It's a tight race but only one of these teams will amke the playoffs. Who will do it?
Printable View
It's a tight race but only one of these teams will amke the playoffs. Who will do it?
Marlins don't have what it takes IMO to stay up near the top. So it will be a big fight between the Mets and Phillies. I think that the Mets have what it takes to come out on top, though.
I'm taking the Mets.
i voted philly but boy fla woult be AWESOME
FLA VS TBR
HGM does have an uncanny ability to be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
WOOOO
2008 Mets National League East Champs
HGM, what are the winning numbers for the next Mega Millions draw?:D
It shall be the Phillies...I hath spoken! :D
Probably the Mets, they're just too good... possibly the best team in the Majors on paper. But they have a hard time winning consistently.
Phils are very good too but have too many weaknesses.
Both of these teams are better than the Cubs, who have benefited from a lot of luck and a lot of overachieving, are a terrible road team, and are not very good against other good teams. I believe the winner of the NL East will be in the World Series, but they'll get Milwaukee or the Cards in the first round, which could be really tough.
The Marlins are a nice team, but I don't think they've got the pitching or experience to help them down the stretch.
I voted for the Underdog- Florida. :D
it would be nice to see 3 small market teams in the playoffs. (TBD, MIL, FLA)
I take the Phillies because, well, have you seen them hit. And we all know that hitting wins championships...oh wait...I'm taking the Phills anyway
Oh, the heck with it. I'll choose Florida, for the same reasons Kingroman did.
:)
Phils or the fish hopefully
The Mets are definitely not the best team in the majors on paper. That's either the Red Sox, Rays, Angels or, yes, the Cubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
The Cubs have NOT benefitted from a lot of luck. They've outscored opponents by 139 runs, the highest run differential in the majors.
Who's overachieving? Ryan Theriot's the only guy in their starting lineup that I think can be considered "overachieving." They really are above-average at EVERY position on the diamond. Pitchingwise...maybe Ryan Dempster's overachieving, although he's changed things about his pitching that leads me to believe he's more real than not. Other than him and Theriot, everybody's performing pretty much how they were expected to perform..
As for being a "terrible road team"...they're 26-30 on the road, a .464 winning percentage. The only better road teams are Houston (29-33), Milwaukee (32-28), St. Louis (32-27), Philadelphia (32-26), Florida (29-30), Texas (30-32), Los Angeles Angels (38-21), Tampa (26-29) and Yankees (27-29). They're really not a "bad road team."
They're 29-23 against teams that are better than .500. The Mets, Rays, and Angels are the only teams that have a better record against .500+ teams than the Cubs.
I'd say all your claims about the Cubs are unfounded. They're legitimately one of the best teams in the majors, along with Boston, Los Angeles (AL), and Tampa Bay.
I disagree... but on paper doesn't amount to that much anyway. In my opinion, this is the most well-balanced and best *all-around* team out there. Good defense, excellent hitting, a very good bullpen, a great mix of veteran and young, smart players. That lineup is built to work as a machine (all the players fitting the spots they hit in)... I think it's possible the key is a healthy and effective Pedro, which is up in the air for sure, but would give them the best 1-2 starting combo anywhere. Forget Zambrano/Harden or Sheets/Sabathia, Santana/Pedro is flat out nasty if it's working, and would be the best thing since Johnson/Schilling.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's true, but having watched 50 or 60 Cubs games this year, to me it just doesn't add up.Quote:
The Cubs have NOT benefitted from a lot of luck. They've outscored opponents by 139 runs, the highest run differential in the majors.
Like you said, Ryan Dempster, no doubt about it. Before 2008, this guy was a career hair-under-5 ERA pitcher who hadn't been a starter for a full season in 7 years. As long as Kerry Wood's arm is intact, he's overachieving. Marmol is not what his numbers indicate. The entire bullpen, really, is playing over its head. The entire pitching staff is one Harden or Zambrano (clock is ticking on one or the other) injury away from the wheels falling off.Quote:
Who's overachieving?
Interesting that you mention Theriot as a possible overachiever. He isn't as good as his numbers indicate, but he's a great and very underrated player. DeRosa should definitely not be on pace for 20 or so HR. Soto was riding a massive hot streak which did not suit him in the first half, and he's coming down to earth with only one HR in the past month. Jim Edmonds is slugging .607 for the Cubs, which is quite a spike from his numbers the past few seasons... I can't imagine he keeps that up, or anything close to it.
Lee, Soriano, Ramirez and Fukudome are all great hitters, but there are better lineups out there, and those guys are no better than Reyes, Wright, Beltran and Delgado, not to mention half a dozen other tops of lineups around both leagues...
