Looking At The NL Central
This Is Going To Take A While
Houston Astros: Last year the Astros, one of the smartest organizations in baseball, went 72-90 in a shocking collapse. They won't do it again, I'll bet the farm on it.
The Astros had the second-most runs in the league, after the similarly inflated totals of the Rockies. But it was all for naught as their pitching totals were the worst in the league. This was odd, because for the previous three years they had terrific pitching.
Obviously, brand-new gimmicky bandbox Enron Field is distorting the stats -- but there has to be more to it than that. I theorized in a previous column that, at least in the case of Colorado, extreme hitters' parks put pitchers under undue stress, as they watch fly balls that should have been caught become home runs. Then they start tinkering with their mechanics, and it all becomes a big mess.
It's possible. Whatever it is, hopefully the Astros won't need to worry about it next year. I've heard rumors that they're planning on moving out their fences, a move which could cut a dozen home runs off of Jose Lima's league-leading total.
And a more typical year from Lima could go a long way toward bringing the Astros back into respectability. No matter what, you have to expect an improvement from his 6.65 ERA. He got much better toward the end of the year -- always a good sign.
In fact, all the Astros improved dramatically as the season wore on, which almost always betokens an improvement in the following year. Also, their Pythagorean record was 81-81, suggesting that they were extremely unlucky on top of it all, losing a lot of one-run games and the like. I don't know how much credence to attach to this, since in these extremely unbalanced cases the formula might not work, but at the very least it means that they weren't truly a 72-90 team.
Other bizarrely unlucky things happened to the Astros last year: Three of their best players, Billy Wagner, Shane Reynolds and Craig Biggio, all collapsed with injuries and general ineffectiveness. I wouldn't guarantee that they'll all come back to full speed. But they'll come close. I'd bet that with these three taken together, you'll see a massive improvement, almost back to pre-2000 levels.
Meanwhile, the Astros have two starters that made great strides last year: Wade Miller and Scott Elarton. Elarton has been highly touted for years, and has just now gained enough experience to become an ace. I hadn't heard much about Miller before this past year, but the folks in the know are abuzz about him.
And hitters made great strides last year as well. Richard Hidalgo suddenly became one of the best sluggers in the majors. Lance Berkman could easily do the same this year. Add those two to the always-brilliant Jeff Bagwell and Moises Alou, and you've got a core like no other in this division.
All told, this is a brilliant team, with a mix of veterans still at their peak and a bunch of up-and-comers. Last year was an aberration. This year, having made the adjustments and healed all the sickies, they'll win around 95 games. But I'm basing my assessment on the premise that they'll work to make Enron a rational field. If they don't, I'd cut about five wins off their total.
St. Louis Cardinals: Last year, with the Astros out of the picture, the Cardinals were able to coast to an easy division title. They won 95 games behind a terrific offense, on par with only the Giants among normal teams (the Rockies and Astros don't count) and a slightly-above-average pitching staff.
The Cards' offense looks a wee bit worse in 2001. Trading Fernando Tatis is as crippling as it is baffling and changes their third-base production from one of the league's best to one of the league's worst, as 25th man Craig Paquette and low-average journeyman Shane Andrews take turns making groundouts.
If Mark McGwire can last the whole year without an injury, first-base production will be a bit better, even better than last year's half-season of brilliant play by Will Clark. But that's a big "if." And "if" McGwire doesn't make it through the season, the Cards will be up a creek at first unless they make another superb late-season acquisition.
Who else is primed for a drop-off? Jim Edmonds is good, but he ain't that good. He'll still look like a star, but he'll be a bit worse, and remember -- he is a major injury risk. And the backups are not as impressive as they were last year -- Quentin McCracken is the new fourth outfielder, replacing Eric Davis. Also, Fernando Vina represents another chronic injury waiting to happen.
But this could be the year that J.D. Drew and Edgar Renteria become superstars and pick up some of the slack for Edmonds and Vina. And Ray Lankford will always contribute, and will always be underrated because of his strikeout totals. But he's also chronically gimpy.
Despite it all, this offense is steady. Last year they experienced injuries to Tatis, Lankford and McGwire and still hit like gangbusters. A few injuries this year would be far from fatal. Still, the backups are worse this year, and there's a major drop at third base. I could see the offense falling from superb to good.
