White Sox get Vazquez according to ESPN

[Blueheart05]

Yeah, I agree with you. I was just responding to the posts about KW doing a great job last year simply based on the fact that they won the WS.

 

What would you prefer the measuring stick for performance be? Isn't the goal of every GM to get to the World Series? 30 GM's failed at that last year.

 

So Kenny Williams did a better job than every other GM last year? I just don't believe that.

 

I'll turn it around. Who did a better job last year?

 

All the GM can do is make the moves, the players have to execute. He got lucky only when you consider how they all performed.

I don't know enough about every other team to answer that. But winning the WS doesn't mean that your GM did the best job that year IMO.

 

Isn't the job of the GM to manage personnel, work within a budget, and produce a championship product (among other things)? I'd say that no one did that better than Kenny Williams in 2005.

 

He started off the year making a controversial trade (CLee) and ended the year a champ. He made the right moves...

[nick23]

Yeah, I agree with you. I was just responding to the posts about KW doing a great job last year simply based on the fact that they won the WS.

 

What would you prefer the measuring stick for performance be? Isn't the goal of every GM to get to the World Series? 30 GM's failed at that last year.

 

So Kenny Williams did a better job than every other GM last year? I just don't believe that.

 

I'll turn it around. Who did a better job last year?

I don't know enough about every other team to answer that. But winning the WS doesn't mean that your GM did the best job that year IMO.

 

Empty argument. It has legs, but without support, its empty.

How is my argument empty? Because I don't know every move of every GM last year? That's ridiculous. I suppose you think the Astros GM did the second best job last year. I don't. What I do think is the Stros had 3 completely dominant starters that carried them in the second half of the season and on into the World Series.

[nick23]

I'm saying that I'm not going to concede that KW is a good gm who did a great job assembling a team last year solely based on the fact that they won it all.

 

You don't have to say he did a great job, and you don't have to base it solely on the fact that they won it all last year.

 

But look at the big picture:

5 straight seasons of 81 wins or more, with nothing but a middle of the road payroll. Included in there was one great season and that WS. Plus the fact that he is still aggressively improving his team this year, and still has enough prospects to both fill into the roster this coming season and either develop for future years or trade for future players.

 

If you can look at those facts and not say he's done a good job as GM, you're either just a strict anti-White Sox fan, anti-Ken Williams, or just plain old not fair. Furthermore, given those facts, you'd have to say he's done a better job than Hendry, to date.

 

You can knock any individual deal all you want. A lot of people looked at Pods for Lee as stupid. Pods isn't as good as Lee. Fine. But for the cost of Lee, he got Pods, Dye and Iguchi, plus money left over. Dye was more productive than Lee on his own, Iguchi was a fantastic little middle infield addition, and while Pods was nothing special last year, he was better than the previous season, and as productive as Juan Pierre has been on average in his career.

 

If you can't look past your own personal opinion of any one deal or group of deals, and look at the big picture of results at the end of the season, or group of seasons, then you aren't doing a good job of analyzing what matters.

Ok, well Hendry has had 3 straight years of 79 or more wins. And without a total meltdown in 03 he might also have a WS ring. That doesn't change the fact that I think Hendry has done a poor job over the last 2 years. If we happen to luck up and win it this year it's not going to change my opinion of this offseason.

[goonys evil twin]

He should get credit based on his moves.

 

When I think of a GM's job, the end results are not on the top of my list. A GM has to put his team in the best position to win and make constant major or minor adjustments along the way. The only way he can do that is through individual moves. And for me, that's the way I'm going to look at his performance. Having a sound philosophy and making good decisions each day is all I ask for.

 

It's called missing the forest for the trees. To ignore the end result is completely unacceptable if you are trying to put forth any reasonable judgement on a GM. The job was done. Who are you or I to say it was done poorly. Sure we can have opinions on individual deals. But no GM makes all the right moves.

