A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. 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 : How can someone "who can't stay healthy" "get a lot of guys out"?
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    I can't explain anything else to you expitch and the special olympics people are looking for back up right now I'm sure. Try moving your feet just a little faster and eventually you will catch up.....maybe.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Guys like Bedard are not option A but we are going to need depth and Bedard still gets people out when he is on the field. He might be available for $3-4 mil a year and since his arm appears ok now, that would be a good investment in my book. I think he probably commands up to a $6 mil a year contract as his arm looks healthy.

    Would we rather have Beurhle at $10 mil per year minimum. Aging Oswalt? The pickings of #2 or 3 level starters is slim. We probably are going to have to sign some deep depth guys like Bedard IMO, PLUS a stud hopefully. There are just very few studs out there though.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Signing 2-3 Bedard types is an option in hopes that we find our garcia and Colon, but don't count me in on that plan again. I fell for the Penny/Smoltz plan 2 years ago. I've seen where that plan goes way more than not.

    I'm not sure Buehrle is the answer. CJ Wilson will be overpaid, but I'd prefer overpaying for him than for Buehrle. Maybe we can make a trade for an ace or #2 type. I won't be happy with next year's roster unless we have a very good quality starter added to the team. If we do well building up the pen and other areas, I guess I could be Ok with Bedard, Edwin Jackson, Lackey, Dice and Wake as our 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 slot guys.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Lackey would be a pretty expensive # 6!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    With Aceves as the closer, Lavarnway the DH, we pick up potentially 5 picks counting Tek. We still would have Scutaro and Wheeler but I'm not sure would would get picks from them due to the option situation. I'd bring both Scutaro and Wheeler back.

    All the sudden we have a lot of cash to spend plus 5 picks if they pull that off. Maybe around $35-$40 mil even. It is a real option IMO. They could sign a lot of talent for $40 mil.
     
  6. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : I can't explain anything else to you expitch and the special olympics people are looking for back up right now I'm sure. Try moving your feet just a little faster and eventually you will catch up.....maybe.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    You can't explain because you can't write.
    Rarely has a pitcher sidelined often because of health ( "can't stay healthy" ) been known to record a lot of outs. Outs are normally recorded from the mound, not from the bench or trainer's room.
    The crack about the Special Olympics people is beneath comment -- but right in character for you. You continue to discredit yourself.

     
  7. 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]Lackey would be a pretty expensive # 6!
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    He'd also be a pretty useless #5.

    (Someone will get hurt, so he will get his 24-28 starts anyway.)

     
  8. 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 : You can't explain because you can't write. Rarely has a pitcher sidelined often because of health ( "can't stay healthy" ) been known to record a lot of outs. Outs are normally recorded from the mound, not from the bench or trainer's room. The crack about the Special Olympics people is beneath comment -- but right in character for you. You continue to discredit yourself.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]
    I'm just trying to relate to my good bud expitch! My new BFF!

    You have been slinging it for 2 weeks now. Right back at you!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Take it outside.

    This thread is about the Sox.
     
  10. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : I'm just trying to relate to my good bud expitch! My new BFF! You have been slinging it for 2 weeks now. Right back at you!
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    Lame, lame, lame. No way you recover from that crack about the Special Olympics. It was only a matter of time before you, baited and batted around and rattled, made a grotesque remark. It was the final nail in your coffin of self-exposure. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but you have demonstrated more than once in this forum that you have no shame. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Signing 2-3 Bedard types is an option in hopes that we find our garcia and Colon, but don't count me in on that plan again. I fell for the Penny/Smoltz plan 2 years ago. I've seen where that plan goes way more than not. I'm not sure Buehrle is the answer. CJ Wilson will be overpaid, but I'd prefer overpaying for him than for Buehrle. Maybe we can make a trade for an ace or #2 type. I won't be happy with next year's roster unless we have a very good quality starter added to the team. If we do well building up the pen and other areas, I guess I could be Ok with Bedard, Edwin Jackson, Lackey, Dice and Wake as our 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 slot guys.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]Moon here's the problem IMHO. In my lifetime I have seen one team put together a super deep staff with one home grown guy, two trades that were salary dump based and a FA. It is the Phillies.

    Once or twice a decade a team hits the mother lode from within and builds a 5 deep starting rotation. The Rays are the flavor of the month, the A's last decade and the Braves in the 90's.

    Increased revenue sharing is causing fewer quality arms to be moved pre-FA and big ticket FA are a crap shoot. Lackey is far from unique. Burnett and Lowe were signed to very similar deals just the winter before.

