(NL) West is the best?

[msgkings322]

Apologies to Jim Morrison...

Anyhoo, now that spring has sprung, it seems like we may have the toughest division in baseball to deal with. The only one close may be the perennial AL Ea$$$t, but 1-5 ours is comparable at least.

We know how good we are, and Colorado has improved (and may further if they get Young). The Dodgers don't get mentioned much but they have a very deep, strong rotation and a good pen, and while their lineup isn't much, is ours that strong? We just showed how a pitching heavy team can make some hay.
Arizona is even stronger, they got a real closer now, and a possible ace in Hudson, and they can always hit. The Padres took a step back but they gave us fits last year and their pitching will make them good again.

If we can win the division this year, we will be battle tested and ready for the playoffs. It all comes down to injuries (and some luck) as it always does. We stayed very healthy last year and our few injuries HELPED us (Rowand -> Torres, Wellenmeyer -> MadBum).

 

[Heathbar012]

It'll definitely be interesting. I think the bigger ball parks in the NL West definitely cater to the Giants personnel. Wait. A Bay Area sports team that executed a clear cut plan to become favorites in their division and perennial title contenders for at least the next decade? Fire them all!

You do make a good point. Top to bottom, the West might be the best, get here and we'll do the rest. I don't apologize to glutinous drug addicts that die in France just because they happen to be amazing lyricists.

The AL East has too strong of a top 3 not to be considered the best at this point, though. It is certainly arguable that the Orioles and Blue Jays could best the Diamondbacks and Padres, but we all know that paper doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[SFGRTB]

AL East is clearly the best IMO.

The top 2 are pretty equal in both divisions, with the AL East having a slight advantage.

The Rays may not be as good as the Dodgers (I think ppl are overlooking them this year), but the bottom 2 in the AL East are far better than the bottom 2 in the NL West. The O's or Jays could finish 1st or 2nd in some divisions while the Padres and D-Backs could not IMO.

Both the best divisions in their respective leagues though.

 

[Yoshi]

Well, the AL East has the best team (on paper) in the AL in the Red Sox. The Yanks have that lineup, but what about their pitching? Pettitte gone, no Lee, Rivera tagging another year on, etc.

Rays lost quite a few folks with Crawford, Soriano, and Pena. Their division is pretty competitive and so is ours. We'll just have to play this one out to see what's up.

 

[Heathbar012]

Well, the AL East has the best team (on paper) in the AL in the Red Sox. The Yanks have that lineup, but what about their pitching? Pettitte gone, no Lee, Rivera tagging another year on, etc.

Rays lost quite a few folks with Crawford, Soriano, and Pena. Their division is pretty competitive and so is ours. We'll just have to play this one out to see what's up.

That's always the problem with deciding the strongest division. Even if the teams play each other in interleague play, how is it decided? In college football, people look at the bowl records and consider the case closed (though, I don't necessarily agree with that either). Conceivably, in baseball (and most major sports), the records tell a lot of the story, but again, there are rarely head-to-head games with divisions in the opposite league. Even when they do play each other, it's one series, except for the rivalry games that may or may not be against a team in the division that is being compared to the other team's.

I don't think there is a clear-cut answer and stats can be manipulated to prove that any of the divisions are stronger than the others (except the NL Central last year, what a garbage division). Also, the criteria for evaluation is difficult to nail down. Hypothetically, if a division has the two best teams in the league, the two worst teams in the league and one directly in the middle, is that a stronger division than one with five teams directly in the middle? Needless to say, the latter division will likely be represented by the team with the worst record in the playoffs, but possibly, a better chance at taking the league championship due to playing great competition all year.

None of this is contrary to what you were typing. I agree that everything needs to play out before any assessment can be made. I just think it's difficult to make that assessment even after the season is over. I guess that makes it fun to discuss, but at the same time, the discussion becomes just as valid at the beginning of the year as it does at the end, which isn't very valid at all.

However, I think msg's point still stands that every team in the NL West but the Padres got better in the off-season, and when one of those teams won the World Series last year that should make a great case for the strongest division.

 

[msgkings322]

That's always the problem with deciding the strongest division. Even if the teams play each other in interleague play, how is it decided? In college football, people look at the bowl records and consider the case closed (though, I don't necessarily agree with that either). Conceivably, in baseball (and most major sports), the records tell a lot of the story, but again, there are rarely head-to-head games with divisions in the opposite league. Even when they do play each other, it's one series, except for the rivalry games that may or may not be against a team in the division that is being compared to the other team's.

I don't think there is a clear-cut answer and stats can be manipulated to prove that any of the divisions are stronger than the others (except the NL Central last year, what a garbage division). Also, the criteria for evaluation is difficult to nail down. Hypothetically, if a division has the two best teams in the league, the two worst teams in the league and one directly in the middle, is that a stronger division than one with five teams directly in the middle? Needless to say, the latter division will likely be represented by the team with the worst record in the playoffs, but possibly, a better chance at taking the league championship due to playing great competition all year.

None of this is contrary to what you were typing. I agree that everything needs to play out before any assessment can be made. I just think it's difficult to make that assessment even after the season is over. I guess that makes it fun to discuss, but at the same time, the discussion becomes just as valid at the beginning of the year as it does at the end, which isn't very valid at all.

However, I think msg's point still stands that every team in the NL West but the Padres got better in the off-season, and when one of those teams won the World Series last year that should make a great case for the strongest division.

Nice post, HB. <golf clap>

 

[calsnowskier]

I tried to rep ya, Heath, but apparently I have rep'd ya too much...

VERY nice post...

 

[Yoshi]

That's always the problem with deciding the strongest division. Even if the teams play each other in interleague play, how is it decided? In college football, people look at the bowl records and consider the case closed (though, I don't necessarily agree with that either). Conceivably, in baseball (and most major sports), the records tell a lot of the story, but again, there are rarely head-to-head games with divisions in the opposite league. Even when they do play each other, it's one series, except for the rivalry games that may or may not be against a team in the division that is being compared to the other team's.

I don't think there is a clear-cut answer and stats can be manipulated to prove that any of the divisions are stronger than the others (except the NL Central last year, what a garbage division). Also, the criteria for evaluation is difficult to nail down. Hypothetically, if a division has the two best teams in the league, the two worst teams in the league and one directly in the middle, is that a stronger division than one with five teams directly in the middle? Needless to say, the latter division will likely be represented by the team with the worst record in the playoffs, but possibly, a better chance at taking the league championship due to playing great competition all year.

None of this is contrary to what you were typing. I agree that everything needs to play out before any assessment can be made. I just think it's difficult to make that assessment even after the season is over. I guess that makes it fun to discuss, but at the same time, the discussion becomes just as valid at the beginning of the year as it does at the end, which isn't very valid at all.

However, I think msg's point still stands that every team in the NL West but the Padres got better in the off-season, and when one of those teams won the World Series last year that should make a great case for the strongest division.

Hey Heath,
I agree with the others - solid post. It's generally tough to decide which division is tougher from the beginning til the end.

In CFB, S.O.S. (strength of schedule) is typically one of the major factors that lends into who plays in the toughest conference. Although teams from other conferences can play each other in the postseason, the fact that there is not a playoff system makes it hard to judge a team's ability to actually win it all in a playoff/round robin type of play. So basically the coach's poll, the writer's poll, the conference you play in, S.O.S, etc, all play into who is deemed to play in a tougher conference, but hard to really extrapolate unless teams go head to head instead of writers/coaches/computers determining who gets to play in the big dance. There have numerous cases where this unfortunate system has proven to have failed - Alabama losing to Utah in the Sugar Bowl back in 2009, TCU (a small school) winning their bowl game against a much bigger school this past season, etc. A lot of teams can go undefeated but aren't given the benefit of the doubt because of where they came from.

Baseball, I agree is tough in its own regards. As the adage goes, solid pitching beats solid hitting and you can make the case that the Giants have one if not the best rotation in the game backed up by one of the best bullpens in the entire league. The dodgers improved, the Rox have Jimenez and co. (although I'm not a big fan of Huston Street but he has paid dividends for them), and the Padres still have a formidable staff backed up by Heath Bell. Thus, the NL West could arguably be the toughest division in MLB on that alone.

This is ridiculous:
2010 MLB Team Pitching Stats - Major League Baseball - ESPN

The TOP 2 teams in ERA last year were in the NL West, 2 of the top 3 in Saves were in the NL West, 2 of the top 5 in shutouts the same, the top 3 in strikeouts were all in the NL West, and the top 3 in opponents' BAA also in the top 3. The division may not have the most notable names as far as hitting goes, but who cares if you can't hit the ball anyways?

 

[msgkings322]

The TOP 2 teams in ERA last year were in the NL West, 2 of the top 3 in Saves were in the NL West, 2 of the top 5 in shutouts the same, the top 3 in strikeouts were all in the NL West, and the top 3 in opponents' BAA also in the top 3. The division may not have the most notable names as far as hitting goes, but who cares if you can't hit the ball anyways?[/QUOTE]


To be fair, the NL West is also pretty heavy on the pitcher's parks, except Colorado (hitters) and Arizona (neutral/hitterish)

 

[tzill]

The TOP 2 teams in ERA last year were in the NL West, 2 of the top 3 in Saves were in the NL West, 2 of the top 5 in shutouts the same, the top 3 in strikeouts were all in the NL West, and the top 3 in opponents' BAA also in the top 3. The division may not have the most notable names as far as hitting goes, but who cares if you can't hit the ball anyways?

To be fair, the NL West is also pretty heavy on the pitcher's parks, except Colorado (hitters) and Arizona (neutral/hitterish)[/QUOTE]

Also, whereas the stats listed are indicative of good pitching, if you look at DIPS, the NLW has the second and fifth best staffs. Interestingly, the ALW has the best (OAK) and two others (SEA, TEX) in the top ten.

 

[titsmcgee1987]

What's up fellas!

Been a while since I have been on this board (or any for that matter), been working my left nut off.

Anyways I think that the best divisions are the divisions that are most competitive top to bottom. That might seem like an obvious statement, but I think it is often over looked by many for the division with 2 "sexy" top teams that battle all year while the rest is simply average or less than. I would agree that the AL East is probably the best this year, because I do think they have this competition throughout. I think the Orioles will be real good this year.

I think the NL west has had this competition for a while now, and even though the competitiveness started out of inferiority (2005) it quickly became something more impressive. Since 06 every team has won the division except the Rockies, who have taken the Wildcard twice in that span.

This may be a stretch, but I feel as if the NL West compares more to the NFL in terms of its competitiveness than it compares to any other division in the majors. The NFL is constantly changing with who the top teams are, and it has been really good for the sport. I think that this competitiveness creates more of a buzz around the NL west for those that are paying attention.

We will always hate the Dodgers, that will never change, but I can honestly say that I dislike every single team in our division at this point, and it is mainly because they have all been good enough to garner up those feelings of competition in recent memory, which I don't think people in any other division in baseball can say.

I got kind of far away from my original point, so forgive my rambling. All I am saying is that while the NL West may not be the "best" division in baseball, I think it has been underrated over the past few years, and imo is the most entertaining division when the teams play head to head.

 

[tzill]

Welcome back, tits! The fun is just beginning.

 

[ColinCoby]

What did the Doyers do to improve, besides sign Uribe?

 

[SFGRTB]

What did the Doyers do to improve, besides sign Uribe?

Brought back Lilly (overpaid like Uribe, but good for the short trem) and Kuroda for a decent deal, brought in Garland for a nice hometown discount and re-signed Padilla to have a real solid starting rotation. It may not be as sexy as the Giants or Phillies, but it's solid 1-5 with Kershaw-Billingsly-Lilly-Kuroda-Garland and Padilla as a 6th starter. Their bullpen is still good and I expect a bounce back from Broxton.

The offense is declining with Blake, Furcal, someone at catcher, and the left fielder by committee all likely to regress from last years production, but they still have Kemp, Ethier, Loney to rely on.

OK, enough of that, that just felt dirty.

Their downfalls are their defense. It's bad, especially in the OF and with most of those pitchers being flyball pitchers and the big parks in the NL West, it could be a major problem. And their aging offense will show and LF/3B/C will be black holes for them.

They will finish a few games above .500, I just don't think they'll be as bad as people seem to think they will be.

 

[tzill]

Brought back Lilly (overpaid like Uribe, but good for the short trem) and Kuroda for a decent deal, brought in Garland for a nice hometown discount and re-signed Padilla to have a real solid starting rotation. It may not be as sexy as the Giants or Phillies, but it's solid 1-5 with Kershaw-Billingsly-Lilly-Kuroda-Garland and Padilla as a 6th starter. Their bullpen is still good and I expect a bounce back from Broxton.

The offense is declining with Blake, Furcal, someone at catcher, and the left fielder by committee all likely to regress from last years production, but they still have Kemp, Ethier, Loney to rely on.

OK, enough of that, that just felt dirty.

Their downfalls are their defense. It's bad, especially in the OF and with most of those pitchers being flyball pitchers and the big parks in the NL West, it could be a major problem. And their aging offense will show and LF/3B/C will be black holes for them.

They will finish a few games above .500, I just don't think they'll be as bad as people seem to think they will be.

I think it's going to depend upon their pitching. If Kershaw is in the Cy mix and Bills steps up his game the doyers will contend along with us and the Rox.

 

[msgkings322]

I think it's going to depend upon their pitching. If Kershaw is in the Cy mix and Bills steps up his game the doyers will contend along with us and the Rox.

Agreed, and if the Pads pitching is still as good as last year, they will be over .500 too. I could even see AZ flirting with .500

Hence me starting this thread!

 

[tzill]

Agreed, and if the Pads pitching is still as good as last year, they will be over .500 too. I could even see AZ flirting with .500

Hence me starting this thread!

Agreed. Top to bottom, probably the best division in baseball.

 

[SFGRTB]

Agreed, and if the Pads pitching is still as good as last year, they will be over .500 too. I could even see AZ flirting with .500

Hence me starting this thread!

I like what Arizona did. They shored up their bullpen with Putz and Hernandez, cut about 300 K's from 2 positions though lost 50 HR's, but they'll still have a pretty good offense. Someone has to lose in the division, but they will put up a fight.

 

[ColinCoby]

I like what Arizona did. They shored up their bullpen with Putz and Hernandez, cut about 300 K's from 2 positions though lost 50 HR's, but they'll still have a pretty good offense. Someone has to lose in the division, but they will put up a fight.

+1. Wouldn't surprise me to see them finish in the 75-80 win range (10-15 more wins). Their 'pen was such a joke last year (historically bad).

RE: the Doyers-how long is Padilla going to be out?