Off-Season Capsules:
Reader Feedback

Jason Michael Barker

Over the past six weeks I've written about each of baseball's six divisions, looking both back at the moves made by each team this winter and ahead to their outlook for the upcoming season. As you might imagine, such articles generate a good bit of e-mail since readers always have very strong opinions about their favorite team (and the division their favorite team plays in).

The first e-mail comes from Flynn, who writes all the way from South Africa if the .za extension is to be believed...

You ARE Gammons if you think Frank Castillo's actually going to be in the Boston rotation. Hello, Tim Wakefield????

Flynn is referring to my look at the AL East, in which I (incorrectly) stated that the back of Boston's starting rotation would be filled by Frank Castillo and John Burkett. Here's the thing -- I always forget about Tim Wakefield for some reason, even though he's started at least 15 games a year for the Red Sox each of the past four seasons. It must be because he's always getting jerked in and out of the starting rotation. It certainly seems that way, at least. In any event, my apologies for forgetting the knuckleballer; more teams would love to have a pitcher whose arm is so durable.

Next up is Phil, who writes in with this helpful observation:

I believe that Rany Jazayerli proved that strikeouts in Coors were not as detrimental as originally believed. I don't know the link, but I'm sure you'll get others with the link.

Actually, Phil, you're the only one who brought it up. This idea did sound somewhat familiar, though, so I surfed on over to BaseballProspectus.com and used their handy search feature to find the article in question. In case you're wondering, Phil was responding to my assertion that Jose Hernandez' prolific strikeout totals might not be the best fit in Coors Field.

Sure enough, Jazayerli concludes in this article that "there is no benefit to having players whose primary skill is putting the ball in play" at Coors Field. I'm not going to rehash the entire thing here -- you can read it yourself, and it's a worthwhile read -- but thanks go to Phil for refreshing my memory on this particular point.

On the topic of the National League Central, specifically the Cardinals, Daniel writes:

Thanks for the insightful and fair evaluation of strengths and weaknesses in the NL Central. Although I disagree with your final predictions, they're certainly realistic (Unlike Mr. Paisley's pick of the Cubs last year...). However, I have to pick a few nits, since it's my role to remind the Strikethree.com writers whenever they give the Cardinals short shrift.

I am, at this time, unable to comment on Mr. Paisley's 2002 predictions due to a confidentiality agreement signed between the Strikethree.com staff in late 2001. Ahem! Moving on...

(1) "...only to fall short against Barry Bonds and the Giants in the first round." They swept the defending world champion Diamondbacks in the first round, absolutely pasting Johnson, edging Schilling in a great pitcher's duel, and sending off Batista in game 3. Cintron took out Rolen, however, which set the stage for the no-show in the NLCS. I can understand how you might forget the D'back/Cards series, since Fox decided to air game 1 at bloody midnight Pacific time.

First round, League Championship Series... the playoffs are so weakened these days, what's the difference, right? Nah, that's just a poor excuse. To be honest, I forgot about that series because it was over so quickly and wasn't all that interesting, as sweeps tend to be (both quick and uninteresting). Not nearly as interesting as the other three first round series, at least.

(2) "I think injuries will finally catch up with the Cards" Finally? Morris was the only guy entering '02 in the rotation who managed to stay healthy, and even he spent about 3 weeks in a serious funk after Kile's death. The entire staff, except for Morris and Simontacchi, spent time on the shelf: Williams, Stephenson, Isringhausen, Veres, Kline, on and on. It could get worse for the pitching staff, but it's difficult to see how. As for the position players, Drew was out much of the year and was hobbled when he played. He's not expected back in any role until June. Rolen's back was due to the Vet's turf. He's 28 years old, so there's no reason to think he hasn't conditioned himself past that stuff. It's a matter of perspective: I'd say that the Cardinals are overdue for a relatively injury-free year.

Well, that may be. But the point I was trying to make -- and the point you made above, incidentally -- is that the Cardinals won last year in spite of all the injuries. In that sense you might say they had very good luck last year, as backwards as that may sound. I don't see them as considerably healthier going into 2003, so if their luck levels off (or evens out, whichever cliché you prefer), they would be worse off than they were a year ago. That's what I meant by the injuries "catching up" with them. For a closer look at the Cardinals and their health, here's a fine piece of work from Will Carroll over at Baseball Prospectus.

(3) Matching up with the Astros The key here is Williams. He's been nothing short of steller with the Cardinals, and he's shown that he thrives against the Astros in particular. He injured his ribcage last year, which wouldn't heal because he was an aggressive hitter. His arm is fine. If they can convince him to ease off at the plate, he should flirt with 18 wins.

Woody Williams just strikes me as incredibly fragile, to be perfectly honest, although I did think he had some sort of arm trouble (further investigation reveals that Daniel is correct -- Williams had trouble with a rib cage injury and strained oblique, but nothing with his elbow or shoulder). At the same time, he's still 36 years old with a history of serious longball problems, and his pitching since arriving in St. Louis late in 2001 has been way out of line with his career. That might be pitching coach Dave Duncan, or it might just be a good run of 175 innings.

