A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    nope, not favorites, true
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    favorites don't always win though or the Phillies would have won last year
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    True enough but every team's goal I think is to be built like and play like a prohibitive favorite coming into the tournament than then execute, When they do, they win.

    In that regard I don't think it is an over dramatization to be concerned about the starting pitching once you get past Beckett and Lester who most teams will have suitable match-ups to ensure they would not be locks to win. Losing Buchholz is a big deal. No it doesn't ensure not reachin =g the ultimate goal but it makes it even tougher.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Wakefield is certainly capable of giving us a bunch of quality starts in a row but I would hate to rely on him against the Yanks. They have seen him SO MANY TIMES that he would probably get beat like a drum. The whole novelty of the nuckler can be beaten over time as hitters make better decisions facing it. I faced a knuckler once. The ball seemed to jump from one side of the plate to the other and then nosedived to hit the plate. I thought about swinging at it but it would have been hopeless to hit it. I've never seen anything like that in my life. I have no idea how they get that pitch over. I guess they even try to calm down the knuckle effect some because there was no way the guy I faced could get it over the plate consistently. I have no problem with Wakefield in the rotation but look at the opposing staffs. Even the Yanks have a great rotation now. Look at SF. Philly with Lee, Hamels and Halliday. How are we going to win against Hamels, Lee and Halladay? We have a problem at the #3 guy is extremely important. Maybe it's Buchholz still. to me it's probably our best shot. I do have hope for Bedard though, especially against Philly or the Yanks in the opposing field. Dana
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    I'm sorry about your mother, Boom.  When I was in high school, I came home one day and my father showed me the chin-up bar he made for me under my basketball hoop.  He then said "let me see you do this".  He then jumped up and proceeded to chin himself ONE arm.  It blew my mind away.  He went from a 220lb Hercules, to a 75lb bag of bones before he died of cancer.  In essence, I feel your pain.

    I threw a knuckler in my stud days.  Two things are incredible: one, to throw it every time with barely any rotation and second, get it anywhere near the strike zone.  Wakefield and any other consistent knuckle-ball pitcher is truly a talent.

    It's incredible how any of you guys FIND the information that is shared here....truly remarkable.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    And Moon I get your point but 7 out of 18 is 39%. And getting hammered 39% of the time IMO puts far too much pressure on the BP and the offense. If the RS gave Lackey the run support they have been giving Beckett this year they would be 9-9 in his starts.

    I assume you mean they would NOT be 9-9, and I agree. 

    I am not defending Lackey. I defended his QS% and near QS% for 2010, but he doesn't even have that going for him this year all that much. Half his games are 0-3 ERs allowed. That is not good. I understand the injury argument, and that he is supposedly healthy now, and has done pretty good his last 5 starts. I just do not feel much confidence at all when he takes the mound.
     
  6. 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 : I'm sorry about your mother, Boom.  When I was in high school, I came home one day and my father showed me the chin-up bar he made for me under my basketball hoop.  He then said "let me see you do this".  He then jumped up and proceeded to chin himself ONE arm.  It blew my mind away.  He went from a 220lb Hercules, to a 75lb bag of bones before he died of cancer.  In essence, I feel your pain. I threw a knuckler in my stud days.  Two things are incredible: one, to throw it every time with barely any rotation and second, get it anywhere near the strike zone.  Wakefield and any other consistent knuckle-ball pitcher is truly a talent. It's incredible how any of you guys FIND the information that is shared here....truly remarkable.
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

    It is amazing how strong a guy gets when they are close to 30 or so. When we were 17-18 we thought we were studs, and then our uncle walks up and pins us at arm wresting as a 40 year old!

    Salty has really come around hasn't he. He may end up one of the top catchers in the game before he is through. I was so wrong about his projection. He sure looks like a player now. Hitting basically better than he ever has in the past. His glove hasn't been bad either overall.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    C'mon Wakefield!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Here is one for you Amp!

    Josh Reedick's UZR/150 scores so far in mlb this year:

    RF - PLUS  53.2
    CF - PLUS  60.3
    LF - PLUS  24.3

    Elsie, I think we have a winner! I'm seeing some of the best RF defense I have ever seen. He had a bad throw the other day but the cutuoff guy ( Pedroia ) fell down probably messing him up. He has a tremendous arm and an extremely fast release and you know what...he gets after it! I don't see a big sense of urgency in the OF with a lot of players but Josh gets after it. I love his defense.

    The other day I think I saw him actually throw a ball on a line to the cutoff guy while in the motion of catching the ball bare handed. He got that throw off immediately. I think we are in for some of the best outfield D since Roberto Clemente. Watch him closely guys. He is outstanding.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    His defense has never been doubted. His offense is what is suspect. Short ML sample sizes notwithstanding, he didn't hit too well in AAA either. 

