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]How many of us were in Reddick's corner after 2009 and 2010?  This year's 120 PAs has changed nearly everyone's mind. Yes, he has looked great, and he is an awesome fielder with a gun, but it is still only 120 PAs.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Reddick's stock went down the last couple of years but Baseball America still had him as our #4 prospect last spring. He always had the tools. He showed a lot of promise. He will come back to earth for sure but he may well have a few .300 years. I see him as kind of a Mike Greenwell with better defense. Maybe even a hair better. And he's a great fit for us in RF. We could really use a solid defender out there, as that is why they mainly got Drew for in the first place. Defense is more important in RF for us than it is in other ball parks.

    I also lost some faith the last 2 years but I still thought he might even be favored as our RF solution after Drew left, even last year. He's such a good fit for us out there defensively.
     
  2. 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]You guys are pigeon-holing what I said. The deal is contingent on Boston replacing Reddick. If the deal for Quentin (or possibly Pence, etc.)goes down, then Reddick goes to Seattle. From what' I've heard, Seattle wants Reddick, not Kalish (I doubt they'll bend in their position). And Theo won't part with him for Beddard unless he gets a full year from him and good health cert. PLUS is able to swing a deal for a RH power outfielder. If it's Quentin, the hope is that he, too, can be extended. As much as I hate to see Reddick go, this makes sense as the team window is now and the next few years. Reddick is a talented player who needs a constant challenge. He sets his own ceiling, IMO.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]
    Seattle really values outfield defense and Reddick would certainly be a great fit for them.
     
  3. 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]I was referring to the farm. The weakness used to be in the outfield - which is why they over-paid for Drew. That's no longer the case, and they can deal off a strength. Currently, if they get Quentin for RF, the outfield will be fine.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Quentin is an animal but I just can't see him in Fenway's RF ever. Now maybe LF?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Reddick's stock went down the last couple of years but Baseball America still had him as our #4 prospect last spring. He always had the tools. He showed a lot of promise. He will come back to earth for sure but he may well have a few .300 years. I see him as kind of a Mike Greenwell with better defense. Maybe even a hair better. And he's a great fit for us in RF. We could really use a solid defender out there, as that is why they mainly got Drew for in the first place. Defense is more important in RF for us than it is in other ball parks. 

    I also lost some faith the last 2 years but I still thought he might even be favored as our RF solution after Drew left, even last year. He's such a good fit for us out there defensively.

    Boom, no doubt, you have been Reddick's biggest supporter here. You wnet through a lot of soft bashing for taking your stand. Now, softy is pretending he never said we should trade Reddick. Who would have thought softy would change his position and deny his past? Go figure. 
     
  5. 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]Maybe I'm mentally challenged here, but if I'm reading fangraphs correctly, doesn't Reddick have a higher batting average against lef-handed pitching than right? If so, why fix a clock that isn't broken?  Besides, he'll be playing cheap for a few years. You fellas can take your Cameron/Quentin experiment.  I'll stick with Reddick.
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

    Go Amp!

    Give it up for the Ampster!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    OK....I'm really going out there this time........What if Bedard is now available dirt cheap? Maybe Seattle doesn't have a lot to play for right now and why not move his contract? Maybe we can get him really cheap. He's coming back from a knee injury. It's not like his arm is bad. He might well still come back well after he gets his control back. I'd like to get him for a couple of B level prospects like Hazelbacker and Rodriguez. Something like that. It might be doable after his Friday outing and Theo certainly likes to buy low.

    I've been thinking about the playoffs lately. I think San Fran might even be favored after losing such a great talent in that young catcher ( Posey ). They have superb starting pitching. God knows that Beltran is a playoff performer. Philly looks to be a juggernaut but if Lincecum, Cain...etc are hot we might be looking at San Fran in the series again. We better have our #3 guy ready because if we get that far we probably are going to need him. And a lefty like a healthy Bedard would sure come in handy both against the Yanks and the Phillies. He has pitched well whenever he has been healthy. I think Bedard still has value. Just not as much as maybe was anticipated, making him a true bargain right now. Him having a bad outing in his first game back was good news to me. When he gets his control back he probably becomes a stud again.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Wow, the Yanks are winning 15 - 0 in the 2nd inning. They continue to put up great numbers.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'd like to get him for a couple of B level prospects like Hazelbacker and Rodriguez. Something like that. It might be doable after his Friday outing and Theo certainly likes to buy low.

