A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Moon: Winning is the bottom line. This goes for pitching, hitting, defense, managing, FO, etc. How you get there is the building block. But it all comes down to winning. That's why I say, I'll take 4 wins over two. Or 15 over 5, given rather similar parimeters. If we're talking projections, that's a different issue.

    I'm simply isolating it to the bottom line.

    A 14 win evaluation is based on his years in CA. How is that misleading?
    Numbers like ERA/WHIP/BABIP/etc. are what is misleading in his case, because of the inaccurate numerical adjustments to a different climate (not referring to just weather), division, venue, etc.
    Fenway is a notorious hitter's park. (Watch for an upcoming thread on this subject). Lacky's limited road work over 10 months isn't enough to say Fenway isn't compromising Lackey. Fenway compromises the staff as a whole.

    This gets into a gray area of home advantage vs. park dimensions, which interests me enough to do some work on this (to be addressed on the upcoming thread).

    Saying a 14 win season is "successful" depends on your perception. If you judge him on salary, you are limiting your vision. This has to be seen in a larger context. If you feel Theo didn't spend the money wisely, then look at UR alternative names of choice AT THE TIME OF HIS SIGNING and try and project how many more wins that might equate to.

    As for team wins vs. individual ones, I wasn't comparing Lackey to Carlton. I was using an extreme example of how one pitcher can be completely dominant over all other factors to illustrate the point. In Lackey's case, his talent level has to be adjusted accordingly.

    No matter how you cut it, he has averaged 14 wins a year for a franchise whose success rate is similar to ours. He really isn't much different now in terms of velocity or depth as he was in CA. His stuff has a slight regression if you really break it down, but not anything truly steep.

    If Miller wins 14 games, I'd easily consider that a good first year for him, given his AAA time. If he ends up with a 5+ ERA/high WHIP, he'd project lower for next year, depending on his level of growth.

    Lackey's WHIP/ERA in Boston jive with his CA numbers when adjustments are realistic, not simply site skewed. This is the area of misconception. And it's not easily conveyed. On one hand, I'm saying Lackey isn't what you or others thought he'd be based on salary of his CA stats. However, I'm also defending him in that his 2011 numbers aren't what he's capable of in the context of his 2010 numbers, which are truer in regards to further evaluation.

    I said he'll pitch better coming off the DL. He was hurt in May and had a rough April, as did many. And he has. Has he been a world beater? Of course not. Lackey is not a world beater type of pitcher. But his velocity coming off the DL was a solid barometer of better things to come.

    On Wake: He wins 13.75 games in a full season. You are right, he pitched better in 2008 with little run support. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that run support tends to even out over the years. As do lucky breaks.

    In another era, Wake averages 16 wins a season simply because he would have had more starts in a 4-man rotation. Now, he has won 16-17 games 4 times in this era, but I'm willing to bet his RS those years was better than the career norm for him. It all averages out. If Wake had been traded to the Angels at mid career, I'm willing to bet his win total would be similar, his wins per start similar, but his ERA/WHIP/etc. quite different.   As for his first year in Boston, I think he was simply on a terrific run, coupled with being an unknown in the A.L. That can and will defy venue or team talent level in that, again, pitching is the predominat factor.


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    A realistic look at delusion:

    Tampa Bay Is Not Going Away: Part V

    posted at 7/15/2011 11:04 PM EDT
    www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=6ca1d4ce1f944561017c844176cf2177&plckUserId=6ca1d4ce1f944561017c844176cf2177">
    Posts: 17487
    First: 9/27/2005
    Last: 7/31/2011
    Good pitching wins games.
    Tampa has very good pitching.
    Tampa Bay is not going away anytime soon.
    Only 2 AL teams have less losses (Bos & NYY).
    Only 3 NL teams have less losses (Phil, SF & Atl).

