins, etc...they could be about equal this year.

Plumpamania
12-16-2006, 06:37 PM
That's one argument the Mussina > Schilling one that I argued.

Mussina in the last three years has had elbow problems, that restricted him to sub ERA+ (below a 100 ERA+). Then he came out of nowhere last year with that season.

Last season they were only 9 ERA+ points apart. I'd still call them a wash.

BoSox34
12-16-2006, 06:58 PM
Mussina > Schilling
Wang < Beckett
Pettite < Matsuzaka
Johnson < Papelbon
Igawa/Pavano < Wakefield

There's no question that our rotation is superior.

Plumpamania
12-16-2006, 07:39 PM
I wouldn't call Wang < Beckett.

Last year Wang was much better. If you did potential it would be Wang < Beckett, but off results its Wang > Beckett.

example1
12-16-2006, 08:02 PM
Okay, this is all about opinion so I'll throw in my 2 cents... I'm ranking this on how I think the pitchers will be, rather than the order they will necessarily be in.

Mussina < Matsuzaka
Wang > Beckett
Pettitte = Schilling
Johnson = Wakefield
Igawa < Papelbon

I see two clearcut Sox advantages and one for the Yankees. All-in-all though I think their starting pitching is pretty good. I like the Sox pitching better for the next few years, that's for sure. I don't think Wang's upside is much higher than he's at now, as he's a gb pitcher and that's essentially what he's getting at this point. He's not going to have a 2.00 ERA and 200+ k's in any season. Beckett, Papelbon and Matsuzaka could all do that.

Finally, I suppose I should explain how I could have Matsuzaka as better than Mussina. I think they're actually pretty close but Matsuzaka has some particularly nasty stuff. We'll check in later in the season, but I think that those who have seen him believe he will be very good. Jorge Cantu, when asked by an ESPN commentator where on a scale of 1-10 Matsuzaka would fit in, Cantu surprised him by saying "Oh, he's up there. Probably a 9, possbly a 10". Mussina is a good pitcher but he's no longer over powering. I think Wang/Matsuzaka and Mussina/Schilling are the best potential matchups in the group. Although a Randy Johnson/Papelbon duel wouldn't be bad either :D

There is a reason that the Sox have had their eyes on Monster since 1999 Koishen and that Theo says he actually hoped Matsuzaka wouldn't do well in the WBC so he might stay more under the radar. The Yankees bid 30+ and the Mets 40+, so I think we're talking about one of the games elite pitchers.

Oh yeah, he's also one of the healthiest and most projectable pitchers around. His motion is smooth and seems very fluid and he's just a pitching machine. The sox will slow down how much he's used but they also said they weren't going to completely change the way he pitches. He's an innings eater, pitching lots of CG's over his career. They aren't worried that its a sign that his arm is likely to go, they see it as a sign that he's in excellent pitching condition.

Gom
12-16-2006, 08:04 PM
I wouldn't call Wang < Beckett.

Last year Wang was much better. If you did potential it would be Wang < Beckett, but off results its Wang > Beckett.

I don't even see potential. Wang throws just as hard as Beckett, gives up less homeruns, has better control. I don't see Beckett better in any way shape or form.

Mussina > Schilling
Wang < Beckett
Pettite < Matsuzaka
Johnson < Papelbon
Igawa/Pavano < Wakefield

The question is not who is number one, etc. The only ones that really matter are 1-4. No one goes with a fifth in the playoffs. However, I will include all 5.

So, the Yankees sport Wang, Mussina, Pettitte, Johnson, and Igawa/Pavano. The Red Sox sport Schilling, Matsuzaka, Beckett, Papelbon, Wakefield.

In the matchups of number one's, Wang tops anything on either side. Let's put him up against Beckett, since that seems to be the consensus in this argument. No contest. Edge: Big-Yankees.

Schilling versus Mussina. Both pitchers are getting up there in years, but Mussina had been more consistent. Edge: Yankees...very slight.

Matsuzaka vs Pettitte. Toughest one to call. Pettitte comes with a track record, Matsuzaka could be boom or bust. Pettitte has the pedigree, Matsuzaka has the hype. No one really knows this one. Edge: pick'em [I know Sox fans will disagree, but this could go anywhere from huge edge yanks to huge edge/no contest sox]. No one really knows.

Papelbon vs Johnson. Johnson was the benificiary of a potent Yankees offense. Papelbon was dominant in the pen, but problems with his shoulder lead to question marks. However, I will take Papelbon's youth and skill. It's not like Randy Johnson is the most durable these days either. Edge: Red Sox.

Wakefield vs the 2 headed monster. Wakefield will put up the same numbers he does every year. The combination of Igawa and Pavano should yield about the same results as Wakefield does alone. Edge: Who cares?

I admit, the Sox rotation has more potential, as they have 3 starters under 30 and are still maturing, against the Yankees one in Wang. However, going into next season, I think there is a slight edge to the Yankees only because of the unknown of Matsuzaka. If he comes as advertised, then the edge is huge to the Red Sox.

Coco's Disciples
12-16-2006, 08:12 PM
You better care about the 5th starter, cause if it's poor, thats a few losses tacked on...every game is important, and the 5th spot gets 35.

Gom
12-16-2006, 08:13 PM
You better care about the 5th starter, cause if it's poor, thats a few losses tacked on...every game is important, and the 5th spot gets 35.

Eh...we're in the playoffs. That much I'm pretty sure of. So it doesn't really matter. The 5th starter will go close to .500. For both teams.

Coco's Disciples
12-16-2006, 08:25 PM
There are no givens...in 2005, you made the playoffs because of Chacon and Small basically...5th starters.

example1
12-16-2006, 08:34 PM
I don't even see potential. Wang throws just as hard as Beckett, gives up less homeruns, has better control. I don't see Beckett better in any way shape or form.