    I'd do it for that, but we don't really need another 5 starter type: we need a 2nd/3rd starter type.
     
  9. 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]You're over-reacting, my friend. Where did I rip Wake? Where did I dismiss Lester? Just because I applaud the efforts of one not appreciated doesn't mean I'm doing it at the expense of another. I'll take 4 wins over two wins. Sue me. That doesn't mean I berate Lester. Get real. If softy had said that about tranfering Wake's game to fenway, you'd have roasted him and called it bashing. You are bashing Wake. You did berate Lester (who was hurt), and you are making excuses for Lackey based on his injury and wife's medical issues. You are cherry-picking and going against what you have said in the past, when people were bashing Wake for all the losses the team got when he pitched. You surprise me harness.Of course pitching has a lot to do with wins, but great pitchers often have poor W-L records due to other fatcors and vice versa.  Look at Wake's 2008 season. It was one of his finest in his career, yet he went 10-11 and the team was 15-15 in his starts. Poor run support. Passed balls. Poor fielding. He is pitching worse now and the team is 9-5 in his starts. Are you saying he is better now than in 2008? Yes, you are.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon, you completely misunderstood my meaning.
    I'm not bashing anybody. You should know I'd never bash Wake or Lester. Never.
    Why is it a point can't be made around here without people getting defensive?

    My take on Lackey is two-fold.
    1) He is 4-0 in his last 4 starts - with a 2.50 ERA. Fact. And it came at a time when we needed it most, with Lester down/returning and Miller/Weiland exposed.
    Lackey bashers want no part of anything positive and take it as putting down others. Why is it Lackey is ridiculed in his best stretch?
    "Well, he didn't deserve those wins"..
    "Well, look at his current ERA"...

    That's BS! As is to call it cherry-picking. I am very familiar with his year. The rough start. His wife. The cort. shots in May. The salary. I'm trying to put his season in a better perspective.

    2) To illustrate the importance of winning. 4-0 is better than 2-2. No names necessary. In a WS scenario, would you rather be 4-0? Or 2-2? Now, in the reg. season, if it's 4-0 with a 7.50 ERA, then that's obviously a gift. But it's earned with a 2.50. Is that so hard to acknowledge? To say I put Lester down is beneath you. It's not a reflection of Lester. Just the point about the importance of winning.

    As for Wake, he was 4-0 also. But his ERA was 6.95. Yet he gets backing but Lackey doesn't. Nice double-standard, which used to work against Wake. Of course Wake pitched better in 2008. You are using one year, instead of looking at his career. Things tend to even out, incl run support. Wake averages 13.7 wins a year per full season. (33 starts). That includes good/poor RS. 

    What backbones my argument with Lackey is the fact that common expectation of him isn't realistic. I'm about to start a revealing thread about venue. I think you will find the data compelling. When proper adjustments are made, you will find that Lackey is the same pitcher he was in CA (especially his 2010 numbers).

    I use the 14 win barometer because it is time tested and off a winning franchise, which is highly relevant. If he pitched for a lesser one, and he still went 102-71, it would translate better for us.

    I'm well aware of wins being a team function. But we both know pitching is the predominant factor. If wins were a complete team function, HOF pitchers are there by luck or at random because they happened to play for winners.

    Check out what Carlton did when he won 27 for a 63 win team (I believe).
    I've seen mediocre pitchers on mediocre teams have a great stretch and carry their teams over better. (See 2011 WS). To say it's all one or the other is inaccurate.

    I gotta tell ya, I had to check your post three times to make sure you authored it.
    I didn't realize what I said could be taken so out of context.
     
  10. 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]moon, I almost wrote that last night. It's like harness has forgotten everything he preached last year, including his innovative CERA stuff. I don't get that he's now back-tracking and making these ridiculous, unsubstantiated remarks that imply that Wakefield didn't do his job last night because the "park" saved him. Or that now if you are an ace pitcher, you are the winning pitcher because you're simply an ace. So many other factors. The rip on the NL is also disturbing, considering AGONsimply has blown that idea out the window. If AGON was in the retirement league, then how come he's destroyed AL pitching better than he did in the NL.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    You base an N.L./A.L. debate on one player? Get real. AGONE is a stud.
    He was compromised by a huge pitcher's park.
    Over a 100 point OPS differential between Petco and elsewhere.
    He was a .300 hitter outside it. Fenway has ballooned his numbers.
    Fenway: .397 BA  1.044 OPS
    Away:    .308 BA   .904 OPS

    In the same fashion, Wake is a flyball pitcher. Wouldn't you rather see him in a large venue? As I mentioned before, in the first half of his career, he was a much better road pitcher. But he learned how to command his dancer better as he aged, and is able to use the Fenway Park's dimensions to his benefit ever since.

