Jim Callis' NL Central comments

[Hungary Jack]

I'll never understand the DeRosa signing beyond the "money is no object" approach suddenly adopted by the Cubs this offseason. They could have gotten Belliard to keep the keystone warm for Patterson for a fraction of what they gave to DeRosa.

I think you can probably pinpoint in a nutshell the difference between the Cards and Cubs over the past years with the DeRosa/Kennedy signing. Both teams went looking for a 2B, and the Cardinals get the better player for less money.

I don't see how Kennedy is definitively the better player.

Though I agree with your point.

DeRosa had a great year last year, is that the real guy or are the Cubs paying a premium for a guy who started off redhot and tailed off?

PECOTA says Kennedy is has a WARP of 3.5, DeRosa 2.5. I know WARP overvalues defense some, but I would definitely take Kennedy over DeRosa for a 2B (DeRosa has some flexibility that has some value) at the same price.

Oh, I don't think Derosa is going to sustain his offensive production from last year (i expect something like 270/330/400), I just don't think Kennedy is better. They're similar offensively and defensively, but I do like having Derosa's versatility. I think his offensive upside is better than Kennedy's too, but we'll see about that.

I agree that they are pretty similar. They both have career OPS+ of 90-91. DeRosa's numbers benefit from the 106 OPS+ he but up in 520 AB last year, both career highs. Kennedy maxed out at 113 OPS+ in 2002.

[clement]

The NL Central is weak until opening day.

In 2003 they called it Comedy Central. Then a year later they had the two premier teams of the NL, plus a third team that put up 89 wins. 2005 it was still a reasonably strong division, while the NL West was considered the weak division. A year later and no dominant team emerges.

One of the teams from the Central will emerge as a bona fide contender. I'm predicting there will be at least 2 teams from the division with 90+ victories and the NL Central will not be discernably weaker than the NL West, AL West, and possibly the NL East.

[Popeye_Card]

The NL Central is weak until opening day.

In 2003 they called it Comedy Central. Then a year later they had the two premier teams of the NL, plus a third team that put up 89 wins. 2005 it was still a reasonably strong division, while the NL West was considered the weak division. A year later and no dominant team emerges.

One of the teams from the Central will emerge as a bona fide contender. I'm predicting there will be at least 2 teams from the division with 90+ victories and the NL Central will not be discernably weaker than the NL West, AL West, and possibly the NL East.

Agreed.

Like the guy said, the NL Central has provided the NL rep in the World Series for the past 3 years. They've provided the Wild Card 2 of the last 3 years. Last season, the Cards had the 2nd best record in the NL for most of the season, and the Reds were breathing down their necks.

Do they look weak on paper this year? Maybe. But it only takes an injury or two on a couple of NL East teams, and they look no better. Same with the NL West. I think the AL West already looks as-weak or weaker than the NL Central.

We'll see how the season plays out before declaring the NL Central so horrible.

--P--

[Magneto]

The entire NL is pretty much terrible outside of the Mets. Phillies are pretty good too.

The NL central is just horrible. I don't understand why that is such a bad thing? Does it really matter?

And having the last 3 world series representative really doesn't mean anything

1) It could easily mean you had the best team in your league, but your divison is still atrocious overall. It's like saying the Eastern Conference Atlantic division isn't terrible if the Toronto Raptors make it to the finals. Divison is still full of mediocre, and weak teams. And of course "any team has holes", but not like this division. And of course if you take out the best players on teams they wont be any good. But that's not an argument for the Central being any better

2) What was done the last 3 years has really no baring on the current season. Things change from year to year. Look at the 1997 Marlins then the 1998 Marlins.

I love the Cardinals, but they are horribly flawed, and we are probably the best team on paper in the division, if not, then it's the Cubs, who are mediocre as well (weak starting rotation, weak bullpen, average offense).

The NL Central doesn't have a stand out team (NL West doesn't either, but they are much more well balanced, and are full of average teams, where as the Central is full of average and terrible teams)

[Popeye_Card]

The entire NL is pretty much terrible outside of the Mets. Phillies are pretty good too.

The NL central is just horrible. I don't understand why that is such a bad thing? Does it really matter?

I think the Dodgers should be pretty good this year too.

The part in bold, I will call the "Simon Cowellization" of our country. Things are either "good" or "horrible". No in-between. Is the NL Central the best division in baseball? No. Is it the worst? Maybe. But is it "horrible"? When I think "horrible", I think two or three teams will be lucky to crack 60 wins, and most of the rest will be fighting it out in the 70's.

What I think the NL Central has is balance. There are 4 teams with a legit chance to win the division with 90+ wins--the Cardinals, Astros, Cubs, and Brewers. Only the Reds and the Pirates look to win 75 games or less, and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if one of them played over their heads and finish at .500. I think the NL Central will be a pretty interesting race this year.

I certainly do not think the division is horrible. The NL Central has the game's best hitter (Pujols). Probably the top 3 pitchers in the NL (Carpenter, Oswalt, Zambrano). If Lidge somehow shakes off his Pujols-itis, he's one of the game's most exciting closers. Berkman is a great, if underappreciated hitter. The Cubs have Soriano now. Some of the best defensive players in the game are in the NL Central (Rolen, Ausmus, Molina, Everett, Edmonds, etc.). There is a lot of talent in the division--as much as any division in baseball.

So again, let's see how the season starts to play out before deciding just how bad the NL Central is.

--P--

[clement]

I guess my point is that what things look like before the season start often don't turn out that way once the season actually plays out. Before last season the Tigers weren't expected to do much. And nobody expected the NL Central to be as dismal as it was. That's why all these stats, expected wins and losses, runs scored, runs given up, etc. that are based on past performance are only useful up to a point.

Did anyone here say that the NL Central was this horrible on March 15 2006...? ...when it really was going to be that horrible?

[clement]

The NL Central has .... Probably the top 3 pitchers in the NL (Carpenter, Oswalt, Zambrano).

And you didn't even mention Sheets, who might actually be the best of them all when it's all said and done.

[stlmark]

The entire NL is pretty much terrible outside of the Mets. Phillies are pretty good too.

The NL central is just horrible. I don't understand why that is such a bad thing? Does it really matter?

And having the last 3 world series representative really doesn't mean anything

1) It could easily mean you had the best team in your league, but your divison is still atrocious overall. It's like saying the Eastern Conference Atlantic division isn't terrible if the Toronto Raptors make it to the finals. Divison is still full of mediocre, and weak teams. And of course "any team has holes", but not like this division. And of course if you take out the best players on teams they wont be any good. But that's not an argument for the Central being any better

2) What was done the last 3 years has really no baring on the current season. Things change from year to year. Look at the 1997 Marlins then the 1998 Marlins.

I love the Cardinals, but they are horribly flawed, and we are probably the best team on paper in the division, if not, then it's the Cubs, who are mediocre as well (weak starting rotation, weak bullpen, average offense).

The NL Central doesn't have a stand out team (NL West doesn't either, but they are much more well balanced, and are full of average teams, where as the Central is full of average and terrible teams)

The Phillies? I understand they look good on paper, but until they do it on the field, I'm not convinced. Remember, they are the Phillies. What the hell have they done?

[Jmodene]

All the Phils have done is fail to live up to expectations.

[JL21]

the "Simon Cowellization" of our country.

Wow. Can I use that?