Everyone who says Pujols should be the MVP..

TB_11 · July 13, 2005

I disagree - this situation is nothing like 1998.

McGwire was not nearly the complete players that Pujols, Lee, or even Sosa was (in 1998).

McGwire had a great year hitting the long ball, and IIRC, he had more walks than singles. It was pretty much either he would hit a dinger, or walk.

Sosa's year was complete, and probably his best overall.

2001 was Sosa's best year. Period.

McGwire was the better hitter in 1998 - his OBP and SLG were each 80 points higher than Sammy's that year. Sammy's completeness as a player often rested on his speed - that year he was successful on 67% of his SB attempts (18 of 27). The debate over who was the MVP is a fair one, but the debate over who was the better player should start and end with McGwire.

I'm not sure that is the case. In 1998, McGwire led Sosa by four homeruns, and out slugged him by 100 points. Sosa had more RBI and a higher batting average. In 98, Sosa was a better base runner and better defender. It was close.

If you're talking better career player... :-k

McGwire has a career 263 BA compared to Sosa's 277.
McGwire has a career 394 OBP compared to Sosa's 348.
McGwire has a career 588 SLG compared to Sosa's 545.
McGwire has 583 HR's compared to Sosa's 574.

McGwire showed more power throughout his career, but if you use a grouping of five best seasons, Sosa looks a little better. McGwire was a decent fielder, while Sosa showed athleticism but had flaws. Sosa was a better base runner, especially earlier in his career. I don't think either one is clearly a better player than the other.

From Baseball Reference:

         OBP   SLG   OPS   OPS+   RC   RC/27
McGwire  .470  .752  1.222  217    179  13.10
Sosa     .377  .647  1.024  160    157   8.85

In 1998, McGwire's ability to get on base and better slugging overmatch Sosa's baserunning, IMHO. Their defenses are a wash - both were average defenders in 1998. Again, Sosa might have been more deserving of the MVP, but the better player in my opinion was McGwire.

vance_the_cubs_fan · July 13, 2005

One of the key differences in the OBP can be attributed to McGwire's 28 IBB to Sosa's 14 IBB. While that doesn't make up for the complete difference, it does show that teams were much more willing to pitch to Sosa. My guess is that comes more from the fact that McGwire had a stronger reputation entering the season.

McGwire still walked a great deal more than Sosa that season, but Sosa hit for a higher average. Both had great seasons, and an argument could be made for either. I don't think it's definitive that either was better than the other. A co-MVP would probably have been more appropriate.

Catman61 · July 13, 2005

McGwire still walked a great deal more than Sosa that season, but Sosa hit for a higher average.

The difference in batting average is approx 5 hits, the difference in walks is 89

BleedCubbieBlue81 · July 13, 2005

By checking out the stats, Pujols is hitting around .337. Lee is at .378. Doing the math, if Pujols kept hitting around .337, Lee would have to go close to 0-45 just to fall to Pujols level.

While I'm not saying Pujols won't catch him, it's just unlikely that Lee is going to cool off that much. RBI's and homeruns might be a different story though. If the season ended today, Lee gets the MVP. But he's going to need to stay on a tear the whole year to stay ahead of Albert.

And in my opinion, there is no question which player is more valuable to their respective teams. The Cards would still be a great team without Albert. They might not have such a huge lead, but they'd still be solid. The Cubs would be lost if they didn't have Lee this year.

XZero771679666304 · July 14, 2005

RBI's are a team dependent stat, as are runs scored. Lets take a look at independent stats:

AVG:

Lee .378

Pujols .337

OBP:

Lee .452

Pujols .423

SLG:

Lee .733

Pujols .594

OPS:

Lee 1.186

Pujols 1.017

RC:

Lee 95.1

Pujols 80.7

RC27:

Lee 12.35

Pujols 9.35

ISOP:

Lee .356

Pujols .257

That's not cherry picking, either. Not only has Derrek been better in almost every individual statistical category, but it's not even close. In order for Pujols to even approach Lee in any of these categories, Derrek would have to fall flat on his face. Even if Derrek reverted to his career norms for the entire second half, the chances would be remote at best that Albert would catch him. Especially since Derrek has been a better second half player over the course of his career.

Now in 2006 Albert will probably be better, but there is no question who has been better this year.

nolanwood · July 14, 2005

I disagree - this situation is nothing like 1998.