    If I gave the impression that his last outing was totally due to venue, then I should have stated it more profoundly. He was solid last night. Let's just say, a larger venue didn't hurt his cause, but it was a really nice effort.

    And yes, the N.L. is a retirement league.
    Show me data to refute the lop-sided inter-league play since it's conception.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    "Why is it a point can't be made around here without people getting defensive?" h

    Yell
     
  12. 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]Look, I want Lackey to pitch better. I think we all do, but saying he's great simply because the Sox won his last 4 starts really doesn't say much about anyone's ability to see the big picture. Lester has 2 wins and Lackey 4 wins, but one is throwing a lot better than the other...I'm going to say I pick Lester to throw over Lackey.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]


    Never said he was great. Never. He's had his best stretch and isn't given much credit. It's not about Lester vs. Lackey. It's about 4 wins at 2.50 vs. 2 wins at
    1.22. Comprende?

    Read the Lackey thread. The point of it is that he's not great. He's a 14 win a year pitcher at 17 mil - the FA standard. Live with it.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Well, we finally got Hardin. Here's hoping we get Bedard also:)
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxPatsCelts1988. Show SoxPatsCelts1988's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Well, we finally got Hardin. Here's hoping we get Bedard also:)
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Why?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    If ya can't lower the bridge, raise the river.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Moon, you completely misunderstood my meaning.
    I'm not bashing anybody. You should know I'd never bash Wake or Lester. Never.
    Why is it a point can't be made around here without people getting defensive?

    Well, you went on a "wins is the thing" rant, and that is basically what everyone used against Wake for years. (see: Wake in 2008)

    My take on Lackey is two-fold. 
    1) He is 4-0 in his last 4 starts - with a 2.50 ERA. Fact. And it came at a time when we needed it most, with Lester down/returning and Miller/Weiland exposed.
    Lackey bashers want no part of anything positive and take it as putting down others. Why is it Lackey is ridiculed in his best stretch? 
    "Well, he didn't deserve those wins"..
    "Well, look at his current ERA"...

    That's BS! As is to call it cherry-picking
    . I am very familiar with his year. The rough start. His wife. The cort. shots in May. The salary. I'm trying to put his season in a better perspective

    I want Lackey to do well also. I was one of many who liked the signing at the time, but one of the few that still admit it. I defended Lackey's 2010 season as being better than what bashers pretend it was, in terms of the percent of times he put our team in a position to win (more than just his nice quality start percentage). I know he has family health issues and I feel bad for him there, but this season has been a disaster that only great run support has prevented from looking horrible (like maybe 4-13 instead of 9-8).

    Selecting just his last 4 starts can certainly be called cherry-picking. Look, we all do it to some extent, myself included. But it is what it is. His WHIP has still been high recently. If you go back 5 games it's: 4-1  4.61  (WHIP 1.610) in July. His June record is: 3-2  5.28  (1.239 WHIP). Using WHIP, he is doing worse this month than last. See, now I am cherry-picking. The fact is, Lackey has not done a good job this year for us. The fact that we are 9-8 in his starts is more of a reflection of our offense than his pitching. Yes, he has 9 starts with 3 or less ERs, but 5 of them have been in 6 or less IP. It's not a horrible rate of good to OK games pitched, but it is not #3 starter material for a contending team. Yes, his salary does make a difference.  
    .

    2) To illustrate the importance of winning. 4-0 is better than 2-2. No names necessary. In a WS scenario, would you rather be 4-0? Or 2-2? Now, in the reg. season, if it's 4-0 with a 7.50 ERA, then that's obviously a gift. But it's earned with a 2.50. Is that so hard to acknowledge? To say I put Lester down is beneath you. It's not a reflection of Lester. Just the point about the importance of winning

    You don't think we know the importance of winning. You think anyone prefers 2-2 over 4-0. Don't be condescending. I'd rather have a pitcher with a 5.00 ERA and a 1.40 WHIP over a picther with a 6.00 ERA and a 1.55 WHIP. I'll take the odds we win more with the first guy than the second. Yes, there are some pitchers who buckle down and seem to win more than their numbers indicate they should, but wins are a team stat more than an individual one. Yes, the pitcher matters more than any other single player in a given game, but defense, run support, catcher's relevence, and many other fcators go into a win. You have said this yourself.