    Starters with 5+ starts:
    Shields 8-7 2.33 0.981 WHIP
    Hellick. 8-7 3.21 1.148
    Price 9-7 3.73 1.075
    Davis 7-6 4.25 1.457
    Nieman 4-4 4.53 1.416
    A. Cobb 2-2 3.41 1.310

    Relievers with 25+ innings in relief:
    Farnsworth 1.95 0.880
    Peralta 4.10 1.173
    J. Cruz 3.31 1.296
    Russell 2.90 1.516
    C. Ramos 4.05 1.350

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    What's a matter poooooor Billy Boy? Those nasty mods get you again?
    You are an habitual offender.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Who is Billy boy?  And you are a "nasty mod", so you should know.

    Lars is gone, you said. What's a matter, poooor Harness, is that big chip making you as delusional is AGon as a Padre on opening day? You are an habitual idiot.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    "Same identity".
    "Who is Billy Boy".

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Same identity:

    Harness

    Same delusional out to lunch comments from same poster, harness.

    lars isn't gone, but you soon will be.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    You mean I might get the axe before 20G posts?
    You've been long gone for years.
    You are a social misfit.

    Should the team sign Hall to be our RH power RF'er?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    20G posts means you are a mod of propaganda.

    As for everyday Rh OF power, hall is a bench Utility player, so that's not the answer for 3 left feet in the OF. Aviles mostly certainly isn't, though.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Hall was signed this year as an every-day player.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    We seem to be arguing over really pointless things. Lackey as having a year we expected ( 14 wins )? As if we should be satisfied with what he has given us so far this year? I understood that he didn't put up great numbers last year but he gave us quite a few "quality starts" then and I'm fine with that. This year I see him doing well against the bottom feeders in mlb but I'm not at all comfortable with him as our #3 guy in the playoffs. That is the situation Theo is trying to address. Lackey's stuff has declined and his control has been horrible. He is looking like a wasted $82 mil. Like a very bad value.

    To me, we had a problem at the SS spot and what is the first thing they did? They got at least a guy who could help us some at SS defensively. Who else called that one? It was all about RF, a reliever...etc. Wasn't the SS issue obvious?

    To me, the other glaring need was with starting pitching and what have they tried to do? They looked at all options and are trying to do a deal for a high upside starting pitcher. 