McGwire was not nearly the complete players that Pujols, Lee, or even Sosa was (in 1998).

McGwire had a great year hitting the long ball, and IIRC, he had more walks than singles. It was pretty much either he would hit a dinger, or walk.

Sosa's year was complete, and probably his best overall.

2001 was Sosa's best year. Period.

McGwire was the better hitter in 1998 - his OBP and SLG were each 80 points higher than Sammy's that year. Sammy's completeness as a player often rested on his speed - that year he was successful on 67% of his SB attempts (18 of 27). The debate over who was the MVP is a fair one, but the debate over who was the better player should start and end with McGwire.

I'm not sure that is the case. In 1998, McGwire led Sosa by four homeruns, and out slugged him by 100 points. Sosa had more RBI and a higher batting average. In 98, Sosa was a better base runner and better defender. It was close.

If you're talking better career player... :-k

McGwire has a career 263 BA compared to Sosa's 277.
McGwire has a career 394 OBP compared to Sosa's 348.
McGwire has a career 588 SLG compared to Sosa's 545.
McGwire has 583 HR's compared to Sosa's 574.

McGwire showed more power throughout his career, but if you use a grouping of five best seasons, Sosa looks a little better. McGwire was a decent fielder, while Sosa showed athleticism but had flaws. Sosa was a better base runner, especially earlier in his career. I don't think either one is clearly a better player than the other.

Didn't Sosa hit the 583 HR mark last week and tie McGwire?

CardsFanInChiTown · July 14, 2005

Hey new cards fan here. If voting ended today I'd prolly vote for DLee. However, if he cools a little and the Cubs lose a bunch in the 2nd half I'll throw my support behind AP. That said, what about park effects on those numbers? An interesting article by Rob Neyer...

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/allstar05/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2105528

imb · July 14, 2005

You do know that the All-Star game was last night, right?

CardsFanInChiTown · July 14, 2005

You do know that the All-Star game was last night, right?

woo, the first snoty post directed toward me. I just got goosebumps :wink: :lol:

Anyway, I just thought the part about DLee and AP's homerun production might be interesting in this debate.

imb · July 14, 2005

No that stuff was really interesting. It just seemed that the beginning and the end were talking about the All-Star game and Home Run derby in the future tense.

ltb · July 14, 2005

No that stuff was really interesting. It just seemed that the beginning and the end were talking about the All-Star game and Home Run derby in the future tense.

seems like the beginning was talking about mvp voting.

the article he posted was posted on monday before the derby.

imb · July 14, 2005

Ahh, I just skimmed it really, I thought he was commenting on the article instead of just posting the thing verbatim. My bad, dude.

vance_the_cubs_fan · July 14, 2005

If he posted someone else's article, he should read this.

Copyrighted Material

It is the policy of this board (North Side Baseball or northsidebaseball.com) to respect all copyrighted information. Please do not post any copyrighted material - text or pictures - to this board. Any posts found with such information will be deleted or edited.

Newspaper articles are copyrighted material. Do not quote them in their entirety. Instead, post a link and quote the relevant information. People can refer to http://www.bugmenot.com to get password information for articles that require free registration.

XZero771679666304 · July 14, 2005

You do know that the All-Star game was last night, right?

woo, the first snoty post directed toward me. I just got goosebumps :wink: :lol:

Anyway, I just thought the part about DLee and AP's homerun production might be interesting in this debate.

I think the whole park factor thing is overrated, for the most part. You looked at home runs, but a better overall indicator is that Lee has a 1.189 OPS at home and a 1.183 OPS on the road. Those are for all intents and purposes, identical. I also think the popular perception of Sammy Sosa was that he benefitted from Wrigley, though his overall and HR totals were just about dead even in his prime years. You already see that Aramis does not benefit much from Wrigley. And IIRC, several of the Marlins coaches said that Pro Player killed Derrek, and predicted 40+ HR from him outside of there. This makes sense since Lee's power is from alley to alley, and that is no man's land in Miami. In parks like that, only dead pull hitters will put up big numbers, and Derrek is not a dead pull hitter.

The whole notion that Wrigley is a hitters paradise is really not accurate at all. It favors the hitters slightly, but not nearly as much as some think. The reason for this, IMO, is that it is a park of extremes. I say that because while eveyone knows about the days the wind is howling out and homers are easy to come by, more often the wind is blowing stright in, and in about a third of the games (rough estimation based on watching for 20 years), you may as well be trying to hit a ball out of the Grand Canyon.