    As for Wake, he was 4-0 also. But his ERA was 6.95. Yet he gets backing but Lackey doesn't. Nice double-standard, which used to work against Wake. Of course Wake pitched better in 2008. You are using one year, instead of looking at his career. Things tend to even out, incl run support. Wake averages 13.7 wins a year per full season. (33 starts). That includes good/poor
    RS. harness, you know I have never used ERA as my stat of choice to judge pitchers by. Earned Runs are not all equal. Look at so many of Wake's "earned runs" this year. I have always used WHIP as a better indicator, but not the only one to use. I look at quality starts and near quality start %. I do look at ERA and park adjusted ERA. I look at SO/BB, FIP, BAbip, and more. Wins is one of the last stats I use to judge a pitcher by. The only reason I have brought it up on this site recently is to refute the silly clown who used it for Miller's bogus 6-1 record. I'm sorry: Miller is not a "winner". He has pitched worse than any other starter on this staff. He does not deserve to be called a "winner". We can agree to disagree, but if you go by wins (winning %), Miller should start over Wake, Lackey and anyone else.

    What backbones my argument with Lackey is the fact that common expectation of him isn't realistic
    . I'm about to start a revealing thread about venue. I think you will find the data compelling. When proper adjustments are made, you will find that Lackey is the same pitcher he was in CA (especially his 2010 numbers)

    Lackey has been almost as poor on the road. Look beyond ERA. Look at WHIP and other stats..

    I use the 14 win barometer because it is time tested and off a winning franchise, which is highly relevant. If he pitched for a lesser one, and he still went 102-71, it would translate better for us. 

    I'm well aware of wins being a team function. But we both know pitching is the predominant factor. If wins were a complete team function, HOF pitchers are there by luck or at random because they happened to play for winners.

    Check out what Carlton did when he won 27 for a 63 win team (I believe).
    I've seen mediocre pitchers on mediocre teams have a great stretch and carry their teams over better. (See 2011 WS). To say it's all one or the other is inaccurate

    Lackey is not carrying this team. he has let up 3 or fewer ERs in 9 of 17 starts. Most pitchers in MLB will still lose 2-3 or even 4 of those "good games pitched". Lackey lost one of them. 

    I gotta tell ya, I had to check your post three times to make sure you authored it.
    I didn't realize what I said could be taken so out of context.

    I didn't take it out of context. You are still arguing the same point I disagree with now. In my opinion, you are wrong about wins. I'll always believe a 5-15 pitcher with a 1.20 WHIP and  3.50 ERA on a poor hitting team is better than a 15-5 pitcher with a 4.00 ERA and a 1.30 WHIP on a great offensive team (equal park/equal defense). Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you'd say the 15-5 guy is better. Sorry for sounding testy, but I feel like the Wake bashers didn't need anymore amo.  I know you have mentioned Fenway hurting Wake more than not.



     
  17. 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]Well, we finally got Hardin. Here's hoping we get Bedard also:)
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I like the Harden deal, since we gave up nothing we would have seen here in Boston.

    I still would rather have gotten a legitimate 2/3 guy, but Harden could revert to 2004-2008 form.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxPatsCelts1988. Show SoxPatsCelts1988'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 like the Harden deal, since we gave up nothing we would have seen here in Boston. I still would rather have gotten a legitimate 2/3 guy, but Harden could revert to 2004-2008 form.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    What are your thoughts on Aviles.  It sounds like Francona intends to use him in the OF once he gets some time in Pawtucket.  Could he be the answer at OF or do you think they make another move tomorrow?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    He's a very decent fielder (better than Navarro, Scutty and Lowrie combined). He can hit well. I think Theo might not be counting on Jed, or he may be looking to next year as well.

    I like the deal. 

    I like the Harden deal, not so much because I have a lot of faith in Harden, but we got good upside for a guy who would never play here.