The sweep in Milwaukee changed my mind a little bit about both, but again, I've watched nearly half this team's games, so much of this is perception (however close to reality it may be). They just don't play that well on the road or against good teams, regardless of how their W/L stacks up... they seem to struggle more than they should, for a team with the second best record in the Majors, and hopes for a championship. They seem to get way too many wins against a Pirates or Reds bullpen, for instance, with a 9th inning rally at Wrigley, and that kind of thing won't be helping them in the playoffs.Quote:
As for being a "terrible road team"...they're 26-30 on the road, a .464 winning percentage. The only better road teams are Houston (29-33), Milwaukee (32-28), St. Louis (32-27), Philadelphia (32-26), Florida (29-30), Texas (30-32), Los Angeles Angels (38-21), Tampa (26-29) and Yankees (27-29). They're really not a "bad road team."
They're 29-23 against teams that are better than .500. The Mets, Rays, and Angels are the only teams that have a better record against .500+ teams than the Cubs.
I don't think they're unfounded at all... they're an opinion based on a result of watching a lot of Cubs and being puzzled. I actually picked them before the season to end up in the NLCS. They're one of the best, but right now I'd put them below Boston, Tampa, the Angels, the Mets, and possibly even the Yankees. Philadelphia is pretty close, and I'd actually give the edge to the Phils, because they look better as a team. It's even possible that Milwaukee is a better team than the Cubs, although it certainly wouldn't appear that way after the sweep...Quote:
I'd say all your claims about the Cubs are unfounded. They're legitimately one of the best teams in the majors, along with Boston, Los Angeles (AL), and Tampa Bay.
A very good bullpen? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
As for the lineup, they're a mess everywhere except first base, third base, shortstop, and center field....
Pedro hasn't been that level since 2005...so it's pretty silly to assume that a healthy Pedro (if such a thing even exists) with Santana would be the best 1-2 punch since Johnson/Schilling. On paper, Pedro is not anywhere near that level of pitching, unless you're talking about Pedro in 2005....which, is no longer.Quote:
I think it's possible the key is a healthy and effective Pedro, which is up in the air for sure, but would give them the best 1-2 starting combo anywhere. Forget Zambrano/Harden or Sheets/Sabathia, Santana/Pedro is flat out nasty if it's working, and would be the best thing since Johnson/Schilling.
Why would you think that? He's ALWAYS had really good stuff...Quote:
As long as Kerry Wood's arm is intact, he's overachieving.
Huh? His numbers actually underplay how good he is, because he went through a rough patch recently. You're telling me he's overachieving with a 3.00 ERA and 87 strikeouts in 63 innings, when just last year, in 69 innings, he struck out 96 with a 1.43 ERA? That guy has ridiculous stuff....Quote:
Marmol is not what his numbers indicate.
Maybe slightly...Quote:
The entire bullpen, really, is playing over its head.
The same can be said for every pitching staff.Quote:
The entire pitching staff is one Harden or Zambrano (clock is ticking on one or the other) injury away from the wheels falling off.
Why not? He's got 15 homer power, and it's not that hard for a guy with 15-homer power to hit 20.Quote:
DeRosa should definitely not be on pace for 20 or so HR.
Soto last year in AAA broke out. His hitting continued in the majors after his callup, and continued into this year, which tells me, he reached a new level. He had lost weight and refined his swing prior to last season, which can easily explain a new level of performance.Quote:
Soto was riding a massive hot streak which did not suit him in the first half, and he's coming down to earth with only one HR in the past month.
Okay, yeah, Edmonds is probably "overachieving."Quote:
Jim Edmonds is slugging .607 for the Cubs, which is quite a spike from his numbers the past few seasons... I can't imagine he keeps that up, or anything close to it.
There are better lineups out there, but, not complemented with really good pitching staffs as well, like the Cubs have. The Mets lineup is NOT better than the Cubs by any means, even if their 4 best hitters may be better than the Cubs 4 best hitters.Quote:
Lee, Soriano, Ramirez and Fukudome are all great hitters, but there are better lineups out there, and those guys are no better than Reyes, Wright, Beltran and Delgado, not to mention half a dozen other tops of lineups around both leagues...
So, you're basically saying...regardless of how well they do against good teams and on the road, they're actually not doing that good.Quote:
The sweep in Milwaukee changed my mind a little bit about both, but again, I've watched nearly half this team's games, so much of this is perception (however close to reality it may be). They just don't play that well on the road or against good teams, regardless of how their W/L stacks up... they seem to struggle more than they should, for a team with the second best record in the Majors, and hopes for a championship.
:confused: What?
Well, maybe it seems that way, but, well, let's check what ACTUALLY is the case, rather than what seems to be the case. The Cubs are 5-4 against the Reds, and 11-4 against the Pirates. Yeah, they beat up the Pirates.Quote:
They seem to get way too many wins against a Pirates or Reds bullpen, for instance, with a 9th inning rally at Wrigley, and that kind of thing won't be helping them in the playoffs.
I'd put the Cubs fourth behind Boston, Tampa, and LA.Quote:
I don't think they're unfounded at all... they're an opinion based on a result of watching a lot of Cubs and being puzzled. I actually picked them before the season to end up in the NLCS. They're one of the best, but right now I'd put them below Boston, Tampa, the Angels, the Mets, and possibly even the Yankees. Philadelphia is pretty close, and I'd actually give the edge to the Phils, because they look better as a team. It's even possible that Milwaukee is a better team than the Cubs, although it certainly wouldn't appear that way after the sweep...