    Growing from within is a long road. I think you did a post with the draft years for the current Rays rotation. Those guys had been drafted as long as 10 years ago (Shields) to an average of 4-5 years ago.

    Sometimes the best you can do is the veteran on the bounce route and hope that your core doesn't miss more than 4 starts in any one chunk and more improtantly that even if a guy under achieves it isn't Lackey's 2011.

    That and as you say build a BP. That is always luck too. Signing big ticket relievers to serve in set up roles seldom has ever worked.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    When it comes to you expitch, I am now motivated to say just about anything. And I do apologize to the special Olympics, but not you.

    And I was just about to suggest that we do take it elsewhere as the Realistic threads should not be divisive. It would be nice if no threads were divisive but some of us just have to keep that bow notched with an arrow for months until we can release it in someone's back...right expitch.

    You get the final BS post here expitch. I don't want to ruin Moon's threads.
     
  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]When it comes to you expitch, I am now motivated to say just about anything. And I do apologize to the special Olympics, but not you. And I was just about to suggest that we do take it elsewhere as the Realistic threads should not be divisive. It would be nice if no threads were divisive but some of us just have to keep that bow notched with an arrow for months until we can release it in someone's back...right expitch. You get the final BS post here expitch. I don't want to ruin Moon's threads.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    Still at it. "Some of us" in this sentence seems to refer to you. At last a glimmer of self-knowledge. 
    Yup, you certainly are "motivated to say just about anything." As in rattled out of your mind, such as it is. You are hysterical. 
    Your crack about the Special Olympics was so disgusting that it cannot be apologized for.  It was a radical violation of civilized norms -- in other words, right up your alley. It stands and will continue to stand as one of the lowest, if not indisputably the lowest, things said in this forum.
    Your last sentence is pathetic. You pose no danger to Moon or to his respondents.  Only to yourself. You should have listened to Moon quite a while back when he told you to take a deep breath. If you had, maybe -- maybe -- you would not finally have removed all doubt about your character.  
    Is this yet another of your "last posts"?

     
  14. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Moon here's the problem IMHO. In my lifetime I have seen one team put together a super deep staff with one home grown guy, two trades that were salary dump based and a FA. It is the Phillies. Once or twice a decade a team hits the mother lode from within and builds a 5 deep starting rotation. The Rays are the flavor of the month, the A's last decade and the Braves in the 90's. 

    I understand I may be over-reacting out of frustration over the Sox and admiration over the Rays, but it's not going to be a short-term situation with TB. All 8 starters are locked up for more than 3 or more years, and at a relatively low cost.

    My point about having several top starters is more about my belief that we will not have a healthy top 3 all next year (one of Beckett, Lester or Buchholtz is likely to get hurt or underachieve). I just want 4 solid guys not 5 with Lackey, Wake, Dice, Taz, Douby and Weiland bringing up the 5-10 slots, or 2 guys like Bedard and Jackson competing with Lackey for the 4/5 slots.

    Increased revenue sharing is causing fewer quality arms to be moved pre-FA and big ticket FA are a crap shoot. Lackey is far from unique. Burnett and Lowe were signed to very similar deals just the winter before. Growing from within is a long road. I think you did a post with the draft years for the current Rays rotation. Those guys had been drafted as long as 10 years ago (Shields) to an average of 4-5 years ago. Sometimes the best you can do is the veteran on the bounce route and hope that your core doesn't miss more than 4 starts in any one chunk and more improtantly that even if a guy under achieves it isn't Lackey's 2011. That and as you say build a BP. That is always luck too. Signing big ticket relievers to serve in set up roles seldom has ever worked.

    I agree with this position. Even guys like Soriano with the rays last year was an under-the-radar type choice. We need to make several choices and hope one works out like him. TB traded Bartlett for 3 pen guys that all contributed this year. It can be done. 
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

     
  15. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : You think "Baltimore" is nit picking? You think your 1.5 runs a game TEK impact is nit picking? HELLO!
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Your ego is now in Softlaw territory. We - no one - us.
    "No one respects Moon more than me". classic Boom.
    You denounce writers today and then use them as a gold standard to validate your finger-pointing.

    1.5 runs a game is over 240 runs a year. Where the hell did I say that was nit-picking? You ran when I asked you to look at the data, hiding behind "We'll have to agree to disagree BS".


    And you'll run again.
     