    What I don't get is the silent Yankees. It scares me to think they might pull of a last minute deal and leave Theo unable to counter. If they get a guy like Shield...  uh-oh! 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    The Sox are going to have 40-man roster issues this winter. I think we should see a 2 or 3 for one deal before the deadline. I still think Francouer is a possibility and/or even another (better) starter.
     
  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]Moon , you completely misunderstood my meaning. I'm not bashing anybody.  You  should know I'd never bash Wake or Lester. Never. Why is it a point can't be made around here without people getting defensive? Well, you went on a "wins is the thing" rant, and that is basically what everyone used against Wake for years.(see: Wake in 2008) My take on Lackey is two-fold.  1) He is 4-0 in his last 4 starts - with a 2.50 ERA. Fact. And it came at a time when we needed it most, with Lester down/returning and Miller/Weiland exposed. Lackey bashers want no part of anything positive and take it as putting down others. Why is it Lackey is ridiculed in his best stretch?  "Well, he didn't deserve those wins".. "Well, look at his current ERA"... That's BS! As is to call it  cherry-picking . I am very familiar with his year. The rough start. His wife. The cort. shots in May. The salary. I'm trying to put his season in a better perspective I want Lackey to do well also. I was one of many who liked the signing at the time, but one of the few that still admit it. I defended Lackey's2010 season as being better than what bashers pretend it was, in terms of the percent of times he put our team in a position to win (more than just his nice quality start percentage). I know he has family health issues and I feel bad for him there, but this season has been a disasterthat only great run support has prevented from looking horrible (like maybe 4-13 instead of 9-8). Selecting just his last 4 starts can certainly be called cherry-picking. Look, we all do it to some extent, myself included. But it is what it is. His WHIP has still been high recently. If you go back 5 games it's: 4-1  4.61  (WHIP 1.610) in July. His June record is: 3-2  5.28  (1.239 WHIP). Using WHIP, he is doing worse this month than last. See, now I am cherry-picking. The fact is, Lackey has not done a good job this year for us. The fact that we are 9-8 in his starts is more of a reflection of our offense than his pitching. Yes, he has 9 starts with 3 or less ERs, but 5 of them have been in 6 or less IP. It's not a horrible rate of good to OK games pitched, but it is not #3 starter material for a contending team. Yes, his salary does make a difference.   . 2) To illustrate the importance of winning. 4-0 is better than 2-2. No names necessary. In a WS scenario, would you rather be 4-0? Or 2-2? Now, in the reg. season, if it's 4-0 with a 7.50 ERA, then that's obviously a gift. But it's earned with a 2.50. Is that so hard to acknowledge? To say I put Lester down is beneath you. It's not a reflection of Lester. Just the point about the importance of winning You don't think we know the importance of winning. You think anyone prefers 2-2 over 4-0. Don't be condescending. I'd rather have a pitcher with a 5.00 ERA and a 1.40 WHIP over a picther with a 6.00 ERA and a 1.55 WHIP. I'll take the odds we win more with the first guy than the second. Yes, there are some pitchers who buckle down and seem to win more than their numbers indicate they should, but wins are a team stat more than an individual one. Yes, the pitcher matters more than any other single player in a given game, but defense, run support, catcher's relevence, and many other fcators go into a win. You have said this yourself. As for Wake, he was 4-0 also. But his ERA was 6.95. Yet he gets backing but Lackey doesn't. Nice double-standard, which  used  to work  against   Wake . Of course Wake pitched better in 2008. You are using one year, instead of looking at his career. Things tend to even out,  incl run support.  Wake averages 13.7 wins a year per  full  season. (33 starts). That includes good/poor RS. harness, you know I have never used ERA as my stat of choice to judge pitchers by. Earned Runs are not all equal. Look at so many of Wake's "earned runs" this year. I have always used WHIP as a better indicator, but not the only one to use. I look at quality starts and near quality start %. I do look at ERA and park adjusted ERA. I look at SO/BB, FIP, BAbip, and more. Wins is one of the last stats I use to judge a pitcher by. The only reason I have brought it up on this site recently is to refute the silly clown who used it for Miller's bogus 6-1 record. I'm sorry: Miller is not a "winner". He has pitched worse than any other starter on this staff. He does not deserve to be called a "winner". We can agree to disagree, but if you go by wins (winning %), Miller should start over Wake, Lackey and anyone else. What backbones my argument with Lackey is the fact that common expectation of him  isn't realistic . I'm about to start a revealing thread about venue. I think you will find the data compelling. When proper adjustments are made, you will find that Lackey is the same pitcher he was in CA (especially his 2010 numbers) Lackey has been almost as poor on the road. Look beyond ERA. Look at WHIP and other stats.. I use the 14 win barometer because it is time tested and off a winning franchise, which is highly relevant. If he pitched for a lesser one, and he still went 102-71, it would translate better for us.  I'm well aware of wins being a team function. But we both know pitching is the predominant factor. If wins were a complete team function, HOF pitchers are there by luck or at random because they happened to play for winners. Check out what Carlton did when he won 27 for a 63 win team (I believe). I've seen mediocre pitchers on mediocre teams have a great stretch and carry their teams over better. (See 2011 WS). To say it's all one or the other is inaccurate Lackey is not carrying this team. he has let up 3 or fewer ERs in 9 of 17 starts. Most pitchers in MLB will still lose 2-3 or even 4 of those "good games pitched". Lackey lost one of them.  I gotta tell ya, I had to check your post three times to make sure you authored it. I didn't realize what I said could be taken so out of context. I didn't take it out of context. You are still arguing the same point I disagree with now. In my opinion, you are wrong about wins. I'll always believe a 5-15 pitcher with a 1.20 WHIP and  3.50 ERA on a poor hitting team is better than a 15-5 pitcher with a 4.00 ERA and a 1.30 WHIP on a great offensive team (equal park/equal defense). Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you'd say the 15-5 guy is better. Sorry for sounding testy, but I feel like the Wake bashers didn't need anymore amo.  I know you have mentioned Fenway hurting Wake more than not.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    1) "Wins rant". I said I'd take 4-0 (2.50 ERA) over 2-2 (1.22 ERA). I said nothing about projection or career. I isolated the question in that context.
    If I sounded condescending about it, it's because my statement was taken out of context. The bottom line is winning. In a WS, I don't give a sh*t how they win. As long as they win. If I'm projecting, then obviously I use other criteria and handi-cap it.