The Yankees? Have you seen that pitching staff?
The Mets...Outside of Wright, Reyes, Delgado, and Beltran, they're really a mess with Church out. Talk about overachieving...Fernando Tatis? Dan Murphy? Santana is their only dependable starter. Perez, Maine, and Pelfrey may be good on any given day, or they may blow up. Pedro, sorry, but, this ain't 2005 anymore.
The Phillies...worse pitching staff and slightly worse lineup. They "look" better? I don't care how the team looks. I'll take how the team plays.
The Cubs are such a great team because they are REALLY well-balanced. They may not be particularly great in any one area, but they're REALLY good in all areas, and that leads to a REALLY good team.
Perception can lie. The Cubs may not SEEM like a very good team to you, but I don't know how you can deny their 70-47 record, their +139 run differential, their above average production at every position, their pitching staff with 3 guys at the top of the league in ERA, and a solid bullpen.
It sound like you're talking about the Cubs like they're last year's Mariners - a team with a very good record that really wasn't that good (they were outscored). They're NOT though. Look at all the underlying components, and they tell the same story as the won-loss record - the Cubs are really good.
Outside of Wagner's health issues ("tightness" and a negative MRI, not likely to keep him out for the season), the bullpen is rather solid, and there's many teams out there in contention that would kill for the Mets bullpen problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Sure, it's not a dream lineup, but the "mess" has worked fairly well around those big 4 guys I named. For a team with issues like they've had, they've proven to be relatively deep...
It's not that much of a stretch to assume that Pedro could be an effective starter, especially in the playoffs. He's looked decent (considering) since he came back, and he's been off track before. He's still not THAT old just yet.Quote:
Pedro hasn't been that level since 2005...so it's pretty silly to assume that a healthy Pedro (if such a thing even exists) with Santana would be the best 1-2 punch since Johnson/Schilling. On paper, Pedro is not anywhere near that level of pitching, unless you're talking about Pedro in 2005....which, is no longer.
Yeah, when he isn't injured. Please, note his injury history is not like Pedro's, because Wood has been injured consistently while young.Quote:
Why would you think that? He's ALWAYS had really good stuff...
Before the rough patch, I mean. It's like any reliever, small sample sizes don't tell very good stories. The rough patch actually shows what I mean, and he tends to make terrible pitches even when he's on a roll.Quote:
Huh? His numbers actually underplay how good he is, because he went through a rough patch recently. You're telling me he's overachieving with a 3.00 ERA and 87 strikeouts in 63 innings, when just last year, in 69 innings, he struck out 96 with a 1.43 ERA? That guy has ridiculous stuff....
True, but not every pitching staff has a guy breaking bats over his knee and punching water coolers, and another guy who was traded away by Billy Beane while the As were in contention and while he was still dirt cheap. Zito, Mulder and Hudson were all traded in offseasons... Beane knows as well as anyone that Harden is a massive risk. That's why he was dumped before he blew out his arm and was worth even less on the trade market.Quote:
The same can be said for every pitching staff.
I'll concede this, but aside from straight up HRs, I'm not sold on DeRosa as a guy to be playing like that against the cream of baseball's pitching in the playoffs.Quote:
Why not? He's got 15 homer power, and it's not that hard for a guy with 15-homer power to hit 20.
His numbers in the first half were on pace to match Piazza's rookie season. That's not realistic at all. Last year was a different hot streak than this year, and his numbers are evening out to where they should be.Quote:
Soto last year in AAA broke out. His hitting continued in the majors after his callup, and continued into this year, which tells me, he reached a new level. He had lost weight and refined his swing prior to last season, which can easily explain a new level of performance.
And he's been the key to their recent success.Quote:
Okay, yeah, Edmonds is probably "overachieving."
With Ryan Church, it's better in my opinion.Quote:
There are better lineups out there, but, not complemented with really good pitching staffs as well, like the Cubs have. The Mets lineup is NOT better than the Cubs by any means, even if their 4 best hitters may be better than the Cubs 4 best hitters.
No, I'm saying that the wins vs. good teams and on the road make up the "luck" that I referred to originally. They're rarely soundly winning those games, and when they leave Wrigley they're unable to overcome bad starts and bullpen blowups.Quote:
So, you're basically saying...regardless of how well they do against good teams and on the road, they're actually not doing that good.
:confused: What?
And you're supposed to beat up on bad teams... that's what good teams do. But the Reds/Pirates thing was more of a rhetorical example. They look great beating up on bad teams, they look pretty good against mediocre teams, then they play AL teams or really good teams and sometimes look like they barely even know how to play baseball.Quote:
Well, maybe it seems that way, but, well, let's check what ACTUALLY is the case, rather than what seems to be the case. The Cubs are 5-4 against the Reds, and 11-4 against the Pirates. Yeah, they beat up the Pirates.
