Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JRI who wrote (225553)	3/5/2003 9:40:53 AM
From: reaper	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 436258

you will not be surprised to hear this, but it is also the honest god's truth -- i am picking the Red Sox. people do not appreciate the upgrade to their offense by replacing Daubach/Sanchez/Henderson with Giambi/Todd Walker/Ortiz. plus Trot Nixon is IMO set to have a breakout year similar to what Garret Anderson did last year. the new guys will be good for 50-75 extra runs, and Nixon is another 10, IMO. of course, key will be Pedro's health or lack thereof. i also like the A's (Eric Chavez is my pick for MVP this year; frankly he was the best player on the team LAST year but Tejada inexplicably won the MVP) and the Twinkies. White Sox are hugely over-rated; Colon is gonna suck this year (check his peripheral stats from last year; he's in terrible decline) and Billy Koch's arm is gonna fall off; unfortunately Magglio Orodonez will continue to put up the best #s in the AL in obscurity. i think the Yankees are old and tired; their up-the-middle defense is terrible, and Jeter is in decline at a very young age, which is not a good sign. Matsui is the wild card there; i expect him to be very good (850-ish OPS) but frankly he COULD put up a 1000-ish OPS in which case the Yankees and Red Sox will go down to the final days. i don't like the Angels because other than Troy Glaus there's nobody in their everyday lineup who you can really expect to play BETTER than last year, and also their bullpen is highly unlikely to pitch as well as it did last year. i still think they'll win 85-90 games, but that won't be enough. in the NL i'm tempted to go out on a limb and pick the Cubs, 'cause i just LOVE that starting rotation; Mark Prior is the next 300 game winner and IMO will be better than Pedro in 2-3 years. but they are likely still a year away. so i'll go w/ the Astros, as Miller/Oswalt is nearly as good a 1-2 punch as Unit/Schilling and the offense with the addition of Jeff Kent will score a LOT. i'll take the Giants in the west (Ray Durham and Edgardo Alfonso are under-appreciated pick-ups) and the Phillies (going away; by 10-12 games) in the east. Cheers

To: JRI who wrote (225553)	3/5/2003 2:31:28 PM
From: reaper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

JRI -- maybe i can answer your Angels question in more detail which will also highlight why i like the Sox this year. the Angels in 2001 scored 691 runs. in 2002 they scored 851 runs. that's a 160 run differential, which is HUGE. their pitching was better as well, but the increase in the offense was the primary reason for their success. on the 2001 Angels, you had 3 guys improve their OPS by 100 or more points; Adam Kennedy (+105); Tim Salmon (+135); and the DH combo of Fullmer/Palmeiro (+~100 versus Palmeiro/Wooten prior year). Garrett Anderson, while he had a very good year improving his OPS by 79 points, didn't have nearly the impact of the 3 mentioned previously. Spezio and Eckstein were both about +40, Erstad was flat, Molina was down <64>, and Glaus was a huge disappointment at down almost <100> (2nd down year in a row). the long and the short of all this being that it is UNLIKELY that, on average, the Angels lineup will be BETTER this year (Glaus is likely to play better, Anderson a little better, Salmon worse, everybody else on average a little worse). i think the pitching will fade, since so much of the success was based on their great middle relief, which is notoriously flaky (i.e. great one year, horrible the next). but again, let me point out that the Angels success last year came not on the back of their "stars" (Glaus, Erstad and Garret Anderson were the best known of the Angels; they on average played the SAME as they did in 2001) but instead on the back of the "grunts" who improved a lot (Kennedy, Fulmer/Palmeiro, and Tim Salmon who folks (including me) had given up on). which brings me back to the Red Sox. while the "stars" (Nomar, Manny, Johnny Damon, Jason Varitek) are likely to, on average, do about what they did last year, there should be fully THREE roster spots (1B; DH; 2B) manned by guys that only psycho baseball fans know/care about that will be 100-125 OPS points better than last year. add in small improvement from Nixon and Hillebrand (the guy can't possibly walk any LESS, can he??) and you have the makings of a lineup, like the Angels last year, that is gonna score a LOT more runs than it did the year before. the Yankees, meanwhile, are likely to be worse in CF (Bernie Williams has declined modestly 4 straight years, and he's 34; granted, he's still a GREAT player, just not getting better) and C (Posada has declined 2 straight years, and is also on the wrong side of 30 after having caught an average of 140 games a year the last 3 years) and likely 3B as well. Giambi while one of the top 5 hitters in baseball is unlikely to get better, nor is Sorianno. Nick Johnson could get better, leaving Matsui as the wild card; Mondesi put up a laughable 744 OPS last year but i project Matsui for 850 which is not enough of an improvement to match the upgrades the Sox have made. all JMHO of course and thank god baseball is about to start <GGGG> Cheers