Who will win the NL East

[WHAK0985]

I've also watched the Cubs on a near daily basis since April, but I don't share your pessimism justanewguy. 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....?

[HoustonGM]

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.

The Mets bullpen problems include blowing games that the starters pitched very well in. That's not something most teams would kill for.

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.

Effective, yes. Forming half of the best starting pitching duo since Johnson and Schilling at their peaks...no.

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

Yeah...but...he's not overperforming or anything.

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.

For what it's worth, DeRosa has a career .357/.455/.536 line in the playoffs in 33 plate appearances.

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, which is one of the best hitting catchers in the league.

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

Their "recent" success? They've been succeeding all year...

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.

The fact that their winning those games trumps your perception, for me.

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.

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.

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.

Good assessment, but Church starts rehab this week.

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.

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 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.

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

I know exactly what you meant.

Really good team, yes.

Okay then, what's the argument? They're a really good team. That's what I'm saying.

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.

Than, really, you're not "sold" on any team, as we've yet to see any of these teams win any playoff series.

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.

That goes for every NL team.

All the others have serious deficiencies.

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.

[justanewguy]

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.

[WHAK0985]

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).

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

[metsguy234]

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)

[HoustonGM]

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.

That part I agree with, easily. I just think that the Cubs are clearly the best team in the NL.

[chuckwillard]

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.

[justanewguy]

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.

[chuckwillard]

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?

[justanewguy]

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.

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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...

.. best 3B in the Majors)

Oooh...quite the statement to make when he may not even be the best 3B in the city he plays in....

are a bigger asset than any of the Cubs' individual strengths. That was the original argument I was trying to make.

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...

Manny gives them possibly the best outfield in baseball.

I don't buy that. Not if Torre insists on playing Juan Pierre over Andre Ethier.

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.

[WHAK0985]

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 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.

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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:

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

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.

[justanewguy]

Oooh...quite the statement to make when he may not even be the best 3B in the city he plays in....

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...

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...

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.

I don't buy that. Not if Torre insists on playing Juan Pierre over Andre Ethier. The Dodgers outfield is Ramirez-Pierre-Kemp.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

[HoustonGM]

]That's not quite correct. As of right now, it's Ramirez/Kemp/Ethier.

Let's hope it stays that way, for the Dodgers' sake.

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.

I can deny it... 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 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.

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.

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.