A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. 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]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.   
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    You mean this line-up that sports a .254 road BA? And a .757 road OPS?
    See FENWAY FACTOR thread.
     
  2. 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 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...
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    No, I was refering to:

    "Dismiss the salary issue and you'll see the forest for the trees"

    I was responding to your position (non-salary). Lackey's numbers aside from salary and including park adjustments do not warrant him being in our 5 man rotation. The season numbers only. Any of our 9 starters this year would project to 14+ wins with 33 starts. None of our starters has a 6.20 ERA, except Lackey. Only one other starter has a WHIP higher than Lackey's (Miller- Weiland's sample size is too small).


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Moon, you said "salary does not come into play when comparing starter's numbers". When the hell did I ever say they did? I'm saying the same thing you are. I'm telling DCATER to look beyond salary when evaluating Lackey. He isn't nor will he ever be what he or many others think his salary is perceived to indicate.

    You are missing my point. I'm defending Lackey in 2010/11 for not being a bust. I'm also saying that his 14 wins/4.40 ERA run true to from, venue adjusted.
    This year, at least the first two months, he is what Josh was last year. Josh didn't deserve the #4/5 spot last year any more than Lackey does this year. Get it?

    If you give Josh a free pass last year because of his back, why don't you acknowledge Lackey's issues, especially his elbow over the first two months?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : 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.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Actually I do play the horses (only a few times a year). I win not only often but probably 70 percent of the time, And I win because I use logic and actually watch the horses who lose in races and how they finish. For instance, I nailed the Preakness for the exacta (I won the derby as well, but on a small side bet) because I stuck with my original horse in the Derby--Shackelford. Now did I stick with him due to pedigree, I mean he faded in the Derby after leading most of that race. No, I didn't "dismiss" him. I realized all the horse had to do was run the same race and realize Animal Kingdom wasn't going to catch him this time, the jockey pushed him down the stretch. It was funny because during the pre-race coverage, Shackelford, for whatever reason, was "dismissed" by a few "experts." So don't even try to categorize me, don't try to underestimate what I know, how I know, and don't ever f-ing question my intelligence ever again you pompous windbag. You make smart aleck remarks when people have shown you time and time again that the statistics don't lie about Lackey.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    As for taking statistics out of context, making a blanket statement that "Lackey is a winner, he won his last 4 starts" is doing EXACTLY THAT. YOU ARE DESCRIBING LACKEY'S SUCCESS WITHOUT TAKING INTO FACTORS SUCH AS OFFENSE AS HELPING HIM EARN HIS WINS. You are so pitching predominant in your thinking, you dismiss that batting is more than batting average. You keep citing .253 like it's the most horrible batting average ever, and don't keep in my mind the 5 runs a game and the MLB leading 71 home runs on the road. You think if John Lackey threw in Anaheim this year, he would have a lower ERA, lower WHIP, but he'd have less victories...why??? The Angels offense is not that good anymore. He has 9 wins out of the grace of Sox juggernaut hitting, not by his own pitching. You are over-reaching with the distortion thread, and you are wasting your time defending a pitcher who IS NOT EARNING HIS SALARY.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    But now Shaughnessy is in harness's corner on Lackey. So I hope you guys enjoy the ride with him as the solid No. 3 that he surely has proven to be, but has to be 'excused' that he wasn't signed to be a No. 3 in the first place. I don't cringe when Wakefield pitches, the way a lot of fans unfortunately do...I do cringe when I see Lackey though.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Few thoughts based on the conversations here:

    I am not sure that the most refelective way to describe Bedard is as a 4-5 pitcher. His stat line doesn't reflect that. He is a recovering 2-3 IMO. His WHIP and ERA since 2006 show when he is healthy he much closer to the top of a rotation than the bottom. So the issue with Bedard is going to be how sharp he will be after a layoff for a sprained knee and how well will his shoulder hold up coming off of labrum surgery in 2010.

    Kuroda certainly appears to be the first option. Whether Bedard was #3 or the RS went the route of Harden first because the matched up better with the A's (did not require a three team deal) we will never know. But whatever they saw in the meds on Harden bugged them enough not to want to add a PTNL to Lars Anderson.

    How fragile is pitching? Well consider what the RS did last year, this year, how much they spent and just how unsettled their rotation is and we get a good idea. Of the opening day starting 5, 2 are lost for the season and only Beckett has not been on the DL.


     
  10. 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]But now Shaughnessy is in harness's corner on Lackey. So I hope you guys enjoy the ride with him as the solid No. 3 that he surely has proven to be, but has to be 'excused' that he wasn't signed to be a No. 3 in the first place. I don't cringe when Wakefield pitches, the way a lot of fans unfortunately do...I do cringe when I see Lackey though.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]Wakefield has taken more hits on BDC than he does in the real world. A lot of that is a certain serial poster who found it to be a hot button that would serve his desire to annoy other members of the forum.