    Overall, we were hoping we were set at starting pitcher for a few years but that has now fallen apart. Matsuzaka, Lackey, now Buchholz potentially and we do not have that stud waiting to come up as a starting pitcher. That is why I thought they would draft college starters high in the draft and that is what they did. They recognize that they are not strong at that slot and it seems to becoming more of a problem as time goes by, and that's a really bad problem to have. Theo is doing everything he can to address that. Miller, Millwood...etc. Now Bedard and Harden. Not ideal solutions for sure but he is doing the best he can. We are not in a good position in that regard and it's not going to get better quickly unless Buchholz comes back.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Ranaudo and Barnes and pray for rain...in 2 years! We really have no one we can bring up for maybe 2-3 years who is more than a #4 or 5 starter at best. Big problem if Lackey and Buchholz implode. It's starting to look like the market for starting pitchers in NY and Boston has been going up. And NY is probably in a better position in that regard going forward than we are.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]We seem to be arguing over really pointless things. Lackey as having a year we expected ( 14 wins )? As if we should be satisfied with what he has given us so far this year? I understood that he didn't put up great numbers last year but he gave us quite a few "quality starts" then and I'm fine with that. This year I see him doing well against the bottom feeders in mlb but I'm not at all comfortable with him as our #3 guy in the playoffs. That is the situation Theo is trying to address. Lackey's stuff has declined and his control has been horrible. He is looking like a wasted $82 mil. Like a very bad value. To me, we had a problem at the SS spot and what is the first thing they did? They got at least a guy who could help us some at SS defensively. Who else called that one? It was all about RF, a reliever...etc. Wasn't the SS issue obvious? To me, the other glaring need was with starting pitching and what have they tried to do? They looked at all options and are trying to do a deal for a high upside starting pitcher.  Overall, we were hoping we were set at starting pitcher for a few years but that has now fallen apart. Matsuzaka, Lackey, now Buchholz potentially and we do not have that stud waiting to come up as a starting pitcher. That is why I thought they would draft college starters high in the draft and that is what they did. They recognize that they are not strong at that slot and it seems to becoming more of a problem as time goes by, and that's a really bad problem to have. Theo is doing everything he can to address that. Miller, Millwood...etc. Now Bedard and Harden. Not ideal solutions for sure but he is doing the best he can. We are not in a good position in that regard and it's not going to get better quickly unless Buchholz comes back.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    Hold on there, Mr. Called It.  Several posters have complained about bad defense at SS. That is why some of them were willing to go with Iglesias right now even if he can't hit a lick, and, yes, a few thought Navarro would be a better defender than either Scutaro or Lowrie. It doesn't matter if people in both of these camps were wrong, but you were not the only person who "called" for some kind of help at SS. Far from it. In fact, since Reddick got hot, there have been more complaints about SS than about RF. 
    You certainly did not call the trade that actually happened. So what in fact did you call?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]We seem to be arguing over really pointless things. Lackey as having a year we expected ( 14 wins )? As if we should be satisfied with what he has given us so far this year? I understood that he didn't put up great numbers last year but he gave us quite a few "quality starts" then and I'm fine with that. This year I see him doing well against the bottom feeders in mlb but I'm not at all comfortable with him as our #3 guy in the playoffs. That is the situation Theo is trying to address. Lackey's stuff has declined and his control has been horrible. He is looking like a wasted $82 mil. Like a very bad value. To me, we had a problem at the SS spot and what is the first thing they did? They got at least a guy who could help us some at SS defensively. Who else called that one? It was all about RF, a reliever...etc. Wasn't the SS issue obvious? To me, the other glaring need was with starting pitching and what have they tried to do? They looked at all options and are trying to do a deal for a high upside starting pitcher.  Overall, we were hoping we were set at starting pitcher for a few years but that has now fallen apart. Matsuzaka, Lackey, now Buchholz potentially and we do not have that stud waiting to come up as a starting pitcher. That is why I thought they would draft college starters high in the draft and that is what they did. They recognize that they are not strong at that slot and it seems to becoming more of a problem as time goes by, and that's a really bad problem to have. Theo is doing everything he can to address that. Miller, Millwood...etc. Now Bedard and Harden. Not ideal solutions for sure but he is doing the best he can. We are not in a good position in that regard and it's not going to get better quickly unless Buchholz comes back.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Lackey's stuff has declined? What is your measuring stick for this assessment?

    And how has his control been "horrible"?
    He walked 2.6 batters per 9 IP in CA.
    In Boston: 2.9 Batters per 9 IP.

    Theo is shopping for a pitcher to replace Buch.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Hold on there, Mr. Called It.  Several posters have complained about bad defense at SS. That is why some of them were willing to go with Iglesias right now even if he can't hit a lick, and, yes, a few thought Navarro would be a better defender than either Scutaro or Lowrie. It doesn't matter if people in both of these camps were wrong, but you were not the only person who "called" for some kind of help at SS. Far from it. In fact, since Reddick got hot, there have been  more complaints about SS than about RF.  You certainly did not call the trade that actually happened. So what in fact did you call?
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    I've tried to be polite and understanding with you expitch but you kept pushing Navarro as an option over and over and basically criticizing my position. Presenting Navarro as having a real chance at the position when he clearly did not. Navarro as a better SS defender....etc. I was stating that Navarro had only played 9 innings there this year, even though Scutaro was struggling. I pointed out over and over that the Redsox appeared to view Navarro as a utility guy and had been grooming him there even in the minors recently. I went to the extreme of going back through his minor league numbers to show that he had not hit above around .293 at any of his last 10 stops in the minors, no matter how small the sample size. I pointed out that his body type did not indicate good range at SS.