From Bill James handbook:

Fastest average fastball:

Hernandez, SEA 95.2
Verlander, DET 95.1
Beckett, BOS 94.7
Sabathia, CLE 93.7
Bonderman, DET 93.3
Escobar, LAA 93.1
Wang, NYY 93.1

Pitches 95+ Velocity

Beckett 1072
Verlander 992
Hernandez 950
Zumaya (!!!) 884
Cabrera 834
Burnett 677

Long story short, I don't think its factually correct to say Wang throws just as hard as Beckett. If Beckett could locate like Wang then his fastball would be a better pitch than Wang's. Just to clarify.



Mussina > Schilling
Wang < Beckett
Pettite < Matsuzaka
Johnson < Papelbon
Igawa/Pavano < Wakefield

The question is not who is number one, etc. The only ones that really matter are 1-4. No one goes with a fifth in the playoffs. However, I will include all 5.

So, the Yankees sport Wang, Mussina, Pettitte, Johnson, and Igawa/Pavano. The Red Sox sport Schilling, Matsuzaka, Beckett, Papelbon, Wakefield.

In the matchups of number one's, Wang tops anything on either side. Let's put him up against Beckett, since that seems to be the consensus in this argument. No contest. Edge: Big-Yankees.


True, until after Matsuzaka's first MLB start at which point people will realize that every one of his pitches is as good or better than Wang's best. Just sayin'...



Schilling versus Mussina. Both pitchers are getting up there in years, but Mussina had been more consistent. Edge: Yankees...very slight.


Matsuzaka vs Pettitte. Toughest one to call. Pettitte comes with a track record, Matsuzaka could be boom or bust. Pettitte has the pedigree, Matsuzaka has the hype. No one really knows this one. Edge: pick'em [I know Sox fans will disagree, but this could go anywhere from huge edge yanks to huge edge/no contest sox]. No one really knows.

Papelbon vs Johnson. Johnson was the benificiary of a potent Yankees offense. Papelbon was dominant in the pen, but problems with his shoulder lead to question marks. However, I will take Papelbon's youth and skill. It's not like Randy Johnson is the most durable these days either. Edge: Red Sox.

Wakefield vs the 2 headed monster. Wakefield will put up the same numbers he does every year. The combination of Igawa and Pavano should yield about the same results as Wakefield does alone. Edge: Who cares?

I admit, the Sox rotation has more potential, as they have 3 starters under 30 and are still maturing, against the Yankees one in Wang. However, going into next season, I think there is a slight edge to the Yankees only because of the unknown of Matsuzaka. If he comes as advertised, then the edge is huge to the Red Sox.

he's coming, as advertized. We will re-evaluate in a few months, but this kid is going to be a dominant pitcher unlike ones we've seen in awhile in MLB in terms of the bredth of his repetoire and ability to throw 95.

example1
12-16-2006, 08:40 PM
Eh...we're in the playoffs. That much I'm pretty sure of. So it doesn't really matter. The 5th starter will go close to .500. For both teams.

So you clearly don't think the Red Sox are a threat, huh? If you did then of course you would be worried about the playoffs, cause the Twins, White Sox and Tigers are still there to challenge for a WC spot. No respect for the Sox despite their recent upgrades, the fact that they led the AL East with essentially the same team for much of last year (minus, of course the new SS, #1-2 starter, RF and the three new RPs) and the further development of their young guys? Man oh man... I hope the Yankees miss the playoffs this year. ;)

jacksonianmarch
12-16-2006, 08:41 PM
Mussina > Schilling
Wang < Beckett
Pettite < Matsuzaka
Johnson < Papelbon
Igawa/Pavano < Wakefield

There's no question that our rotation is superior.

Man, the assumption of Matsuzaka in a new league being better than Pettitte seems a little unfounded for now at least.

Wang was the ace and is currently the best pitcher on either staff
Mussina was the 2nd best pitcher between the two teams last season.
Schilling came in at #3. Pettitte would be at #4 followed by Wake at 5. Johnson and Beckett were equally sucky tied at 6. Matsuzaka, Papelbon and Igawa we have no idea.

If you want to talk about potential, well it is a double edged sword going both ways anyway. Johnson has the potential and still has the stuff to be an ace. Matsuzaka could be the best Japanese import since Nintendo. Beckett could reach down and find a breaking pitch that he wont bounce. Pettitte could continue his second half surge and be dominant.

Who knows, who cares. It is all about how they fit the team, and durability is the most important thing in my mind.

1. Randy Johnson is durable. Yes he is coming off another surgery, but the guy has surgery every offseason it seems. But you know what gets me about him? In 1990 he was sent to Seattle and since then, there have been only 3 seasons in which RJ didnt surpass 200 innings, and one of those yrs was in 94 because of the strike. The guy is a durable machine who was uncharacteristically bad without having the bad peripherals you would expect. The only trend was a mild increase in BB/9 (up by 0.7) and a decrease in K/9 (down by 0.8). BAA rose by only 7 points, which could be random variation. HR total dropped by 4. Still less than a hit per inning. What is interesting is the fact that he cannot seem to get out of the big inning. 2 years ago, RJ's opponents OPS with RISP was .717. This season, his OPS w/RISP was .998. 2 seasons ago, his opponents OPS with runners on was .766. Last yr it was .927. Either RJ was the victim of bad luck last yr is something that could be debated. It could also be debated that he no longer has either the balls or the stuff to get himself out of jams. That could be why his peripherals (which are very Schilling-esque) translated into a run higher ERA. One other thing that is going to be an obvious carrot in front of RJ is 300 wins. He is 20 wins away, and having won 17 games last yr while giving up so many runs makes 20 this season possible, even if he vultures them. Very difficult to predict, but it is not out of the realm of possibility to say that he could have an era below 4 next yr or approaching 6. The one thing I will bank on is, barring any setback in recovery, 200 innings like clockwork.