    I think fans "cringe" with Wake if you want to call it that because his control of the the knuckler is almost a mystery to even him and it can go at any moment whether he is going well or not. It can go because of atmospheric conditions, it can go because the pitches are soooo good that the umpires can recognize a strike and force him to flatten it out. It just goes and the pitching coach or the catcher can't just walk to the mound and say "you are opening up." And when it happens the game turns quickly. And because Wake works quickly it feels like quick sand. That's where the cringe comes from, that and having seen that happen 100's of times because Wake has been with us so long.

    Now I will grant you right now there hasn't been a lot of reasons to have any confidence in a Lackey start. It has been a tough season, where he gets hit hard often, suffers a thousand paper cut innings in between. So I can see where an observer would have a sense of impending doom when Lackey is pitching this year. 

    I am not sure how or why the merits of the two pitchers end up in the conversation as a single topic. They are two different cases, at different stages of their careers and the team had very different expectations for the two. 
     
  11. 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 mean this line-up that sports a .254 road BA? And a .757 road OPS? See FENWAY FACTOR thread.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Yankee Stadium Factor is pretty important also, as well as many others. I haven't looked it up but this team seems to be scoring runs as well as any Boston team I remember. And this is the year of the pitcher last I heard. Post steroid era supposedly.
     
  12. 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]But now Shaughnessy is in harness's corner on Lackey. So I hope you guys enjoy the ride with him as the solid No. 3 that he surely has proven to be, but has to be 'excused' that he wasn't signed to be a No. 3 in the first place. I don't cringe when Wakefield pitches, the way a lot of fans unfortunately do...I do cringe when I see Lackey though.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    When I read Shaughnessy he seemed to like the playoff numbers but was resigned to the fact that we had no one any better at #3 currently, but he didn't seem happy about it. He was in his corner reluctantly.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    If we look at Bedard's numbers from earlier in the year, he put up quite a few quality starts. He gave up 3 hits in 8 innings during one start and had all but 2 games as quality starts if I remember correctly. His worse game of the year by far was last Friday.

    Something we should remember is that he has an incentive laden deal this year. Lots of incentives. Maybe he is trying to come back too early? He wants that extra $2-3 mil? He may or may not be ready yet.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    One thing that seems likely though is that his arm is acceptable. Coming back from 2 shoulder surgeries must be hard but he looks like he has accomplished that.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Wakefield has taken more hits on BDC than he does in the real world. A lot of that is a certain serial poster who found it to be a hot button that would serve his desire to annoy other members of the forum. I think fans "cringe" with Wake if you want to call it that because his control of the the knuckler is almost a mystery to even him and it can go at any moment whether he is going well or not. It can go because of atmospheric conditions, it can go because the pitches are soooo good that the umpires can recognize a strike and force him to flatten it out. It just goes and the pitching coach or the catcher can't just walk to the mound and say "you are opening up." And when it happens the game turns quickly. And because Wake works quickly it feels like quick sand. That's where the cringe comes from, that and having seen that happen 100's of times because Wake has been with us so long. Now I will grant you right now there hasn't been a lot of reasons to have any confidence in a Lackey start. It has been a tough season, where he gets hit hard often, suffers a thousand paper cut innings in between. So I can see where an observer would have a sense of impending doom when Lackey is pitching this year.  I am not sure how or why the merits of the two pitchers end up in the conversation as a single topic. They are two different cases, at different stages of their careers and the team had very different expectations for the two. 
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    five, i agree with that comment 100 percent. And that's why I compare the two because Lackey making 82 million dollars has a great deal to do with him being in the rotation over being sent to the minors. Wakefield is on a start to start basis, Lackey is not. Wakefield makes 4 mil, and is under great scrutiny if he gives up 5 ER in a game. People are actually saying Lackey pitched well last night v. Cleveland. Columnists are actually apologizing for Lackey, but staying confident with him. Wakefield is pitching better than Lackey. Better ERA, better WHIP, better and much lower batting average against, and he's coming off a 3-hitter game. Yet it's he who people have already "dismissed" as a guy who can start a big game. What games are people are watching?

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Lackey is a terrible option as a SP. He's not reliable. But he's signed up for the long haul, for big money, so he pitches rain or shine. And several posters here don't want to believe money has a big influence in how players are treated and how players get free passes the bigger their contract while guys who are trustworthy veterans for cheap money get treated like rookies going back and forth from Pawtucket. Anyone who thinks a guy who allows 15 baserunners per 9 IP is helping his team is on pretty strong narcotics. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    m
     
  18. 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]Lackey is a terrible option as a SP. He's not reliable. But he's signed up for the long haul, for big money, so he pitches rain or shine. And several posters here don't want to believe money has a big influence in how players are treated and how players get free passes the bigger their contract while guys who are trustworthy veterans for cheap money get treated like rookies going back and forth from Pawtucket. Anyone who thinks a guy who allows 15 baserunners per 9 IP is helping his team is on pretty strong narcotics. 
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    How did you know I was on nacotics? JK...Anyway, I agree with basically everything you have said on this dannycater. I think most here do as well. He has not performed well. He does not inspire much hope that it's going to change anytime soon. The amount of money probably does have some impact, as well as his record of success.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I still have hope for Lackey the same way I still had hope for Beckett coming into this year, even though he was awful the last two months of 2009 and all of 2010.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Of course his contract matters and the fact that he is a veteran that has no options so he'd have to be DFAed to be sent to the minors and he'd never clear waivers.