 

Nobody is saying Kenny is the greatest GM ever. But there has to be some sort of ranking of who is a good GM, who is mediocre and who is bad.

 

If you take a middling payroll, come up with 5 straight .500 or better seasons, win 99 games and a WS one year, and keep making your team better, I don't see how you can be ranked anywhere but among the better GMs.

 

I have a lot of strong opinions about the moves Hendry makes. But at least I'm not so arrogant as to think that even if he showed repeated success and ultimately won the big one within 5 years, that he didn't do a good job.

 

If Kenny didn't do a good job, then who did? And if you can judge a GM based simply off of individual deals while ignoring results, why don't you lay out your rankings and support those claims?

[goonys evil twin]

Ok, well Hendry has had 3 straight years of 79 or more wins. And without a total meltdown in 03 he might also have a WS ring. That doesn't change the fact that I think Hendry has done a poor job over the last 2 years. If we happen to luck up and win it this year it's not going to change my opinion of this offseason.

 

What does any of that have to do with anything I wrote?

 

Are there any good GMs in the world? Does any GM deserve any credit for anything he's done? If Kenny doesn't deserve credit for his team's success, than what GM is worthy of some sort of credit? Are there more than 5?

[nick23]

Ok, well Hendry has had 3 straight years of 79 or more wins. And without a total meltdown in 03 he might also have a WS ring. That doesn't change the fact that I think Hendry has done a poor job over the last 2 years. If we happen to luck up and win it this year it's not going to change my opinion of this offseason.

 

What does any of that have to do with anything I wrote?

 

Are there any good GMs in the world? Does any GM deserve any credit for anything he's done? If Kenny doesn't deserve credit for his team's success, than what GM is worthy of some sort of credit? Are there more than 5?

No one has ever said he doesn't deserve credit. He made some moves and they worked out. So you're telling me that if Hendry signs Jaque Jones to play RF this year and then Jones goes out and puts up a .700 ops, but we somehow end up winning the WS, you'll give him credit for the Jones signing and then say he's done a great job so far as our GM?

[YearofDaCubs]

Ok, well Hendry has had 3 straight years of 79 or more wins. And without a total meltdown in 03 he might also have a WS ring. That doesn't change the fact that I think Hendry has done a poor job over the last 2 years. If we happen to luck up and win it this year it's not going to change my opinion of this offseason.

 

What does any of that have to do with anything I wrote?

 

Are there any good GMs in the world? Does any GM deserve any credit for anything he's done? If Kenny doesn't deserve credit for his team's success, than what GM is worthy of some sort of credit? Are there more than 5?

No one has ever said he doesn't deserve credit. He made some moves and they worked out. So you're telling me that if Hendry signs Jaque Jones to play RF this year and then Jones goes out and puts up a .700 ops, but we somehow end up winning the WS, you'll give him credit for the Jones signing and then say he's done a great job so far as our GM?

Actually, a lot of people are saying he doesn't deserve credit and in a way you are too if you don't think it takes a good GM to win the world series.

[YearofDaCubs]

Ok, well Hendry has had 3 straight years of 79 or more wins. And without a total meltdown in 03 he might also have a WS ring. That doesn't change the fact that I think Hendry has done a poor job over the last 2 years. If we happen to luck up and win it this year it's not going to change my opinion of this offseason.

 

What does any of that have to do with anything I wrote?

 

Are there any good GMs in the world? Does any GM deserve any credit for anything he's done? If Kenny doesn't deserve credit for his team's success, than what GM is worthy of some sort of credit? Are there more than 5?

No one has ever said he doesn't deserve credit. He made some moves and they worked out. So you're telling me that if Hendry signs Jaque Jones to play RF this year and then Jones goes out and puts up a .700 ops, but we somehow end up winning the WS, you'll give him credit for the Jones signing and then say he's done a great job so far as our GM?

I give credit where it's due and if our GM gets us to the WS and wins it I will give him all the credit in the world for setting up a successful team.