2. Mike Mussina The guy is a yearly DL'er. He'll hit the DL again, but he reinvented himself last season. Was 3IP short of 200. K'd 0.7 more per 9IP, walked 0.9/9IP less and had an astronomical 4.91K/BB which was his second highest in his career. His BAA dropped by 43 points, his OPS against dropped by 110 points, his ERA dropped by 0.9 runs per 9, and his WHIP dropped by 0.25. All from slowing down his breaking stuff and embracing age which will increase his longevity and effectiveness. I expect more of the same if he stays healthy, but that is a big if.

3. Chien Ming Wang was pretty amazing last season. 218 innings in 33 starts. His ERA was low at 3.63. But that doesnt make him amazing. What is amazing is that he allowed 12 HRs and the third highest GB/FB ratio in the bigs. He has power stuff that he uses to contact, which makes him an innings eater. And it isnt like the hitters dont know its coming. He throws the sinker about 80% of the time, they just cannot lift it. Quote about him essentially say it is like trying to hit a 95 mph bowling ball. His problems are with running teams, something that the sox are not. He is horrible at holding runners. He is a GB pitcher, so speedy hitters reach base a lot on him. He does have a significant injury history. He has ha TJ and two yrs ago was told he needed rotator cuff surgery. Obviously that was poor advice as R and R fixed it up. If healthy, I'd expect more of the same. He'll never be a K pitcher, but he will eat 200 innings, put up a lot of QS's and win a ton of games on a team that will provide him runs. Is he a prototypical ace, absolutely not. But will he give the yankees a very good chance to win any game, regular season or playoffs, that he pitches, absolutely.

4. Andy Pettitte is durable. He has reached 190 innings 9 out of the last 11 seasons. Also, if you take his last 3 seasons and subtract out the pre AS break numbers from last yr, you have a pitcher with an era sub 3 in the NL. Not bad. His K rate rose to his second highest rate in any full season last yr at 7.4 per 9. But his walk rate jumped as well, by 1.3 from 05 to 06. His BAA jumped a whopping 54 points from 05 to 06, but if you look at the splits, it is even more impressive. His pre AS BAA was .309 last yr. His post AS BAA was .249 which is right about where his numbers were in 2004. Overall, the guy has always been a 2nd half pitcher, but if he could maintain his second half performance from last yr (provided the AL transfer bump), he should give the yankees a lot of wins based on the O and the pen, a lot of innings and a 4-ish ERA.

5. Kei Igawa Nothing known really about this guy except that he is remarkably durable. 200+ innings 5 times in the past 7 yrs and 190+ in 6 of the last 7. Other than that, who the fuck knows.

The Yankees needs from their rotation are VASTLY different than what the sox need. The Yankees are going to have a pen that will be a strength and potentially the best lineup in baseball. The downfall of the yankees the previous yrs has not been in the rotation necessarily, but has been because of the durability of the rotation. The bullpen is filled with power arms, but power arms get tired. If this rotation is durable and partially effective, then this team will be very good. If the rotation is effective and durable, then this team will be awesome. But the durability is the key. Now the one thing the yankees have that the sox dont is depth. Pavano is still on this team for now, and would be the #5, but I have a feeling he moves soon. But for now he is the 5/6. Then you have guys like Karstens and Rasner who are not sexy by any means but will eat innings. Karstens averaged 6Ip per start in the minors and then averaged 6.2 last yr in 6 starts. Rasner is a guy who fought arm trouble last season, but is a guy who could go 6 innings on a given day. Will they throw shutouts and be lights out. Not likely. But these guys offer depth that will eat innings when called on and not walk people (Both Rasner and Karstens were pretty good in that area last yr). These 2 are NOT Gabbard and Pauley. Those guys walked a ton of hitters and hence were not around deep into games. Plus, the yankees have 3 top prospects in AAA who are starting pitchers.

Overall, the yankees can handle injury better. They should get more innings out of their rotation than the sox will and as long as they reach the magic number of 900 and potentially 1000 then this team is gonna be tough to beat. The edge in my opinion is not useful to tell right now. If every single thing bounces right for both teams, then the sox will have the best rotation (potentially in all of baseball), but we know that isnt always the case. And if injury strikes, then the sox will be in a whole heapin helpin of trouble.

Plumpamania
12-16-2006, 08:57 PM
Just to point out Randy Johnson you said right off the bat is durable, then talked about his surgeries, and neglected to talk about the fact he has no cartilidge in one of his knees.

I do not think the Yankees will get more IP out of their SP than the Sox. I think the Sox rotation is superior in youth and longevity.

The Yankees however do have a better pen, up and down.

jacksonianmarch
12-16-2006, 09:00 PM
Just to point out Randy Johnson you said right off the bat is durable, then talked about his surgeries, and neglected to talk about the fact he has no cartilidge in one of his knees.

I do not think the Yankees will get more IP out of their SP than the Sox. I think the Sox rotation is superior in youth and longevity.

The Yankees however do have a better pen, up and down.

He hasnt had cartilage in his knees for 5 years now. It hasnt affected him one bit.

As for your durability aspect, I see your point. But I am going off performance here. The sox have younger pitchers, which means they will be handled with kid gloves and their chances of hurting their arms are much greater. As it is, the yankees will have 5 pitchers in their rotation who threw 197IP or more last season (4 in the MLB and one in Japan). We'll see.