This already went from the NL East to the Cubs... maybe we shouldn't get the Yankees involved. :)Quote:
The Yankees? Have you seen that pitching staff?
Good assessment, but Church starts rehab this week. Fernando Tatis is bizarre and can't be pinned down. Amazing one year, horrible the next, decent another year, very very bad the next. Perez, Maine and Pelfrey will have to settle in and be consistent if this team is to be serious about winning the division, I'll definitely give you that. Pedro is still Pedro, and I wouldn't count him out just yet.Quote:
The Mets...Outside of Wright, Reyes, Delgado, and Beltran, they're really a mess with Church out. Talk about overachieving...Fernando Tatis? Dan Murphy? Santana is their only dependable starter. Perez, Maine, and Pelfrey may be good on any given day, or they may blow up. Pedro, sorry, but, this ain't 2005 anymore.
I mean they look better while playing, not that they're more handsome.Quote:
The Phillies...worse pitching staff and slightly worse lineup. They "look" better? I don't care how the team looks. I'll take how the team plays.
Really good team, yes. But I'm not sold yet, and I'm not about to drink the Cubs Kool Aid and start using caps for adverbs on them. When I see them win a playoff series, I'll be sold.Quote:
The Cubs are such a great team because they are REALLY well-balanced. They may not be particularly great in any one area, but they're REALLY good in all areas, and that leads to a REALLY good team.
I see them as the 2001 Mariners.Quote:
Perception can lie. The Cubs may not SEEM like a very good team to you, but I don't know how you can deny their 70-47 record, their +139 run differential, their above average production at every position, their pitching staff with 3 guys at the top of the league in ERA, and a solid bullpen.
It sound like you're talking about the Cubs like they're last year's Mariners - a team with a very good record that really wasn't that good (they were outscored). They're NOT though. Look at all the underlying components, and they tell the same story as the won-loss record - the Cubs are really good.
The Cubs are a very good team, I just foresee them breaking down in the playoffs... I've watched them a lot this year, and they just don't make sense, and they look like they're going to get absolutely smoked by a team like Boston or the Angels if they manage to reach the World Series.
I've also watched the Cubs on a near daily basis since April, but I don't share your pessimism justanewguy:D. I think they are legitimately the best team in the NL and should be the favorites to reach the World Series. Even after watching Alfonso Soriano and his total lack of a clue at the plate for the last four months, watching Soto hit over his head and then start coming back down to earth the last few weeks, and the ups and downs of DLee and Aramis, I still think their offense can be scary good come playoff time. Lou just needs to balance the bullpen the rest of the way so Marmol especially isn't tired come October.
And in a short series, the Cubs match up better than any of the other NL contenders IMO pitching wise. When you can roll out Zambrano, Harden and Dempster (who IS overachieving, you're right about him, but that doesn't mean he's a terrible third starter) and maybe even Lilly, who isn't having a bad season, you have an edge over the top starters for the other NL contenders. Look at the other pitching staffs.
Mets - Santana, Maine, Perez, MAYBE Pedro?
Phillies - Hamels, Moyer, Kyle Kendrick?
Marlins - Nolasco, Olsen, Johnson
Brewers - CC, Sheets, Parra
DBacks - Webb, Haren, Big Unit
Dodgers - DLowe, Billingsley, Kuroda
The DBacks' starting pitching looks great, but their bullpen is shaky and their offense is really streaky. But I guess looking at last year, this could be a good or bad thing.
In my mind, since CC came over the Brewers are looking really good, maybe even the 2nd best team in the NL... AFTER the Cubs.
All the others have serious deficiencies. The Mets, as HoustonGM pointed out, have a great offensive core but their other players are so bad they bring the whole team down. And if you take out Delgado's monster July, he's been only slightly above average. And their pitching staff after Johan....?
The Mets bullpen problems include blowing games that the starters pitched very well in. That's not something most teams would kill for.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Effective, yes. Forming half of the best starting pitching duo since Johnson and Schilling at their peaks...no.Quote:
It's not that much of a stretch to assume that Pedro could be an effective starter, especially in the playoffs. He's looked decent (considering) since he came back, and he's been off track before. He's still not THAT old just yet.
Yeah...but...he's not overperforming or anything.Quote:
Yeah, when he isn't injured. Please, note his injury history is not like Pedro's, because Wood has been injured consistently while young.
For what it's worth, DeRosa has a career .357/.455/.536 line in the playoffs in 33 plate appearances.Quote:
I'll concede this, but aside from straight up HRs, I'm not sold on DeRosa as a guy to be playing like that against the cream of baseball's pitching in the playoffs.
Okay, which is one of the best hitting catchers in the league.Quote:
His numbers in the first half were on pace to match Piazza's rookie season. That's not realistic at all. Last year was a different hot streak than this year, and his numbers are evening out to where they should be.
Their "recent" success? They've been succeeding all year...Quote:
And he's been the key to their recent success.
The fact that their winning those games trumps your perception, for me.Quote:
No, I'm saying that the wins vs. good teams and on the road make up the "luck" that I referred to originally. They're rarely soundly winning those games, and when they leave Wrigley they're unable to overcome bad starts and bullpen blowups.
