American League Prediction Part Two

I was going to try to analyze every matchup, but couldn't make it a short enough post for it to be that interesting to read, so I figured others would get this thread started and I'd come in later. :-)

SLK - I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the pitching staffs - if Sabathia pitches like he did the last two months of 2005 when he finally learned to not throw everything 100 MPH and to be free and easy, I think Sabathia beats Colon in at least one of the games (perhaps two if they face off twice.)  

In his prime years with the Indians, specifically 2001, when the Indians faced off against the Mariners, Colon had the lead in the 7th inning of pivotal Game 4, with the Indians leading the series 2-1, but allowed Ichiro to get on base (I believe it was Ichiro,) he stole second, then Colon tries to pick him off and throws the ball into center field, allowing the tying run to score.  He then gets rattled and gives up the go-ahead run, which leads to the Indians' defeat in Game 4, which led to them losing the series in 5 games when Moyer outdueled Finley.

Colon will sometimes falter in big games (that wasn't the only one, but is the most prevalent in my mind); plus, is Colon healthy?  Back problems are not easily solved - Indians 1B prospect Michael Aubrey, a highly-touted prospect, may not live up to the hype because of a chronic back problem.  I don't know how severe Colon's back problems are, but I wouldn't count on Colon until you know for sure he is healthy.  Plus, Sabathia can match him if he's healthy, and should continue to improve, as Sabathia is only 25-26 in 2006 while Colon is 31 for most of 2006.

Lee vs. Lackey - I know Lackey won a WS Game 7, but unless he shows more consistency, I don't see him as a #2 and I don't see him matching up with Lee, who has been much more consistent over the last two years than Lackey.  That, at best for the Angels, is a tie; I think the Indians have the advantage here.

I don't know if it would be Westbrook or Byrd here, but presuming it's Santana, despite Santana's 2005 postseason experience, Westbrook and Byrd are both more established pitchers and both have shown more consistent command than Santana.  Plus, Byrd had the same 2005 postseason experience as Santana and gave the White Sox their only postseason defeat, so Santana vs. Byrd is not a gimme for the Angels, by any stretch.  Personally, I think that Westbrook and Byrd could both match up with Santana, who has shown promise, but is not established yet.

If you include Escobar, he's got good stuff, but he walks too many over 3/9 IP in 2005, plus his health is a question mark.  

The Angels' starters have good arms, but their health is a big question mark, plus Escobar's lack of command at times, Santana's inexperience, Lackey's lack of consistency, and Colon's sometimes faltering under the pressure leads me to believe that the Indians have the more consistent and better starting rotation.  

Plus, the Indians' starters were much healthier in 2005; if that continues, I think the Indians have the advantage here.

Bullpens - yes, I agree that the Angels hold a slight edge (would be about even if it was the 2005 Indians bullpen with Howry still there and Wickman's nerve-racking, but successful season.)  Mostly because of Donnelly and Shields, though if Fernando Cabrera continues to develop, I think he helps to neutralize or lessen that advantage.  If Andrew Brown develops as well, I think the Angels' bullpen advantage is mostly neutralized, as both Cabrera and Brown throw at least as hard as Donnelly and Shields, and have comparable nasty stuff as well.

I think Wickman and K-Rod are similar in the sense that they both are nerve-racking in terms of picking up saves (especially in 2005); K-Rod has more margin for error with his stuff, but I think Wickman actually has better command (though he is more hittable.)  Slight advantage to the Angels, though the Indians could be near equal if Karsay, Graves, Cabrera and/or Brown fill their roles well.

Offensively, the Angels rely too much on Anderson and Guerrero - if you can contain those two, the rest of the offense seems to shut down.  Their 2005 lineup wasn't nearly as pesky as the 2002 lineup that won the WS, mostly because Eckstein wasn't shut down like Figgins was in 2005 (by the White Sox, a pitching staff that was very similar to the 2005 Indians pitching staff, which still has 3 of those starters + Byrd, who proved he can pitch well as well.)

Therefore, I think the Indians' pitching can shut down the Angels' offense and keep Anderson & Guerrero in check.

Meanwhile, the Indians' Top 6 is quite good (Sizemore, Crisp, Peralta, Hafner, Martinez, and Belliard) - arguably, better than the Angels Top 6.  If the Indians can get better production from Boone (if he's any worse in 2006, his career, in my opinion, is likely over, or at best, he's a bench guy,) Blake (who was much better in 2003 and 2004, so a 2006 rebound is certainly possible) and Broussard (who can't be much worse in 2005, I hope, or preferably, Garko, who can probably match or outdo Broussard,) I think the Indians' lineup is much more complete than the Angels' lineup and has a better chance of providing a more consistent offensive attack.

