Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

[cub]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

One thing's for sure... it's going to be a wild NL central race this year.

Can't wait to see Wood/Clemens and Pettitte/Pryor matched up three or four times this year.

[sccdct34]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

right now i would pick the Astros to have the better rotation. The key is Oswalt, he is the ace of the staff and should be healthy at the start of the season. When off the DL the last time last year he went 4-0 with and era of 2.00. I believe Andy and Rocket will be as consistant as they always are and miller should be back to form but with a healthy oswalt the whole year and the offense which should be beter this year the astros are the team to beat this year. what a race its going to be!

[sccdct34]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

right now i would pick the Astros to have the better rotation. The key is Oswalt, he is the ace of the staff and should be healthy at the start of the season. When off the DL the last time last year he went 4-0 with and era of 2.00. I believe Andy and Rocket will be as consistant as they always are and miller should be back to form but with a healthy oswalt the whole year and the offense which should be beter this year the astros are the team to beat this year. what a race its going to be!

[sccdct34]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

right now i would pick the Astros to have the better rotation. The key is Oswalt, he is the ace of the staff and should be healthy at the start of the season. When off the DL the last time last year he went 4-0 with and era of 2.00. I believe Andy and Rocket will be as consistant as they always are and miller should be back to form but with a healthy oswalt the whole year and the offense which should be beter this year the astros are the team to beat this year. what a race its going to be!

[Dice]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

I'm a White Soxs fan and I'd still pick the Cubs. With or without Maddux.

[Dice]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

I'm a White Soxs fan and I'd still pick the Cubs. With or without Maddux.

[Dice]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

I'm a White Soxs fan and I'd still pick the Cubs. With or without Maddux.

[Stoud]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Howie75 said:

Actually Berkman is one of the more reliable hitters. He has a good on base percentage, walks a decent amount and also hits his fair share of doubles.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

More reliable? Have you seen this guy on a game to game basis? Griffey did better at getting on base (when he wasn't injured). I'd like to point you to some Game-to-Game logs:

Link

While good, his numbers were too few and far between. Also, unlike previous seasons he hit an uncharacteristic 25 Homers last year. He got it going in the second half, but for two years now I've watched him start out MUCH slower than a guy with his numbers should start.

At the end of April

Avg: .208
Hits: 15
Doubles: 2
Homers: 2
RBIs: 4

At the end of May (For the month of May)

Avg: .268
Hits: 33
Doubles: 4 (Note that between May 13th and May 30th he hit no doubles)
Homers: 6
RBIs: 25

This from a guy who's supposed to hit the long ball. This from a guy that ended the season with 35 doubles, only to start the first two months with a paltry SIX. He had a total of 155 hits last year. Carl Crawford had a better year at the plate/ on the basepaths than Berkman did.

And you call him Reliable? .....here comes my favorite saying: In what Universe?



HITS HIS FAIR SHARE OF DOUBLES?!



Sure he does, he just waits until they've lost most of their first half to hit 30 in the second.

But I digress...to see just how ineffective Berkman is at the plate as of late, you just have to watch him once a week during the season, one or two at bats. At times the guy can be a joke. If you're relying on him for big numbers throughout the ENTIRETY of a year, think again. I guess that's what really bugs me about him. He's supposed to be like a superstar, and yet I've seen how he can whiff an entire series not even getting a base friggin' hit.

So in the end....he sure can hit!!

just not with any regularity.

[Stoud]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Howie75 said:

Actually Berkman is one of the more reliable hitters. He has a good on base percentage, walks a decent amount and also hits his fair share of doubles.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

More reliable? Have you seen this guy on a game to game basis? Griffey did better at getting on base (when he wasn't injured). I'd like to point you to some Game-to-Game logs:

Link

While good, his numbers were too few and far between. Also, unlike previous seasons he hit an uncharacteristic 25 Homers last year. He got it going in the second half, but for two years now I've watched him start out MUCH slower than a guy with his numbers should start.

At the end of April

Avg: .208
Hits: 15
Doubles: 2
Homers: 2
RBIs: 4

At the end of May (For the month of May)

Avg: .268
Hits: 33
Doubles: 4 (Note that between May 13th and May 30th he hit no doubles)
Homers: 6
RBIs: 25

This from a guy who's supposed to hit the long ball. This from a guy that ended the season with 35 doubles, only to start the first two months with a paltry SIX. He had a total of 155 hits last year. Carl Crawford had a better year at the plate/ on the basepaths than Berkman did.

And you call him Reliable? .....here comes my favorite saying: In what Universe?



HITS HIS FAIR SHARE OF DOUBLES?!



Sure he does, he just waits until they've lost most of their first half to hit 30 in the second.