I guess I can't comment on how they "look" because I haven't seen most of their games, but personally, I don't think how they "look" matters. All that matters is whether or not they win, and that's what they're doing.Quote:
And you're supposed to beat up on bad teams... that's what good teams do. But the Reds/Pirates thing was more of a rhetorical example. They look great beating up on bad teams, they look pretty good against mediocre teams, then they play AL teams or really good teams and sometimes look like they barely even know how to play baseball.
As for the "playing AL teams", that goes for nearly every NL team because the AL is vastly better than the NL. Only the Mets (9-6), Braves (8-7), and Reds (9-6) had records better than .500 in interleague play. The Cubs were 6-9. The Phillies were 4-11.
For like the 4th time this year. The Mets have handled Church horribly, and concussions are nasty injuries (see Corey Koskie, Mike Matheny, etc.). I wouldn't count on much from Church the rest of the way.Quote:
Good assessment, but Church starts rehab this week.
The fact that you have to add qualifiers like "3 of their 5 starters will have to settle in and be consistent if this team is to win", to me, is a negative against the team. With the Cubs, you don't have to add such qualifiers. The only qualifier you have to add is if Rich Harden will stay healthy. Everybody else on that team is consistent, dependable, and you know what you're going to get.Quote:
Fernando Tatis is bizarre and can't be pinned down. Amazing one year, horrible the next, decent another year, very very bad the next. Perez, Maine and Pelfrey will have to settle in and be consistent if this team is to be serious about winning the division, I'll definitely give you that. Pedro is still Pedro, and I wouldn't count him out just yet.
I know exactly what you meant.Quote:
I mean they look better while playing, not that they're more handsome.
Okay then, what's the argument? They're a really good team. That's what I'm saying.Quote:
Really good team, yes.
Than, really, you're not "sold" on any team, as we've yet to see any of these teams win any playoff series.Quote:
But I'm not sold yet, and I'm not about to drink the Cubs Kool Aid and start using caps for adverbs on them. When I see them win a playoff series, I'll be sold.
That goes for every NL team.Quote:
The Cubs are a very good team, I just foresee them breaking down in the playoffs... I've watched them a lot this year, and they just don't make sense, and they look like they're going to get absolutely smoked by a team like Boston or the Angels if they manage to reach the World Series.
This is pretty much my main premise for believing the Cubs are the best team in the NL. They are solid or better in every aspect of the game. Every other team has holes and question marks. That the Cubs are so solid and so consistent is why they have the best run differential in the majors.Quote:
Originally Posted by WHAK0895
We'll see what happens... I don't mean to dog on the Cubs too much (although the Wrigley crowd puts a serious damper on my daily commute, with the suburban fans who have no clue how to ride a train). I do think they've got a great team, it's just my opinion that there are 3 teams in the NL that are at least as good (though the records don't show it), and a handful of teams in the AL that are far, far better.
Haha. I used to be one of the suburban crowd that didn't know how to ride the L for awhile. Now that I am accustomed to it, the red line during and around Cubs games is truly terrible. I feel your pain:DQuote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
I like this Mets ballclub. They're proving that small time, low salary players (Daniel Murphy, Eddie Kunz, Nick Evans, Damion Easley, Argenis Reyes, my man Tatis) can replace big time, higher salary players (Ryan Church, Luis Castillo, Moises Alou). The veterans are producing well, and with the youngsters producing well as well, this team should be well on their way to the playoffs this year.
Still, though, they're not better then the Cubs. Maybe 5th or 6th best in the bigs (that's being a little generous)
That part I agree with, easily. I just think that the Cubs are clearly the best team in the NL.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Best of a bad lot. I'd put 4 teams, right off the top of my head, from the AL above them. Boston, Tampa, LA Angels, and the White Sox. I think the Cubs are likely to win the NL, but, then again, its the Cubs. We've thought this before.
I don't agree with the idea that the Cubs are the best in the NL just because all the other teams have weaknesses. I'll admit there's truth to it, and it makes sense, but I think I'd rather have the Mets' or Phils' lineups or the DBacks' or Dodgers' pitching down the stretch and in the playoffs.
And when it comes to an all-around team to take into the playoffs, I'd rather have the Mets than the Cubs, because none of the weaknesses the Mets do have are that bad, and their strengths (best pitcher in the Majors, best 3B in the Majors) are a bigger asset than any of the Cubs' individual strengths. That was the original argument I was trying to make.
Now it's homer time. If we're going by teams with the fewest weaknesses, the Dodgers would have to be second best in the NL at this point by that measure, after picking up Blake and Ramirez. You can have an offensive hole at SS so long as he plays great defense. They'll probably get the Cubs in the first round if they can overtake the DBacks. Should be a good series.
I think the Dodgers are legit with Manny. At least they have a couple people there who can hit the ball now.