I know Kotchman and Mathis are good prospects, but they're not proven and you can't rely on them to carry significant parts of the offense.  Plus, I presume that McPherson is also in there (I presume Alfonzo is more of a super-sub?) - that's 3 batters or 1/3 of your offense that is manned by rookies or near-rookies.  Right now, only Garko is projected to be a possible starter for the Indians, or 1/9 of the Indians' offense.  Plus, Garko is no slouch when it comes to offense either (arguably better than Mathis and more consistent than McPherson, though with less power, and isn't far behind Kotchman in terms of hitting for a high average and similar or better power.)

I think the Indians definitely have the better offense, and it's still young and improving.

Defensively - I think it's close both ways.

OF - Crisp, Sizemore, and Blake vs. Anderson, Figgins, and Guerrero - Guerrero has the best arm of the six, but the Indians' outfield can cover more ground (Crisp and Blake can cover more than Anderson and Guerrero, and Sizemore and Figgins cancel each other out.)

IF - C - Martinez is more experienced as a starting catcher, though his defense isn't equal to Jose Molina or Jeff Mathis (I heard his defense is good - correct me if I'm wrong.)  3B - Boone is more experienced than McPherson and had a decent year defensively last year, plus has won at least one Gold Glove.  SS - Peralta vs. Cabrera - Cabrera was more consistent, but Peralta actually had the better range in 2005, plus Peralta wasn't bad in his first full year at SS at the ML level, replacing Omar (19 E in 635 TC.)  Peralta could be better in year 2 and improve - he's only 24; whereas Cabrera is 31, whose range fell off last year.  2B - pretty much even between Belliard and Kennedy - Kennedy had fewer errors in '05, but Belliard had the better range and had more TCs,
1B - Erstad does hold the edge here, as Broussard is decent, but not a Gold-Glover, while Garko is untested and is considered below-average to average at best.

Pretty much, I don't think one defense outdoes the other by much, if at all - they're pretty evenly matched.

I don't know who is on each team's bench, but it probably doesn't favor one team over the other by that much (the Angels may have Alfonso, but Alfonso isn't the player he once was, in my opinion.)

I see the Indians winning in 4 or 5 games - just my 2 cents. :-)

Take care and have a great 2006! :-)

I like that choice and I think they can - they're on the rise and likely will get better, plus they have some talent coming through the farm system as well to help the talent they already have in place at the ML level.  

I agree also with your assessment of Sabathia - as long as he stays within himself like he did the final two months of 2005, I think he can progress the way Colon finally did after a few years of pitching at the ML; plus, Sabathia is a little younger than Colon was when he finally learned how to pitch, so Sabathia could be even better for a longer period of time.

Yes, I agree with your point about Anderson also - I noticed last year he wasn't quite the same force - I thought it was just the nagging back and leg injuries he had and thought he might rebound in 2006, but I wasn't totally sure on that.  That's why I said Coco definitely has more range in LF than Anderson does, especially now, which is why I rated Coco's defense higher than Anderson's.  

Looking at Anderson's stats from thebaseballcube.com, I did not realize that Anderson's numbers the last two years have gone down in both HRs and RBIs (from 29 HRs in '02 & '03 to 14 in '04 and 17 in '05; from 123 RBIs in '02 and 116 RBIs in '03 to 75 RBIs in '04 and 96 RBIs in '05.)  Granted, he didn't have as many at-bats in '04 due to injury, but that does not look like a good trend; plus, he will be 34 in June 2006, so it's not likely he'll get better; a further decline is certainly possible.  

Thanks for bringing that up Klostrophobic - I was unaware of Anderson's decline over the last few years.  That further emphasizes the point that the Indians have the better, more dynamic offense; if Guerrero is the only major Angel that can do damage (and he can sometimes stop himself because his plate discipline is even worse than Anderson's,) the Indians could always avoid him and force the other Angels to beat them; plus, the Indians have handled Guerrero to this point, and hopefully, that will continue.  :-)

If Anderson's bat stays "cool," then I think Coco makes LF at least a draw on offense, and that is difficult to assess because they are two different types of offensive players - Coco is more of a top-of-the-order producer who can drive in some runs while Anderson is strictly a middle-of-the-order run producer.  But if Anderson's struggles of the last few years continue, then I think Coco's production in LF will match Anderson in terms of the value they bring to their respective offenses (not necessarily HRs and RBIs, though Coco may not be far behind Anderson if Anderson continues to decline.)

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Thanks for bringing Anderson to my (and all) our attention - I was unaware that he had declined over the last few years - that's another disadvantage for the Angels in this matchup, which makes me think that the Indians can beat the Angels in 4 games (5 at most, but now, I think 4 games may be enough to decide it because of the Angels' lack of offense.)

Take care and have a great 2006! :-)