  16. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Teams had both VMart and Napoli catching for a lot of years though. Every player is flawed but the aggregate is what counts the most. With VMArt a strong case could be made that Detroit paid for his bat since they already had a solid catcher. They didn't need him at catcher. They wanted him in the lineup and it proved to be a good decision. Mathis had a great bat this year as well. They needed him in the lineup regularly as well. Maybe they both were not good catchers defensively but having the ability to catch was a plus and both spent many years catching in mlb. Who knows where Lavarnway ends up but his bat has been phenominal every year he has been with us and even in college. He has been like clockwork. Consistent as heck. With a Yale level mind and work ethic I think it's pretty likely he will call a good game and manage a game well. My concern is again, about his blocking skills. If he is limiting what pitchers can throw with men on base, that is a problem.  Overall though, he is worth a shot, especially now. We need something, frankly, to compete with the Yanks and Rays now. The Rays and Yanks are both very strong teams. We need an edge and Lavarnway might just be a big leg up on the competition if he pans out, and a low cost option at that. To me, he is potentially the best bat we have produced in the minors since Ellsbury. I have no problem slotting him in as a part time catcher / part time DH next year. He may very well start slow or even wash out but indications are that he will hit and hit with substantial pop and OBP.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    More classic Boom BS.
    Mathis in 2011 .174 BA  .225 OBP  .484 OPS

    VMART was sooooooooooo good behind the plate that he took DH money as his best offer. What do UR journalist experts say about that?
     
  17. 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]Matt Moore was not a top draft pick. I think he was an eight rounder. We have no Matt Moores. We don't even have any Alex Cobbs. I like a lot of our prospects, boom, and I know you do too, but none of our young pitchers look to be ready for next year. Softy made me laugh when he said there were several pitchers available in the minors that would have done better than Wake. I asked him to name names...crickets. Our team is in trouble. If we have to pin our hopes on us staying 100% healthy again, I'm gonna be upset. Eeven if our staff stays 90% healthy and bring back Paps, Wheeler, Miller and Wake, we will still have serious issues going into next year. My guess is that one of Beckett, Buch or Lester will be hurt or have an off year. I'd say the odds are over 50% of that happening, but even if I am wrong, how do our #4-8 guys match up with TB. The Yanks have holes to fill too, but they've had a better recent track record at finding bottom of the roation gems than us. Lackey: zero confidence for 2012. Miller: zero confidence. Weiland: Zero. Doubrint: slight. Wake: as a 7th starter, OK, but he's not going to lead us anywhere.I'm tired of the cheap Bedard, Penny, and Smoltz types. We need real talent on the mound and we need it quick, otherwise we might as well blow the whole thing up and get a dozen plus prospects for our aging stars. 
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Who do you realistically recommend?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I understand I may be over-reacting out of frustration over the Sox and admiration over the Rays, but it's not going to be a short-term situation with TB. All 8 starters are locked up for more than 3 or more years, and at a relatively low cost.

    My point about having several top starters is more about my belief that we will not have a healthy top 3 all next year (one of Beckett, Lester or Buchholtz is likely to get hurt or underachieve). I just want 4 solid guys not 5 with Lackey, Wake, Dice, Taz, Douby and Weiland bringing up the 5-10 slots, or 2 guys like Bedard and Jackson competing with Lackey for the 4/5 slots.

    Moon I agree there is nothing short term about what Tampa's done with pitching. It also is about a once in a decade thing that happens to teams that get very bad first for sustained period of time. We tend to find one a decade and to Tampa's credit the closest thing to it I can think of is Atlanta in the 90's where they home grew 3 threw draft and question as prospects (Avery-Glavin-Smoltz) and even in that case they paid big bucks to sign FA Greg Maddux. Now if we want to blow up the club, stink for about 8 seasons or more, we might be able to replicate what they did.

    I'd love to see the RS add a top of the rotation quality guy. I think it would improve their chances exponentially next year. I'd sure as heck (forgive me Danny and Wake fans) rather not see Wake as the 5th starter. And I think Bedard's medical chart makes him a terrible risk to be in the opening day 5 too. Miller's control issues don't appear to have changed much either.

    But I am not sure the RS have the big time chips to trade for a top of the rotation guy and is CJ Wilson any better coming off of 2011 than Lackey was coming off of 2009? And the FA market tanks from there. The trade chips aren't in the minors unless the RS want to package Lavarnway - Middlebrooks and a pitcher or two. The two most tradable position player assets on the 25 man roster today are Ellsbury (his agent and arb status reduces his value) and the untouchable Muddy Chicken.

