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 : In fairness Boom after the 2009 season the career stats of Lackey and Beckett were pretty close in terms of WHIP, ERA etc. So while we kick around #3 starter, that is broad brush. After all the number 3 starter on the Phillies is quite different than the number three starter on the Astros. And it wasn't just his performance against us, Lackey was pretty darn tough against the NYY that year. Over paid is always hard to define when you have the winning bid and a guy is not meeting or exceeding the team's and/or the fans expectations. Lackey's money and years based on his age was in line with Burnett's and DLowe's 2008 contracts. Over paid to me is Carl Crawford or the posting fee not the contract of Dice K.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    You were actually responding to summer67 Katz. I agree with your thoughts though. There was a pretty good chance that the Lackey signing could have ended up with Lackey being #1. We really didn't know at the time what Lackey would end up being but the thought at the time was that he was roughly comparable with Beckett.
     
  2. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : That WBC and the impact it had on Pitchers was a wakeup call; unless you're Nolan Ryan (and even in his case, even Wilhelm); there's only so many pitches in an arm; it's not an inexhaustible supply; which makes what Satchel Paige did even more amazing (about 2K games, mostly CGs before his stint in MLB, and he did break down, but he was so good, he was still good ATF). Most of the time, those unusual pitchers who can go 30K IP use their legs more. Think Seaver, Ryan, Carlton, Spahn; some reverse examples: Gullett, Prior, and, unfortunately, Strasburg. On a smaller scale, something similar could be said about the HR Derby; mostly because it's been statistically proven to f--- with your mechanics.
    Posted by nhsteven[/QUOTE]The WBC may be the easier fix. Expand the rosters further and put in strick pitch count limitations.MLB likes the event no so much in terms of how impacts their media partners but it does contribute to expanding the talent pool to more of the globe.

    The HR Derby on the surface is just silliness but it is a big money maker for ESPN and therefore has some real importance to MLB. Not sure how they can modify it but it does give ESPN some valuable content the night before the game. The game itself because of the nature of baseball is still the most compelling of all-star events.

    But we have seen it with enough guys now to know that the Derby does mess with swing mechanics and the deeper a hitter goes into that Derby, the more it seems to hurt the results for week or two following the event.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I would think that Bedard may well not help us at all but it was a gamble worth taking IMO. I'd give it about a 50/50 chance that he becomes our #3 or 4.
    I'm not down on Miller but that is a dangerous situation in the playoffs IMO. I hope he stays in the rotation even. I don't think we can send him down without potentially losing him if I remember correctly. Maybe passing the deadline precludes that. Not sure about his contract but I think he would be able to opt out. I think it would cost the other team a little moolah to do it though.

    Signing Bedard was a tough decision I would think. Chances are very good that we just threw away 2 good prospects and a low A guy who might end up being good some day. But they are going for it all this year. They had to roll the dice considering the injuries to the pitching staff and the poor performance so far of Lackey

    Any trade is a gamble. We risked losing some possible future help for a chance at filling a key need now. This team seems to be on track to have a great chance at winning it all. I'd hate to lose it all by relying on Lackey, Wake or Miller in game 3 of a 5 game series and game 3 & 4 in a 7 game series .

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven'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 : The WBC may be the easier fix. Expand the rosters further and put in strick pitch count limitations.MLB likes the event no so much in terms of how impacts their media partners but it does contribute to expanding the talent pool to more of the globe. The HR Derby on the surface is just silliness but it is a big money maker for ESPN and therefore has some real importance to MLB. Not sure how they can modify it but it does give ESPN some valuable content the night before the game. The game itself because of the nature of baseball is still the most compelling of all-star events. But we have seen it with enough guys now to know that the Derby does mess with swing mechanics and the deeper a hitter goes into that Derby, the more it seems to hurt the results for week or two following the event.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    See`David Wright, Bobby Abreu for long term effects.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    ERA and WHIP are not the whole story. Pete Vuckovich had terrible WHIP #s in '82, yet won the CYA; he bore down when he had to. Whitey Ford, Denny McClain, Catfish Hunter, Robin Roberts & Jack Morris could care less about giving up solo dingers when up by half a dozen runs; to me walking a batter in those situations is akin to fouling someone in Basketball when up by 8 with a minute to play; I'd rather see a HR than a BB in these situations; it shows the pitcher does not have "Master Of His Domain", as Geoege Costanza can attest to.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    So there are even posters now on this thread that concede that Lackey might have been considered a top 3 pitcher of the staff at 82 million. That was kind of how I remember it being portrayed--Lester and Beckett and Lackey--with Clay, Dice-K and Wakes at the back end. Clay made it easier to swallow Lackey more by passing him by last year as a quality starter. Harness will say that Lackey is giving the Sox what they paid for, but I don't buy that. He is a horrific failure who has regressed and that may have something to do with Fenway, but it's happened nevertheless.
     