Plumpamania
12-16-2006, 09:05 PM
And Schilling and Beckett both tossed 200 IP. Matsuzaka is the ideal durable SP. Wakefield is an IP eater, and still nabbed out 140 IP with only 23 GS. Papelbon is the only "question mark" for durability but was a solid SP in the minors.

jacksonianmarch
12-16-2006, 09:08 PM
And Schilling and Beckett both tossed 200 IP. Matsuzaka is the ideal durable SP. Wakefield is an IP eater, and still nabbed out 140 IP with only 23 GS. Papelbon is the only "question mark" for durability but was a solid SP in the minors.

Beckett is a major ?? as far as durability. The guy has his first durable season out of many and now he isnt a ?. Schilling started wearing down and wake was injured. Also, expect the sox to protect their 100+mil investment in the arm of Dice K.

Gom
12-16-2006, 10:23 PM
So you clearly don't think the Red Sox are a threat, huh? If you did then of course you would be worried about the playoffs, cause the Twins, White Sox and Tigers are still there to challenge for a WC spot. No respect for the Sox despite their recent upgrades, the fact that they led the AL East with essentially the same team for much of last year (minus, of course the new SS, #1-2 starter, RF and the three new RPs) and the further development of their young guys? Man oh man... I hope the Yankees miss the playoffs this year. ;)

No, I don't view the Red Sox as much of a threat. Considering that we lost Sheffield and Matsui for most of the season last year, and still won the division by 11 games. Respect for the Sox? Try not finishing above 3rd to get respect.

Coco's Disciples
12-16-2006, 10:33 PM
If we finish 4th we'll get respect? Go for it!

jacksonianmarch
12-16-2006, 10:37 PM
Gom, I sorta feel the same way with the added caveat.

As usual, the yankees are built for the regular season, although this season, with the addition of Pettitte, they have the potential to be very strong in the postseason. With the offense, the pen, and the likely high IP potential of this rotation, the yankees should crush the shitty teams and stand tall with the good teams. That will give them likely a 95-100 win regular season. The red sox are going to have more trouble in the regular season. No stability in the pen and a lineup that is still going to have its issues. But they are a team that will contend for the wild card, and if they come into the playoffs with momentum, they will be a team that nobody wants to play.

a700hitter
12-16-2006, 10:47 PM
No, I don't view the Red Sox as much of a threat. Considering that we lost Sheffield and Matsui for most of the season last year, and still won the division by 11 games. Respect for the Sox? Try not finishing above 3rd to get respect.Tell me how comfortable are you with a two run lead when two men are on base with no one out and Ortiz and Manny coming up. Yeah, you know that feeling of dread that you have. That's respect.

jacksonianmarch
12-16-2006, 10:53 PM
Tell me how comfortable are you with a two run lead when two men are on base with no one out and Ortiz and Manny coming up. Yeah, you know that feeling of dread that you have. That's respect.

that is respect for the best 3-4 combo the game has seen in awhile. The rest of the team, not so much.

a700hitter
12-16-2006, 11:48 PM
that is respect for the best 3-4 combo the game has seen in awhile. The rest of the team, not so much.That is a brilliant rationalization. That would be like NBA fans during the Bulls run saying that they respected Jordan and Pippin, but not the rest of the team. The Yankees don't have any one that scares us like that.

jacksonianmarch
12-16-2006, 11:53 PM
That is a brilliant rationalization. That would be like NBA fans during the Bulls run saying that they respected Jordan and Pippin, but not the rest of the team. The Yankees don't have any one that scares us like that.

Basketball is much different. One player can take over a game as they can control the ball. In baseball, you theoretically could make the rest of the team beat you. In basketball it is easier said than done.

a700hitter
12-17-2006, 12:01 AM
Basketball is much different. One player can take over a game as they can control the ball. In baseball, you theoretically could make the rest of the team beat you. In basketball it is easier said than done.Really, so you don't think Manny and Ortiz make all the hitters around them better. How do you account for the fact that they scored more than 900 runs 3 years in a row?

jacksonianmarch
12-17-2006, 12:08 AM
Really, so you don't think Manny and Ortiz make all the hitters around them better. How do you account for the fact that they scored more than 900 runs 3 years in a row?

Manny and Ortiz do make the guys around them better. But at the same time, you had guys like Damon, Varitek in his prime, Mueller as the batting champ, Bellhorn getting on base, Nixon in his prime and Millar was pretty good too. The entire lineup was built with burning pitchers in mind. THAT is why the team was so good. Last season, you lost 30 games of Manny and a week or so of Ortiz, but anyone who watched that team knew that the offense was beatable. You had Crisp playing terribly in Damon's stead, Vtek aging rapidly, Nixon losing all power, Loretta not getting on base like Bellhorn did, and AGon not hitting. Papi and Manny have actually gotten better yet the lineup got worse.

Now for the yankees, you say that no one person scares you. That is why a lineup is 9 men deep. This lineup is murder on starting pitchers. Taking pitches, working counts, getting on base. The collective lineup is scary. For the sox, they have 2 scary hitters, and thats about it.

a700hitter
12-17-2006, 12:28 AM
Manny and Ortiz do make the guys around them better. But at the same time, you had guys like Damon, Varitek in his prime, Mueller as the batting champ, Bellhorn getting on base, Nixon in his prime and Millar was pretty good too. The entire lineup was built with burning pitchers in mind. THAT is why the team was so good. Last season, you lost 30 games of Manny and a week or so of Ortiz, but anyone who watched that team knew that the offense was beatable. In 2005, Bellhorn was a disaster, as was Millar (9 HRs), Nixon (13 HRs), and 2005 Muellar was less productive than 2006 Lowell, but yet they scored over 900 runs. The Red Sox had some injuries in 2006 that hurt the teams production. Rebound years be Varitek and Crisp plus the additions of Lugo and Drew should produce plenty of offense. To sit here and say you don't respect the Red Sox lineup in the safety of the offseason is ridiculous.

jacksonianmarch
12-17-2006, 12:34 AM
In 2005, Bellhorn was a disaster, as was Millar (9 HRs), Nixon (13 HRs), and 2005 Muellar was less productive than 2006 Lowell, but yet they scored over 900 runs. The Red Sox had some injuries in 2006 that hurt the teams production. Rebound years be Varitek and Crisp plus the additions of Lugo and Drew should produce plenty of offense. To sit here and say you don't respect the Red Sox lineup in the safety of the offseason is ridiculous.