    2) Lackey's season has been a disaster. Disagree. The season isn't over.
    He could win his career avg. of 14 games, despite a DL stay and off-field issues.
    A current 4-0 2.50 run refutes the term "disaster". Is it not part of the season?
    To draw an analogy: Wake 2010. Some may say it was a disaster (one in particular), but we both know Wake had value, just as lackey has value.
    His salary is a by-product of the FA market,and the fact the team can afford to over-spend. His worth should not be measured in FA dollars.

    3) "Wins are more a team stat than an individual one". This is hard to quantify. It involves many variables, and as you know, I don't like to see it w/o looking at the pitcher/catcher equation. The degree of variance is highly debateable. It has to be seen over many years. The fact is, good pitching controls good hitting over-all.
    Of course, the term "good" is relative to era. Pitching is the predominant factor over all others. When you see a year like Carlton had for a pathetic team, it epitomises the point. But pitching can be easily compromised, so this is one that deserves it's own thread, and I doubt anything will really be resolved. Let's just say, W/L may be an under-rated mode of measurement for those who feel as you do, but deserved for those who believe otherwise.

    4A) "Lackey has been almost as poor on the road".
    This needs to be viewed in the context of when he was hurt and the level of comp. faced in all venues. Most importantly, it needs to be measured over his 5-year tenure in Boston to get a true read. He can use Fenway to his advantage as Schill did. He is facing tougher line-ups on a more regular basis than his days in CA, and 81 of them are at the Fens. 

    4B) "Lackey is not carrying this team". Never said he was.

    As for taking a 5-15 pitcher 3.50 ERA  1.2 WHIP over a 5-15 pitcher w/ 4.00 ERA 1.3 WHIP - I'll take the 15-5 mark. The difference in ERA/WHIP isn't enough to justify the fact that the 5-15 pitcher might be looking for an excuse to lose.

    For anyone to claim Miller is a winner off a 6-1 mark is delusional. His career numbers say otherwise. Jack Morris was a winner - a winner when it counted.
    But his ERA/WHIP slant the issue, which is why he's on the outside looking in...