[Jon]

He should get credit based on his moves.

 

When I think of a GM's job, the end results are not on the top of my list. A GM has to put his team in the best position to win and make constant major or minor adjustments along the way. The only way he can do that is through individual moves. And for me, that's the way I'm going to look at his performance. Having a sound philosophy and making good decisions each day is all I ask for.

 

It's called missing the forest for the trees. To ignore the end result is completely unacceptable if you are trying to put forth any reasonable judgement on a GM. The job was done. Who are you or I to say it was done poorly. Sure we can have opinions on individual deals. But no GM makes all the right moves.

 

Nobody is saying Kenny is the greatest GM ever. But there has to be some sort of ranking of who is a good GM, who is mediocre and who is bad.

 

If you take a middling payroll, come up with 5 straight .500 or better seasons, win 99 games and a WS one year, and keep making your team better, I don't see how you can be ranked anywhere but among the better GMs.

 

I have a lot of strong opinions about the moves Hendry makes. But at least I'm not so arrogant as to think that even if he showed repeated success and ultimately won the big one within 5 years, that he didn't do a good job.

 

If Kenny didn't do a good job, then who did? And if you can judge a GM based simply off of individual deals while ignoring results, why don't you lay out your rankings and support those claims?

In my opinion, a GM cannot control results. Obviously, you believe otherwise.

 

And why should I rank GMs? What other GMs do has minimal impact on whether or not I think a certain GM is making good moves. I don't care what the norms are because quite frankly, I don't think we have an even spread of good, average, and bad GMs in MLB. I'm not sure how you're supporting your claim other than saying wins mean the GM is doing a good job. Would you conclude that any GM who has had a similar past five years at any point like KW has is good? I certainly wouldn't.

 

Again, all I ask for from my GM is good decisions.

[goonys evil twin]

Ok, well Hendry has had 3 straight years of 79 or more wins. And without a total meltdown in 03 he might also have a WS ring. That doesn't change the fact that I think Hendry has done a poor job over the last 2 years. If we happen to luck up and win it this year it's not going to change my opinion of this offseason.

 

What does any of that have to do with anything I wrote?

 

Are there any good GMs in the world? Does any GM deserve any credit for anything he's done? If Kenny doesn't deserve credit for his team's success, than what GM is worthy of some sort of credit? Are there more than 5?

No one has ever said he doesn't deserve credit. He made some moves and they worked out. So you're telling me that if Hendry signs Jaque Jones to play RF this year and then Jones goes out and puts up a .700 ops, but we somehow end up winning the WS, you'll give him credit for the Jones signing and then say he's done a great job so far as our GM?

 

Actually a lot of people are saying he doesn't deserve credit. They attibute the wins to luck, and insinuate that Williams is incompetent.

 

There is a big difference with the team Kenny had at the beginning of 2004, and the ones the Cubs would have with Jones. First off, nobody that's dissing Kenny has addressed the simple matter of that Pods/Lee deal. He turned Lee into Pods, Dye and Iguchi. Lee, an extremely overrated corner outfielder, who is only respected by Cubs fans because he has a knack for beating the Cubs. He ended up with a better version of Lee for less money. And he got a very good 2B from Japan, a market some GMs don't appear to what any part of. He started the season with multiple closer options, and more than enough starting pitcher options. He had reinforcements in the minor leagues, and along with his manager, was not afraid to use them.

 

And he did all this with much less of a payroll.

 

Frankly, with Jim's top 5 payroll, there is no reason why the Cubs can't be a top 5 teams most years. That means 90+ wins. That means finishing ahead of the rest of the division, every year. This is a major reason why Jim and Kenny aren't judged on exactly the same line, and why Kenny deserves even more credit. He does more with less.

[goonys evil twin]

In my opinion, a GM cannot control results. Obviously, you believe otherwise.

 

Wrong. I believe he can greatly influence results. And I believe Jim's moves greatly influenced the collapse of the Cubs, just like KW's moves greatly influenced the results of the WS.