Johnny Damon made that offense go. Either way, I respect the 3-4 of the sox. Take out Manny and Ortiz and that lineup couldnt hold at all. Last yr, in NY, they lost a power righty and a power lefty for almost the entire yr and they still led the league in runs scored.

Lugo is a nice complementary piece, but I dont think he is a leadoff hitter. Crisp may have been injured, but he was fine by the time the choke came about. Varitek was flat out awful and to expect him to suddenly revert to when he was 30 again is not likely. Nancy may only play 90 games next yr, and this physical finding is not helping his case for durability. If everything bounces well, you will have one of the best lineups in baseball, but your lineup looks very similar to last yrs, and I think the additions are not as big as you may think they are.

a700hitter
12-17-2006, 12:44 AM
Johnny Damon made that offense go. Either way, I respect the 3-4 of the sox. Take out Manny and Ortiz and that lineup couldnt hold at all. Last yr, in NY, they lost a power righty and a power lefty for almost the entire yr and they still led the league in runs scored.

Lugo is a nice complementary piece, but I dont think he is a leadoff hitter. Crisp may have been injured, but he was fine by the time the choke came about. Varitek was flat out awful and to expect him to suddenly revert to when he was 30 again is not likely. Nancy may only play 90 games next yr, and this physical finding is not helping his case for durability. If everything bounces well, you will have one of the best lineups in baseball, but your lineup looks very similar to last yrs, and I think the additions are not as big as you may think they are.Lugo will be an upgrade over either Gonzo or Loretta. If Drew can keep himself healthy for just 120 games and WMP gets the remainder of the time and Crisp and Tek stay healthy, the offense should score lots of runs provided Ortiz and Manny also stay healthy. These acquisitions will fill gaping holes. The #5 spot inthe lineup was horrendous and Manny and Ortiz were still a wrecking crew. I hate to think what they will do with some protection.

jacksonianmarch
12-17-2006, 07:54 AM
Lugo will be an upgrade over either Gonzo or Loretta. If Drew can keep himself healthy for just 120 games and WMP gets the remainder of the time and Crisp and Tek stay healthy, the offense should score lots of runs provided Ortiz and Manny also stay healthy. These acquisitions will fill gaping holes. The #5 spot inthe lineup was horrendous and Manny and Ortiz were still a wrecking crew. I hate to think what they will do with some protection.

Protection? .280 20HR is not that scary. Protection was Nixon when he was nasty. Drew is a run of the mill 5 hole hitter with serious durability issues who is being way overpaid.

a700hitter
12-17-2006, 10:21 AM
Protection? .280 20HR is not that scary. Protection was Nixon when he was nasty. Drew is a run of the mill 5 hole hitter with serious durability issues who is being way overpaid.I'm not a big Drew fan, but he is an enormous upgrade over the five hole last year.

jacksonianmarch
12-17-2006, 10:24 AM
I agree with you on that.

Sox #5 hitters last yr .231 14HR 75RBI .321OBP and .683OPS

riverside sluggers
12-17-2006, 10:49 AM
Wow haha Im actually seeing someone saying Nixon would provide better protection than Drew will. Look at the last 3 seasons and Drew stands out as a better offensive player in avg, obp, HRs, RBIs, and to top it off he has been more durable than Trot has. 2006 was one of the worst seasons the Sox have seen their #5 spot have, 2007 will be a 180

To think otherwise is complete foolishness

jacksonianmarch
12-17-2006, 11:21 AM
Wow haha Im actually seeing someone saying Nixon would provide better protection than Drew will. Look at the last 3 seasons and Drew stands out as a better offensive player in avg, obp, HRs, RBIs, and to top it off he has been more durable than Trot has. 2006 was one of the worst seasons the Sox have seen their #5 spot have, 2007 will be a 180

To think otherwise is complete foolishness

that is not what I am saying. I said Nixon in his prime is better than Drew. Sadly, Nixon is past his prime.

Coco's Disciples
12-17-2006, 11:34 AM
Nixon is better than Drew when they're both in their prime, or when Nixon is and Drew isn't? Losing me here...

jacksonianmarch
12-17-2006, 11:36 AM
I am saying that Nixon in his prime is better than Drew. Right now, Drew is better than Nixon.

ORS
12-17-2006, 11:37 AM
that is not what I am saying. I said Nixon in his prime is better than Drew. Sadly, Nixon is past his prime.
That statement proves you don't know what you are talking about. Nixon's peak had him at about an .880 OPS annually, with a one time high of .974. Drew's career average is .905 with a peak of 1.027 and only two seasons below Trot's prime average. Why don't you just shove your foot in your mouth and forget about sharing your opinion, it will save you the trouble of making the keystrokes.

jacksonianmarch
12-17-2006, 11:48 AM
That statement proves you don't know what you are talking about. Nixon's peak had him at about an .880 OPS annually, with a one time high of .974. Drew's career average is .905 with a peak of 1.027 and only two seasons below Trot's prime average. Why don't you just shove your foot in your mouth and forget about sharing your opinion, it will save you the trouble of making the keystrokes.

Drew is gutless. That is why I say this. I think he is soft. Nixon was a hard nosed player who had very good numbers, not just against the league, but against the yankees. Nixon's #s in his prime are worse than Drew's, but who is better for the team? The gutless guy or the hardnosed guy who would run through walls for the team?