Then there's the pitching. The Cardinals may well have more starting options than any other team in the majors: Matt Morris might be able to step in to the rotation after a year of good recovery, and minor leaguer Bud Smith could pull a Britt Reames. Kile should be good, Dustin Hermanson should be an average innings-eater, but Andy Benes could go out with a whimper and I'm not optimistic about Garret Stephenson's ability to repeat a drastically out-of-character 2000.
Then there's Rick Ankiel, one of the more fascinating characters in baseball. The kid is an absolutely brilliant pitcher, but he's still got a lot to learn. I don't have space to get into his whole story, but considering his youth, his inefficiency, his fate in Tony La Russa's hands -- I'd say that the odds are, sadly, stacked solidly against Ankiel avoiding serious arm injury.
Anyway, the Cardinals' relief should be bolstered by the terrific Steve Kline, and Dave Veres is solid if unspectacular. The rest of the bullpen is a bit of a crapshoot, but it doesn't worry me.
So, it should be another slightly-above-average pitching staff. All in all, the 2001 Cards look like a 90-72 team. It won't be enough to beat the Astros, but it'll be a fun season just the same.
Cincinnati Reds: The Reds are a good team. Not great, but good. Last year they had an offense a few steps behind the Cardinals and a pitching staff that was half-step better, statistically. That may sound incongruous considering that their starting staff was Steve Parris, Ron Villone, Rob Bell, Elmer Dessens and Pete Harnisch, but it's true.
The secret to the Reds' pitching success was in Jack McKeon's liberal use of his bullpen. Danny Graves, Scott Williamson and Scott Sullivan all topped 90 innings, scored ERAs under 3.50, and (hopefully) made people think twice about the current trend of massive, over-specialized bullpens.
However, there is a risk. Relief pitchers are notoriously volatile from year to year, especially those who log more than 100 innings per season, as did Sullivan and Williamson in 2000. But Dennys Reyes could step up if one of them goes down with injury or loses effectiveness, since he's just hitting that magic age of 24, when pitchers, usually, can withstand hard work.
The problem is that McKeon was fired over the winter, in a questionable move. What will now happen to the pitching staff is anyone's guess, but mine is that the Scotch tape and prayer that McKeon was using to hold it together will burst, leaving a major mess.
With the managerial change, the starters become even more important, and they don't look good for the Reds. Bell will probably improve, but Dessens probably won't and Villone and Parris are now gone. Harnisch can be great, but more likely will be mediocre and gimpy. Maybe Osvaldo Fernandez will step in? He's already 32 in 2001, but looked good in limited work last year.
Much like the pitching staff, the Reds' lineup last year was more than the sum of its parts. Ken Griffey, even in an off year, is a brilliant hitter, and an important anchor. Sean Casey rebounded from a slow start to have a year much like his breakthrough one in 1999. Barry Larkin is a huge asset at shortstop, even with those pesky yearly injuries.
But that's really about it, as far as good hitters. They have average performers at third, right field and left field (Aaron Boone, Michael Tucker and Dmitri Young, respectively) and offensive holes at second at catcher (Pokey Reese and the still-developing 27-year-old Jason LaRue, respectively). Somehow it adds up to a solid offense.
And there's no reason to expect it won't continue to do so. No one of the above had the kind of out-of-character great seasons that would betoken a downturn this year. Michael Tucker might not fill the shoes of Dante Bichette, who was traded near the end of last season, but the effect should be negligible, and probably offset by the improvement that the switch represents in defense.
So where will these guys finish? I was thinking that they'd stay the same, but after learning a few more things, I'm now giving them an 80-82 predicted record.
Milwaukee Brewers, Pittsburgh Pirates and Chicago Cubs: These guys all go together partly because I'm running out of room, but mostly because they've all got the same problem. They're losers, and it's not going to change until all three abandon their loserish game plan and start playing for real.
Milwaukee and Pittsburgh at least get sympathy points for living in small markets. The Cubs get no sympathy. All these teams have no real strategy, just hoping to patch together some rejects from good teams, pretend that guys like Kevin Young are worthy of long-term contracts and call it a team.
Maybe I'm being a little harsh. But I'm a firm believer that there are really two ways to win. You could commit to a full-scale rebuilding project, like the Marlins are doing right now. Or you could play the free agent market and trades and build a winner by outsmarting and outspending, like the Cardinals did. What you can't do is just sign whatever mid-level star is cheap and hope that the team will improve. It won't.
And whining about small-market troubles doesn't absolve teams like the Brewers and Pirates. Last year the pennant-winning Oakland A's had lower attendance figures than the Pirates and about the same totals as the Brewers. But they win anyway, by being a little smarter and more prudent than the cash-hemorraging big-marketers.