    Basically, how many relevant observations did I have to point out to get through to you, and clearly many others here, and it still was for naught right until the end? I even said I did not think we had an in house guy so maybe they would look into Jose Reyes. I said Navarro was so bad I'd put him last even if all we had to pick from at SS was Sutton, Iglesias and Navarro.

    You know, sometimes it's best to just admit when you get it wrong as Moon and I do regularly. Most of you got that one wrong. Period. Navarro got moved for a more expensive guy, who was hitting around .220 and we had to throw in a decent reliever prospect who once closed for the national amateur team if I remember correctly. You guys were not even close and neither were soxprospects. Sometimes, even the best of us just get it wrong. It happens.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Moon : Winning is the bottom line . This goes for pitching, hitting, defense, managing, FO, etc. How you get there is the building block. But it all comes down to winning . That's why I say, I'll take 4 wins over two. Or 15 over 5, given rather similar parimeters. If we're talking projections , that's a different issue. I'm simply isolating it to the bottom line. A 14 win evaluation is based on his years in CA. How is that misleading? Numbers like ERA/WHIP/BABIP/etc. are what is misleading in his case, because of the inaccurate numerical adjustments to a different climate (not referring to just weather), division, venue, etc. Fenway is a notorious hitter's park. ( Watch for an upcoming thread on this subject). Lacky's limited road work over 10 months isn't enough to say Fenway isn't compromising Lackey. Fenway compromises the staff as a whole. This gets into a gray area of home advantage vs. park dimensions, which interests me enough to do some work on this (to be addressed on the upcoming thread). Saying a 14 win season is "successful" depends on your perception. If you judge him on salary, you are limiting your vision. This has to be seen in a larger context. If you feel Theo didn't spend the money wisely, then look at UR alternative names of choice AT THE TIME OF HIS SIGNING and try and project how many more wins that might equate to. As for team wins vs. individual ones, I wasn't comparing Lackey to Carlton. I was using an extreme example of how one pitcher can be completely dominant over all other factors to illustrate the point. In Lackey's case,  his talent level has to be adjusted accordingly. No matter how you cut it, he has averaged 14 wins a year for a franchise whose success rate is similar to ours. He really isn't much different now in terms of velocity or depth as he was in CA. His stuff has a slight regression if you really break it down, but not anything truly steep. If Miller wins 14 games, I'd easily consider that a good first year for him , given his AAA time. If he ends up with a 5+ ERA/high WHIP, he'd project lower for next year, depending on his level of growth. Lackey's WHIP/ERA in Boston jive with his CA numbers when adjustments are realistic , not simply site skewed . This is the area of misconception . And it's not easily conveyed. On one hand, I'm saying Lackey isn't what you or others thought he'd be based on salary of his CA stats. However, I'm also defending him in that his 2011 numbers aren't what he's capable of in the context of his 2010 numbers, which are truer in regards to further evaluation. I said he'll pitch better coming off the DL. He was hurt in May and had a rough April, as did many. And he has. Has he been a world beater? Of course not. Lackey is not a world beater type of pitcher. But his velocity coming off the DL was a solid barometer of better things to come. On Wake: He wins 13.75 games in a full season. You are right, he pitched better in 2008 with little run support. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that run support tends to even out over the years. As do lucky breaks. In another era, Wake averages 16 wins a season simply because he would have had more starts in a 4-man rotation. Now, he has won 16-17 games 4 times in this era, but I'm willing to bet his RS those years was better than the career norm for him. It all averages out. If Wake had been traded to the Angels at mid career, I'm willing to bet his win total would be similar, his wins per start similar, but his ERA/WHIP/etc. quite different.   As for his first year in Boston, I think he was simply on a terrific run, coupled with being an unknown in the A.L. That can and will defy venue or team talent level in that, again, pitching is the predominat factor.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I got it, you're Charlie Sheen...d'uh winning!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Harness, Lackey just can't keep the ball down. He is not hitting his spots with the same frequency as before. At least that seems to be what is happening to me. He is getting hit badly. He's a big guy who needs to keep the ball down.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    1. First of all, we need to exclude the Jimy/Joe seasons of Wake's career, which crushed his win-loss record as he pitched less innings and was an everyman reliever-spot starter.
    2. Lackey has been a starter his whole career. Lackey has never once been in a situation where his SP role was in jeopardy. In fact, I'd say after the Toronto debacle, the following guys would have never seen another start if they were in Lackey's cleats---Wakefield or Aceves or even Miller if he was that horrendous (Miller's issues to me are wildness not particularly getting hit hard).
    3. Wakefield makes less than 4 million a year, Lackey makes 17 million a year. Lackey was signed not to be a 14-win a year starter, but to be a No. 3 type guy who in the Sox view was actually a more solid-based producer than Clay, who at the time of Lackey's signing did not have his breakout year of 2010.
    4. Of the Sox five starters, which one has not been on the DL due to injury or been out for any extended period...oh yeah, that fossil guy.