Some hitters have benefitted from the cozy alleys, but the 355 down the lines are no easy pokes. The bottom line is that while Wrigley will give you a lot of homers, it will take away a lot of them, also. Any players that do benefit are probably hitters with marginal power who plays there enough to mold his game to the field. Players who are great hitters with genuine power generally rise above the limitations or enhancements that a given field gives them

Now there are players who benefit from their home parks greatly. Take Morgan Ensberg, for example. While Morgan oocasionally gets XBH to other fields, he is an extreme pull hitter. This is a huge advantage in MMP.

Over the past three years, Ensberg's OPS has been nearly 300 points lower on the road. This year has been better, but there is still a 150+ point differential. His power numbers are also better than Pujols this year, but his you can attribute to park factors, unlike Lee.

Here's another indicator. I looked at the number of parks played in this year, and how each player fared OPS-wise overall. Since a 1.000 OPS is the mark of excellence, so to speak, I wanted to see how many parks Lee, Pujols and Ensberg managed to reach that number in, and which ones.

Pujols has played in 14 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in eight of them. He fared the best in Turner, Coors, Miller and Citizens Bank.

Lee has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 10 of them. He has performed the best in Pro Player, Busch, Great American, Miller, BOB and Dodger Stadium.

Ensberg has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 3 of them. He has fared well at MMP, Coors and Great American. Also, 17 of his 24 HR have been hit between those three hitters parks, and nowhere else has he hit more than 1.

This is based on only this year, but the three year splits bear out around the same level of consistancy for Lee and Pujols. and inconsistancy for Ensberg. Statistically speaking Lee is actually the most consistant of the three, independent of park, though not the most productive. Ensberg I used to illustrate a player who has their stats inflated by ballpark. Lee does not fall into this category at all. In fact, if you rate his performance by park over the past three years, Wrigley sits right in the middle of the 23 parks he has played in over that time The same can be said of Pujols and Busch, right in the middle, 11th of 20.

So from a relative performance standpoint, Pujols is no more consistant than Lee, and Lee is no more dependent on his home park than Albert.

Transmogrified Tiger · July 14, 2005

Exceptionally well said XZero. =D>

indifferent · July 15, 2005

You do know that the All-Star game was last night, right?

woo, the first snoty post directed toward me. I just got goosebumps :wink: :lol:

Anyway, I just thought the part about DLee and AP's homerun production might be interesting in this debate.

I think the whole park factor thing is overrated, for the most part. You looked at home runs, but a better overall indicator is that Lee has a 1.189 OPS at home and a 1.183 OPS on the road. Those are for all intents and purposes, identical. I also think the popular perception of Sammy Sosa was that he benefitted from Wrigley, though his overall and HR totals were just about dead even in his prime years. You already see that Aramis does not benefit much from Wrigley. And IIRC, several of the Marlins coaches said that Pro Player killed Derrek, and predicted 40+ HR from him outside of there. This makes sense since Lee's power is from alley to alley, and that is no man's land in Miami. In parks like that, only dead pull hitters will put up big numbers, and Derrek is not a dead pull hitter.

The whole notion that Wrigley is a hitters paradise is really not accurate at all. It favors the hitters slightly, but not nearly as much as some think. The reason for this, IMO, is that it is a park of extremes. I say that because while eveyone knows about the days the wind is howling out and homers are easy to come by, more often the wind is blowing stright in, and in about a third of the games (rough estimation based on watching for 20 years), you may as well be trying to hit a ball out of the Grand Canyon.

Some hitters have benefitted from the cozy alleys, but the 355 down the lines are no easy pokes. The bottom line is that while Wrigley will give you a lot of homers, it will take away a lot of them, also. Any players that do benefit are probably hitters with marginal power who plays there enough to mold his game to the field. Players who are great hitters with genuine power generally rise above the limitations or enhancements that a given field gives them

Now there are players who benefit from their home parks greatly. Take Morgan Ensberg, for example. While Morgan oocasionally gets XBH to other fields, he is an extreme pull hitter. This is a huge advantage in MMP.
Over the past three years, Ensberg's OPS has been nearly 300 points lower on the road. This year has been better, but there is still a 150+ point differential. His power numbers are also better than Pujols this year, but his you can attribute to park factors, unlike Lee.

