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

[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.

[Stoud]

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

It was a hypothetical comparison. Being that Crawford is more of a top of the order guy, you would think that 55 stolen bases would be equal to the 110 RBIs, since those RBIs wouldn't have been gotten without the leadoff men.

Unfortunately, I have seen Berkman choke more often than I care to. Every time the game relies on him, every time he HAS to get a key hit, he CHOKES! I've seen it. I'd be afraid to see what he can do in the post, because it would be so horrid that my eyes would probably bleed. What it all comes down to, is that even in games that don't matter at all, even if they've aready won it, he can't hit.

I got upset because you said he was a Reliable hitter, a Consistent hitter...and he's exactly the opposite. It's like he hits when he "feels like it". Almost the same response you get from Bonds, only difference is that Bonds hit with more consistency than even Berkman last year. I had Lance on a fantasy team last year, and when he kept getting 3 or 4 hits a WEEK, I dumped him. I've seen what he can "do".

[Stoud]

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

It was a hypothetical comparison. Being that Crawford is more of a top of the order guy, you would think that 55 stolen bases would be equal to the 110 RBIs, since those RBIs wouldn't have been gotten without the leadoff men.

Unfortunately, I have seen Berkman choke more often than I care to. Every time the game relies on him, every time he HAS to get a key hit, he CHOKES! I've seen it. I'd be afraid to see what he can do in the post, because it would be so horrid that my eyes would probably bleed. What it all comes down to, is that even in games that don't matter at all, even if they've aready won it, he can't hit.

I got upset because you said he was a Reliable hitter, a Consistent hitter...and he's exactly the opposite. It's like he hits when he "feels like it". Almost the same response you get from Bonds, only difference is that Bonds hit with more consistency than even Berkman last year. I had Lance on a fantasy team last year, and when he kept getting 3 or 4 hits a WEEK, I dumped him. I've seen what he can "do".

[Stoud]

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

It was a hypothetical comparison. Being that Crawford is more of a top of the order guy, you would think that 55 stolen bases would be equal to the 110 RBIs, since those RBIs wouldn't have been gotten without the leadoff men.

Unfortunately, I have seen Berkman choke more often than I care to. Every time the game relies on him, every time he HAS to get a key hit, he CHOKES! I've seen it. I'd be afraid to see what he can do in the post, because it would be so horrid that my eyes would probably bleed. What it all comes down to, is that even in games that don't matter at all, even if they've aready won it, he can't hit.

I got upset because you said he was a Reliable hitter, a Consistent hitter...and he's exactly the opposite. It's like he hits when he "feels like it". Almost the same response you get from Bonds, only difference is that Bonds hit with more consistency than even Berkman last year. I had Lance on a fantasy team last year, and when he kept getting 3 or 4 hits a WEEK, I dumped him. I've seen what he can "do".

[Howie75]

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Stoud said:
It was a hypothetical comparison. Being that Crawford is more of a top of the order guy, you would think that 55 stolen bases would be equal to the 110 RBIs, since those RBIs wouldn't have been gotten without the leadoff men.

Unfortunately, I have seen Berkman choke more often than I care to. Every time the game relies on him, every time he HAS to get a key hit, he CHOKES! I've seen it. I'd be afraid to see what he can do in the post, because it would be so horrid that my eyes would probably bleed. What it all comes down to, is that even in games that don't matter at all, even if they've aready won it, he can't hit.

I got upset because you said he was a Reliable hitter, a Consistent hitter...and he's exactly the opposite. It's like he hits when he "feels like it". Almost the same response you get from Bonds, only difference is that Bonds hit with more consistency than even Berkman last year. I had Lance on a fantasy team last year, and when he kept getting 3 or 4 hits a WEEK, I dumped him. I've seen what he can "do".



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

55 steals does not equate to 55 RBI, period. And when a power hitter walks more than a leadoff man, I would say that makes him a patient hitter. He also rarely grounds into double plays.

You negatively judge Berkman based upon a 3 to 4 week period because he didn't put up good numbers on your fantasy team??

I'll judge him based on three years worth of observation at the major league level, and reiterate he is a capable and reliable player. He had an off year, that was still decent, albeit not up to the standards he set the previous two years as a starter.

You make the mistake of comparing fantasy numbers to actual value on a team. They correlate to some extent, but not completely. I'll take him any day, as would most teams.

[Howie75]

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Stoud said:
It was a hypothetical comparison. Being that Crawford is more of a top of the order guy, you would think that 55 stolen bases would be equal to the 110 RBIs, since those RBIs wouldn't have been gotten without the leadoff men.