Both had good power numbers when they were healthy. Nixon around 24-28HRs, Drew 20-30. But when Nixon was healthy, he was the better RBI man, and that is something that I want out of my 5 hole. Drew has had 4 seasons in which he surpassed 130 games and those RBI totals were 57, 56, 93, 100. The last 3 seasons in which Trot surpassed the 130G total, his RBI totals were 88, 94, 97. Both had injury problems in their prime, but there is an argument for which player fits the sox better, Nixon in his prime in the 5 hole or Drew in the 5 hole. I'd go with Nixon, but this may be bias due to watching him flog my team repeatedly in tight spots.

ORS
12-17-2006, 11:53 AM
Drew is gutless. That is why I say this. I think he is soft. Nixon was a hard nosed player who had very good numbers, not just against the league, but against the yankees. Nixon's #s in his prime are worse than Drew's, but who is better for the team? The gutless guy or the hardnosed guy who would run through walls for the team?

Both had good power numbers when they were healthy. Nixon around 24-28HRs, Drew 20-30. But when Nixon was healthy, he was the better RBI man, and that is something that I want out of my 5 hole. Drew has had 4 seasons in which he surpassed 130 games and those RBI totals were 57, 56, 93, 100. The last 3 seasons in which Trot surpassed the 130G total, his RBI totals were 88, 94, 97. Both had injury problems in their prime, but there is an argument for which player fits the sox better, Nixon in his prime in the 5 hole or Drew in the 5 hole. I'd go with Nixon, but this may be bias due to watching him flog my team repeatedly in tight spots.
RBI's? Seriously? Do you watch baseball? Wonder why Nixon had so many more RBI's? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the players on his team were better at getting on base. I can't believe someone who purports to know anyting about baseball like yourself can't recognize that RBIs are a function of your teammates more than anything else. Use your head, Jacko.

jacksonianmarch
12-17-2006, 11:55 AM
RBI's? Seriously? Do you watch baseball? Wonder why Nixon had so many more RBI's? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the players on his team were better at getting on base. I can't believe someone who purports to know anyting about baseball like yourself can't recognize that RBIs are a function of your teammates more than anything else. Use your head, Jacko.

Drew was on no slouch teams either ORS.

ORS
12-17-2006, 12:36 PM
Drew never had the likes of Damon, Walker/Bellhorn (during his good OBP years), Ortiz, and Ramirez hitting in front of him. Never. You know it. Stop trying to keep your weak ass point alive.

Plumpamania
12-17-2006, 05:12 PM
Owned.

Cityofchampions33
12-17-2006, 05:43 PM
Mussina = Schilling
Wang > Beckett
Johnson < Matsuzaka
Pettite = Papelbon
Igawa/Pavano < Wakefield

I think Schilling and Mussina are both very able aces and I can picture them both aheing 16+ wins with solid ERAs, could goeitehr way.
Battle of maturity here as Beckett needs to show he's learned from his mistakes and be what he's supposed to be. If he can't, this battle goes to Wang.
40 year old with injury problems and somehwat abd mechanics last year to the fearless 26 year old with command of 4 + pitchers, however this could eaisly swing in teh yankees decision.
Pettite, if he stays healthy can beat out Papelbon but I ahev a lot of optimism in Jon and think he can rack up 13+ wins with a decent ERA.
Wakefield is always reliable to give you a shot in a game, pending your fofense is working. I look for now more than a .500 record and a 4 ERA. Igawa/Pavano are big ?s.

As you see, this could swing either way, both rotations have their own questionables, and it could be very Red Sox or very yankees, or even somewhat of a draw.

schillingouttheks
12-17-2006, 06:19 PM
I hate comparing rotations like that because you don't know how they will actually line up. Instead of comparing Wang to Beckett you could be comparing Wang to Matsuzaka and then comparing Johnson to Beckett, both of which could go in Boston's favor.

ARod2212
12-17-2006, 07:02 PM
Nobody has any idea how Johnson and Beckett will rebound, nor how Matsuzaka and Pettitte will transfer to the American League or how Papelbon will transfer to the rotation. And the health of Schilling and Mussina will always be an issue. To try and project rotations is pretty futile.

TheKilo
12-17-2006, 10:03 PM
Drew is gutless. That is why I say this. I think he is soft. Nixon was a hard nosed player who had very good numbers, not just against the league, but against the yankees. Nixon's #s in his prime are worse than Drew's, but who is better for the team? The gutless guy or the hardnosed guy who would run through walls for the team?

Both had good power numbers when they were healthy. Nixon around 24-28HRs, Drew 20-30. But when Nixon was healthy, he was the better RBI man, and that is something that I want out of my 5 hole. Drew has had 4 seasons in which he surpassed 130 games and those RBI totals were 57, 56, 93, 100. The last 3 seasons in which Trot surpassed the 130G total, his RBI totals were 88, 94, 97. Both had injury problems in their prime, but there is an argument for which player fits the sox better, Nixon in his prime in the 5 hole or Drew in the 5 hole. I'd go with Nixon, but this may be bias due to watching him flog my team repeatedly in tight spots.

Wow. Just, wow.

v2freak
12-17-2006, 10:24 PM
I'd take Beckett over Wang

jacksonianmarch
12-17-2006, 10:25 PM
I'd take Beckett over Wang

Any reason other than blind homerism?

v2freak
12-17-2006, 10:28 PM
Last year was Beckett's adjustment period. New team in a new league, facing completely different opponents - Beckett showed flashes of brilliance last year. I think he has a lot of room to improve, whereas Wang has possibly shown his best

TheKilo
12-17-2006, 10:34 PM
Last year was Beckett's adjustment period. New team in a new league, facing completely different opponents - Beckett showed flashes of brilliance last year. I think he has a lot of room to improve, whereas Wang has possibly shown his best

While right now I'd rather have Wang over Beckett, I kind of agree with this line of thinking.

v2freak
12-17-2006, 10:46 PM
^I'm inclined to agree that at the moment, Wang is the better player

Gom
12-17-2006, 11:24 PM
I hate comparing rotations like that because you don't know how they will actually line up. Instead of comparing Wang to Beckett you could be comparing Wang to Matsuzaka and then comparing Johnson to Beckett, both of which could go in Boston's favor.