    RF defense is very important in Fewway, so if he slumps some, at least we can gain some back on defense.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III


    Yeah, I'm really curious what the naysayers think of Salty now.  Unfortunately, at one time I wrote that he had the 'deer in the headlights' look.  I'm glad I was wrong.  He certainly seems to have settled in.

    I'm disappointed Wakefield threw two 'fastballs' in a row to the guy who hit the homer.  There's not that much difference in speed between his knuckler and fastball.

    I like Reddick...kind of feel sorry for Kalish since he probably was 'the guy' prior to his injury.  It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.  Were Kalish's numbers that superior to Reddick's?

    Boom, the guys of my dad's(and yours too, I assume) were a different breed.  They were tougher than today's cream puffs.  They chopped trees down by hand...did a lot more physical work.

    GO Ellsbury....I thought he was decent, but by far beyond my expectations.
     
  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]His defense has never been doubted. His offense is what is suspect. Short ML sample sizes notwithstanding, he didn't hit too well in AAA either.  RF defense is very important in Fewway, so if he slumps some, at least we can gain some back on defense.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I think his hitting in AAA wasn't as bad as some people think though Moon. For example this year in 231 PA he had 14 HR. That's a plus 30 pace. Last year he only hit .266 but he did hit 18 HR. No way he stays as a .340 hitter but he has shown more patience at the plate and he has been known to have prolonged hot streaks sometimes. Hopefully it lasts through the remainder of this year at least because it is paying huge dividends so far.

    We went from Drew's .214 with no pop to Reddick's .340 with around a 900 OPS. That is huge!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    32 HRs in 713 AAA Abs is very nice, but a .243 BA and a .748 OPS is not promising. 

    .243/.300/.449/.748

    If he repeats those numbers in the bigs, I'm not sure his fielding would make up for it. The .300 OBP is not something Theo admires.

    He may be a late bloomer. I hope so.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Few thoughts:

    We are awfully quick to go ga-ga over kids. Ellsbury in 2007, Lowrie in 2008 so I would say give Reddick time and don't assume Kalish is odd man out just yet. Very athletic player and covers a lot ground in the field. But his short MLB sample set may be the lights coming on or the same kind of anolmoly that Jeff Francouer has when first came up with Atlanta with less HR production in this case. Just the same it is enjoyable to watch and how can't you root for kids to do well...

    Watching the RS the last two nights I really understand why they wanted to add Carl Crawford's offensive game to this team. The only unplanned part of course is that it is Jacoby Ellsbury delivering that game. He really has silenced any reasoned critics. The kid can play.

    Back to Crawford, I wish he who I put on ignore would get on that guy like he has Ellsbury. I am not superstitious or anything but it couldn't hurt. It isn't going to happen at this point in a season but they really need to take apart Carl's swing and get him more closed and quieter at the plate. It is no bleeping wonder he can't hit LH and doesn't draw a lot of walks. He can't cover the outside part of the plate and he ends up having to expand his K Zone because he bats from behind way too often. I am sure his little run before he went on the DL won't be the last but this really is a lost year for a player of his caliber and salary.

    Nice outing by Wake too bad the Indians matched the pitching and he didn't get #200 at home.

    I know we tend not rave too much about guys once they have been here awhile and done "it" (unless you are the Muddy Chicken) but Papelbon is having an excellent year and was as big a hero as Ellsbury the last two nights. IF he goes elsewhere we will eventually understand how special he was and how rare it is to have a guy who does what he does do it as long as he has for us. But that said I think having Bard will smooth the blow in the short run and it will seem to us that it was Bard we can't replace.

    Great games. Fun to watch and all the better when we end up on the right side of the late inning drama. The kind of wins champions need to get over the course of 162 + 11.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : the jid line was sarcasm and in a light-hearted way, which he TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD...but not you. Second, If I had the time to play the horses full-time, I'd do it, but see I don't get to collect health benefits and there are no guarantees in horse betting in taking care of a family. However, I did do it for 2 months between jobs about 20 years ago when I hit a Pick 6 at Hollywood Park and won several grand so please don't talk ever again to me about horse racing and gambling. You've done this several times in the last 2 years.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    I'll talk about Horse racing whenever I wish. Doing it between jobs isn't a job.
    And one nice hit does not a player make. It's what UR up/down at the end of the meet that counts. Every meet. I'm not advocating you to do it for your life's work. I'm saying you wouldn't last in a time-tested arena. This is not reflective of your intelligence, which is high IMO.