  7. 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]So there are even posters now on this thread that concede that Lackey might have been considered a top 3 pitcher of the staff at 82 million. That was kind of how I remember it being portrayed--Lester and Beckett and Lackey--with Clay, Dice-K and Wakes at the back end. Clay made it easier to swallow Lackey more by passing him by last year as a quality starter. Harness will say that Lackey is giving the Sox what they paid for, but I don't buy that. He is a horrific failure who has regressed and that may have something to do with Fenway, but it's happened nevertheless.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]Somewhere in the middle is the actually situation.

    Now Harness is trying to make the point that the RS expected in any season to get 14-16 wins from lackey and he looks to be on pace to do that again in 2011. At least that is how I percieve it. But I think we'd all agree the number of starts, IP, WHIP and runs allowed this year are nowhere near what they expected. So it is narrowly selected sample set if we look at W-L record.

    But his 2010 was probably just slightly less than what they expected. They got 215 IP last year with a slightly higher than expected ERA and WHIP but about where they felt the W-L record would be.

    And there is two ways to look at his year and what Buchholz emergence covered up.

    Coming into 2010, the RS did not know what they could expect from Wake due to his age and coming off of surgery. Dice K had looked good in September but they probably were already worried about his overall pitching health. And while Buch looked like he got it together in the first half of 2009 in AAA based on his MLB second half, he was a young pitcher.

    So yeah Lackey was added to fortify a big 2 of Lester and Beckett. Now whether Buch cloaked lackey's 14 wins, 4 something ERA and 215 IP or he cloaked Beckett's 6-6 season with 127 IP and a 5.78 ERA is a matter of perspective. As it turned out the three top starters for the RS were Lester, Buch and Lackey rather than Lester, Beckett and Lackey. So in the scope of 2010 Harness' contention is pretty accurate, the RS got what they expected from lackey at least within acceptable margins of error.

    I say all of this to suggest it is early to deem Lackey's career in Boston as horrific and given he has had to take 2 cortisone shots this season, it is early to assume that the rest of 2011 will look like the first 13 starts Lackey had this year. His first 13 starts were most horrific but at only 32 years old and having the pitcher's build that he does I don't think it is a slam dunk that his recent past seals his future over the rest of this season or next year.

    If this team is going to do anything in the post season let's hope he emerges back to form. Because they need at least two guys to emerge as 3 run 7 IP bulldogs on the days they don't have great command out of the group of Bedard, Wake, Miller and Lackey.  
     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    five, while I am with on the I hope he is going to do better, and I'm with you that you can make a case that the 215 IP last year was Lackey doing his job, his overall numbers suggest he has been nothing short of horrific..until this recent run. I hope he does pitch well, and stays healthy. We all do, but I refuse to qualify his effectiveness or take his numbers and validate his 82 million dollar contract. Any way you slice that part, you get poor value for the dollar.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    His first 2 innings of the Cleveland start is the type of Lackey I think we all want to see. 6 batters, 3 Ks, mowing guys down instead of 15 baserunners per 9 inn, which was his first 97 IP this year.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PawsoxPhil. Show PawsoxPhil's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Didn't I read somewhere last year that Lackey at one point led the team in quality starts? Of course Lackey's overall numbers got statistically skewed by the number of times that he got bombed and was left in there too long withot mercy to eat up innings. This is why it is important to watch games and not only study box scores and overall statistics. A good analogy is that one cloudburst in an arid locale can deem that area to be average in rainfall when it is not.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Lackey had an ok last year and I'm being honest about this, when we signed Lackey I think it was up in the air as to who would end up being the ace. Lester was probably favored at that point to me but Beckett was coming off a less than average season for him if I remember correctly and Buchholz was just emerging. LAckey came in with Beckett type career numbers. I think it was up in the air.

    Lackey just gave up a hard hit double and 2 HR in 3 consecutive AB. All smashed to RF. I'm not saying he's done at all but I don't see him being our #3 starter in the playoffs unless something changes in a major way. We are really going to miss Buchholz.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I noticed the other day that Ibarra was playing again down in the low minors, a highly regarded Cuban catching prospect coming back from injury. He is supposed to have an excellent bat also but he is effectively in rehab.

    Xander Bogaerts just made offensive player of the week down in A ball:

    http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110801&content_id=22612412&vkey=news_t428&fext=.jsp&sid=t428

    He jumped all the way from the dsl past the GCL and Lowell to Greenville as an 18 year old. He has 9 HR now as a SS in 145 games. He's not hitting for average but he's only 18 years old. They have 3 superb prospects on that team in Brandon Jacobs, Sean Coyle and Xander Bogaerts.
     