Wang is the best pitcher in either city right now. Period. Maybe that changes with Matsuzaka, but outside of him, no one in Boston can match up with Wang.

schillingouttheks
12-18-2006, 11:14 AM
Wang is the best pitcher in either city right now. Period. Maybe that changes with Matsuzaka, but outside of him, no one in Boston can match up with Wang.

I said could. I just KNEW that someone was going to suggest that I was saying Matsuzaka is better than Wang. I agree that Wang, right now, is the best in both cities. All I said was that certain rotational matchups that he made was an effort in futility because those matchups aren't set in stone, and other matchups could go either way for both teams. My point was that comparing the two rotations is useless because it NEVER pans out the way someone suggests. You can only look at statistics from the rotation as a unit instead of as individuals. I wasn't suggesting that Matsuzaka or Beckett is better than Wang at the present time.

jacksonianmarch
12-18-2006, 11:39 AM
Other than in the playoffs or if the season started with Yankees-Sox those matchups will not apply.

v2freak
12-18-2006, 03:01 PM
I'd say Schilling is still the best to be honest (possibly Papelbon). Mussina > Wang?

redsoxrules
12-18-2006, 03:30 PM
Wang is the best pitcher in either city right now. Period. Maybe that changes with Matsuzaka, but outside of him, no one in Boston can match up with Wang.

:lol: are you drunk again ?

Coco's Disciples
12-18-2006, 03:45 PM
Other than in the playoffs or if the season started with Yankees-Sox those matchups will not apply.

Yup. The two teams match up in about 11% of the games they each play. And the rotations will almost definitely be messed up by the time they first meet. It's just a case of who is the better pitcher on any given day.

jacksonianmarch
12-18-2006, 06:14 PM
I'd say Schilling is still the best to be honest (possibly Papelbon). Mussina > Wang?

Wang was the most durable, most reliable pitcher on the team. In case you missed it, Wang started game 1 of the playoffs for a reason.

TheKilo
12-18-2006, 07:31 PM
Wang was the most durable, most reliable pitcher on the team. In case you missed it, Wang started game 1 of the playoffs for a reason.

Which was why he missed the tail end of the 2005 season with a shoulder injury...

jacksonianmarch
12-18-2006, 07:37 PM
Which was why he missed the tail end of the 2005 season with a shoulder injury...

finished the yr in 05 well and was really durable last yr.

Gom
12-19-2006, 02:41 AM
:lol: are you drunk again ?
Nope. I will be toasted tomorrow night though. Then I might actually believe this quote:

I'd say Schilling is still the best to be honest (possibly Papelbon). Mussina > Wang?
Schilling is more than likely the 5th best pitcher [or worse] in the two cities. I would take [in no order] Wang, Matsuzaka, Mussina, and Pettitte over Schilling. Please go back to sleep. You can borrow ORS's pillow.

jacksonianmarch
12-19-2006, 07:58 AM
I think Schilling is a question mark for this season. His uncharacteristic body breakdown at the end of last season and his BAA show ominous signs of age and loss of stuff.

Pettitte had a shit first half, but had a good second half, then again, it was in the NL Central where a blind man could hit better than most of those pukes. He goes in as a ? as well. I think his stuff is still where it should be, but why was he a batting tee for half the yr?

ORS
12-19-2006, 08:42 AM
Schilling is more than likely the 5th best pitcher [or worse] in the two cities. I would take [in no order] Wang, Matsuzaka, Mussina, and Pettitte over Schilling. Please go back to sleep. You can borrow ORS's pillow.
Schilling had the 2nd best FIP of that group last year (only Mussina was better by 0.13 - obviously Matsuzaka has no MLB data to compare). If you are going to continue to call me out, you better have your shit wired tight, because I'll shred your weak opinion-based points all day long.

I think predictions of his demise ignore a very important fact. He was still not 100% recovered from the experimental ankle surgery during last offseason - I believe the expected timetable for a full recovery was 18 months. This affected his offseason training, and that in turn affected his stamina. Curt is a drop and drive pitcher, so he'll be able to strengthen the base of his power, his legs, better than he could last offseason. I'd take Wang, Pettitte, and Matsuzaka over Curt for future considerations, but I'd take Curt over them for next year alone. Mussina is about a toss up with Curt, IMO, and the better year between the two will probably be determined by who has better fortune with BABIP.

The problem I have with Wang is his weak peripheral performance. Traditionally, high GB% sinkerball pitchers only have sustained periods of success when they can accompany it with strong K-rates. Think Kevin Brown in his prime and Brandon Webb. Wang can't miss bats like those guys could/can. I'm skeptical he can keep up the smoke and mirrors. It's possible, but don't be shocked if that high number of balls in play he allows start finding a hole more often.

Pettitte is a complete wildcard/?? right now. Which Pettitte will show up? How will that version fare in the AL East? I do know one thing, one of the toughest lineups against LHP last year just got stronger with the addition of Frank Thomas. If I were a Yankee fan, I'd have full sphincter pressure when he faces off with the Jays.

jacksonianmarch
12-19-2006, 08:45 AM
he was still not recovered? Cmon now ORS. 2 yrs later, if he wasnt recovered by then, he might never fully recover. BTW, he looked fully recovered early on. I just think his 40 yr old body might be showing signs that he is 40.