Here's another indicator. I looked at the number of parks played in this year, and how each player fared OPS-wise overall. Since a 1.000 OPS is the mark of excellence, so to speak, I wanted to see how many parks Lee, Pujols and Ensberg managed to reach that number in, and which ones.

Pujols has played in 14 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in eight of them. He fared the best in Turner, Coors, Miller and Citizens Bank.

Lee has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 10 of them. He has performed the best in Pro Player, Busch, Great American, Miller, BOB and Dodger Stadium.

Ensberg has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 3 of them. He has fared well at MMP, Coors and Great American. Also, 17 of his 24 HR have been hit between those three hitters parks, and nowhere else has he hit more than 1.

This is based on only this year, but the three year splits bear out around the same level of consistancy for Lee and Pujols. and inconsistancy for Ensberg. Statistically speaking Lee is actually the most consistant of the three, independent of park, though not the most productive. Ensberg I used to illustrate a player who has their stats inflated by ballpark. Lee does not fall into this category at all. In fact, if you rate his performance by park over the past three years, Wrigley sits right in the middle of the 23 parks he has played in over that time The same can be said of Pujols and Busch, right in the middle, 11th of 20.

So from a relative performance standpoint, Pujols is no more consistant than Lee, and Lee is no more dependent on his home park than Albert.

It gives me goose bumps when people flex their baseball muscles! Nice post.

snoodmonger · July 15, 2005

You do know that the All-Star game was last night, right?

woo, the first snoty post directed toward me. I just got goosebumps :wink: :lol:

Anyway, I just thought the part about DLee and AP's homerun production might be interesting in this debate.

I think the whole park factor thing is overrated, for the most part. You looked at home runs, but a better overall indicator is that Lee has a 1.189 OPS at home and a 1.183 OPS on the road. Those are for all intents and purposes, identical. I also think the popular perception of Sammy Sosa was that he benefitted from Wrigley, though his overall and HR totals were just about dead even in his prime years. You already see that Aramis does not benefit much from Wrigley. And IIRC, several of the Marlins coaches said that Pro Player killed Derrek, and predicted 40+ HR from him outside of there. This makes sense since Lee's power is from alley to alley, and that is no man's land in Miami. In parks like that, only dead pull hitters will put up big numbers, and Derrek is not a dead pull hitter.

The whole notion that Wrigley is a hitters paradise is really not accurate at all. It favors the hitters slightly, but not nearly as much as some think. The reason for this, IMO, is that it is a park of extremes. I say that because while eveyone knows about the days the wind is howling out and homers are easy to come by, more often the wind is blowing stright in, and in about a third of the games (rough estimation based on watching for 20 years), you may as well be trying to hit a ball out of the Grand Canyon.

Some hitters have benefitted from the cozy alleys, but the 355 down the lines are no easy pokes. The bottom line is that while Wrigley will give you a lot of homers, it will take away a lot of them, also. Any players that do benefit are probably hitters with marginal power who plays there enough to mold his game to the field. Players who are great hitters with genuine power generally rise above the limitations or enhancements that a given field gives them

Now there are players who benefit from their home parks greatly. Take Morgan Ensberg, for example. While Morgan oocasionally gets XBH to other fields, he is an extreme pull hitter. This is a huge advantage in MMP.
Over the past three years, Ensberg's OPS has been nearly 300 points lower on the road. This year has been better, but there is still a 150+ point differential. His power numbers are also better than Pujols this year, but his you can attribute to park factors, unlike Lee.

Here's another indicator. I looked at the number of parks played in this year, and how each player fared OPS-wise overall. Since a 1.000 OPS is the mark of excellence, so to speak, I wanted to see how many parks Lee, Pujols and Ensberg managed to reach that number in, and which ones.

Pujols has played in 14 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in eight of them. He fared the best in Turner, Coors, Miller and Citizens Bank.

Lee has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 10 of them. He has performed the best in Pro Player, Busch, Great American, Miller, BOB and Dodger Stadium.

Ensberg has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 3 of them. He has fared well at MMP, Coors and Great American. Also, 17 of his 24 HR have been hit between those three hitters parks, and nowhere else has he hit more than 1.

This is based on only this year, but the three year splits bear out around the same level of consistancy for Lee and Pujols. and inconsistancy for Ensberg. Statistically speaking Lee is actually the most consistant of the three, independent of park, though not the most productive. Ensberg I used to illustrate a player who has their stats inflated by ballpark. Lee does not fall into this category at all. In fact, if you rate his performance by park over the past three years, Wrigley sits right in the middle of the 23 parks he has played in over that time The same can be said of Pujols and Busch, right in the middle, 11th of 20.

