raiders_umpire wrote:I would guess his ERA will be closer to 4 then 3 in 2011, and then his win total will be closer to the 12-14 range then 16-18
Still bitter about 07 Cleveland?
Closer to 4? Are you ignoring the 3.68 career ERA in the majors and the 2.44 ERA in 90 minor league starts? Or are you just assuming a 26 year old top prospect has peaked? Just curious.
He made 28 starts last year, barring injuries he should hit the 30+ start, and the Red Sox should win 10-15 more games, this year, how do you figure Buchholz will win 3-5 less games this year?
So you are questioning Raiders Ump's opinion like he is out of his mind. He said that Buchholz ERA will be closer to 4 than 3. That means he thinks that Buchholz will have a 3.51 ERA or higher. He thinks that he will be more likely to win 12-14 than 16-18. And you think that the Sox should win 99-104 games.
Lets look at some respected predictors of stats:
MARCEL-12 wins and 3.49 ERA
ZIPS-14 wins and 3.79 ERA
JAMES-13 wins and 3.54
ESPN-16 wins and 3.35
CBS-15 wins and 3.46
So only one of these 5 think that he will crack that 16 win plateau, and while three of the five believe that he will have a sub-3.50 ERA, two have him very very close.
Could you possibly be looking at these predictions with some bias yourself? And to suggest that the Sox should easily win 99-104 games is kind of silly. They might have the best team in baseball, but to suggest that 99 wins is essentially a given and 104 would not be surprising is a bit much. It is reasonable to think that one MLB team per season will win 99 or more games on average. You are basically saying that you expect that Boston not only COULD, but rather SHOULD have the best record in baseball. I think that it is near impossible to expect with that much certainty that they are the best team in their own division, no less all of MLB.
If anyone has a skewed view that deserves to be questioned here, its probably you, Sawks fan.
That said, I still take Buchholz over McGehee. Not sold on Casey Mac's bat being for real.