 

And why should I rank GMs? What other GMs do has minimal impact on whether or not I think a certain GM is making good moves. I don't care what the norms are because quite frankly, I don't think we have an even spread of good, average, and bad GMs in MLB. I'm not sure how you're supporting your claim other than saying wins mean the GM is doing a good job. Would you conclude that any GM who has had a similar past five years at any point like KW has is good? I certainly wouldn't.

 

Again, all I ask for from my GM is good decisions.

 

What is a good decision? How do we judge a good decision? How can we look at what KW has done and say he hasn't made good decisions?

 

As for your question, it depends on what you mean by similar. Do you mean, a GM that has gone out with a mediocre payroll and had his team win 81 or more games every year and won 99 games and a WS and kept improving his team? Yeah, take all that into account and any other GM who got that job done under those circumstances has to be considered to have done a good job. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that GM's play no role in the results of their team. Now, if we're talking about a NYY GM with their payroll finish every year like the Sox have finished under Williams, I wouldn't say he's done anything special. When you can spend 3 times the average, it's not hard to win.

[jmajew]

First off I just want to say this has been a very ineresting debate.

 

People who said the White Sox just got lucky last year because there pitching was great, I believe are wrong. The White Sox went into last season wanting to win with pitching and defense. By trading Carlos Lee they were able to greatly upgrade their defense by added Pods, Dye, and Iguchi. IMO, that is why their pitching got so much better. Pods is a very good defensive LF, Dye is a very good defensive RF, and Iguchi is much better than Willie Harris at second. The White Sox upgraded their defense drastically last year causing there team defense to get get better. If someone coudl find the Team BABIP for their pitchers for the past three years I bet that last year it was much better, because of the defensive improvements. (I don't know where to find that stat)

 

That was Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen's strategy for last season and it worked, give them credit. They designed the team to win a certain way and they did, Bravo.

[YearofDaCubs]

First off I just want to say this has been a very ineresting debate.

 

People who said the White Sox just got lucky last year because there pitching was great, I believe are wrong. The White Sox went into last season wanting to win with pitching and defense. By trading Carlos Lee they were able to greatly upgrade their defense by added Pods, Dye, and Iguchi. IMO, that is why their pitching got so much better. Pods is a very good defensive LF, Dye is a very good defensive RF, and Iguchi is much better than Willie Harris at second. The White Sox upgraded their defense drastically last year causing there team defense to get get better. If someone coudl find the Team BABIP for their pitchers for the past three years I bet that last year it was much better, because of the defensive improvements. (I don't know where to find that stat)

 

That was Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen's strategy for last season and it worked, give them credit. They designed the team to win a certain way and they did, Bravo.

No to mention the fact they signed AJ Pierzinksi who a lot of the White Sox pitchers credit for doing an excellent job. Say what you want about his personality but the man is talented.

[BigbadB]

First off I just want to say this has been a very ineresting debate.

 

People who said the White Sox just got lucky last year because there pitching was great, I believe are wrong. The White Sox went into last season wanting to win with pitching and defense. By trading Carlos Lee they were able to greatly upgrade their defense by added Pods, Dye, and Iguchi. IMO, that is why their pitching got so much better. Pods is a very good defensive LF, Dye is a very good defensive RF, and Iguchi is much better than Willie Harris at second. The White Sox upgraded their defense drastically last year causing there team defense to get get better. If someone coudl find the Team BABIP for their pitchers for the past three years I bet that last year it was much better, because of the defensive improvements. (I don't know where to find that stat)

 

That was Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen's strategy for last season and it worked, give them credit. They designed the team to win a certain way and they did, Bravo.

 

I've already given props to Kenny Williams, so I don't want my next statements to sound like it was nothing but luck. However, I wouldn't bet on that team winning the World Series 1 out of 10 times when considering all the other good teams that played in the AL last year. An element of luck was involved. A healthy pitching staff sure can go a long way as well.