    My point is Wakefield and Lackey fall under different expectations from the FO or Tito or Theo. If they aren't, then Lackey would be making 4 million and we wouldn't be having a discussion about Lackey's disappointing run as a Sox.

    To me the biggest difference between Lackey and Wakefield is this: Lackey never has to worry about his rotation spot. Wakefield is on a start-to-start basis. Heck, he was just given a reprieve with the Harden deal falling through, and that was after probably his best start of the season. If Lackey gives up 8 ER next game, he's not falling under that microscope or scrutiny. He gets to get his next start and next start..why? Because his salary, the investment dictates it. It's the same philosophy as lower minor league ball. The guys who were given big money, high draft picks get free passes while 40th round guys have to hit .500 or pitch no hitters to be noticed or get through to the next level.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    To "dismiss" money or salary on how players are utilized, treated, is pretending the salary structure doesn't exist. d'uh high-priced guys get treated differently by the manager/GM. low-priced guys can be shuffled a lot easier.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    The Braves got Michael Bourn today. Are the Astros having a fire sale or what?

    Bourn is a stud and he was cheap. It seems that a lot of teams are selling cheap this year. It's not like they had to move his salary. The Astros even put up some money in the deal and they didn't get any blue chips back. It's like some teams are consulting astrology before making these deals.

    The Astros might just be so bad that they are going with numbers in the minors. Maybe one or more guys make it and it works out. They used to spend a lot of money for their teams. I've read that they can't get Lee to waive his no trade or he would be gone. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]To "dismiss" money or salary on how players are utilized, treated, is pretending the salary structure doesn't exist. d'uh high-priced guys get treated differently by the manager/GM. low-priced guys can be shuffled a lot easier.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    I absolutely agree with what you are saying dannycater but Lackey has pushed the envelope still. In a different situation he would not be starting right now, as for the Chicago White Sox for example who just moved a decent pitcher as their rotation has been pretty solid 1-5. 


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Wakefield still represents good value even though Saltalamacchia continues to have problems with WP's and PB's.  He is an adequate 5th starter and better than that when the knuckler is working at a very reasonable price.

    But right now Lackey is also decent, probably the #3 starter as long as Buchholz is on the DL--especially since the all-star game. 

    Beckett and Lester both look pretty solid and Wake/Lackey are acceptable starters, but the scary one is obviously Miller.  Given that Wake, Lackey, or Miller can have a rough start, it makes sense to keep Aceves in the bullpen to fill in on those occasions when there is a bad start but the Sox have the lead or the game is close and winnable.  Given Miller's control and other issues, it makes sense to look for another starter even though a good one is probably not obtainable. 