  13. 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 had an ok last year and I'm being honest about this, when we signed Lackey I think it was up in the air as to who would end up being the ace. Lester was probably favored at that point to me but Beckett was coming off a less than average season for him if I remember correctly and Buchholz was just emerging. LAckey came in with Beckett type career numbers. I think it was up in the air. Lackey just gave up a hard hit double and 2 HR in 3 consecutive AB. All smashed to RF. I'm not saying he's done at all but I don't see him being our #3 starter in the playoffs unless something changes in a major way. We are really going to miss Buchholz.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    That's why I thought we needed a solid #2/3 guy, not another 4/5 guy (like Bedard). Bedard is better than nothing, but we will all be praying for some luck for game 3 and 4 of 7 game playoff series. This team is so good, it's a shame we have to resort to prayers for 2 out of 4 games in the playoffs.

     
  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]I noticed the other day that Ibarra was playing again down in the low minors, a highly regarded Cuban catching prospect coming back from injury. He is supposed to have an excellent bat also but he is effectively in rehab. Xander Bogaerts just made offensive player of the week down in A ball: http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110801&content_id=22612412&vkey=news_t428&fext=.jsp&sid=t428 He jumped all the way from the dsl past the GCL and Lowell to Greenville as an 18 year old. He has 9 HR now as a SS in 145 games. He's not hitting for average but he's only 18 years old. They have 3 superb prospects on that team in Brandon Jacobs, Sean Coyle and Xander Bogaerts.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Boom, who do you see filling in (moving up) for the Sea Dogs departing in the recent trades?

     
  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 : Boom, who do you see filling in (moving up) for the Sea Dogs departing in the recent trades?
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    No one is ready IMO but they might bring up Brentz from Salem and there was a fill in guy discussed to fill the catcher slot. It was up in the air as of yesterday.
     
  16. 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 : That's why I thought we needed a solid #2/3 guy, not another 4/5 guy (like Bedard). Bedard is better than nothing, but we will all be praying for some luck for game 3 and 4 of 7 game playoff series. This team is so good, it's a shame we have to resort to prayers for 2 out of 4 games in the playoffs.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I don't know if a #2 or 3 was available. I don't think even Ubaldo qualifies for that right now. Apparently they tried Kuroda and had a deal in place but he turned it down with a no trade. Then Harden but they didn't like the physical. Then Bedard as the last best option.

    The likelihood is not good that he will be a good #3. i'd give that possibility around 35%. He might be our # 3 but will he be a good #3?


    Lackey still doesn't look like that guy right now. As of this moment maybe it's Wakefield! I wouldn't go with Wakefield against the Yanks but maybe against a NL team.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    i'd go with Wakefield against the Yanks
     
  18. 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]ok, harness, to answer your question: Beckett on the Open Market....Beckett now has proven he's back to where he was an elite ace, something that was certainly in doubt when he signed the extension last year. 5 years-20 mil a year, 100 mil.... Now, back to wins and starters and expectations. Let's throw out the winning argument in terms of numbers of wins because we all have gone off point on this. It's not the number of wins you buy, it's the number of quality innings you buy. You purchase a starting pitcher with expectations of innings pitched, quality starts, low enough ERA/WHIP or a combination that equates to lower all runs against. Here's what you don't want--a guy who can't get your team into the 7th, a guy who has to spend the pen in the 3rd or 4th because you are incapable of stopping early bleeding, a guy who goes on the DL frequently thus making himself less useful, and a guy who when you send him to the mound the team has confidence that it can score enough runs that the SP can leave the game to the later pen with a lead.. Lackey? Well, 82 million....not spent for 14 wins a season, but spent for 200-plus innings for sure, and a reasonable expectation that he would be part of a majority of wins in his starts. Not 50-50. So the jury is out on him. How's that, harness? Now to be consistent, I don't think wins for a SP should go into the equation of that pitcher's worth. I really don't. Too many variables and I dismiss the thought.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Again with the dismiss!

    How many pitchers do you think win 50% of their starts?
    Here's a clue: Josh Beckett has won 49% of his starts since coming to Boston.
    Jon Lester has won 51%.
    Lackey has won 51% this year. 45% since 2010.

    If you have an issue with win averages or feel is is more of team function, then go by wins-per-start ratio. In Lackey's case, it still averages out to 14 wins a year.

    Think back to the era of 4-man rotations. If you recall, 300 wins got a pitcher into the HOF. If these wins were more team induced, how come there weren't thousands of 300-win pitchers???