    I play winter meets. 5 months straight, year in and year out. Avg. wagering 10G per month, every month. Start with a 5G stake. You know the roller-coaster ride.
    The two enemies for a player are impulsive behavior, i.e. letting it get the best of UR emotions, and poor objectivity. Being totally objective is essential.

    Playing the flats, there's a better chance for a mega-hit. But it's tough.
    I play harness, so the pools don't really support my action. Thus, I have to 'hit' far more often.

    Look at Jid's remark to your post. He didn't care for it.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Man! Those Yanks are going strong. 12 hits from their top 3 in the line-up tonight.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]harness has said that throw salary out of the equation, but if you did, then even then, Wakefield has outpitched Lackey. So I don't get the man-love for Lackey. There are more than a few posters on this forum who insisted that Lackey was market value, that Lackey was not signed to be anything more than a No. 4...That's horse manure. He was an ace of the Angels staff in '07, and he was a top 2 starter for them even in the injured years. That's how Lackey was perceived, and that's why Theo went after him. If that wasn't the case, then Theo is a moron. 
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Nice analogy! Hard to steer clear of the subect matter.

    How the hell do you or Katz know how Theo perceived Lackey?
    This Angel's "ace" averaged 14 wins a year/3.88 ERA in a pitcher's venue for a winning franchise. Some ace!

    Generally speaking, when a pitcher is in his prime pitching for a winning outfit, his ceiling is very limited anywhere else, dependant on venue/level of comp.. OTOH, the Bedard acquisition is intriguing in that he's got a nice winning pct playing for cellar-dwellers. He could end up being right there with Lester/Beckett depending upon health/regression due to health...
     
  17. 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 : Nice analogy! Hard to steer clear of the subect matter. How the hell do you or Katz know how Theo perceived Lackey? This Angel's "ace" averaged 14 wins a year/3.88 ERA in a pitcher's venue for a winning franchise. Some ace! Generally speaking, when a pitcher is in his prime pitching for a winning outfit, his ceiling is very limited anywhere else, dependant on venue/level of comp.. OTOH, the Bedard acquisition is intriguing in that he's got a nice winning pct playing for cellar-dwellers. He could end up being right there with Lester/Beckett depending upon health/regression due to health...
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]Harness he did not pay $80M expecting a regression to a 4.50 ERA or higher and a 1.450 WHIP or higher. I don't have to have had a one on one with Epstein to figure that out and honestly if you weren't so hell bent on debating points you'd concede that point.

    It doesn't take a brain surgeon to suggest that RS thought they were going to get a 200 IP guy with an ERA just south of 4.00 and a WHIP of about 1.350. NOBODY in the industry pays $16M a year for 5 years for 5 years of what Lackey did last year, let alone the misarable stretches he has had this year.

    You can go on what Epstein said when he signed Lackey:

    "When you enter into free agency from the team side, you want to try and manage the commitments as best you can, and obviously, you always want shorter deals, you always try to get the best deal you can for your club," Epstein said. "John's someone, with his track record and his consistency, who has put himself in a position to deserve a contract like this."

    "Watching him from across the field, we've always seen him as a big-game pitcher, a top-of-the-rotation guy and a really tough competitor, but we never really thought he'd be interested in Boston," Epstein said Wednesday at Lackey's introductory news conference. "I guess it's one of those things, when you play across the field from someone, you just kind of see them as the opposition and that's it. [Hilliard] said John's really serious about Boston, he wants to win, he loves how every game in Boston is like a playoff game, he can really see himself there. That got our attention in a hurry."


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    How the hell do you or Katz know how Theo perceived Lackey?
    This Angel's "ace" averaged 14 wins a year/3.88 ERA in a pitcher's venue for a winning franchise. Some ace!

    Lackey became a full season starter in 2003 for LA. It took him a couple of years to become "the ace" or co-ace of the Angels.

    2003: LAA was 77-85
    Washburn and Lackey had losing records, but Ramon Ortiz was 16-13 with an ERA over a half run higher than Washburn and Lackey. Sele and Appier had 5.50+ ERAs.
    Lackey had a 95 ERA+

    2004: 92-70
    Lackey was 14-13  4.67. (123 ERA+) Team went 16-16 in his starts
    Colon was   18-12  5.01.
    K. Escobar   11-12  3.93
    Washburn    11-8    4.64 (jusy 149 IP)
    Sele was      9-4     5.05

    Hard to pick an "ace" out of those 2 years combined, but starting in 2005, Lackey was arguably the 2nd best starter LA had for the next 5 years combined. 