    I am not saying it is ideal but stringing together a deep bullpen by blowing half of the one year signings and taking long shots on starters to add to a salad bowl of Douby, Weiland, Wake etc may be the way the RS have to go.

    I know Lackey BTW pizzes everybody off and heavens knows his 2011 is a huge disappointment that makes Lackey-face and his salary all the more disgusting. But I think in hindsight the gravity of his personal issues might explain how bad he was. The trip from a wife to with cancer to divorce had to be awful. And while some folks may have the ability to leave them at home, I have been an employer long enough to know most don't. He's bound to be better and we are likely to get 170 to 205 IP the other three guys. If Lackey had been the 201o Lackey and the other three gave us 575 IP the RS would have been in the AL East race with a couple of weeks to go, not looking at Tampa in their rear view mirror IMO.

    Again it isn't ideal, it's just the likely course of events...
     
  19. 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 : Your ego is now in Softlaw territory. We - no one - us. " No one respects Moon more than me". classic Boom . You denounce writers today and then use them as a gold standard to validate your finger-pointing. 1.5 runs a game is over 240 runs a year. Where the hell did I say that was nit-picking? You ran when I asked you to look at the data, hiding behind "We'll have to agree to disagree BS". And you'll run again.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    In case you haven't noticed Harness, both you and Moon have projected CERA impact as being as much as 1.5 runs a game, I presume from Tek on this team. As that is 240 runs per season, possibly you might have overestimated just a tad. 

    I have a choice. I can read hundreds of posts on the subject from you and Moon or read one scholarly article from Baseball Prospectus debunking the impact you've described or the analysis of Bill James which debunks the impact you've described or other knowledgeable baseball people like Scioscia...etc. The impact is not 1.5 runs a game. It just isn't.

    It's like Global warming. We can believe all the national science foundations of all the countries in the world or we can believe some Republican politicians who are paid 10s of thousands each to lie about the science. Sorry to compare you both to Republicans.

    I was complementing Moon, whom I do respect a lot and I have said so many times. If that is some kind of problem I just don't get that one. Oh well.

    I think your CERA arguments are well intentioned but flawed. You know, it's actually possible for you to make a mistake. In your case over and over. I don't mean to insult you or Moon but you guys act like it's the gospel and I'm not a member of that choir, and neither are any real baseball stats guy I've read. CERA is certainly a factor. You just overestimate it by over 300%.

    or the discussions of many other people who actually can do the math.  
     
  20. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Who do you realistically recommend?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Anybody has a price.

    I'm sure CJ Wilson will get way more than his worth, and there is a chance he could pull a Lackey, but the guys is not overworked. He's one choice.

    We could try the trade route. I do like Guthrie via trade in conjunction with a FA like Bedard or Jackson. I'm not saying we should trade Jacoby, but I don't think we can sign him, so that is an option out there to get a top starter. I'd rather try to trade Youk, Lowrie, and some prospects for some quality.

    As you can see, I'm willing to let our offense suffer next year if we can upgrade our staff.

     
  21. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Anybody has a price. I'm sure CJ Wilson will get way more than his worth, and there is a chance he could pull a Lackey, but the guys is not overworked. He's one choice. We could try the trade route. I do like Guthrie via trade in conjunction with a FA like Bedard or Jackson. I'm not saying we should trade Jacoby, but I don't think we can sign him, so that is an option out there to get a top starter. I'd rather try to trade Youk, Lowrie, and some prospects for some quality. As you can see, I'm willing to let our offense suffer next year if we can upgrade our staff.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon, my point is, do you think Wilson or Guthrie will be an upgrade to Buch? Or Lester? Or Beckett? You talked about building from the top.

    How many pitchers out there will top our best, and how many of them are realistically available?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I understand I may be over-reacting out of frustration over the Sox and admiration over the Rays, but it's not going to be a short-term situation with TB. All 8 starters are locked up for more than 3 or more years, and at a relatively low cost.

    My point about having several top starters is more about my belief that we will not have a healthy top 3 all next year (one of Beckett, Lester or Buchholtz is likely to get hurt or underachieve). I just want 4 solid guys not 5 with Lackey, Wake, Dice, Taz, Douby and Weiland bringing up the 5-10 slots, or 2 guys like Bedard and Jackson competing with Lackey for the 4/5 slots.

    Moon I agree there is nothing short term about what Tampa's done with pitching. It also is about a once in a decade thing that happens to teams that get very bad first for sustained period of time. We tend to find one a decade and to Tampa's credit the closest thing to it I can think of is Atlanta in the 90's where they home grew 3 threw draft and question as prospects (Avery-Glavin-Smoltz) and even in that case they paid big bucks to sign FA Greg Maddux. Now if we want to blow up the club, stink for about 8 seasons or more, we might be able to replicate what they did. 