    You'll find that a 300-game winner has supporting data, like solid ERA/WHIP/win-per-start ratio, etc. You will also find that over time, a pitcher who averages 14 wins a year will have corresponding data, as will a 17-game winner on the average, depending on league/venue/etc.

    As for logging innings, Lakey was 2nd in IP per start last year.
    This year, he missed two May starts and as Katz alluded, maybe nursing a physical issue (elbow). Keep in mind, Becket threw 174 frames in in 2008. And 127 last year. Pitchers aren't machines. Lackey is not likely to log 200 IP every year.

    Dismiss the salary issue and you'll see the forest for the trees...
     
  19. 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]katz - would like to agree with your take on the medical staff. But, like Inspector Columbo, I just have a few more questions, if you please. Maybe I - we - are too close to the situation but does it appear to you that the BOS starting rotation has proportionately more injuries or DL visits than other teams? I am especially baffled by the stress fracture that has now ended Buch's season. Then there is Dice-K's arm, which I believe to have been blown out in the WBC two seasons back (and no one picked it up and Dice-K was not forthcoming about it.) Is there something that the conditioning or medical staff is missing, or incomplete?  Is the regimen to be faulted, or is it the people, or is it the FO just going with a bad system? And moon, harness, Burrito, feel free to chime in and call me wrong, but I get the sense that something is wrong with this picture. Thanks.
    Posted by summerof67[/QUOTE]

    As far as I know, similar conditioning technique that the team has deployed for years hasn't changed. Not aware of any personnel changes. Injuries like this can come from poor mechanics. Buch was throwing 2-3 MPH less this year than last. That means eitherhe was masking a back ailment, or his mechanics weren't sound.

    Lester is not throwing as hard this year. He went down for a time. Now he's throwing a bit harder. Jenks goes down. Hill. Dice. Wheeler. Buch.

    The only change I know of - is with our pitching coach.
     
  20. 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]five, while I am with on the I hope he is going to do better, and I'm with you that you can make a case that the 215 IP last year was Lackey doing his job, his overall numbers suggest he has been nothing short of horrific..until this recent run. I hope he does pitch well, and stays healthy. We all do, but I refuse to qualify his effectiveness or take his numbers and validate his 82 million dollar contract. Any way you slice that part, you get poor value for the dollar.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    I do hope you don't play the horses, DC. Because you would never last.
    You take stats like Lackey's in Boston and make no adjustments.
    Taking stats at face value and out of context is a recipe for disaster.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Sorry harness, but the salary does not come into play when comparing starter numbers...just the numbers. It's been hard enough arguing for Wake's continued presence in the rotation with a 5.00+ ERA and close to a 1.400 WHIP. There are not many teams, contending or otherwise, that keeps a 6.20 ERA/1.550 WHIP guy in their rotation. 

    The salary just adds insult to injury.

    Yes, he has done well his last 5 starts. I don't see any better options on our roster right now, and that scares me, especially when it is widely understood that he is now considered our #3 guy.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I think UR mis-reading something, Moon.
    My whole stance is based on not judging a player by salary.
    Especially given the FA structure.
    Perhaps you are referring to a DCater post...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    It is still Lester and Beckett and pray for rain...or can we seed some clouds in October? Lackey is not giving any of us a warm and fuzzy feeling. I don't know the numbers but it seems to me that when he has faced good competition he has been hit pretty hard. We probably are going to want to carry an extra reliever in the playoffs. And my gut tells me we need to get lucky with Bedard.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I think moon and I are not judging Lackey by his salary. He's getting body slammed. We are not hopeful about Lackey as our #3. The guy's peripherals are awful and he has a .500 record pitching for the best hitting team in baseball. There is little indication that he is capable of holding the fort in the playoffs this year. I am still a fan of John Lackey. I've followed him since his rookie year. Most of us are fully aware of what he has done in his career. I even sincerely like the guy. It's just that he has not performed well at all this year and I at least see little chance of that changing this year.

    I really hope I'm wrong. We need him badly. We have no realistic alternatives except maybe Buchholz or Bedard being ready by that time. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    With Crawford back and Salty producing well, this lineup might be one of the best in baseball history. Reddick has helped. We are firing on all cylinders offensively. This team has a .814 OPS, by far the best in baseball. 1st in runs, 1st in OBP, 1st in slugging, 1st in average. It's hard to believe but on paper New York is scoring a lot of runs also and they caught lightning in a bottle with Garcia and Colon. This is going to be a great series coming up this weekend. I like the fact that we finally are doing a better job of matching up against them this year.

    I know that Bedard isn't pitching in the Yankees series this week but he may well have an opportunity to do so before year end. And if he pulls off a victory or 2 against them he is probably worth his cost of acquisition right there.
      
     

Share