Unfortunately, I have seen Berkman choke more often than I care to. Every time the game relies on him, every time he HAS to get a key hit, he CHOKES! I've seen it. I'd be afraid to see what he can do in the post, because it would be so horrid that my eyes would probably bleed. What it all comes down to, is that even in games that don't matter at all, even if they've aready won it, he can't hit.

I got upset because you said he was a Reliable hitter, a Consistent hitter...and he's exactly the opposite. It's like he hits when he "feels like it". Almost the same response you get from Bonds, only difference is that Bonds hit with more consistency than even Berkman last year. I had Lance on a fantasy team last year, and when he kept getting 3 or 4 hits a WEEK, I dumped him. I've seen what he can "do".



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

55 steals does not equate to 55 RBI, period. And when a power hitter walks more than a leadoff man, I would say that makes him a patient hitter. He also rarely grounds into double plays.

You negatively judge Berkman based upon a 3 to 4 week period because he didn't put up good numbers on your fantasy team??

I'll judge him based on three years worth of observation at the major league level, and reiterate he is a capable and reliable player. He had an off year, that was still decent, albeit not up to the standards he set the previous two years as a starter.

You make the mistake of comparing fantasy numbers to actual value on a team. They correlate to some extent, but not completely. I'll take him any day, as would most teams.

[Howie75]

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Stoud said:
It was a hypothetical comparison. Being that Crawford is more of a top of the order guy, you would think that 55 stolen bases would be equal to the 110 RBIs, since those RBIs wouldn't have been gotten without the leadoff men.

Unfortunately, I have seen Berkman choke more often than I care to. Every time the game relies on him, every time he HAS to get a key hit, he CHOKES! I've seen it. I'd be afraid to see what he can do in the post, because it would be so horrid that my eyes would probably bleed. What it all comes down to, is that even in games that don't matter at all, even if they've aready won it, he can't hit.

I got upset because you said he was a Reliable hitter, a Consistent hitter...and he's exactly the opposite. It's like he hits when he "feels like it". Almost the same response you get from Bonds, only difference is that Bonds hit with more consistency than even Berkman last year. I had Lance on a fantasy team last year, and when he kept getting 3 or 4 hits a WEEK, I dumped him. I've seen what he can "do".



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

55 steals does not equate to 55 RBI, period. And when a power hitter walks more than a leadoff man, I would say that makes him a patient hitter. He also rarely grounds into double plays.

You negatively judge Berkman based upon a 3 to 4 week period because he didn't put up good numbers on your fantasy team??

I'll judge him based on three years worth of observation at the major league level, and reiterate he is a capable and reliable player. He had an off year, that was still decent, albeit not up to the standards he set the previous two years as a starter.

You make the mistake of comparing fantasy numbers to actual value on a team. They correlate to some extent, but not completely. I'll take him any day, as would most teams.

[kweiss]

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

Both of those rotations are great, but I think I'd take Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, Derek Lowe, and Tim Wakefield.

[kweiss]

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

Both of those rotations are great, but I think I'd take Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, Derek Lowe, and Tim Wakefield.

[kweiss]

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

Both of those rotations are great, but I think I'd take Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, Derek Lowe, and Tim Wakefield.

[cub]

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

^^

That's a very good rotation too.

I think the difference between the Cubs rotation and all the other best rotations in baseball (with the possible exception of the Marlins and As) is that the Cubs guys will still be getting better five years from now.

[cub]

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

^^

That's a very good rotation too.

I think the difference between the Cubs rotation and all the other best rotations in baseball (with the possible exception of the Marlins and As) is that the Cubs guys will still be getting better five years from now.

[cub]

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

^^

That's a very good rotation too.

I think the difference between the Cubs rotation and all the other best rotations in baseball (with the possible exception of the Marlins and As) is that the Cubs guys will still be getting better five years from now.

[mjb2124]

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

Well, if Jayson Stark's opinion matters at all, it goes like this:

1. Astros
2. Yankees
3. Red Sox
4. A's
5. Cubs

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...amp;id=1710604

The Yankees #2??? I think Stark was smoking something. I'd go something like this:

1. Astros
2. Red Sox
3a. Cubs
3b. A's
4. Marlins
5. Yankees

[mjb2124]

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

Well, if Jayson Stark's opinion matters at all, it goes like this:

1. Astros
2. Yankees
3. Red Sox
4. A's
5. Cubs

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...amp;id=1710604

The Yankees #2??? I think Stark was smoking something. I'd go something like this:

1. Astros
2. Red Sox
3a. Cubs
3b. A's
4. Marlins
5. Yankees