Example of the stupidity: During this off-season, the Pirates signed Derek Bell. Why? This is a player who has played eight years in the bigs, with one good season, a few mediocre ones, and a whole lot of bad ones. Now he's a Pirate, and he's pushing John Vander Wal out of a job. Vander Wal had a flukey great season last year, but even pushed down a few pegs he's better than Bell.
The Pirates are heartbreaking because they have a few terrific, underrated players that deserve dome glory. Jason Kendall and Brian Giles are each second-best at their positions in the National League. But combined with the rest of the lineup, including the worst regular first baseman in the league, Kevin Young, the Pirates had a mediocre offense last year.
However, it was the pitching that was truly problematic. This is odd, since the Pirates have had one of the better starting staffs for years now. Maybe the defense is bringing them down.
At any rate, it shouldn't continue: A staff of Kris Benson, Jason Schmidt, Todd Ritchie and Francisco Cordova is a talented, underrated bunch. Schmidt and Cordova were out last year but are back and healthy, and Ritchie and Benson are likely to improve. Benson in particular is being touted as a future ace.
So if they can staff the bullpen with enough live arms (which was a challenge for them last year), the Pirates' staff should be much better. I'm going to be optimistic about the ability of third base prospect Aramis Ramirez to pick up some of the slack on offense and I'll give them a predicted 78-84 record.
On to the Brew Crew. The Brewers don't really have any superstars. Such is the life of post-Yount Milwaukee. But they're not totally hopeless.
Last season the Brewers had mediocre pitching and bad hitting. The mediocre pitching was due to late-season worldbeater Jeff D'Amico and a superb relief corps.
D'Amico looks like the real thing. This season, of course, he won't be on the same level, but he'll will still be good: I'm thinking his career will follow the path of Oakland hurler Tim Hudson. As for the relief corps, it's still great, with Curtis Leskanic, Dave Weathers and Juan Acevedo poised for more solid work.
The rest of the starters are the kind of guys that epitomize mediocrity. Jimmy Haynes, Jamey Wright, Dave Weathers: conk shew, conk shew. (That's the sound of sleeping. It makes more sense if you hear me say it.) The wild card is young Ben Sheets, the kid who wowed 'em at Sydney and seems ready to step into the breach. But I make it a rule never to trust rookie starters. I'm thinking he'll be great in 2002, maybe 2003.
Overall the pitching staff probably won't improve much. The offense could get better, though. Geoff Jenkins, Jeromy Burnitz and Jeffrey Hammonds make for a good outfield. Of course, Hammonds won't match his 2000 totals, and will probably get injured, but even if his leg fell off he'd be better than Marquis Grissom, who is allegedly, finally, a fourth outfielder.
There's a potentially so-so infield here, with Richie Sexson, Ron Belliard and Mark Loretta being all underrated, quality regulars, and Jose Hernandez negating much of their benefits with his terrible play at third.
All in all, I don't think the Brewers look like a last place team. I'd pick them for 72-90.
The Cubs, however, do look like a last-place team. For every smart move they make (shedding Mark Grace, giving prospect Corey Patterson center field) they make tons of blunders (picking up useless placeholders Matt Stairs, Ron Coomer and Bill Mueller).
Last year they had a below-average offense and horrible pitching. This year their offense isn't any better, and their pitching should improve a tad. I would expect Kerry Wood to improve dramatically and Jon Lieber to develop further into an ace. So that jacks up their pitching to below average. Big deal.
The Cubs are the most disgraceful organization in baseball, because they don't try and don't need to. It'll be another 65-97 season for this pack of born losers.
Well, there you have it: Another 2500-word one. If you made it to the end of this one, you deserve a prize. write me with an interesting comment or rebuttal and claim yours.
Previous Diatribes . . . I Mean, Columns:
- My Very Own NL East Preview
- A Baseball Fan's Take On The Super Bowl
- HOF Reactions -- Just A Few Days Late
- Is Gossage In Yet? Whence Closers?
- Selig's Plan Stinks, Plus GM Jeff Bagwell?
- Beyond Manny And A-Rod: Other Baseball Moves
- Analyzing A-Rod, Ramirez, Other Signings
- More Baseball Hall Of Fame Fun
- Why Do I Stick With Baseball?
- Tony Suck For The Hall Of Fame
- Pedro Martinez Should Be AL MVP