 

With the offensive weaknesses the Sox had last year, their manager (Guillen) put the right guys in the right places to make the best of what little offense they had. For that, even he deserves some credit.

 

The most interesting thing about it all, is that they didn't stand pat this offseason thinking that the team was good enough as is to win again next year. They went out and improved the offense by bringing back Konerko and adding Thome (and shopping for Tejada). They improved the pitching by going out and getting Vazquez.

 

With those moves, they will be a force again next year.

[Flames24Rulz]

First off I just want to say this has been a very ineresting debate.

 

People who said the White Sox just got lucky last year because there pitching was great, I believe are wrong. The White Sox went into last season wanting to win with pitching and defense. By trading Carlos Lee they were able to greatly upgrade their defense by added Pods, Dye, and Iguchi. IMO, that is why their pitching got so much better. Pods is a very good defensive LF, Dye is a very good defensive RF, and Iguchi is much better than Willie Harris at second. The White Sox upgraded their defense drastically last year causing there team defense to get get better. If someone coudl find the Team BABIP for their pitchers for the past three years I bet that last year it was much better, because of the defensive improvements. (I don't know where to find that stat)

 

That was Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen's strategy for last season and it worked, give them credit. They designed the team to win a certain way and they did, Bravo.

No to mention the fact they signed AJ Pierzinksi who a lot of the White Sox pitchers credit for doing an excellent job. Say what you want about his personality but the man is talented.

 

i gotta agree with you guys and goony on this one. And I also applaud Williams for not sitting back and doing nothing, being satisfised with just one WS. He's trying to make the team better next year so they can do it again. Who knows how good Chris Young can be? Obviously the Sox are high on Brian Anderson and feel he can be a more than adequate CF.

 

they've already upgraded their offense by adding another basher to the lineup and they've upgraded their rotation as well. As of right now, they're looking poised for another potential WS run in 06.

[jmajew]

First off I just want to say this has been a very ineresting debate.

 

People who said the White Sox just got lucky last year because there pitching was great, I believe are wrong. The White Sox went into last season wanting to win with pitching and defense. By trading Carlos Lee they were able to greatly upgrade their defense by added Pods, Dye, and Iguchi. IMO, that is why their pitching got so much better. Pods is a very good defensive LF, Dye is a very good defensive RF, and Iguchi is much better than Willie Harris at second. The White Sox upgraded their defense drastically last year causing there team defense to get get better. If someone coudl find the Team BABIP for their pitchers for the past three years I bet that last year it was much better, because of the defensive improvements. (I don't know where to find that stat)

 

That was Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen's strategy for last season and it worked, give them credit. They designed the team to win a certain way and they did, Bravo.

No to mention the fact they signed AJ Pierzinksi who a lot of the White Sox pitchers credit for doing an excellent job. Say what you want about his personality but the man is talented.

 

i gotta agree with you guys and goony on this one. And I also applaud Williams for not sitting back and doing nothing, being satisfised with just one WS. He's trying to make the team better next year so they can do it again. Who knows how good Chris Young can be? Obviously the Sox are high on Brian Anderson and feel he can be a more than adequate CF.

 

they've already upgraded their offense by adding another basher to the lineup and they've upgraded their rotation as well. As of right now, they're looking poised for another potential WS run in 06.

 

I do want to say this. I think losing Rowand will hurt them more than most think. Rowand is one of the three best defensive CFs in all of baseball. I put him right up there with Hunter and Jones. The question is how big of a drop is Anderson in CF defensively and can Thome help the Sox put up enough runs to make up for that dropoff. This depends on how healthy Thome actually is.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Look at their pitching staff last year. Politte, Hermanson, and Cotts were average to mediocre relievers and they all had unbelievable years. Garcia and Buehrle are very good starters who had great years even by their standards. Garland had the year of his life, and Contreras outproduced his career norms. That's 119 games worth of innings of pitching that ranged from slightly better to monumentally better than expected. Certainly Williams deserves credit for getting pitchers like Garcia and Buehrle, and I suppose you could give him credit for taking gambles on Hermanson and Contreras(Jenks was a very good, low risk pickup). But when every single one outproduces what they've proven capable of, some by an obscene amount, I'm more willing to contribute that to good fortune than Williams masterminding some scheme where he knows all his in-house options are about to have career years and picking up several others that do as well. And make no mistake, this pitching above predicted levels is why they made the playoffs(once you're in the playoffs it's a free for all) and why they won as many games as they did.