    5) "I know you have mentioned Fenway hurting Wake...".
    It did in the first half of his career. A flyball pitcher has to learn how to use Fenway to his advantage, and he didn't have the proper command of this knuckler early on to do that. Few here back Wake more than us.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    harness, you don't expect more out of Lackey than Wakefield? I'm just throwing that out there. I think salary should dictate some modicum that Lackey is considered a rotation No. 3 or better at 82 million. I think that's why he has been disappointing. However, he's on a positive streak for his team and I am willing to see if he can continue that. But if I start seeing the 5 IP, 11 hits, bashed in the 1st inning routine more than a few times, I think it would be safe to say that he was not delivering the type of goods Theo/FO expected. I also feel Wakefield, who just lost his starting spot again, should be thrust in if Lackey isn't cutting it.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    The FA market is what it is. It exists to fill team voids. And teams will usually over-pay, depending on the market at the time. You can expound on 17 mil per year all year and the next 3 years, while dismissing Bard's salary all the while. Both are connected in the larger scope of things. Seeing Lackey "fail" as an 80 mil investment or Drew for 70 is looking at it through a magnifying glass.
    Theo bought a 14 win-a-year arm. Starting pitching is a rare commodity.

    As for my expectations of Wake/Lackey: We have the luxury of elongated careers.
    Wake averages 13.7 wins a full season. Adjust the numbers for relief work.
    His age is a factor, but not like others make it out to be.

    Lackey is good for 14 wins if healthy. More possibly, but this year isn't one that can be easily segregated for him. I saw last year how he's compromised by pitching in Boston, in the A.L. East. So, my "expectations" coincide. Wake started out in the pen. My hope was that he'd be used in a more meaningful capacity. He has been a blessing of depth his whole career. Both he and Lackey are have similar
    win-per-start ratios, if I recall. This is an over-looked stat.

    FWIW, I think the Lackey performance against Boston in the 2009 PO's may have altered public perception of him. All the money in the world won't make him pitch to unrealistic standards.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    1) "Wins rant". I said I'd take 4-0 (2.50 ERA) over 2-2 (1.22 ERA). I said nothing about projection or career. I isolated the question in that context.
    If I sounded condescending about it, it's because my statement was taken out of context. The bottom line is winning. In a WS, I don't give a sh*t how they win. As long as they win. If I'm projecting, then obviously I use other criteria and handi-cap it

    You are still saying the "bottom line is winning". It is not for a pitcher. The bottom line is did the pitcher help us win, does he usually help us win, at what rate does he help us win, does he get lucky or unlucky, and more... Past, present, and projections (future)..

    2) Lackey's season has been a disaster. Disagree. The season isn't over

    harness, you know I meant thus far. Let's not go this route. I actually think he will pitch well the rest of the season. I'd bet he does better than Wake, Miller, and Harden the rest of the way. My point is, he is lucky to be 9-8. His run distribution has been such that he gets shelled in a few games and pitched preety good to Ok in about 66% of the games. That is not bad. But, those are like Wake numbers. Those are numbers we have defended to show Wake is a capable 5/6 starter, not a capable 3/4 starter.
    .
    He could win his career avg. of 14 games, despite a DL stay and off-field issues

    Miller could have won 14 games with the amount of starts lackey will have gotten by season's end. It does not make his season a success.
    .
    A current 4-0 2.50 run refutes the term "disaster". Is it not part of the season?

    Yes, a good sign. A good trend. Still a cherry-picked timeframe to make him look as good as possible. (Nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is.)

    To draw an analogy: Wake 2010. Some may say it was a disaster (one in particular), but we both know Wake had value, just as lackey has value

    I never said Lackey had no value. I said the 14 win valuation is misleading and narrow in focus.

    His salary is a by-product of the FA market,and the fact the team can afford to over-spend. His worth should not be measured in FA dollars

    His worth can be measured in what could we have gotten instead of him for $85M, same as CC for $142M. In the case of Drew, a good case was made that all other options were just as bad- or worse. Yes, I'd rather have Lackey than nobody. Howver, I'd rather have Wake's numbers than Lackey's. Wake's contract was essentially a FA deal (team friendly, but still).

    3) "Wins are more a team stat than an individual one". This is hard to quantify. It involves many variables, and as you know, I don't like to see it w/o looking at the pitcher/catcher equation. The degree of variance is highly debateable. It has to be seen over many years. The fact is, good pitching controls good hitting over-all.
    Of course, the term "good" is relative to era. Pitching is the predominant factor over all others. When you see a year like Carlton had for a pathetic team, it epitomises the point. But pitching can be easily compromised, so this is one that deserves it's own thread, and I doubt anything will really be resolved. Let's just say, W/L may be an under-rated mode of measurement for those who feel as you do, but deserved for those who believe otherwise

    The difference is Lackey isn't "controlling" anybody's hitting anywhere near as well as Carlton did. Carlton won many games 1-0 and 2-1. It is not a fair comparison.