Tomko is more intriguing than just an "inning eater." He finally has a clearly defined role in a rotation for a good team. He showed signs of moving from hard-thrower to pitcher last year, and there's no one like Dave Duncan to finish off such a move.

For all the talk of Tomko's success last season, it's worth noting that he posted a 4.49 ERA and allowed 31 homers in 204.1 innings despite pitching in a pretty good park for pitchers. In other words, he was an average pitcher (if not slightly worse) who threw 200 innings -- sounds like an innings eater to me. His strikeout rate (5.5 per 9IP) doesn't inspire confidence, either.

I'd call the Morris/Williams vs. Oswalt/Miller matchup a wash and just look for some excellent duels there. I'd give the Cards' back of the rotation the edge: Tomko, Stephenson, Hermanson, Simontacchi have all won 10 or more previously and are on the right side of 30 (and the last three win just by length of name alone).

I'd give Oswalt/Miller a slight edge -- particularly in durability -- though it's certainly close. Brian Moehler should eat innings in the same mold as Tomko (is that a Jell-o mold, perhaps?), and then... who knows about the final few spots? The Cardinals certainly have the edge in experience, though I like the youth of Kirk Saarloos and Tim Redding as well (not to mention knuckleballer Jared Fernandez!)

The lineup is a step ahead of the Astros', and the defense is just awesome: 4/5 of the infield are current or former Gold Glovers.

Offensively, I honestly can't decide between the two clubs -- they're both darned good. Definite edge to the Cards on defense, though.

If the Cardinals have only slightly better luck than last year, the Astros will have to win 100 to take the division.

As I said, I think they actually did have pretty good luck last year, but that's certainly open for debate. In the end, however, I think we can agree on a few things: (1) Houston and St. Louis are the two best clubs in the division, and (2) it should be a heck of a race.

Next up is Peter, who chimes in on the Padres:

You were right in saying that you're more than a year early with your San Diego prediction, but picking them last this season? Just as dumb as picking them first last season...

Er, ouch?

Lawrence (Maddux-Lite), Eaton, Peavy, Perez, & Jarvis make up a damn good rotation. The bullpen is a question mark, especially since they'll start the season w/ Hoffman on the mend.

I do think that'll be a damned good rotation... in another year or two. Counting too much on young pitchers is always problematic, and even though I'm a big fan of both Peavy and Perez, some growing pains would seem to be in order. It also remains to be seen how Eaton holds up over the course of a full season, and on the whole the Padres are missing a true "ace" starter.

Don't forget that part of the Padres woes last season were due to how many projected starters missed time w/ injuries. Nevin needs replicate his '99-'01 performance, but since he did it for 3 straight years, it wouldn't be wise to bet against him. Likewise, Burroughs needs to demonstrate what the scouts have said he'll do - I'm guessing the best GM in baseball, Billy Beane, is right; he calls Sean a "as sure a thing as any 'sure thing' can be."

It isn't just Beane who says that about Burroughs, but like you said, he still needs to show he can do what he did in the minors and what many have predicted for him. He still hasn't hit for much power, even in the minors; it's not as if he's going to turn into Albert Pujols next season.

The Padres are in a tough division, no question, and I'm not predicting the playoffs for them - I called for a 2nd place finish last season.

Peter went on to predict 86 wins for the Padres in 2003, a 20-game improvement over last season's record.

As I said in the capsule, the Padres should certainly be better than they were a year ago. I didn't pick them to finish last because I think they'll be horrible, but rather because the other teams in the division are just better right now. Well, Colorado is questionable... I see the Padres and Rockies fighting it out for fourth place in the division.

Finally, Boris the Mets fan in Texas writes:

Dude - you offer good analysis of the NL East race, but poor predictions. The Mets offer a much more solid team than the 5th place prediction you show. Upgraded pitching and improved defense will accompany an offense that showed very lively signs of rebounding late in 02 - (Burnitz in Sept / Mo Vaughn 2nd half) + Alomar will have a big year. I would at least pick the Mets for 2nd - the Phillies pitching, especially the bullpen will falter faster than Larry Bowa's emotional outburst control. Bell is not that big of an addition at third, and Thome will carry thump in his bat, but when the Phillies had a productive bat in Rolen - they went nowhere. Re-evaluate!!!

I struggled quite a bit in making my predictions for the National League East. While it was clear to me that Philadelphia and Atlanta were the cream of the crop, I have no idea what to think about the other three teams in the division. In my defense, however, I picked the Mets to finish fourth, not fifth.

New York finished last in 2002 with 75 wins, the most of any last place club, so clearly they're not horrible. Even with a ten-game improvement next year, will 85 wins be enough to secure second place? That seems like a stretch, given that the Phillies won 80 games a year ago (and have improved more than the Mets, in my opinion) and the Braves 101 (they've fallen off somewhat, but not that much).

about the author

Jason Michael Barker didn't make up a single one of these e-mails. You can ask him about it at jmb@strikethree.com.

Custom Search