    Without the great hitting, the Sox would be sunk by now.  Even with it, there's plenty to worry about. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    MoonWinning is the bottom line. This goes for pitching, hitting, defense, managing, FO, etc. How you get there is the building block. But it all comes down to winning. That's why I say, I'll take 4 wins over two. Or 15 over 5, given rather similar parimeters. If we're talking projections, that's a different issue.

    I'm simply isolating it to the bottom line

    Nobody wants 2 wins instead of 4, but if the pitcher has little or nothing to do with the 4 wins, I don't give him credit. If we win a game 15-14 and the pitcher lets up 14 runs, sorry, I won't praise him for "the win". Conversley, if a pitcher wins 2 games 2-1 and loses 2 games 3-2, I will praise the pitcher for a job well done and would want that pitcher starting the first playoff game over the guy who wils games 15-14  That is my point. Winning is the bottom line for thne team, but many times winning is beyond the control of the pitcher.

    A 14 win evaluation is based on his years in CA. How is that misleading?
    Numbers like ERA/WHIP/BABIP/etc. are what is misleading in his case, because of the inaccurate numerical adjustments to a different climate (not referring to just weather), division, venue, etc.
    Fenway is a notorious hitter's park. (Watch for an upcoming thread on this subject). Lacky's limited road work over 10 months isn't enough to say Fenway isn't compromising Lackey. Fenway compromises the staff as a whole

    You 14 win comment is not misleading because it is wrong, but it is misleading if he wins 14 games with a 6.20 ERA and a 1.55 WHIP. He won't get much praise from me, beyond looking at his percent of games he allows 3 or ERs and keeps us in it-which I have praised him for. Salary is a factor, but it not by biggest beef with Lackey. I don't like his showing up teammates, even if he had a 1.50 ERA, but  when he has a 6.00+ ERA, it sickens me. I wish the next time he lets up an HR, all 8 fielders throw their glove to the ground, curse and kick the dirt, then glare at Lackey and cuss him out. This isn't about his wife having cancer-that is a gterrible thing. This guy has been like this long before she was diagnosed, but noe his performance level has slipped..

    This gets into a gray area of home advantage vs. park dimensions, which interests me enough to do some work on this (to be addressed on the upcoming thread).

    Saying a 14 win season is "successful" depends on your perception. If you judge him on salary, you are limiting your vision. This has to be seen in a larger context. If you feel Theo didn't spend the money wisely, then look at UR alternative names of choice AT THE TIME OF HIS SIGNING and try and project how many more wins that might equate to

    I am judging him on WHIP, ERA, QS% (and near QS%), W-L% and much much more before I get to wins (I even put team record in that pitcher's games in front of individual record)

    As for team wins vs. individual ones, I wasn't comparing Lackey to Carlton. I was using an extreme example of how one pitcher can be completely dominant over all other factors to illustrate the point. In Lackey's case, his talent level has to be adjusted accordingly

    His talent level is worse than when we signed him, that's our point. He has not given us what we expected, except for maybe wins.

    No matter how you cut it, he has averaged 14 wins a year for a franchise whose success rate is similar to ours. He really isn't much different now in terms of velocity or depth as he was in CA. His stuff has a slight regression if you really break it down, but not anything truly steep

    Break this down: 
       Before Bos/  with Bos
    WHIP 1.306 / 1.466
    ERA+   116 / 86
    ERA     3.81 / 4.96
    Win%  .590 / .548
    K/BB    2.72 / 2.18
    FIP in Boston: 100 and 116 (never above 100 with LAA, never above 91 in 5 years previous to signing here)
    xFIP in the 3.80's for 3 years before coming here: 4.15 and 4.57 after.
    GB%, LD%, etc... all worse this year.

    He is not the same pitcher, even with park and opponent adjustments.
    .