So from a relative performance standpoint, Pujols is no more consistant than Lee, and Lee is no more dependent on his home park than Albert.

Awesome post, and I think the second half of it proves pretty well that DLee isn't park dependednt on power.

I want to agree with the first half of your post (the one stating that Wrigley isn't a hitter's paradise), but I need to know why, despite your rational argument, Wrigley still gets a high HRPF?

gus_dog · July 15, 2005

You do know that the All-Star game was last night, right?

woo, the first snoty post directed toward me. I just got goosebumps :wink: :lol:

Anyway, I just thought the part about DLee and AP's homerun production might be interesting in this debate.

I think the whole park factor thing is overrated, for the most part. You looked at home runs, but a better overall indicator is that Lee has a 1.189 OPS at home and a 1.183 OPS on the road. Those are for all intents and purposes, identical. I also think the popular perception of Sammy Sosa was that he benefitted from Wrigley, though his overall and HR totals were just about dead even in his prime years. You already see that Aramis does not benefit much from Wrigley. And IIRC, several of the Marlins coaches said that Pro Player killed Derrek, and predicted 40+ HR from him outside of there. This makes sense since Lee's power is from alley to alley, and that is no man's land in Miami. In parks like that, only dead pull hitters will put up big numbers, and Derrek is not a dead pull hitter.

The whole notion that Wrigley is a hitters paradise is really not accurate at all. It favors the hitters slightly, but not nearly as much as some think. The reason for this, IMO, is that it is a park of extremes. I say that because while eveyone knows about the days the wind is howling out and homers are easy to come by, more often the wind is blowing stright in, and in about a third of the games (rough estimation based on watching for 20 years), you may as well be trying to hit a ball out of the Grand Canyon.

Some hitters have benefitted from the cozy alleys, but the 355 down the lines are no easy pokes. The bottom line is that while Wrigley will give you a lot of homers, it will take away a lot of them, also. Any players that do benefit are probably hitters with marginal power who plays there enough to mold his game to the field. Players who are great hitters with genuine power generally rise above the limitations or enhancements that a given field gives them

Now there are players who benefit from their home parks greatly. Take Morgan Ensberg, for example. While Morgan oocasionally gets XBH to other fields, he is an extreme pull hitter. This is a huge advantage in MMP.
Over the past three years, Ensberg's OPS has been nearly 300 points lower on the road. This year has been better, but there is still a 150+ point differential. His power numbers are also better than Pujols this year, but his you can attribute to park factors, unlike Lee.

Here's another indicator. I looked at the number of parks played in this year, and how each player fared OPS-wise overall. Since a 1.000 OPS is the mark of excellence, so to speak, I wanted to see how many parks Lee, Pujols and Ensberg managed to reach that number in, and which ones.

Pujols has played in 14 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in eight of them. He fared the best in Turner, Coors, Miller and Citizens Bank.

Lee has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 10 of them. He has performed the best in Pro Player, Busch, Great American, Miller, BOB and Dodger Stadium.

Ensberg has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 3 of them. He has fared well at MMP, Coors and Great American. Also, 17 of his 24 HR have been hit between those three hitters parks, and nowhere else has he hit more than 1.

This is based on only this year, but the three year splits bear out around the same level of consistancy for Lee and Pujols. and inconsistancy for Ensberg. Statistically speaking Lee is actually the most consistant of the three, independent of park, though not the most productive. Ensberg I used to illustrate a player who has their stats inflated by ballpark. Lee does not fall into this category at all. In fact, if you rate his performance by park over the past three years, Wrigley sits right in the middle of the 23 parks he has played in over that time The same can be said of Pujols and Busch, right in the middle, 11th of 20.

So from a relative performance standpoint, Pujols is no more consistant than Lee, and Lee is no more dependent on his home park than Albert.

Awesome post, and I think the second half of it proves pretty well that DLee isn't park dependednt on power.

I want to agree with the first half of your post (the one stating that Wrigley isn't a hitter's paradise), but I need to know why, despite your rational argument, Wrigley still gets a high HRPF?

Poor pitching?

4.9k · July 16, 2005

Hey new cards fan here. If voting ended today I'd prolly vote for DLee. However, if he cools a little and the Cubs lose a bunch in the 2nd half I'll throw my support behind AP. That said, what about park effects on those numbers? An interesting article by Rob Neyer...

