Official ArmchairGM 2008 MLB Division Winners Polls

I actually picked the Red Sox, Indians, Angels, Mets, Cubs, and Rockies. I'll fight about it. Sure. As if I'm going to change your mind. As long as I have Red Sox for the AL East champs, you're cool with me, right?

The New York City Yankees of New York?

Our articles will be more better, funner, and more easiest to read now we have the even awesomer polls.

and you get opinions without having to read comments lol

and people can annonymusly give opinions they know they would get clowned for like who seriously picked the White Sox, Rangers and Reds

I've been saying this all spring, the Tigers are better on paper than in real life... You'd think a lineup of 7 all-stars (at one time or another) would be dominant, but...

• Ivan Rodriguez - Old, below-average hitter (.294 OBP LY)
• Placido Polanco - Coming off unrepeatable career year
• Gary Sheffield - Really old, injury-prone
• Magglio Ordonez - Coming off unrepeatable career year
• Miguel Cabrera - Legit stud in prime
• Carlos Guillen - Injury-prone but could be better at 1B
• Edgar Renteria - Coming off unrepeatable career year, struggled in AL
• Brandon Inge - CF? Really? Also, below-average hitter
• Jacque Jones/Marcus Thames - Platoon might really work well

I mean, they're going to be Top-5 in runs, for sure, but people are raving about this lineup because they're thinking of I-Rod and Sheff a decade ago, and they're not considering regression to the mean. Plus, Detroit's pitching is still somewhat questionable (9th in RA LY, and is big addition Willis a 5.17 ERA guy now?)... I think they're being overrated, and that Cleveland is still the Central team to beat.

THANK YOU, Davis! Finally someone agrees with me. Wnen looking at the lineup, you see that almost the whole team is filled with former all-stars, but you're looking at a team where most of the starting lineup is either old and/or injury prone. Gary Sheffield, Carlos Guillen, Ivan Rodriguez, Magglio Ordonez (probably still going to do well). The only players I see doing well on the team are Ordonez, Miggy Cabrera, and Placido Polanco. Edgar Renteria is coming back from an excellent year with the Braves, but remember when he played with the Red Sox a couple of years ago? His stats dropped BIG TIME. And that's only their starting lineup. Their pitching sucks. Dontrelle Willis isn't going to live up to his hype this year... probably not even half of it (if that makes any sense). Then you got who? 43 year old Kenny Rogers? Nate Robertson? Andrew Miller? C'mon!

wouldn't Regression to the mean suggest Willis may be better this year? Damn you davis, stop ruining baseball ; - )

Dontrelle will NOT have a better year this year. Don't always listen to Davis. I can see him winning 7-8 games, nothing more, and losing around 16, and having an ERA of about 5.30. He's moving to another league, remember? Go to Josh Beckett's stats, and compare his stats from his last year with the Marlins to his first year in Boston.

True. Of course, he's also moving to the tougher league and his skills aren't what they were when he first came up, so I'd say the effects are going to cancel each other out. Anyway, regression to the mean is nothing new to baseball (ask Branch Rickey). It's called "being realistic"... In fact, you can tell me all about it when Philly regresses this year! :)

i think my issue with it...and this is a general statistical concern, is that they take for granted assumptions such as a player changing (new swing, coach, etc) and that if you assumed regression, then no player in the minors would ever make it and experience would mean nothing... That and when the phils are sub-.500 by june, i'm gonna hear it...but remember, its a long season...

last time willis pitched well (and won a WS), was with jim leyland

"if you assumed regression, then no player in the minors would ever make it and experience would mean nothing" I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying here... Regression to the mean just means that a player will always regress to the level of play that his skills can support -- anything beyond that (up or down) is just randomness (or in Barry Bonds' case, PED abuse). For most players (even younger ones after translating MiLB stats), we have a long track record that suggests a general trend in skills, so when a player puts up a season out of line with that trend (and we know he's not juicing), the best bet going forward is that he'll return to his established level of production (making allowances for things like aging and injuries). Do some players beat these odds in back-to-back seasons? Sure -- there's a difference between probability and certainty. But just like you wouldn't hit on 19 because you caught a 2 one time, the good money is always on a player playing like his skills say he should.