    If Miller wins 14 games, I'd easily consider that a good first year for him, given his AAA time. If he ends up with a 5+ ERA/high WHIP, he'd project lower for next year, depending on his level of growth

    Miller has pitched in the majors for 5 years and has about 65 games started. That doesn't mean he can't get his act together, but I fear he is what he is. If he pitches the same way and goes 14-3, it does not mean he pitched well. 

    Lackey's WHIP/ERA in Boston jive with his CA numbers when adjustments arerealistic, not simply site skewedThis is the area of misconception. And it's not easily conveyed. On one hand, I'm saying Lackey isn't what you or others thought he'd be based on salary of his CA stats. However, I'm also defending him in that his 2011 numbers aren't what he's capable of in the context of his 2010 numbers, which are truer in regards to further evaluation

    I think you are the one with the "misconception" on this issue. I looked at Lackey's opponents, venue, etc... and compared LAA numbers to here. He has done worse or much worse(in most cases) in the same venues with Boston than with LAA.. He has a very good fielding team behind him this year, and excfellent run support.

    I said he'll pitch better coming off the DL. He was hurt in May and had a rough April, as did many. And he has. Has he been a world beater? Of course not. Lackey is not a world beater type of pitcher. But his velocity coming off the DL was a solid barometer of better things to come.

    But you aren't selecting his post DL numbers, you only went back 4 games to try and make a definitive point. I am not disagreeing that Lackey has or may have "turned things around", I am arguing that Lackey has not given us what we expected since coming here, and you say he has: based on wins only. That is the issue I am debating..

    On Wake: He wins 13.75 games in a full season. You are right, he pitched better in 2008 with little run support. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that run support tends to even out over the years. As do lucky breaks

    No you are not saying that. You are saying Lackey has won 14 game/yr with Boston and that is all that counts. I am saying he isn't pitching like a 14 game winner and if things "evened out", he'd be 10-15 at year's end with a 6.00 ERA and a 1.55 WHIP. I don't see many consistent 14 game winners with a 6.00 ERA and a 1.55 WHIP. That is my point..

    In another era, Wake averages 16 wins a season simply because he would have had more starts in a 4-man rotation. Now, he has won 16-17 games 4 times in this era, but I'm willing to bet his RS those years was better than the career norm for him. It all averages out. If Wake had been traded to the Angels at mid career, I'm willing to bet his win total would be similar, his wins per start similar, but his ERA/WHIP/etc. quite different.   As for his first year in Boston, I think he was simply on a terrific run, coupled with being an unknown in the A.L. That can and will defy venue or team talent level in that, again, pitching is the predominat factor

    I dont think Wake ever pitched in a 4 man rotation, and his first 4 years with Boston saw many many wins. That goes against what you said about his early years here. It really has nothing to do with Lackey and 14 wins. I just added the numbers as a sidenote to the debate. 

    harness, I respect your opinions. I agree with you on a high percent of them. I undertsand your position here. It is not without merit. I am not taking your position out of context, because you have restated your position several times in this debate. You made some good points. I strongly disagree. I hope Lackey keeps up his 4 game pace. I have confidence he will. This season is not over, and it is not a lost season for him. His contract is not over. I do not think 2010 was that bad. I had hoped he would have adjusted, being a veteran and all, but I saw regression, distraction, tantums, injury, and poor numbers. This has not been a good year so far, despite the 9 wins. I liken this to softy's Lugo was our "wire to wire SS" in a WS year, so he can never have been labelled a bust.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    one can never accuse him of not repeating his points several times, now prepare for some more re-repeating of his points.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Ranaudo and Barnes and pray for rain...in 2 years! We really have no one we can bring up for maybe 2-3 years who is more than a #4 or 5 starter at best. Big problem if Lackey and Buchholz implode. It's starting to look like the market for starting pitchers in NY and Boston has been going up. And NY is probably in a better position in that regard going forward than we are.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    As you know boom, diamonds in the rough happen from time to time, and some "far away" pitchers move up faster than expected, so maybe our pitching prospect timetable might not be as bad as it appears.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share