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/allstar05/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2105528

Welcome to the forum. In the future, please don't post entire copyrighted artilces on this board, especially those that require a paid subscription to read.

jaydee · July 17, 2005

Well one main difference I see between 2005 and 1998 is...

In 1998, there is absolutely no way that the cubs make the playoffs without Sammy. In 2005, I think the cardinals still have a good chance of making the playoffs without Pujols.

CubRock2 · July 18, 2005

In 2005, I think the cardinals still have a good chance of making the playoffs without Pujols.

I don't get that statement. Without Albert Pujols, aren't the Cardinals... the White Sox? He's clearly the smartest and best hitter on the team, and I can't imagine Eckstien, Edmonds, and Sanders being good enough and consistent enough to make them good. The just become a team relying on scrappy hitters, fast runners, and lots of homeruns for run production.

ManEatingTarp · July 18, 2005

In 2005, I think the cardinals still have a good chance of making the playoffs without Pujols.

I don't get that statement. Without Albert Pujols, aren't the Cardinals... the White Sox? He's clearly the smartest and best hitter on the team, and I can't imagine Eckstien, Edmonds, and Sanders being good enough and consistent enough to make them good. The just become a team relying on scrappy hitters, fast runners, and lots of homeruns for run production.

Well, seeing as how the Sox have the best record in baseball...

I don't know if the Sox are a smoke and mirrors team, but I'm starting to believe that they're the real deal.

XZero771679666304 · July 18, 2005

In 2005, I think the cardinals still have a good chance of making the playoffs without Pujols.

I don't get that statement. Without Albert Pujols, aren't the Cardinals... the White Sox? He's clearly the smartest and best hitter on the team, and I can't imagine Eckstien, Edmonds, and Sanders being good enough and consistent enough to make them good. The just become a team relying on scrappy hitters, fast runners, and lots of homeruns for run production.

Well, seeing as how the Sox have the best record in baseball...

I don't know if the Sox are a smoke and mirrors team, but I'm starting to believe that they're the real deal.

Like I said in another thread, I think the Sox are alot like the 2000 Mariners. The thing that is lacking is their offense. It is fine now, but in a short series agains a staff with a couple of ace type starters, they may be dead, IMO. The have many good hitters, but no great hitters. They lack the type of offensive players that can produce runs even when facing an ace on top of his game.

The Cards have Pujols and when he is healthy, Walker that fit this bill - a hitter with no glaring holes. I would say Edmonds, but if you have a pitcher who is locating very well, he can be neutralized.

The Sox have a lineup full of role players, but no stud (Frank is past his prime).

ManEatingTarp · July 18, 2005

In 2005, I think the cardinals still have a good chance of making the playoffs without Pujols.

I don't get that statement. Without Albert Pujols, aren't the Cardinals... the White Sox? He's clearly the smartest and best hitter on the team, and I can't imagine Eckstien, Edmonds, and Sanders being good enough and consistent enough to make them good. The just become a team relying on scrappy hitters, fast runners, and lots of homeruns for run production.

Well, seeing as how the Sox have the best record in baseball...

I don't know if the Sox are a smoke and mirrors team, but I'm starting to believe that they're the real deal.

Like I said in another thread, I think the Sox are alot like the 2000 Mariners. The thing that is lacking is their offense. It is fine now, but in a short series agains a staff with a couple of ace type starters, they may be dead, IMO. The have many good hitters, but no great hitters. They lack the type of offensive players that can produce runs even when facing an ace on top of his game.

The Cards have Pujols and when he is healthy, Walker that fit this bill - a hitter with no glaring holes. I would say Edmonds, but if you have a pitcher who is locating very well, he can be neutralized.

The Sox have a lineup full of role players, but no stud (Frank is past his prime).

I agree with a lot of that. I like the Sox as a team this year, but they are far from a perfect team. The second lowest team BA in the league jumps out at me. They're going to make the playoffs, but I don't see them winning, or even going to the Series. I think the Angels are "THE" team in the AL.

My girlfriend is a Sox fan, so it will save my relationship if they don't and the Cards do ;)

vance_the_cubs_fan · July 18, 2005

Sox will be in the play-offs, but will lose in the first round. You can take that prediction to the bank.

Everyone who says Pujols should be the MVP..

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs