NL West Predictions: ROCKIES TO WIN NL WEST!!!!

by Rox Girl on Mar 31, 2007 12:40 PM MDT in Rockpile

Let me start with a fizzle...

Number 3 Starters:

Jason Schmidt
Clay Hensley
Matt Morris
Rodrigo Lopez
Doug Davis

Part of the reason Arizona is overrated heading into the season is here, as statistically Davis should be due for a rebound, but if you've seen him pitch lately you know to question that call. He can't find the strike zone without running into a lot of trouble, so he typically stays outside it. To me, this says "steep decline" rather than "off year." Still, Rockies fans can't be too optimistic with Lopez yet to prove he himself is capable of a rebound season.

Okay, that didn't work, let's try finding some warmth, any warmth..,

Bottom of the Rotation

San Diego - Maddux/Wells
Los Angeles - Penny/Tomko?
Colorado - Hirsh/Fogg
Arizona - Gonzalez/Owings
San Francisco - Lowry/Ortiz

This is where each team in the division's fans start speculating and thinking their pair will fill out better than the other four contestants. If you don't believe me, then just look at the teams' sites/blogs and see: What if Maddux and Wells are able to pitch solidly for thirty starts apiece in their forties? Awesome! What if Penny regains his pre-All-Star 2006 form and Tomko's new compact delivery restores him to glory? Golden! What if Hirsh looks like he did against the PCL last year and Fogg doesn't suck? Outstanding! What if Owings and Gonzalez pitch like they did this Spring? Fantastic! What if Lowry gets something from his curveball and Ortiz' rebound is real? Sweet!

Truth be told, all five could be terrible this season and chances are that at the most only one or two will live up to their hometown's hopes in this. Right now, I like the hot pair on Arizona better than I have them ranked, but I'm so hesitant to move them based on misleading Spring numbers. Later in the season, this section will evolve into LA and Colorado's favor as Wells and Maddux won't go all year, Lowry and or/Ortiz will disappoint and Tim Lincecum won't be ready in time and Arizona will have Davis and Livan that they'll be desperate to get rid of. Los Angeles will be able to insert Billingsley and Hendrickson, Colorado Jimenez, Kim, Buchholz and/or Lawrence, none of the others have similarly skilled plan B's (or C's and D's in Colorado's case) when things go wrong.

alright, feeling a little better, what about the top, though?

Top of the Rotation:

San Francisco - Zito/Cain
Colorado - Cook/Francis
San Diego - Peavy/Young
Los Angeles - Lowe/Wolf
Arizona - Webb/Hernandez

Don't get in a huff, D-back fans, you jump up to number two when RJ gets back. This rank for Colorado will raise eyebrows, I'm sure, but in Chris Young you have one of the luckiest pitchers of 2006 and a drop-off can be expected. Francis was lucky last year too, but Jeff's got more in his arsenal scouting wise than Young and has more chance of sustained success. The Dodgers' Lowe is solid, but he's no more an ace than Cook, with Webb being the only legit number one of the division's three premiere sinkerballers. The fact that Randy Wolf is their number two has to drop the Dodgers in this scale. I don't think they're far behind San Diego or Colorado, I don't think they're ahead though. Livan Hernandez will be the second disaster that brings down the Diamondbacks' lofty ambitions this year.

Bullpens:

San Diego - Hoffman, Meredith, Linebrink and a bunch of other solid guys.
Los Angeles - Saito, Billingsley, and it will get better once people get back from injury.
Colorado - Fuentes, Hawkins, solid RHP's, shaky LHP's.
Arizona - Valverde, Cruz and several pitchers that could make this better than it looks right now, frankly.
San Francisco - Not as bad as Armando Benitez makes it look, but still pretty bad.

My point for this first part is that thus far, I don't see any reason besides Rodrigo Lopez to eliminate Colorado from contention based on the pitching staffs of our divisional competition. We're definitely in this thing, and that's what leads to the next half:

The Spark:

Los Angeles - Furcal/Pierre
Colorado - Taveras/Matsui
Arizona - ????/????? (likely Drew/Hudson)
San Diego - Giles/Giles
San Francisco - Roberts/Vizquel

Two sets of speedsters head the top of the list. Possibly the best all around player in the division, Furcal's not going to be ready for opening day, but he shouldn't be far away. I think this is where pundits disregard Colorado at their peril. On any given day the D-backs could be better or worse depending on who Bob Melvin puts in the role, they lack a traditional leadoff type, but they've got multiple talented options. The brothers Giles are an interesting choice for San Diego, I'm not sure what to expect there. San Fran goes old school with one decent OBP speedster and then the light hitting bat control/bunter to get him over. Vizquel's overall line last season masks a legit decline in his batting abilities made evident in the second half.

The Boom:

Colorado - Atkins, Helton, Holliday, Hawpe
Arizona - Jackson, Byrnes, Tracy, Quentin
Los Angeles - Garciaparra, Kent, Gonzalez, Martin
San Francisco - Bonds, Durham, Aurilia, Feliz
San Diego - Gonzalez, Bard, Cameron, Greene

Colorado's so far ahead of the division here that it's made up my mind. Really, there's only one playoff worthy lineup in the NL West, and we have it.

The After-boom:

San Diego - Kouzmanoff/Sledge
Colorado - Tulowitzki/Iannetta
Arizona - Young/Snyder
Los Angeles - Ethier/Betemit
San Francisco - Molina/Winn

The first three could go in any order depending on the play of the four most promising rookies in the NL (Kouz, Tulo, Iannetta and Young) and the Dodgers could sneak in there if there's a disappointing first season for any of the group. Nobody will be as bad as the Giants down here, though.

Bench/Depth:

Arizona - Callaspo/Hairston/Montero
Los Angeles - Kemp/Loney/Lieberthal
Colorado - Baker/Carroll/Torrealba
San Diego - Padres bench guys
San Francisco - Giants bench guys

Colorado could be better than I have them ranked given the AAA lineup that includes Barmes, Sullivan, Stewart, Koshansky and Smith. The Dodgers and D-backs have some serious talent without as much depth, though, so I had them ahead for now. LA's in real trouble if Russ Martin gets injured.

FINAL CALL:

Colorado 89-73
San Diego 86-76
Los Angeles 83-79
Arizona 80-82
San Francisco 74-88

I don't believe we actually have the best chance of winning the division. We might not even have the second best chance. It will take some luck and a somewhat spectacular Ubaldo Jimenez to get to that 89 win total. I'm just saying that we've got a chance in this thing, and it's a pretty solid chance given our lineup. So since seemingly no other rational person was giving us the love we deserve, I'm here. Yeah, call me a cheerleader or whatever, but Your 2007 NL West division winners: the Colorado Rockies.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Opportunity

The opportunity is there, and you're right - the "Boom" category is the only one in which any team has a HUGE advantage over all the others - with the assumption that all five teams' "BOOM" players stay healthy - though I would rank the Giants second in that category based on the fact that Bonds is enough boom for three men when he's at the top of his game, and that probably is not going to come out the way I want it to when I read it.

I don't think Colorado's going to win the division (the pitching staff outside of Fuentes and the 1/2 guys is too shaky), but with the overall talent, they certainly can, and I don't see why they can't compete for a Wild Card.

Insert clever and witty remark slash pun here!

by ES46NE10 on Mar 31, 2007 12:50 PM MDT reply actions

all valid points

I do think Bonds' durability, or lack thereof takes down the Giants, as well as the fact I think the "top of his game" Bonds is a thing of the distant past.

by Rox Girl on Mar 31, 2007 12:58 PM MDT up reply actions

If anyone

reads Denver Sports Zone, Gabe and Sam had a Rockies podcast last night and I was their guest. I'm not sure when it will be available so I'll just sum up what I said yesterday about how the NL West will shake out:

LA
San Diego
tColorado
tArizona
San Francisco

Provocative, right?

by Russ Oates on Mar 31, 2007 12:56 PM MDT reply actions

Not ranking the managers of the NL West?

We all wan to know on which side of Hurdle you place Bud Black.

by Russ Oates on Mar 31, 2007 1:01 PM MDT reply actions

Managers are mostly irrelevant

In the end, the talent on the field will be what determines this division far more than any guy in the dugout. That said, Hurdle's a terrible in game manager but a very gifted hitting coach. I think given that he's got some pretty decent chunks of clay to work with in Tulowitzki and Iannetta, it plays to our advantage this year.

To humor you though, I'd rate lineup drawing/in game strategy this way:

Bochy
Little
Melvin
Black
Hurdle

by Rox Girl on Mar 31, 2007 1:09 PM MDT up reply actions

How about the GMs?

I was utterly shocked when I saw Street and Smith's baseball preview and they actually had Dan O'Dowd as the best GM in the West.

Then I thought about it, and remembered what he's up against.

Kevin Towers: somewhat decent, but apparently has no idea how to spot a talented hitter. Barfield trade brings him down a few notches.
Ned Coletti: Questionable trades of some Dodger prospects, coupled with strange propensity to block their best prospects with over-the-hill/mediocre players, brings him down a few pegs.
Josh Byrnes: What exactly has he done, other than get Randy Johnson back without giving up anyone of note?
Brian Sabean: Has completely run the Giants organization into the ground.

Considering that, O'Dowd as the best GM may not be much of a stretch. Not that GMs play much of a role in the day-to-day results of the team.

I'm surprised at how little respect the Rockies are getting in the preseason -- and how much the Diamondbacks are.

The Coors Effect... thinking about changing the name to The Humidor Effect.

by Rox Fan in TN on Mar 31, 2007 1:21 PM MDT up reply actions

I'd rate them this way:

Towers - Maybe it's all luck, but he's kept the Padres in contention worthy talent despite a perennially weak farm system.
O'Dowd - Has done okay with what he's been given to work with as far as the budget goes.
Byrnes - I think he's overrated too.
Colletti - The Dodgers' best moves thus far under his watch have been largely thanks to his underlings, this will get exposed at some point when they're given better opportunities elsewhere. If you look at his trades, he's been pretty unspectacular.
Sabean.

by Rox Girl on Mar 31, 2007 1:31 PM MDT up reply actions

thats espn for you

The rockies dont ever get any national media respect.they arent getting any respect from DP either. everybody raves on how the brewers and diamondbacks are the hot sleepers of this year. imo the brewers were the hot sleepers last season after .500 finish in 05. they floundered (maybe due to injuries) so now they are on that line where they must compete. diamondbacks have their rotation thats why they are considered a sexy sleeper pick.but i have the feeling that the rockies are the real sleepers this year. the our rotation depth is underrated and the offense could be a top 5 line up.

by jaxROXdisciple on Mar 31, 2007 1:57 PM MDT up reply actions

Shaky LHPs?

Without Tom Martin there, this goes out the window. Might as well just say "shaky Tom Martin, who starts the year on the DL." I think LOOGY is the most overrated job in all of baseball... if you can't get righties out, you shouldn't be a major league pitcher.

The Coors Effect... thinking about changing the name to The Humidor Effect.

by Rox Fan in TN on Mar 31, 2007 1:23 PM MDT reply actions

It's a good point,

Our pen isn't that flawed, but I don't think it rises to the level of SD's or LA's still.

by Rox Girl on Mar 31, 2007 1:33 PM MDT up reply actions

This is true.

I wouldn't say that our bullpen rises to the level of SD or LA, either. Pitching will be our bane all year, especially with the back three of the rotation looking shaky at best. Ubaldo should be replacing either Fogg or Lopez eventually.

The Coors Effect... thinking about changing the name to The Humidor Effect.

by Rox Fan in TN on Mar 31, 2007 1:40 PM MDT up reply actions

I'd rather

have Lawrence in the rotation over those two as well.

by Knepster on Mar 31, 2007 3:51 PM MDT up reply actions

Wow, just WOW.......

Rox Girl, I hope you're right. Any Rox fan would. However, Rockies history would say you're wrong. 89 wins? With questionable starting pitching after #2, and no real stud reliever after Fuentes? That seems to be a stretch, but somebody's gotta do it, I suppose.

I really don't have many gripes as to how you rated us in the different categories, but I beg to differ with you in placing Cook/Francis ahead of Peavey/Young. Peavy, if healthy, is an ace that we don't have in the majors or minors. Young is probably in the Francis class. Cook is good, but unless his K-rate rises, he's really a #2/#3 for contending teams.

Boom and after-boom seem about right.

Our bullpen may be #3, but it's not heads and shoulders above #'s 4 and 5, so I don't really think we have that much of an edge there.

I really think it's too soon, and too optimistic to say that Taveras/Matsui are the 2nd best table-setters in the division. If their combined OBP goes over .345, you may be right, though let's see them do it first.

Finally, Rox Girl, you seemingly discount (cavalierly, I might add) the impact a good manager can have on a team, or the bad impact that a bad manager can have. Clint Hurdle is the worst manager in the division, in my view, and costs whatever roster he has to work with a good half-dozen wins per year with poor roster usage, in-game decisions, and bullpen usage. Bochy is probably the division's best, but it won't help the Giants much this year.

So while I think we have 79-win talent, I believe we will win around the same number of games as 2006. 75 wins or so is about what I expect, and another 4th place finish, or 3rd if we get lucky.

For a franchise that has finished last or next to last every season except 1995, you are really making a bold call, Rox Girl. If a fan can't be hopeful this time of year, when can he or she be?

by Roxpert on Mar 31, 2007 4:12 PM MDT reply actions

Again, can't argue much

I think Young's less than Francis, but Peavy is head and shoulders over Cook, so perhaps you're right there. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the call for many of the same reasons. To me it boils down mostly to Willy Taveras and Rodrigo Lopez on the field, if they perform, than I'll be fine with my prediction, if they don't we could wind up in last place.

I think managers can be detrimental, and I think Hurdle in the past has been very bad, but I'm hoping part of that might have been him overmanaging weak talent. If he just let's the talented guys go out and play, we'll be fine.

It's a huge if, but we were getting so much negative press this season, that I've been feeling backed into a corner here. The team definitely has its flaws, but my main point is that there isn't a team in the division that has smaller ones. They're all still not there yet, despite the money LA and San Fran poured into the offseason, or the big trades Arizona made. With that being the case, to be so dismissive of the Rockies as some writers have been, is as bad as trumpeting any of these teams as best in the NL, or sure things.

by Rox Girl on Mar 31, 2007 5:41 PM MDT up reply actions

One more thing:

I generally hate pre-season predictions to begin with, anyway, as there are just too many variables that go into a season as long as baseball's to have more than a vague idea of how it will unfold, particularly if there's as much parity as there is in the NL this year. Given how bad the Central is, and how close the West is, there's only one team in the NL that I can safely say has no chance whatsoever in Washington. For the division, the results will be hugely affected by events we aren't prepared for, as injuries and trades will play major roles.

by Rox Girl on Mar 31, 2007 5:52 PM MDT up reply actions

I'm calling it right now

the Nats win the Wild Card through the efforts of Ryan Zimmerman and fourth starter Matt Chico (who will win the Cy Young Award).

by Russ Oates on Mar 31, 2007 6:02 PM MDT up reply actions

You have a good counterweight argument....

to the naysayers.

However, until the Rockies actually ACCOMPLISH something meaningful in a regular season, such as 89 wins, they will continue to get little if any respect from the national media.

Of course, I think most sportswriters and paid pundits have "rear-view mirror" points of view. Their collective sentiment is largely a LAGGING indicator of team success.

Thing is, the stats crowd, of which I am a follower and participant, can't find 89 wins in the numbers either. My Diamond Mind simming came up with 76 wins and a standard deviation of 6 games (though a more comprehensive one you linked gave us 79 W's).

To win 89 games would be over 2 standard deviations from what the numbers suggest. In a normal distribution curve, there's less than a 5% chance of that happening.

So, while your 89 win call is certainly possible, I wouldn't put money on it in Vegas or anywhere else without getting at least 20 to 1 odds.

by Roxpert on Mar 31, 2007 6:02 PM MDT reply actions

Of course...

throw a bunch of money at free agents like the Cubs do, and they think you could win the World Series!

I've waxed poetic about sportswriters' "pecking orders" and how they use them to lazily plug in their preseason predictions. The Diamondbacks won a World Series back in 2001, so we'll give the 2007 team credit for that and just assume that these rookies they've got coming up are the real deal. The Rockies haven't done anything as a franchise, so we'll just assume they're still bad.

Stats, though, are based on the past as well. Maybe if I had actually cared enough about math to pay attention to it in school I'd know what the hell it all meant, but as it stands the stats crowd is just throwing around a bunch of numbers that I have no clue what they mean. I do understand that your math says we're as likely to win 63 games as we are to win 89, however, which I don't buy at all.

The Coors Effect... thinking about changing the name to The Humidor Effect.

by Rox Fan in TN on Mar 31, 2007 6:13 PM MDT up reply actions

St Dev

I think the standard deviation of six does work if the projected wins is set to 78. Saying Colorado has as much chance of going 90 - 72 as they do of going 67 - 95 does sound somewhat accurate.

Insert clever and witty remark slash pun here!

by ES46NE10 on Mar 31, 2007 6:43 PM MDT reply actions