Who will win the NL East

[daves]

It's a tight race but only one of these teams will amke the playoffs. Who will do it?

[metsguy234]

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.

[HoustonGM]

I'm taking the Mets.

[TheNamelessPoet]

i voted philly but boy fla woult be AWESOME

FLA VS TBR

[metsguy234]

I'm taking the Mets.

HGM does have an uncanny ability to be right.

WOOOO

2008 Mets National League East Champs

HGM, what are the winning numbers for the next Mega Millions draw?

[Arctic Blast]

It shall be the Phillies...I hath spoken!

[justanewguy]

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.

[kingroman]

I voted for the Underdog- Florida.


it would be nice to see 3 small market teams in the playoffs. (TBD, MIL, FLA)

[filihok]

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

[ohms_law]

Oh, the heck with it. I'll choose Florida, for the same reasons Kingroman did.

[RedsoxRockies]

Phils or the fish hopefully

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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.

[justanewguy]

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.

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.

The Cubs have NOT benefitted from a lot of luck. They've outscored opponents by 139 runs, the highest run differential in the majors.

It's true, but having watched 50 or 60 Cubs games this year, to me it just doesn't add up.

Who's overachieving?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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 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...

[HoustonGM]

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)...

A very good bullpen?

As for the lineup, they're a mess everywhere except first base, third base, shortstop, and center field....

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.

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.

As long as Kerry Wood's arm is intact, he's overachieving.

Why would you think that? He's ALWAYS had really good stuff...

Marmol is not what his numbers indicate.

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....

The entire bullpen, really, is playing over its head.

Maybe slightly...

The entire pitching staff is one Harden or Zambrano (clock is ticking on one or the other) injury away from the wheels falling off.

The same can be said for every pitching staff.

DeRosa should definitely not be on pace for 20 or so HR.

Why not? He's got 15 homer power, and it's not that hard for a guy with 15-homer power to hit 20.

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.

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.

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.

Okay, yeah, Edmonds is probably "overachieving."

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...

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.

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.

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.

What?

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.

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.

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...

I'd put the Cubs fourth behind Boston, Tampa, and LA.

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.

[justanewguy]

A very good bullpen?

As for the lineup, they're a mess everywhere except first base, third base, shortstop, and center field....

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.

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...

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.

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.

Why would you think that? He's ALWAYS had really good stuff...

Yeah, when he isn't injured. Please, note his injury history is not like Pedro's, because Wood has been injured consistently while young.

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....

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.

The same can be said for every pitching staff.

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.

Why not? He's got 15 homer power, and it's not that hard for a guy with 15-homer power to hit 20.

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.

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.

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.

Okay, yeah, Edmonds is probably "overachieving."

And he's been the key to their recent success.

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.

With Ryan Church, it's better in my opinion.

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.

What?

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.

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.

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.

The Yankees? Have you seen that pitching staff?

This already went from the NL East to the Cubs... maybe we shouldn't get the Yankees involved.

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.

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.

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.

I mean they look better while playing, not that they're more handsome.

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.

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.

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.

I see them as the 2001 Mariners.

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.