The last time Jim Leyland managed the Marlins was in 1998. Willis made his debut in 2003. Leyland has no idea how Willis pitches; he's just getting to know him...

Lets not forget the non-repeatable career year by CC Sabathia, OK Davis?

Comparing CC's 2006 and 2007 seasons, besides his W/L column and the amount of innings pitched he had, he was pretty much the same pitcher. He's doing pretty well. In 2006, he had a 3.22 ERA, and in 2007 he had a 3.21 ERA. In 2006, he had a WHIP of 1.173, and in 2007 he had a WHIP of 1.141. Strikeouts per inning? 2006: 0.893... in 2007: 0.867. Need I say more?

Look at the big picture, Romi. He obliterated his career highs in most every category. He has yet to go through a whole season without a DL stint. It is completely unrealistic to expect a repeat season. Not that he wont win 15 games again or have a 3.21 ERA again but he won't come close to a repeat.

yeah sorry, i mixed up the old swarthy managers...

To Kelsdad: He's in the prime of his career. He's finally learned how to pitch to certain players. I honestly think that he will do better than last year. I'm calling it right now: CC will win 20 games with an ERA of at most 3.30. But I might be wrong, you never know. To JuT: I forgive you... ;)

Hey, Falcon, don't underestimate the Marlins. They have won 2 World Series in the last 11 years and they've only been a franchise since 1993. Two very different rosters as well. Maybe it's this thing where every 6 years, Florida has to win a World Series with an absolutely different roster. Now that Cabrera and Willis are gone, I don't think there are any more players on the '03 Marlins team. So, maybe they will do it next year if some of the players (like Hermida, Willingham, etc.) gain experience, and Cameron Maybin becomes a major asset.

The Marlins will win the World Series in 2009, the Rays in 2010 and 2012... That is how that will work...

I seriously don't like the Dodgers' or Padres' chances this year. The Dodgers signed a new manager in Joe Torre, and a new center fielder (who had an extremely bad year) in Andruw Jones. OK, they've got some pretty good starting pitching, but it's not great. Unless James Loney, Andre Ethier and Matt Kemp both come up big, I don't see how their lineup can be any good either. Besides Rafael Furcal and Russell Martin, who else is there? Jeff Kent? He's getting up there in age. Nomar is producing as much as he used to. They're probably going to go through the same problems they did last year.

ha

http://sport...lb/standings

If the Giants and Jets are "New York", the Angels are LA... sorry, but that's the way it goes... The Auburn Hills Pistons, Irving Cowboys and Landover Redskins agree...

Please, "Raljon Redskins"...

The Rays are in St Petersburg...

And St Petersburg is RIGHT ON "Tampa Bay"... areas aren't the same as cities. Nice try, or I'd offer up every team named after a state or worse yet - "Golden State" - WTF is up with "Golden State"? It would be like the Knicks calling themselves "Big Apple Knicks" or the "Garden State Nets".

"America's Wang Marlins"

Ya, no Manny. Anaheim isn't in the same county as Los Angeles, it's a 35 mile drive through hell known as the I-5. The drive from Anaheim to LA is so horrible that the Sports Guy made it a large part of his article this week. Anaheim is already an established sports city, there is NO reason for Anaheim to be LA. None, don't give me that bullshat Manny. You can debate me and win on a myriad of topics, but I will stop my entire work day to prove that Anaheim is no Los Angeles... plus Anaheim is a dirty shathole, which is the only thing that makes it similar to LA.

Golden State is cool to say, but as a location for a sports franchise... the NBA must really NOT want to associate itself with Oakland.

I did not know that about Tampa Bay, I figured that they were just neighboring cities. Thanks for the correction...

Garden State Nets would be pretty badass

Actually, I was in favor of the New Jersey Swampdragons

Falc, the name of the two Cities are Tampa and St. Petersburg. They are both in different counties, but they lie on opposite sides of the same bay known as Tampa Bay.

Well I feel very stupid... thanks guys ;)