    Several of the Rays starters were not drafted #1 or in the first round.

    I'd love to see the RS add a top of the rotation quality guy. I think it would improve their chances exponentially next year. I'd sure as heck (forgive me Danny and Wake fans) rather not see Wake as the 5th starter. And I think Bedard's medical chart makes him a terrible risk to be in the opening day 5 too. Miller's control issues don't appear to have changed much either. 

    I'd rather not choose Bedard either, but he will be cheap. I'd like Wake as out #7.

    But I am not sure the RS have the big time chips to trade for a top of the rotation guy and is CJ Wilson any better coming off of 2011 than Lackey was coming off of 2009? And the FA market tanks from there. The trade chips aren't in the minors unless the RS want to package Lavarnway - Middlebrooks and a pitcher or two. The two most tradable position player assets on the 25 man roster today are Ellsbury (his agent and arb status reduces his value) and the untouchable Muddy Chicken. 

    CJ is not downtrending. He has been a starter only 2 years. He has good record in small sample sizes in NY and Boston. He won't cost players.

    I am not saying it is ideal but stringing together a deep bullpen by blowing half of the one year signings and taking long shots on starters to add to a salad bowl of Douby, Weiland, Wake etc may be the way the RS have to go. 

    I know Lackey BTW pizzes everybody off and heavens knows his 2011 is a huge disappointment that makes Lackey-face and his salary all the more disgusting. But I think in hindsight the gravity of his personal issues might explain how bad he was. The trip from a wife to with cancer to divorce had to be awful. And while some folks may have the ability to leave them at home, I have been an employer long enough to know most don't. He's bound to be better and we are likely to get 170 to 205 IP the other three guys. If Lackey had been the 201o Lackey and the other three gave us 575 IP the RS would have been in the AL East race with a couple of weeks to go, not looking at Tampa in their rear view mirror IMO. 

    I do think we could see a good year by Lackey next year, or at least a 2010 type year.

    Again it isn't ideal, it's just the likely course of events...
     
  23. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : In case you haven't noticed Harness, both you and Moon have projected CERA impact as being as much as 1.5 runs a game, I presume from Tek on this team. As that is 240 runs per season, possibly you might have overestimated just a tad.  I have a choice. I can read hundreds of posts on the subject from you and Moon or read one scholarly article from Baseball Prospectus debunking the impact you've described or the analysis of Bill James which debunks the impact you've described or other knowledgeable baseball people like Scioscia...etc. The impact is not 1.5 runs a game. It just isn't. It's like Global warming. We can believe all the national science foundations of all the countries in the world or we can believe some Republican politicians who are paid 10s of thousands each to lie about the science. Sorry to compare you both to Republicans. I was complementing Moon, whom I do respect a lot and I have said so many times. If that is some kind of problem I just don't get that one. Oh well.I think your CERA arguments are well intentioned but flawed. You know, it's actually possible for you to make a mistake. In your case over and over. I don't mean to insult you or Moon but you guys act like it's the gospel and I'm not a member of that choir, and neither are any real baseball stats guy I've read. CERA is certainly a factor. You just overestimate it by over 300%. or the discussions of many other people who actually can do the math.  
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]


    Nowhere did Moon or I ever project 240 runs a year. We've made this point abundantly clear a number of times. We said that is what the numbers indicated. Doesn't mean they are prophetic. They indicate that the pitchers do much betterwith Tek. If you want to side with your "experts", fine. But since these experts claim the actual variance is minimal or even non-existent, then why didn't you take Moon up on his offer of 3 - 1 odds that Tek will again get better results from the staff? He offered it before the season began.

    One does not give 3-1 odds w/o being damn sure, so obviously the criteria we use is more reliable.  If you are going to take a position, then put UR money where UR mouth is.

    As for UR nice comment respecting Moon, you said "(Moon) who has more respect from me than anyone here". This is just one of many examples where you use your own idea of self-inflation to speak for the masses. "WE". "US".  "NO ONE", "ANYONE"...

    Believe it or not, there are others on this board who have the capacity to speak for themselves. Some may actually respect a given poster as much as you, despite how difficult this concept is to grasp.

    And  if you are gonna attack me for trying to insult UR intelligence,
    save it. I'm responding to the same statement for the 3rd time. You said you "don't get that one", so I'm simply explaining it in better fashion.
     