    4A) "Lackey has been almost as poor on the road".
    This needs to be viewed in the context of when he was hurt and the level of comp. faced in all venues. He is facing tougher line-ups on a more regular basis than his days in CA, and 81 of them are at the Fens

    I disagree: in 2010, he had better numbers at home in Fenway than on the road
    Away (15 games started, not 81) 11-5, 4.45 ERA/1.455 WHIP
    Home (18 games started, not 81) 3-6, 4.34 ERA/1.388 WHIP.
    Opponent's OPS was nearly identical.. 

    This year, he hasd done better on the road in ERA and WHIP, but has a better winning % at home (6-4 vs 3-4). Gues who he has pitched the most games against this year:
    Toronto 3, Seattle 2, Oakland 2, LAA 2. One game vs Balt, KC, Milw, NYY, Phil, SD, TB, and TX and 0 vs Bos. 
    How about 2010? Yankees? No. It was:
    5 vs Balt, 4 vs TB, 4 vs Tor, only 3 vs NYY, 0 vs Bos, 3 vs LAA, 2 vs Oak, Sea, Phil, and 1 vs Az, Cle, Col, Det, MN, and TX.

    Totals with Boston:
    Tor 7
    Balt 6
    Sea 4
    Oak 4
    LAA 4
    TB 4
    NYY 4

    In Boston, he has faced winning teams in 19 of 31 starts.
    In LA, he faced 32/51 in 2008-2009.
    (16 of 27 teams with winning records in 2009. In 2008, it was 16/24)
    Pretty even.  

    4B) "Lackey is not carrying this team". Never said he was.

    As for taking a 5-15 pitcher 3.50 ERA  1.2 WHIP over a 5-15 pitcher w/ 4.00 ERA 1.3 WHIP - I'll take the 15-5 mark. The difference in ERA/WHIP isn't enough to justify the fact that the 5-15 pitcher might be looking for an excuse to lose

    I thought you would choose that, so in fact, I took nothing "out of context"..

    For anyone to claim Miller is a winner off a 6-1 mark is delusional. His career numbers say otherwise. Jack Morris was a winner - a winner when it counted

    But Miller's sample size this year is larger than Lackey's last 4 games. Miller's record this year is a manifestation of run support, not his skill level. He may not have been 6-1 last year, but if he had this line-up and good fielding behind him, I bet he'd have been much better.
    .
    But his ERA/WHIP slant the issue, which is why he's on the outside looking in.

    Then why don't Lackey's ERA and WHIP slant your view?

    Boston ERA: 4.96
    Boston WHIP: 1.466...

    5) "I know you have mentioned Fenway hurting Wake...".
    It did in the first half of his career. A flyball pitcher has to learn how to use Fenway to his advantage, and he didn't have the proper command of this knuckler early on to do that. Few here back Wake more than us.

    I know you back Wake, but Wake did go 16-8  2.95 (1.183) his first season here. He went 59-44 his first 4 (avg 15 wins! Better than Lackey! Wow!). His WHIP were worse then than recent years, his ERA was better. To me, no way Wake pitched better in 2007:
    17-12  4.76  1.349
    than 2008:
    10-11  4.13  1.182 
    Wake pitched unbelievable in 2008 and got robbed. He had a 9 game stretch with no game allowing over 3 ER- 7 were 2 or less- 4 were 1 or less: he went 3-3 in that stretch. Many of his losses, he let up less runs than the opps. The pen blew the games, but I guess he just wasn't a "winner" that year. He was missing some heart, or the venue worked against him. No, he pitched great, and over time it would normally even out and he'd have gotten more wins with those numbers than his 2007 numbers. He was better in 2008 than 2007. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

     Both he [Wake]and Lackey are have similar 
    win-per-start ratios, if I recall. This is an over-looked stat.

    Wins and ERA are the most looked at stats when voting for Cy Youngand by half the fans on this site when comparing any two pitchers.

    WHIP, BAbip, FIP, SO/BB are more "overlooked"..
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share