But I digress...to see just how ineffective Berkman is at the plate as of late, you just have to watch him once a week during the season, one or two at bats. At times the guy can be a joke. If you're relying on him for big numbers throughout the ENTIRETY of a year, think again. I guess that's what really bugs me about him. He's supposed to be like a superstar, and yet I've seen how he can whiff an entire series not even getting a base friggin' hit.

So in the end....he sure can hit!!

just not with any regularity.

[Stoud]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Howie75 said:

Actually Berkman is one of the more reliable hitters. He has a good on base percentage, walks a decent amount and also hits his fair share of doubles.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

More reliable? Have you seen this guy on a game to game basis? Griffey did better at getting on base (when he wasn't injured). I'd like to point you to some Game-to-Game logs:

Link

While good, his numbers were too few and far between. Also, unlike previous seasons he hit an uncharacteristic 25 Homers last year. He got it going in the second half, but for two years now I've watched him start out MUCH slower than a guy with his numbers should start.

At the end of April

Avg: .208
Hits: 15
Doubles: 2
Homers: 2
RBIs: 4

At the end of May (For the month of May)

Avg: .268
Hits: 33
Doubles: 4 (Note that between May 13th and May 30th he hit no doubles)
Homers: 6
RBIs: 25

This from a guy who's supposed to hit the long ball. This from a guy that ended the season with 35 doubles, only to start the first two months with a paltry SIX. He had a total of 155 hits last year. Carl Crawford had a better year at the plate/ on the basepaths than Berkman did.

And you call him Reliable? .....here comes my favorite saying: In what Universe?



HITS HIS FAIR SHARE OF DOUBLES?!



Sure he does, he just waits until they've lost most of their first half to hit 30 in the second.

But I digress...to see just how ineffective Berkman is at the plate as of late, you just have to watch him once a week during the season, one or two at bats. At times the guy can be a joke. If you're relying on him for big numbers throughout the ENTIRETY of a year, think again. I guess that's what really bugs me about him. He's supposed to be like a superstar, and yet I've seen how he can whiff an entire series not even getting a base friggin' hit.

So in the end....he sure can hit!!

just not with any regularity.

[cub]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

ESPN.com has a new article up. The polled scouts, GMs, etc. and asked who has the best starting rotation in the majors. The Astros ran away with it. The Cubs were fifth. But they all agreed that if the Cubs sign Maddux, that changes everything. And they all said that if they had to vote on the best starting staff "for 2006" right now, it would be the Cubs.

One thing to consider...

Over the past two years, the top strikeout pitchers in the NL are (in order):

1. Kerry Wood
2. Jason Schmidt
3. Mark Prior
4. Matt Clement

That's pretty impressive.

[cub]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

ESPN.com has a new article up. The polled scouts, GMs, etc. and asked who has the best starting rotation in the majors. The Astros ran away with it. The Cubs were fifth. But they all agreed that if the Cubs sign Maddux, that changes everything. And they all said that if they had to vote on the best starting staff "for 2006" right now, it would be the Cubs.

One thing to consider...

Over the past two years, the top strikeout pitchers in the NL are (in order):

1. Kerry Wood
2. Jason Schmidt
3. Mark Prior
4. Matt Clement

That's pretty impressive.

[cub]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

ESPN.com has a new article up. The polled scouts, GMs, etc. and asked who has the best starting rotation in the majors. The Astros ran away with it. The Cubs were fifth. But they all agreed that if the Cubs sign Maddux, that changes everything. And they all said that if they had to vote on the best starting staff "for 2006" right now, it would be the Cubs.

One thing to consider...

Over the past two years, the top strikeout pitchers in the NL are (in order):

1. Kerry Wood
2. Jason Schmidt
3. Mark Prior
4. Matt Clement

That's pretty impressive.

[Howie75]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Stoud said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Howie75 said:

Actually Berkman is one of the more reliable hitters. He has a good on base percentage, walks a decent amount and also hits his fair share of doubles.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

More reliable? Have you seen this guy on a game to game basis? Griffey did better at getting on base (when he wasn't injured). I'd like to point you to some Game-to-Game logs:

Link

While good, his numbers were too few and far between. Also, unlike previous seasons he hit an uncharacteristic 25 Homers last year. He got it going in the second half, but for two years now I've watched him start out MUCH slower than a guy with his numbers should start.

At the end of April

Avg: .208
Hits: 15
Doubles: 2
Homers: 2
RBIs: 4

At the end of May (For the month of May)

Avg: .268
Hits: 33
Doubles: 4 (Note that between May 13th and May 30th he hit no doubles)
Homers: 6
RBIs: 25

This from a guy who's supposed to hit the long ball. This from a guy that ended the season with 35 doubles, only to start the first two months with a paltry SIX. He had a total of 155 hits last year. Carl Crawford had a better year at the plate/ on the basepaths than Berkman did.