They do seem to be collecting the Sox' castoffs, though. Manny, Nomar, Lowe, they had Grady. And ex-Braves: Furcal, Andruw Jones. Weren't the Dodgers once the team famous for homegrown talent?
Well, they still are. Kemp, Loney, Martin, Billingsley, Broxton... all drafted and brought up by the Dodgers.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
Manny gives them possibly the best outfield in baseball.
With the depth of their pitching and their newfound top-to-bottom lineup strength, they'll be a tough out for any team in the playoffs.
I'd take the Cubs lineup over any other team in the NL. I'd take the Diamondbacks rotation, and the Phillies bullpen. But, the reason I think the Cubs are the best all-around team is because, despite not having the best rotation or bullpen, their rotation and bullpen are still very good, and don't have any major holes. While the Diamondbacks have offensive and bullpen questions, and the Mets have an inconsistent rotation, shaky bullpen, and huge offensive holes, and the Phillies have starting pitching questions, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Oooh...quite the statement to make when he may not even be the best 3B in the city he plays in....;)Quote:
.. best 3B in the Majors)
I don't understand that really. Just because the Mets individual strengths are greater than the Cubs individual strengths doesn't mean that the Mets are better. I'd rather have a team with solid strengths all around than two really big strengths and a bunch of questions...Quote:
are a bigger asset than any of the Cubs' individual strengths. That was the original argument I was trying to make.
I don't buy that. Not if Torre insists on playing Juan Pierre over Andre Ethier.Quote:
Manny gives them possibly the best outfield in baseball.
The Dodgers outfield is Ramirez-Pierre-Kemp.
Bay-Ellsbury-Drew is on par with that. Quentin-Griffey/Swisher-Dye I'd say is slightly better.
I'd take Braun-Cameron-Hart over that.
Hm...looking through all the outfields, I didn't notice how...poor...most are...hm, interesting.
Anyway, that makes the Dodgers outfield better than I thought it was, as I didn't notice the lack of strong overall outfields. I'd take the Brewers and White Sox outfield over the Dodgers without question, and I think the Red Sox outfield is just as good. If you put Ethier in the starting lineup and bench Pierre, I'd put the Dodgers easily ahead of Boston in third, but still behind the White Sox and Brewers.
I think this is true ONLY if it's Ethier, Kemp, and Manny with Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones on the bench. With Pierre at the leadoff spot, it's like having two 9 hole batters back to back in that lineup.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
But the problem is, they have to win their division first because I don't see the wild card coming out of the NL West. And now that the DBacks have acquired Dunn, I don't see the Dodgers overtaking them. Especially if Juan Pierre is their lead off man the rest of the way out. Screw the "traditional" leadoff man approach in LA. BENCH Juan Pierre. Free Andre Ethier.
This is subscriber-only, but it shows the dramatic negative effect Juan Pierre has:Quote:
Originally Posted by WHAK0985
Code:Dodgers offense by Leadoff Man
Hitter G R R/G
Furcal 31 169 5.45
Kemp 21 100 4.76
Pierre 58 195 3.36
Other 2 4 2.00
Quote:
Conclusions? How about three:
Andre Ethier is better than Juan Pierre.
Juan Pierre has a case for being the worst leadoff hitter in the game.
The Dodger offense grinds to a halt when Juan Pierre bats leadoff.
If the Dodgers fail to reach the postseason, it will be in part because Furcal got hurt. You can’t just ignore that part of the equation. But it will be just as much because Joe Torre elected to kneecap his offense by putting a bad baseball player in a critical role, and stubbornly sticking with that decision despite what it was doing to his offense. No amount of geniality, experience, speed, or hustle can counter the statistics above. When anybody but Juan Pierre leads off, the Dodgers score 50 percent more runs than they do when Pierre leads off. Consistently.
Certainly a massive oversight on my part, forgetting probably the best PLAYER in the game. But it's still weird after all these years seeing him as a 3B and measuring him against other players by position...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'm simply saying... I believe the Mets' net gain if you weigh the strength of their strengths against the weakness of their weaknesses is slightly better in a short series than the Cubs' net gain of simply being "solid or better" at every position. It's an opinion of mine, and I do respect your opinion greatly, because you know your stuff. I think I'd have to call it a stalemate. I can't be swayed to "take" the Cubs in a playoff series, because I don't believe that "solid or better at all positions" teams ever win in the playoffs. It's usually teams with a handful of guys who flat out mash.Quote:
I don't understand that really. Just because the Mets individual strengths are greater than the Cubs individual strengths doesn't mean that the Mets are better. I'd rather have a team with solid strengths all around than two really big strengths and a bunch of questions...
That's not quite correct. As of right now, it's Ramirez/Kemp/Ethier. Torre reacts quickly (reasonably so, he is also loyal to proven players) to problems, and for the time being, things have been changed. He has a sense of urgency, and you can't deny that he knows how to get a team to climb the standings late in a season and make the playoffs.Quote:
I don't buy that. Not if Torre insists on playing Juan Pierre over Andre Ethier. The Dodgers outfield is Ramirez-Pierre-Kemp.