[UK1679666180]

Look at their pitching staff last year. Politte, Hermanson, and Cotts were average to mediocre relievers and they all had unbelievable years.

 

Cotts has always had the projection of an above avg. pitcher. Before last year, I thought he should've been given a chance to start again.

[jmajew]

Look at their pitching staff last year. Politte, Hermanson, and Cotts were average to mediocre relievers and they all had unbelievable years. Garcia and Buehrle are very good starters who had great years even by their standards. Garland had the year of his life, and Contreras outproduced his career norms. That's 119 games worth of innings of pitching that ranged from slightly better to monumentally better than expected. Certainly Williams deserves credit for getting pitchers like Garcia and Buehrle, and I suppose you could give him credit for taking gambles on Hermanson and Contreras(Jenks was a very good, low risk pickup). But when every single one outproduces what they've proven capable of, some by an obscene amount, I'm more willing to contribute that to good fortune than Williams masterminding some scheme where he knows all his in-house options are about to have career years and picking up several others that do as well. And make no mistake, this pitching above predicted levels is why they made the playoffs(once you're in the playoffs it's a free for all) and why they won as many games as they did.

 

Yeah, but is it possible part of the reason their numbers were better because there defense was improved?

[RynoRules]

Yeah, I agree with you. I was just responding to the posts about KW doing a great job last year simply based on the fact that they won the WS.

 

What would you prefer the measuring stick for performance be? Isn't the goal of every GM to get to the World Series? 30 GM's failed at that last year.

 

So Kenny Williams did a better job than every other GM last year? I just don't believe that.

 

I'll turn it around. Who did a better job last year?

I don't know enough about every other team to answer that. But winning the WS doesn't mean that your GM did the best job that year IMO.

 

Empty argument. It has legs, but without support, its empty.

How is my argument empty? Because I don't know every move of every GM last year? That's ridiculous. I suppose you think the Astros GM did the second best job last year. I don't. What I do think is the Stros had 3 completely dominant starters that carried them in the second half of the season and on into the World Series.

 

You said that Williams was not the best GM in baseball last year, and that we should not assume that he was simply b/c he won the WS. When asked how you made that determination and who in your estimation was the better than Williams, you answered:

 

I don't know enough about every other team to answer that. But winning the WS doesn't mean that your GM did the best job that year IMO.

 

This naturally begs the question: how are you to know that Williams was not the best GM in the game in 05' when you, by your admittance, don't know enough about other GMs to make that assessment?

 

Here's why I think he was: he is responsible for the vast majority of the transactions that shaped a team that went from mediocre to WS champs, including the majority of the teams picthing staff, plus he hired the manager who lead the team. And as 05' comes to a close, he has made two decisive moves for impact players, and another for a solid complimentary player.

[Jon]

In my opinion, a GM cannot control results. Obviously, you believe otherwise.

 

Wrong. I believe he can greatly influence results. And I believe Jim's moves greatly influenced the collapse of the Cubs, just like KW's moves greatly influenced the results of the WS.

Influence, sure. But do his decisions account for the overwhelming majority of a team's success or failure? I would say no. Things like managerial moves after he's hired, the quality of coaches after they're hired, individual performance, fluke injuries, quality of opponents, etc. are things largely out of their control. Therefore, I don't think a GM should be judged primarily on records and championships.