    2005: 95-67 (in order of most IP)
    Colon   21-8  3.48
    Lackey 14-5  3.44 (123 ERA+) Angels went 22-11 in his starts)
    Byrd     12-11 3.74
    Washb   8-8   3.20
    E. Sant  12-8  4.65

    2006: 89-73
    Lackey  13-11  3.56 (129 ERA+)  Angels went 19-14 in his starts
    E. Sant  16-8    4.28
    Escobar 11-14  3.61
    Weaver  11-2   2.56

    2007: 94-68
    Lack  19-9  3.01  (150 ERA+)  Angels went 23-10 in his starts
    Esco  18-7  3,40
    Weav 13-7 3.91
    E. San 7-14 5.76

    2008: 100-62
    Sant  16-7  3.49
    Saun 17-7  3.41
    Garl   14-8  4.90
    Weav 11-10 4.33
    Lack  12-5   3.75  (119 ERA+) Angels 15-9

    2009: 97-65
    Weav  16-8  3.75
    Saun   16-7  4.60
    Lack    11-8  3.83 (115 ERA+) Angels 14-13
    Sant    8-8   5.03

    The Angels have had some pretty good offensive teams over Lackey's years there:
    Runs scored 2003>2009
    736, 836, 761, 766, 822, 765, and 883

    It's easy to say Colon was the ace from 2003-2005 and Weaver from 2006-2009.

    2005-2009, the Angels went 93- 57 in his starts.
    He was the 1-2 starter on a team with several very good pitchers, even with park adjustments, and a good run support offense.

    I still think (yes, nobody knows what Theo expected)Theo expected better than a team record 26-27 in his starts since coming here. I still think he expected better than a 4.99 ERA. I think Theo expected than a 1.461 WHIP. Forget the salary: go by team record then: 26-27.
     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    NOBODY in the industry pays $16M a year for 5 years for 5 years of what Lackey did last year, let alone the misarable stretches he has had this year. 

    Well, AJ Burnett is giving him a run for "the money".

    Lackey: 23-19  4.99  1.461  (Team 26-27)
    Burnett: 31-33 4.52  1.412 (Team  44-44)

    They both make about the same.

     
  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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Yes Wakefield has outpitched Lackey so far this year, so what? We compete with the rest of MLB not each other. Wake's current position is assured and frankly the way the two have pitched, neither one puts cream in my coffee matched up against Cole Hammels in a must win. Throwing "rotation slot" numbers at this discussion is not neccesarily the most useful way to go. A number #4 on the Phillies isn't a number #4 in Houston. So I would agree with you that Lackey was a above league average pitching addition in the RS view. His money based on where his career stats laid was in line with what pitchers with similar career stats had recieved in FA in the recent past. Any assertion that the RS believed they were getting a guy with near 5.00 ERA and a WHIP near 1.500 is a highly unlikely conclusion.  Now this #4 thing, well the RS would have been very happy if he turned out to be a #4 because of great performance by Buch or Dice K. I am sure they went into thinking Beckett and Lester were their one-two horses and Lackey darn near as good. That is what his career stats suggested. They liked his bull dog nature IMO (even with the faces and stuff that so many in RS Nation freak out about). They thought he would be a big game, big stage fighter for them.  Rather than the number in the rotation here's what I think the RS hoped they would get from John Lackey. 200+ IP, ERA 3.90 - 4.20, WHIP 1.275-1.350. So far they haven't. They aren't going to write-off $80M+ a year and a half into it, so here we are, with them trying to get him back to where he was. This is the risk that comes with having the $$$ to be able to sign veteran FA pitching. They don't have these problems in Kansas City or Pittsburgh.   
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    The FO couldn't possibly expect the low end of your projection. 3.88 ERA in CA is closer to 4.35 in Boston. Consider current team pitching data:
    At Fenway: 4.23 ERA  1.355 WHIP    .726 OPS
    On road:    3.53 ERA  1.172 WHIP    .663 OPS

    Here's Lackey's last year in CA: The Angels staff in 2009:
    In CA:          4.44 ERA  1.405 WHIP .776 OPS
    On the road: 4.47 ERA  1.413 WHIP .763 OPS

    Angel's staff in CA/Boston:
    In 2011: 2.98 ERA/4.50 ERA  1.205 WHIP/1.421 WHIP
    In 2010: 3.55 ERA/7.58 ERA  1.284 WHIP/2.085 WHIP
    In 2009: 4.44 ERA/4.21 ERA  1.405 WHIP/1.519 WHIP
    In 2008: 4.07 ERA/4.25 ERA  1.277 WHIP/1.396 WHIP
    In 2007: 3.85 ERA/6.83 ERA  1.321 WHIP/1.741 WHIP  

    And if you think it's the 'juggernaut Boston offense' that distorts the H/A numbers, think again. Since 2003, this historic RedSox offense is hitting .246 in CA - against the same CA team.