    The fact that veterans can be just sent down on options BTW also kept Tim on the opening day 25 man roster because Aceves was the right guy to have in the BP not Tim. So the veteran status and contract cuts sharply both ways sometimes.

    Yeah, the RS have $85M wrapped up in a guy whose career prior to coming here was a sub 4 ERA guy. His bad 2010 was a good Tim Wakefield year when Tim was on his 2004-2009 roll. The RS are going to keep with it for awhile before they write that off. And their patience may be further explained by the fact that they probably know more about his health than we are being told. That and right now Andrew Miller has not pitched him out of the line-up.

    Danny you love Wakefield and that's great but you do tend to see things through a certain prisim that the world is dumping on Timmy. I just don't see it. He had a bad spring and as I said if he and Aceves both had options he was beaten out of a spot on the 25 man roster. Last year he got his shot at starting and he was bad. This year he has gotten his shot and he has been good enough relative to the rest of the pitchers available to stay in the rotation.

    Nobody who matters dislikes the guy, the fact a few blowhards call him Wastefield dosen't matter and honestly a "he hasn't stunk as much as Lackey" argument is not much of an argument. He also never was as good.

    He is Tim. He has been ours for long time and I am glad Theo did not listen to the wanna-be GM from Mayberry RFD and he kept him and had Miller and Aceves in the minors to open the year. We needed him and right now still do.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    "This year he has gotten his shot and he has been good enough relative to the rest of the pitchers available to stay in the rotation." fivekatz

    This is a perfect statement. We all want Wake to do well but had the others been able to do their jobs Tim would not be in the rotation, and perhaps not even on the team at all.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Moon, you said "salary does not come into play when comparing starter's numbers". When the hell did I ever say they did? I'm saying the same thing you are. I'm telling DCATER to look beyond salary when evaluating Lackey. He isn't nor will he ever be what he or many others think his salary is perceived to indicate

    I think there is a misuderstanding here. I know you are not saying salary is a big issue, but I get the impression you think most of those criticizing Lackey are using his salary as a foundation of their position. Yes, someseem to be, but my point was that some of us do "see the forest for the trees" and it ain't a pretty site.

    You are missing my point. I'm defending Lackey in 2010/11 for not being a bust. I'm also saying that his 14 wins/4.40 ERA run true to from, venue adjusted.
    This year, at least the first two months, he is what Josh was last year. Josh didn't deserve the #4/5 spot last year any more than Lackey does this year. Get it?

    Yes, Lackey did come close to expectations once adjusted for park and stronger opps, but then you extended it to 14 wins 6.20 ERA / 1.55 is true or near true to form as well. It is not, and that is where we disagree. I do recall you saying Lackey might need an adjustment period to his new park, new catcher, etc.. Times up.

    If you give Josh a free pass last year because of his back, why don't you acknowledge Lackey's issues, especially his elbow over the first two months?

    I didn't give Josh a "free pass", but do accept that injury is a mitigating factor. The fact that Josh seems to get hurt (and pitch hurt) often help the view that when he is not pitching well, it is because he is hurt, so he is a great pitcher almost always when healthy. I'm not sure I would say the same for Lackey. Lackey has had some past injuries as well, and this year I have heard everything from Tommy John, to shoulder, to family health issues. I am willing to give John the benefit of the doubt. I had to take his mound antics towards his teammates and manager with a grain of salt, but I am not convinced that a 4 game sampe size means much at all. I hope it does, but truthfully, I have about 5% faith in him as a quality3rd starter in the playoffs. His numbers this year are horrible. His numbers since May are not quality 3rd starter material either. The only thing I see that is good about Lackey's season are his numbers the last 5 starts and the % of near QS starts. He is letting up 6+ runs per 9 innings and getting 6+ runs of support. It does not surprise me that he is at about a .500 winning %.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    moon, will you explain to the masses why Wakefield is not as bad an option as people (including Shaughnessy) make him out to be. His WHIP and batting average against is certainly indicative of a better SP selection than Lackey.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Also, should we make some allowances for Beckett tonight due to Fenway. You know he gave up 2 homers and 2 runs and the Indians have limited the Sox to 3 hits in 5 IP. Obviously Fenway is turning a double perfect game into an offensive battle royale.
     
  25. 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]moon, will you explain to the masses why Wakefield is not as bad an option as people (including Shaughnessy) make him out to be. His WHIP and batting average against is certainly indicative of a better SP selection than Lackey.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]Nobody needs to make that choice right now so I am not even sure where this is coming from. But I will tell you this. I wish the RS had a healthy Dice K, a healthy Clay Buchholz and Lackey was pitching like he was last year so somebody could be debating why Wakefield is starting.
     

Share