I disagree with this as well. The White Sox are very close to the Dodgers when Swisher hits, but that ChiSox outfield is rather one-dimensional. Manny is easily better than any of those 10 outfielders on those teams, Matt Kemp is on an absolute TEAR at the moment, and a 5-tool stud, and Andre Ethier is an ideal #2 lefty and way better than most teams' third best outfielder. Ethier is great defensively, and Kemp is gold glove caliber when his head is in the game.Quote:
Bay-Ellsbury-Drew is on par with that. Quentin-Griffey/Swisher-Dye I'd say is slightly better. I'd take Braun-Cameron-Hart over that.
The reason I brought the Dodgers up though... since acquiring Blake and Ramirez, they're quite similar (in the build of the team) to the Cubs, so I thought it was interesting. As a Dodger fan, I'm not used to seeing my team as solid or better all around, but they definitely are at the moment. It was just some insight, to myself as much as anyone else. If they manage to take the West and if Furcal is available, much less healthy, for the playoffs, the Cubs will have a lot on their hands. That's a lot of ifs, of course...
The wild card can't possibly come out of the NL West. I mean, mathematically it could, but it's silly to think it would. I actually was hoping for my Dodgers to pick up Dunn (and was happily shocked when they landed Manny), and I like Dunn a lot as a player, but I think he's a poor fit for that team. I'm having a hard time figuring out who is going to drive that slow runner in every time he walks, and an even harder time figuring out who is going to be on base for his home runs. He makes the DBacks better, but Blake/Ramirez have catapulted the Dodgers over the DBacks, and I'm not just saying that as a fan. And like I said above, Pierre is benched for the time being, and I would be surprised if he finds his way back into the regular rotation in CF. The Dodgers' rotation 1-5 is almost as good as Arizona's, and the bullpen is unquestionably better. They have players like Jeff Kent, Casey Blake, James Loney, and Russell Martin hitting 5-7... as weak as the offense has been much of the season, that's the type of situation most NL teams would love to have.Quote:
Originally Posted by WHAK0985
Let's hope it stays that way, for the Dodgers' sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
I can deny it...:p The Yankees have been doing it, but I'm more inclined to believe that that's because...well...the Yankees are good...and that it had little to do with Torre.Quote:
He has a sense of urgency, and you can't deny that he knows how to get a team to climb the standings late in a season and make the playoffs.
Speaking purely offensively, I don't see how Manny is "easily better" than Quentin, Swisher, Dye, Braun, Cameron, Hart, Bay, Ellsbury, AND Drew. I'd say he's better than Swisher, Hart Cameron, Ellsbury, and Drew. Manny, at his peak, would be easily better, but, that's not Manny anymore. Jason Bay and Jermaine Dye are similar to Manny, but I'd put Manny above them as well, although it's close. That leaves Quentin and Braun. I'd take Braun over Manny, and I'd say Quentin and Manny are a wash.Quote:
I disagree with this as well. The White Sox are very close to the Dodgers when Swisher hits, but that ChiSox outfield is rather one-dimensional. Manny is easily better than any of those 10 outfielders on those teams, Matt Kemp is on an absolute TEAR at the moment, and a 5-tool stud, and Andre Ethier is an ideal #2 lefty and way better than most teams' third best outfielder. Ethier is great defensively, and Kemp is gold glove caliber when his head is in the game.
But even so, granting that Manny is the best individual outfielder, I think the other outfields I mentioned are still slightly better, at least when including defense in the equation. Strictly offensively, I'd probably take the Dodgers outfield over the others.
Going with the Manny-Kemp-Ethier outfield and including defense....Quentin's better than Manny. Manny is a very poor defender.. Kemp's better than Swisher/Griffey, but Dye is much better than Ethier. All told, close, but I'd take Chicago slightly over LA.
With Milwaukee, it's a similar story. Braun and Manny are close offensively, but again, Manny's defense pushes him below Braun in my eyes... Kemp is better than Cameron, and Hart's better than Ethier.
Amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
This Yankees season could speak something to Torre vs. no Torre. But yeah, it has little to do with Torre, though he's got the experience, which means he knows how and what to change when a team needs that extra boost to close the gap. It was much easier before, when you didn't have to worry about the health of your closer, or who was playing SS. I think his approach to the Dodgers outfield will be similar to his approach to the Yankees' rotation problems from the past few years.Quote:
I can deny it...:p The Yankees have been doing it, but I'm more inclined to believe that that's because...well...the Yankees are good...and that it had little to do with Torre.
I don't know... he's not at his peak, that's for sure, but he's still Manny, and the Dodgers seem to have given him a rebirth. For one thing, he's certainly playing harder, and it looks like he's having fun for the first time in a while. I also think there's something to be said about stretch and playoff experience, and there's no doubt Manny beats everyone hands down (save maybe Dye) in that department.Quote:
Speaking purely offensively, I don't see how Manny is "easily better" than Quentin, Swisher, Dye, Braun, Cameron, Hart, Bay, Ellsbury, AND Drew. I'd say he's better than Swisher, Hart Cameron, Ellsbury, and Drew. Manny, at his peak, would be easily better, but, that's not Manny anymore.
