Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kutulu
The Sox had plenty of players perform at the very least above what would be expected of them and quite a few career years that will not likely be repeated.
|
"Quite a few career years"? Like who?
I'm curious to see the long list of names...........
Quote:
|
Garland - Aside from 117 IP in 2001, this year's ERA was better than any previous year by more than 1 run. He could have a significant decline.
|
I'd argue that he JUST turned 26, and is finally figuring things out and getting his confidence up. I think this year was just the beginning.
Quote:
|
There's not much to go off of from Contreras but he's not 33 as listed.
|
And Roger Clemens is 42. Age is a number nowadays.
Quote:
|
Garcia and Burhle are fine pitchers but neither is a true 'ace' pitcher.
|
Buerhle isn't an ace? Name ONE lefty who has more wins in the last five years.
Garcia has AVERAGED a shade under 15 wins a season for the last six years. Not too shabby as a number three.
Quote:
|
El Duque sucks, he's done.
|
We all saw how he struggled against Boston in the ALDS, eh? I hope all their pitchers suck that bad next year!
Quote:
It's a GOOD rotation, but not a GREAT rotation. Two '#2' guys and and some league average guys are nice but not typical of a favorite. Cleveland did pitch just as well as the Sox and Min was right behind them.
On offense, they had a very average team. 16th in OPS and 13th in runs scored. They won due to career years from key pitchers and Garcia and Burhle doing a little better than expected.
I wouldn't put money on the Sox even winning their division. Cleveland will be a threat, as will Minnesota.
|
If a "good but not great" rotation gets you the lowest ERA in the ENTIRE AL, like the Sox had this year, I'll take it.
I have found on many forums the last few weeks people who didn't have much of a clue about the Sox (especially their pitching) because they get limited media coverage. If people would take a look at the hard stats, they might see it wasn't a fluke.