  24. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : In case you haven't noticed Harness, both you and Moon have projected CERA impact as being as much as 1.5 runs a game, I presume from Tek on this team. As that is 240 runs per season, possibly you might have overestimated just a tad.  I have a choice. I can read hundreds of posts on the subject from you and Moon or read one scholarly article from Baseball Prospectus debunking the impact you've described or the analysis of Bill James which debunks the impact you've described or other knowledgeable baseball people like Scioscia...etc. The impact is not 1.5 runs a game. It just isn't. It's like Global warming. We can believe all the national science foundations of all the countries in the world or we can believe some Republican politicians who are paid 10s of thousands each to lie about the science. Sorry to compare you both to Republicans. I was complementing Moon, whom I do respect a lot and I have said so many times. If that is some kind of problem I just don't get that one. Oh well. I think your CERA arguments are well intentioned but flawed. You know, it's actually possible for you to make a mistake. In your case over and over. I don't mean to insult you or Moon but you guys act like it's the gospel and I'm not a member of that choir, and neither are any real baseball stats guy I've read. CERA is certainly a factor. You just overestimate it by over 300%. or the discussions of many other people who actually can do the math.  

    Boom, this is totally false. I have never, ever said the differential is 1.5 runs per game. I have never said CERA is the gospel, in fact I have said it is extremely flawed and an extremely limited stat in its usage.

    While it is true that some pitchers have about a 1.5 better CERA with VTek than others, I never gave Vtek full credit for a 1.5 run disparity. Other pitchers have a much lower disparity, while a few others do better with VMart, Salty or other before them. 

    My point was that VTek probably makes about a 0.25 to 0.50 difference over a large sample size... NOT 1.50. I even went into great detail on how much extra offense a catcher would need to have over Vtek's somewhat decdent offesne for a catcher to overcome a 0.25 ERA loss on defense. I never once came close to saying it was even a 1.00 disparity, even though one could argue it is that high.

    I also do not recall harness saying CERA is foolproof and that 100% of the CERA differential should be fully attributed to VTek. It does appear that Beckett's disparity is much higher than other starters, but even with him, I wouldn't say VTek makes a 1.5 ERA difference.

    As to no credible sources back up the "CERA" argument, I don't really care, because CERA is just one small measurement used only (correctly) to compare catchers on the same team that catch the same pitchers in large enough sample sizes to compare. As you can see, it is extremely limited and just one tiny part of judging a catcher's influence on their pitchers. I also look at opponent's OPS, W-L records, and other factors. I listen to what pitchers have to say. I listen to what managers have to say. I watch how some managers "get it" and make decisions based on "catcher's relevance" and not catcher's offense. I see long-standing trends that have become as predictable as saying AGon will hit better than VTek next year. I'd bet on it. I offered anyone 3:1 odds that the VTek trend would continue this year. I had no takers. I would have won your money. I'll offer 5:1 odds next year and Salty has one more year of experience with the staff. You can even throw out Beckett from the equation, and Vtek will still get a better ERA from the majority of same pitchers that Salty catches (more than about 30 IP sample sizes each).
    Just because it's hard to quantify why it happens, the fact is it keeps happening. It's not a sure bet, as nothing in baseball is. That's why I won't give 20:1 odds. There can always be off years, off months, off times with certain pitchers, but the very consistent trend should continue in my opinion.

    You have said you thought there was something to it, but just don't think it is as influential as harness and I feel it is. I have no issue with your position. At least you can see there is an influence even though no "experts" or "souces" back you up either. A few of the CERA articles I have read, expose the writer as not even understanding how it is supposed to be used. It is not supposed to used to compare VTek to Posada. it's not supposed to be used by looking at the overall CERA of both catchers on the same team. It is only supposed to be used one-on-one with individual pitchers. Too many posters don;t even get that simple explanation.

    By the way, please provide the link where Scioscia debunks CERA and catcher's relevance.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

     
  25. 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 : Your ego is now in Softlaw territory. We - no one - us. " No one respects Moon more than me". classic Boom . You denounce writers today and then use them as a gold standard to validate your finger-pointing. 1.5 runs a game is over 240 runs a year. Where the hell did I say that was nit-picking? You ran when I asked you to look at the data, hiding behind "We'll have to agree to disagree BS". And you'll run again.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I'm not denoucing Moon harness. I'm denouncing you. I would prefer to do this off thread out of respect for this thread also. I'm not here to argue with you. I've said my piece. 
     

Share