And you call him Reliable? .....here comes my favorite saying: In what Universe?



HITS HIS FAIR SHARE OF DOUBLES?!



Sure he does, he just waits until they've lost most of their first half to hit 30 in the second.

But I digress...to see just how ineffective Berkman is at the plate as of late, you just have to watch him once a week during the season, one or two at bats. At times the guy can be a joke. If you're relying on him for big numbers throughout the ENTIRETY of a year, think again. I guess that's what really bugs me about him. He's supposed to be like a superstar, and yet I've seen how he can whiff an entire series not even getting a base friggin' hit.

So in the end....he sure can hit!!

just not with any regularity.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

He was injured and/or on the DL for quite a while in the first half of last season. Did he end up with decent numbers??

Yes. All players are streaky. Have you ever heard of slumps? And I take it from your post you think it's preferable for a player to start off the season on a tear and be ice cold in September?

You can crunch numbers all you want, but other factors are involved. Players are in the lineup when they aren't 100 percent, there are slumps etc. Obviously you have not watched Berkman play on a game to game basis, and strictly looked at statistics.

And since your argument seems to be based totally upon statistics, it completely went into the can with the Carl Crawford reference. Please explain to me how you arrived at this conclusion.

Berkman had better numbers across the board..average, HR, 2B, RBI, total bases, slugging, on base percentage, runs scored, walks...you name it. For pete's sake Berkman is slow as molasses, and he almost had as many triples as Crawford.

How can you possibly think Crawford had a better season?


Berkman has a good swing, and I actually think his numbers would be better if he strictly hit left handed.

He's a good player, well liked in the clubhouse, and respected amongst his peers. He's also very young and has not yet hit his prime.

[Howie75]

Re: Who has the best starting 5 now: Cubs or Astros?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Stoud said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Howie75 said:

Actually Berkman is one of the more reliable hitters. He has a good on base percentage, walks a decent amount and also hits his fair share of doubles.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

More reliable? Have you seen this guy on a game to game basis? Griffey did better at getting on base (when he wasn't injured). I'd like to point you to some Game-to-Game logs:

Link

While good, his numbers were too few and far between. Also, unlike previous seasons he hit an uncharacteristic 25 Homers last year. He got it going in the second half, but for two years now I've watched him start out MUCH slower than a guy with his numbers should start.

At the end of April

Avg: .208
Hits: 15
Doubles: 2
Homers: 2
RBIs: 4

At the end of May (For the month of May)

Avg: .268
Hits: 33
Doubles: 4 (Note that between May 13th and May 30th he hit no doubles)
Homers: 6
RBIs: 25

This from a guy who's supposed to hit the long ball. This from a guy that ended the season with 35 doubles, only to start the first two months with a paltry SIX. He had a total of 155 hits last year. Carl Crawford had a better year at the plate/ on the basepaths than Berkman did.

And you call him Reliable? .....here comes my favorite saying: In what Universe?



HITS HIS FAIR SHARE OF DOUBLES?!



Sure he does, he just waits until they've lost most of their first half to hit 30 in the second.

But I digress...to see just how ineffective Berkman is at the plate as of late, you just have to watch him once a week during the season, one or two at bats. At times the guy can be a joke. If you're relying on him for big numbers throughout the ENTIRETY of a year, think again. I guess that's what really bugs me about him. He's supposed to be like a superstar, and yet I've seen how he can whiff an entire series not even getting a base friggin' hit.

So in the end....he sure can hit!!

just not with any regularity.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

He was injured and/or on the DL for quite a while in the first half of last season. Did he end up with decent numbers??

Yes. All players are streaky. Have you ever heard of slumps? And I take it from your post you think it's preferable for a player to start off the season on a tear and be ice cold in September?

You can crunch numbers all you want, but other factors are involved. Players are in the lineup when they aren't 100 percent, there are slumps etc. Obviously you have not watched Berkman play on a game to game basis, and strictly looked at statistics.

And since your argument seems to be based totally upon statistics, it completely went into the can with the Carl Crawford reference. Please explain to me how you arrived at this conclusion.

Berkman had better numbers across the board..average, HR, 2B, RBI, total bases, slugging, on base percentage, runs scored, walks...you name it. For pete's sake Berkman is slow as molasses, and he almost had as many triples as Crawford.

How can you possibly think Crawford had a better season?


Berkman has a good swing, and I actually think his numbers would be better if he strictly hit left handed.

He's a good player, well liked in the clubhouse, and respected amongst his peers. He's also very young and has not yet hit his prime.