On the Bubbles
The last time the National League failed to fete a single 20 game winner was 1995, 
when Greg Maddux went 19-2. Going back two decades, the lowest league leading win total, in a non strike year, was 18, by Rick Sutcliffe in 1987. Yet with less than six weeks left in the 2006 season, it appears unlikely that any NL pitcher will reach twenty wins.
Carlos Zambrano(14) emerged from a pack of thirteen game winners yesterday, now made up of Harang, Webb, Marquis, Penny and Traschel. Tom Glavine and Chris Carpenter each have a dozen.
Thirty nine days equates to seven starts, tops, for most of these guys, so several could conceivably win 20, however we dont think it'll happen. Indeed, we'll go out on a limb and predict that the season leader fails to surpass Sutcliffe's low water mark.
This appears to be a byproduct of the dubious parity among NL teams. When teams distribute wins(and losses) more evenly, individuals on those teams( pitchers) are more likley to distribute wins more broadly as well. The Mets, the one dominant offense & pen primed for a 20 game winner, has instead distributed its wins across Traschel and Glavine, the injured Pedro(9) and several spot starters and middlemen.
The league's best pitchers, by and large, aren't sufficiently supported by powerhouse teams this year, to turbocharge a legitimate run at twenty. They too are governed by the historic leveling process taking place here. Zambrano is leveled by the Cubs general ineptitude. Webb is leveled by Bob Melvin's inefficient lineups. And the Cardinals' uncharacteristic mediocrity acts as Carpenter's level.
"Webb is leveled by Arizona's intriguing focus on 2007 in the middle of a wildcard race."
I would be interested to know what you think of this. That they gave away Green for a prospect tells me they really don't care about winning this year.
It's like they are following some sort of schedule and some sort of budgetamd they don't want to win it with expensive players. Josh Byrnes is a Moneyball kind of guy. If they won the division and Gonzo hit 50 doubles in the process, they would have a hard time PR-wide getting rid of him.
They are likely going to get rid of Counsell and I realy think Byrnesie is on the bubble, even if he ends up 20/20, if Young has a good five weeks. Eric's high energy might not be such an asset if it is stuck on the bench next year. Have they figured out that they wiil lose less money in attendance next year if they get rid of two or three of these popular guys after not making the playoffs than they would if they did make the playoffs, even if they are out in the NLDS?
Report any abuse or spam
"That they gave away Green for a prospect tells me they really don't care about winning this year."
I dont believe acquiring prospect McLane indicates the front office is throwing in the towel; what's pertinent re 2006 is the Green vs Quentin tradeoff in RF, and I think folks who claim the team is measurably better or worse off with Quentin, are just blowing smoke. Nobody knows.
The other day, Carlos made an over the shoulder grab in right center that Green never gets near. And he came out of the gate with some XBH mojo...but he's already down to .234. Green and Quentin both make plenty of mistakes and I'm hard pressed to predict who'd be the more valuable Dback over the next 30 day stretch.
Although conventional wisdom decrees that one rides veterans to the playoffs in Spetember, given Green's apparent coma, I think it's fair for Josh Byrnes to assume/rationalize that dumping Green isnt particularly hurting his NL West chances. Similarly, it may be a stretch to assume that starting an untested rookie every day in the middle of a wildcard race is just what the doctor ordered.
This trade, and resulting RF tradeoff, was more about 2007 financial flexibility than about 2006 performance - at least for Arizona. I think they've wanted to unload Green for quite a while, and finally got a taker in the Mets, who agreed to a more favorable deal than any the Dbacks were likely to entertain for Green elsewhere.
Report any abuse or spam