Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

Most surprising 2006 team so far? (Tell us why!)

ATL (9-14) 12 (5.06%)
BAL (13-12) 4 (1.69%)
CIN (17-7) 147 (62.03%)
COL (14-10) 16 (6.75%)
DET (15-9) 45 (18.99%)
NYM (15-7) 8 (3.38%)
Other (specify!) 5 (2.11%)

View other poll questions
237 votes | 10 featured comments
Most surprising 2006 team so far? (Tell us why!) | 11 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Geoff - Sunday, April 30 2006 @ 11:41 PM EDT (#146095) #
The Marlins. Who'd have thought they'd go from contending to basement dwellers so quickly? Oh and how about those Padres and Twins? Will they start knocking over pretenders to get back to contention?



[ Reply to This ]
Leigh - Monday, May 01 2006 @ 08:46 AM EDT (#146100) #
Colorado has surprised me the most.  I thought (think) that this is a 100 loss team playing in a poor enough division that they might only lose 90.
[ Reply to This ]
Jonny German - Monday, May 01 2006 @ 09:05 AM EDT (#146102) #

I'm most surprised that more people didn't see Detroit coming. Sure, they're not a .625 club, but second place is not unreasonable and I don't think it'd be a huge upset for them to take the division. They've got 'decent' to 'very good' hitters at every position and a pitching staff with lots of upside. Their more heralded rivals (a) were way over their heads in 2005 and are still sorely lacking offensively (b) rose so far so fast in 2005 that they were bound to hit the plexiglass and (c) have no hitting to speak of.

[ Reply to This ]
Geoff - Monday, May 01 2006 @ 11:30 AM EDT (#146111) #
by "more heralded rivals", I suppose you are describing the ChiSox, who are still doing quite well for themselves?

Or maybe you were talking about the Royals? Couldn't be talking about the Indians. The Twins? They didn't rise in 2005.  Are a, b and c three different rivals?

[ Reply to This ]
Anders - Monday, May 01 2006 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#146117) #
I'm a lot more suprised by how bad the Twins have been, as opposed to how good the Tigers have been. (They outscored the Twins something like 33-1 over the weekend.) The Twins have just been plain awful.
[ Reply to This ]
Gitz - Monday, May 01 2006 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#146125) #
The difference between the Tigers and White Sox? The Tigers rotation has loads of "potential." The White Sox rotation has loads of "talent." Their bullpen may not be as strong as it was a year ago, but with a rotation full of number-one and number-two starters (and Brandon McCarthy in reserve), and with Jim Thome clobbering the ball and Joe Crede seemingly picking his offensive game up a bit, the Sox are well equipped for another 99 lucky wins.

[ Reply to This ]
Jonny German - Monday, May 01 2006 @ 02:26 PM EDT (#146126) #
When I picked the Tigers to win the Central in the Box predictions contest it was more of a "go big or go home" call than truly expecting it. With Thome apparently back to his old self, I'd also pick the Sox at this point - but I maintain that their offense is lacking. Konerko & Dye won't be keeping up 1000+ OPS's all year, and Crede is more likely to finish under 800 than to remain over 900.
[ Reply to This ]
Geoff - Monday, May 01 2006 @ 03:12 PM EDT (#146131) #
And you expect to see Thome go down with an injury and Podsednik have a terrible season? Chicago's hitting is easier to ignore if you can ignore Thome. But not if you can't.

Assuredly, injuries loom and could destroy the team, but that's a fine offense when healthy. I doubt the team has the depth to win the division, and I have no confidence in Garland or Garcia, but you can't say that the Tigers' success this season has come at the expense of the White Sox falling back to earth. Chicago is 3-0 this season against Detroit. Imagine if Detroit could beat their more heralded rivals.
[ Reply to This ]
Jonny German - Monday, May 01 2006 @ 04:03 PM EDT (#146137) #

Maybe this would be easier if I clarified that in my first post, I was referring to 3 teams. Specifically, (a) was the White Sox, (b) was Cleveland, and (c) was Minnesota. I presumed that was obvious. My mistake. A thousand pardons.

you can't say that the Tigers' success this season has come at the expense of the White Sox falling back to earth.

Similarly, you can't say that Brian Anderson is clearly superior to Curtis Granderson.

[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Monday, May 01 2006 @ 05:03 PM EDT (#146143) #

Freddy Garcia and Jon Garland #1 and #2 starters?  Hmm.  The Sox so far have done it with a nice balance of offence, pitching and defence.  It is a winning formula.  I don't think they'll make 99, but I do think that they'll be right there at the end of the season, along with 4 or 5 other clubs. 

I am only a little surprised by the Tigers' start, not that they are winning but with the frequency and margins of victory.  Playing in Comerica, with a fine infield defence, is a good context for a young pitcher, and in Verlander, Bonderman and Zumaya, the Tigers have three good ones.  That, of course, is no guarantee that all three will be  pitching well at the end of the season. I had them for low 80s at the start of the season.  That range still seems about right to me. 

[ Reply to This ]
Most surprising 2006 team so far? (Tell us why!) | 11 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.