    EDIT: Just saw UR last post. What do expect Theo to say? "Lackey is a 14 win-a-year pitcher but the best out there right now"? Front of the line pitcher in a pitching venue has to be viewed accordingly.

    Either adjust for venue/level of competition (line-ups faced in an unbalanced schedule)...or invest in a nice pair of horse blinders...
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : The FO couldn't possibly expect the low end of your projection. 3.88 ERA in CA is closer to 4.35 in Boston. Consider current team pitching data: At Fenway: 4.23 ERA  1.355 WHIP    .726 OPS On road:    3.53 ERA  1.172 WHIP    .663 OPS Here's Lackey's last year in CA: The Angels staff in 2009: In CA:          4.44 ERA  1.405 WHIP .776 OPS On the road: 4.47 ERA  1.413 WHIP .763 OPS Angel's staff in CA/ Boston: In 2011: 2.98 ERA/ 4.50 ERA   1.205 WHIP /1.421 WHIP In 2010: 3.55 ERA/ 7.58 ERA  1.284 WHIP/ 2.085 WHIP In 2009: 4.44 ERA/ 4.21 ERA   1.405 WHIP/ 1.519 WHIP In 2008: 4.07 ERA/ 4.25 ERA   1.277 WHIP/ 1.396 WHIP In 2007: 3.85 ERA/ 6.83 ERA   1.321 WHIP/ 1.741 WHIP   And if you think it's the 'juggernaut Boston offense' that distorts the H/A numbers, think again. Since 2003, this historic RedSox offense is hitting .246 in CA - against the same CA team. Either adjust for venue/level of competition (line-ups faced in an unbalanced schedule)...or invest in a nice pair of horse blinders...
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    harness, you know it's almost all about the pitching. The Angels had some good pitching those years (including Lackey).

    My guess is the Sox hitting vs LAA was worse in Fenway those years than their norm in Fenway as well. It's all relative. 
     
  22. 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]NOBODY in the industry pays $16M a year for 5 years for 5 years of what Lackey did last year, let alone the misarable stretches he has had this year.  Well, AJ Burnett is giving him a run for "the money". Lackey: 23-19  4.99  1.461  (Team 26-27) Burnett: 31-33 4.52  1.412 (Team  44-44) They both make about the same.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    The difference between A.J. and Lackey is health. Burnett has been surprisingly healthy for NY.

    BTW: I saw you posted a 1.515 WHIP for Lackey since he got off the DL in May. Where did you get that number? I've got 1.399 WHIP. And a 5.18 ERA.

    Beyond his July 4th debacle ("I looked for help and didn't get any" Lackey. Young was at the buffet tables.), Lackey is 7-3 4.35 ERA  1.306 WHIP...or about what 80 mil is projected to buy in the FA market, adjusting to Boston.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    BTW: I saw you posted a 1.515 WHIP for Lackey since he got off the DL in May. Where did you get that number? I've got 1.399 WHIP. And a 5.18 ERA.

    I totalled his monthly totals off baseball reference, but I think I added HBP...Oooops, sorry  (BB/H & HBP--IP):

    June 9/29/5--30.2
    July  3/41/3/--27.1
    Aug   0/8/0--6.2

    Total: 12/78/8/64.2
    or 98/64.2
    or 9800/6467=1.515

    It should be 90/64.2
    or 9000/6467= 1.39

    You are right, but thinking about it, HBP should be included.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Beyond his July 4th debacle ("I looked for help and didn't get any" Lackey. Young was at the buffet tables.), Lackey is 7-3 4.35 ERA  1.306 WHIP...or about what 80 mil is projected to buy in the FA market, adjusting to Boston.

    As you know, pitchers are all about "what have you done for me lately", so I like what I am seeing with Lackey since returning from the DL. Too bad the sample size of what you are talking about is only 11 games, but he has to start his comeback somewhere.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I am trying to go on a Lackey free diet. I feel better that way!

    If we drill down into Reddick's numbers a little more, he did .306, .340 and .343 early in his minor league career. He did hit for both average and pop his first 2 years in the minors and even now he is still only 24 years old.

    I think it's realistic that Reddick can be a solid .280 hitter going forward with excellent defense. He may have some years higher than that and other years lower but I think we can realistically project him in that range going forward.

    Who knows for sure but I think that is a realistic projection. His updated zips is .297 this year. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share