 

What is a good decision? How do we judge a good decision? How can we look at what KW has done and say he hasn't made good decisions?

 

As for your question, it depends on what you mean by similar. Do you mean, a GM that has gone out with a mediocre payroll and had his team win 81 or more games every year and won 99 games and a WS and kept improving his team? Yeah, take all that into account and any other GM who got that job done under those circumstances has to be considered to have done a good job. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that GM's play no role in the results of their team. Now, if we're talking about a NYY GM with their payroll finish every year like the Sox have finished under Williams, I wouldn't say he's done anything special. When you can spend 3 times the average, it's not hard to win.

There are a ton of ways to look at good decisions. I don't have a particular method. It involves immediate analysis of where the team was, what the team needed, what they gave up, and what other moves could have been done and both short-term and long-term production. But the important part for me is that each decision is evaluated without what the team ends up doing as the primary factor. And my opinion that he hasn't made, on average, good decisions is based on a collection of evaluations of all of his individual moves.

 

If you want to disagree, fine. But that's how I think a GM should be credited or held accountable. And I don't think it's absurd that I should form such opinions based on what I value.

[jmajew]

Look at their pitching staff last year. Politte, Hermanson, and Cotts were average to mediocre relievers and they all had unbelievable years. Garcia and Buehrle are very good starters who had great years even by their standards. Garland had the year of his life, and Contreras outproduced his career norms. That's 119 games worth of innings of pitching that ranged from slightly better to monumentally better than expected. Certainly Williams deserves credit for getting pitchers like Garcia and Buehrle, and I suppose you could give him credit for taking gambles on Hermanson and Contreras(Jenks was a very good, low risk pickup). But when every single one outproduces what they've proven capable of, some by an obscene amount, I'm more willing to contribute that to good fortune than Williams masterminding some scheme where he knows all his in-house options are about to have career years and picking up several others that do as well. And make no mistake, this pitching above predicted levels is why they made the playoffs(once you're in the playoffs it's a free for all) and why they won as many games as they did.

 

Yeah, but is it possible part of the reason their numbers were better because there defense was improved?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Look at their pitching staff last year. Politte, Hermanson, and Cotts were average to mediocre relievers and they all had unbelievable years. Garcia and Buehrle are very good starters who had great years even by their standards. Garland had the year of his life, and Contreras outproduced his career norms. That's 119 games worth of innings of pitching that ranged from slightly better to monumentally better than expected. Certainly Williams deserves credit for getting pitchers like Garcia and Buehrle, and I suppose you could give him credit for taking gambles on Hermanson and Contreras(Jenks was a very good, low risk pickup). But when every single one outproduces what they've proven capable of, some by an obscene amount, I'm more willing to contribute that to good fortune than Williams masterminding some scheme where he knows all his in-house options are about to have career years and picking up several others that do as well. And make no mistake, this pitching above predicted levels is why they made the playoffs(once you're in the playoffs it's a free for all) and why they won as many games as they did.

 

Yeah, but is it possible part of the reason their numbers were better because there defense was improved?

 

That could be part of the reason, I don't have the time to find and compare Fielding Independent ERA's right now, but if someone wants to, go for it.

[CubinNY]

I would like to commend Jon and Gonny for showing how a debate on a message board should work

 

Jon, I'm glad you are mixing it up with us.

[Andy]

To answer CICT's question from earlier, year in and year out Walt Jocketty has done what he needs to do to help the Cards win and I think he's the best GM in all of baseball. With a payroll barely any larger than the White Sox he's put together one of the top 5 offenses in baseball and one of the top 5 pitching staffs in baseball. (Yes, he gets some help from luck, but not near as much as the White Sox had in 05.) It's by the bad luck of meeting a Sox team on a mission in 04 in the Series and the bad luck of running into the Astro pitching buzz saw that's kept the Cards from winning the last two world titles. The Cards IMO would have beaten the Sox fairly easily in the 05 Series had that matchup occurred.

 

Carry on.