If I absolutely had to go with just one, it'd be hard not to take Manny if I'm thinking playoffs. But Braun is great, and wow, Q has had one hell of a season so far... what a pickup he was. I caught him at the Cell a few times early in the season when he, AJ and Dye were the only ones on the team hitting. The Sox fans really love him, and for good reason.Quote:
Jason Bay and Jermaine Dye are similar to Manny, but I'd put Manny above them as well, although it's close. That leaves Quentin and Braun. I'd take Braun over Manny, and I'd say Quentin and Manny are a wash.
Swisher is so slow and sometimes inept that his own fans heckle his defense... I would like to see him move to 1B permanently. He's really great there, but not so great in the outfield. I don't think Dye is "much better" than Ethier. Better offensively no doubt, but Either's much better defensively. He also fits the lineup well, and is a different type of player, so it's hard to compare. He's not putting up the numbers that Dye is, so Dye is inherently better offensively, but overall, not a HUGE amount. Manny is pretty bad at defense, but he is trying harder now than he did with the Sox, and I don't think Torre is going to put up with his defensive antics. The first time he stumbles and falls on top of the ball and giggles, he's going to be pulled for Pierre.Quote:
Going with the Manny-Kemp-Ethier outfield and including defense....Quentin's better than Manny. Manny is a very poor defender.. Kemp's better than Swisher/Griffey, but Dye is much better than Ethier. All told, close, but I'd take Chicago slightly over LA.
And actually, some of the antics have been sweet plays. High-fiving a fan and THEN throwing a runner out? Not bad...
Don't forget that there's an incredible defensive outfielder for the Dodgers off the bench, either... in fact, simply having Pierre and Jones on the bench DOES add a third topic that could be discussed, and that's depth. I'd have to say the Sox become better if you did that, thanks to Griffey (because he still plays baseball and Jones doesn't), but Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones off the bench? I don't care how lousy they're playing this season, that's a pretty wicked bench. Pierre as a fourth outfielder and Jones as a late inning defensive replacement... these are luxuries which shouldn't be overlooked.
Again, with a Manny who is trying, and with the depth... I think the Dodgers get an edge over the Brewers.Quote:
With Milwaukee, it's a similar story. Braun and Manny are close offensively, but again, Manny's defense pushes him below Braun in my eyes... Kemp is better than Cameron, and Hart's better than Ethier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
ur a funny guy lol.. before atl traded texeria they had a better team on paper and they were FAR from in ellite team.. i had the mets hovering around 83-87 wins and in 3rd behind ATL and then philly both at about 90-92 wins. I guess I was wrong about ATL and FLA. NY is lucky to be where they are. Santana was expected to be the reason they were going to make it...
I say he is the reason they are NOT since they have NOTHING to go trading with
Atlanta!??!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Überpöster
And *I* am the funny one?? :)
Santana is not the reason they're not going to make it (if they don't make it). Santana has done nothing but pitch exceptionally well. The bullpen has blown 6 wins for him. He'd have 15 wins right now and nobody would be saying a word about him if it wasn't for the bullpen. But, the bullpen sucks, so, that obviously means Santana sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Überpöster
The Mets are a better team than Atlanta on paper, even with Teixeira. Atlanta was banking on an even riskier pitching staff than the Mets, and the Mets offense is better than Atlanta.
no way was the mets staff betther than atlanta on paper at the begining. santana and Maine were the only definate "studs" Match up well with hudson and smoltz with slight edge to smoltz (obviously looking back it now would go to maine but before the season...
glavine is better than perez. hampton was not even really an option and as a #4 ill take my chance. both teams had no #4 or #5 tho I thought of jurgens as a #4 and I think he will be better than pelfre
Who's Jurgens?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Hudson matches up well with Santana?
Are you crazy??
No need to be a homer now, your team's out of contention. :)
HGM's right, the Braves were banking on a very risky staff, and are lucky it didn't turn out even worse, since the young guys pitched very well.
Santana is MUCH better than Hudson. Hudson, really, was the only definite in the Braves rotation, and he's succumbed to Tommy John surgery, although that couldn't have been foreseen. Smoltz is better than Maine, yes, but, as with any old pitcher, he comes with an injury risk. Accounting for that, I'd say Smoltz is still slightly better than Maine, but not by the same margin as Santana over Hudson, which means Santana/Maine > Hudson/Smoltz.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Next, Glavine better than Perez? Even ignoring the injury concerns that come with old pitchers, as I mentioned above, I do not see how this is at all plausible. Glavine was slightly below league average last season, and obviously on the decline. His strikeout rate plummeted. Perez has always had great stuff, but has been inconsistent. Last year, he was very good. This year, he's been worse, and very inconsistent, but overall, slightly above average. Glavine has worsened from where he was last year, along with being injured. Perez > Glavine.
Entering the season, similar seasons were expected from both Jurrjens and Pelfrey, so that's a wash.