ORS
12-19-2006, 08:50 AM
he was still not recovered? Cmon now ORS. 2 yrs later, if he wasnt recovered by then, he might never fully recover. BTW, he looked fully recovered early on. I just think his 40 yr old body might be showing signs that he is 40.
18 months Jacko, 18 months for full recovery. The surgery was in Nov of 2004. Do the math. Sure he looked good to start the year, but that 18 month recovery time ended in April. He could train in the offseason, but not 100%. Offseason training is where players get their stamina to last a whole season. This isn't rocket-sciencistry.

jacksonianmarch
12-19-2006, 08:56 AM
ORS, if the recovery time was 18 months, then he should have gotten stronger as the yr wore on. The initial 6 months is recovery from the trauma of surgery. As you get past that, it is all about getting stronger. He should have peaked late, rather than faded.

ORS
12-19-2006, 09:01 AM
Wrong. The offseason is when the players can condition themselves for the grind of the season. He wasn't at 100% during the offseason conditioning period.

jacksonianmarch
12-19-2006, 09:03 AM
Wrong. The offseason is when the players can condition themselves for the grind of the season. He wasn't at 100% during the offseason conditioning period.

ORS, I have a feeling you are trying to add excuse for your aging aces performance here. You know what, RJ's knee procedure really takes 5 yrs to recover from, so expect him to regain his dominance next yr.

ORS
12-19-2006, 09:08 AM
But, Jacko, you are making that number up. The 18 months was the reported recovery time. Nice try.

I'm not adding an excuse. I'm looking at the data and applying it to the normal offseason routine. Time will tell. Two months until P & C report.

jacksonianmarch
12-19-2006, 09:29 AM
also, I was debating the fact that his body was breaking down. It wasnt the ankle that was bothering him, it was the back I thought.

Also, I know I am right on the whole getting stronger bit. If you project an 18 month recovery time, you know that the first part is recovering from the trauma and healing. The second stage is getting stronger. The more you use it, the stronger it gets. Initially, the problem will fatigue rapidly (which wasnt the case this past season with Schilling as he was nearly at 7IP per start through the AS break) and gradually gain stamina (which again wasnt the case as he as only good for 6.1IP after the AS break.

My point is that if he was recovering from the surgery, he'd be escalating as the yr went on. If he was wearing down, then he would be declining. Looks like the wearing down camp wins stat wise.

jacksonianmarch
12-19-2006, 09:32 AM
and I can understand why you wont accept schilling's decline after watching the heroics in 2004 and how he battled back in 05 through mediocrity to finish well. Just like I didnt want to believe that Coney was breaking down a few yrs back or that RJ was all washed up last yr. Who knows, they may come back and surprise all of us, but I am not expecting it. I expect RJ to finish the yr with worse peripherals than last yr (but with a better ERA believe it or not because of his propensity for giving up the inopportune hits last season, which is rather unprecedented) and as the team's 4/5. I expect Schilling to finish the yr as the #3/4 as well.

ORS
12-19-2006, 09:41 AM
also, I was debating the fact that his body was breaking down. It wasnt the ankle that was bothering him, it was the back I thought.

Also, I know I am right on the whole getting stronger bit. If you project an 18 month recovery time, you know that the first part is recovering from the trauma and healing. The second stage is getting stronger. The more you use it, the stronger it gets. Initially, the problem will fatigue rapidly (which wasnt the case this past season with Schilling as he was nearly at 7IP per start through the AS break) and gradually gain stamina (which again wasnt the case as he as only good for 6.1IP after the AS break.

My point is that if he was recovering from the surgery, he'd be escalating as the yr went on. If he was wearing down, then he would be declining. Looks like the wearing down camp wins stat wise.
You have it all wrong though.

He did get stronger from his initial weakness as is evidenced by his improvement in the second half of '05. And, he even got stronger as he started off the year well in '06. What he missed was the opportunity to condition himself for the full season grind. His legs are integral to his pitching success, and they wore out because he wasn't able to build the normal base he does in the offseason. It's really a simple concept, and one that applies for power players in every major sport.

Is some of it age? Absolutely, but that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't fully recovered when he conditioned himself for the '06 season. I see him starting the year off very well in '07 with a bit of a swoon in the second half due to age, but it won't be as dramatic as it was last season.

Plumpamania
12-22-2006, 04:46 PM
Schilling is more than likely the 5th best pitcher [or worse] in the two cities. I would take [in no order] Wang, Matsuzaka, Mussina, and Pettitte over Schilling. Please go back to sleep. You can borrow ORS's pillow.

After Pettite's not so stellar few years in the Nl Central where my Grandmother could have hit clean up on a few teams, he comes back to the AL East after he was considering retirement. Along with lingering elbow problems I wouldn't take him over Schilling.

I call Schilling and Mussina a wash. They were only 9 ERA+ points away from each other. And two out of the last three years Mussina has put up an ERA+ under 100.

TheKilo
10-08-2007, 11:39 PM
Gom, I sorta feel the same way with the added caveat.

As usual, the yankees are built for the regular season, although this season, with the addition of Pettitte, they have the potential to be very strong in the postseason. With the offense, the pen, and the likely high IP potential of this rotation, the yankees should crush the shitty teams and stand tall with the good teams. That will give them likely a 95-100 win regular season. The red sox are going to have more trouble in the regular season. No stability in the pen and a lineup that is still going to have its issues. But they are a team that will contend for the wild card, and if they come into the playoffs with momentum, they will be a team that nobody wants to play.

lol

TheKilo
10-08-2007, 11:40 PM
Wang is the best pitcher in either city right now. Period. Maybe that changes with Matsuzaka, but outside of him, no one in Boston can match up with Wang.

loll