A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]They're in a division where any small upgrade turns any team into an instant contender.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    And that's all the Dodgers need to get into the postseason where pitching often becomes more important.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    They're in a division where any small upgrade turns any team into an instant contender.
    Posted by moonslav59

    And that's all the Dodgers need to get into the postseason where pitching often becomes more important.

    It might not take much for any team in that dicision.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I :    The valuation and sale of franchises is the the big lie perpetuated by the owners. Your point about connecting value to winning shows a common sense undestanding of how a team should be valued, but that's not what happens. The ever increasing and ridiculous rate of return for franchises should illustrate to players what they're missing...the union focuses on revenue splits, yet the owners KEEP ALL THE APPRECIATION!! How about an appreciation tax? The money could go towards player retirement, pensions and welfare. The last CBA rammed through without a contest, put a salary cap in place and the players go along, fat dumb and happy to get their free agency pennies, while the owners keep the gold nuggets for themselves.   Rangers $590M   Astros  $680M   Cubs    $845M  Dodgers $1B  Players $0   The argument will say that the owners take on all the risk, but that's a Potemkin Village argument, no franchise has lost money based upon the business of baseball, some owners have been careless with their baseball legacy and over extended debt, but those are personal failures not business ones. If the Dodgers are worth $1B, then RSN is worth 1.4B, and the MFY are priceless.  
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]


    No offense, but doesn't being an owner entitle them to benefit?

    Does your reasoning include Patriot owner Kraft? I don't think he's selfish....just successful.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Who is going to have the surprising year in 2012?

    Ross?
    Salty?
    Aviles?
    Iggy?
    Morales?
    Doubront?
    Tazawa?
    One of the pitching projects?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    moon,

    I do not think you can count on Bard to be as terrific in the pen as the set-up man as he was the previous two seasons.  Mentally, I just don't know if he won't be affected by being demoted from heir apparent to Papelbon to lady in waiting (ie, ready to jump in and take over the role if Bailey gets hurt).

    I also disagree about Paps, and the loss of Paps.  I believe Bailey will be better than Paps was, and will continue to be for the 4 years Paps's new contract is worth.  I truly believe Madson will also be the better pitcher during the next 4 years.  Remember, the Sox have not been in the playoffs since Paps blew that playoff game and season three years ago.  And his ineffectiveness when most needed is part of the reason.  Yes, his 2011 season looks very strong on paper, as does Bard's.  And there was a 3 month stretch or so where they were pretty much lock down.  But in September they both gave away games, and essentially cost the Sox the season.  I will be happy to see Bard take Lackey's place in the rotation, and have Bailey and Melancon take Paps's and Bard's places in the pen.

    I think the biggest surprise will come from one of Silva, Padilla or Cook.  Especially if Jackson and Oswalt sign elsewhere.  Cook can give the Sox innings, and more than adequately replace what Dice-K and Wake gave the Sox last year, while Silva or Padilla, if healthy, could very well give the Sox a sub 4.00 ERA from the 5th rotation spot, much like the Yankees got out of Garcia last season..
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    moon,

    I do not think you can count on Bard to be as terrific in the pen as the set-up man as he was the previous two seasons.  Mentally, I just don't know if he won't be affected by being demoted from heir apparent to Papelbon to lady in waiting (ie, ready to jump in and take over the role if Bailey gets hurt).

    I would have been happy with Bard as the closer. I think I was in the minority. I'm not sure if it would upset him to stay the set-up man, but I think this whole "come to ST to try and become a starter" thing might divert the hurt if he ends up back in the pen. He'd be a great 7/8th inning guy.

    I'd love to see our pen be:
    Closer: Bailey
    Set Up: Melancon/Bard
    Mid Relief: Aceves/Doubront
    Others: Morales/Albers
    (Tazawa, Bowden, Miller, others...)

    To get this pen, we needto sign a solid #4 guy and hope one of these guys pitches well enough to boot Bard and Aceves back to the pen:
    Doubront, Silva, Cook, Padilla, Miller, AWilson...

    I also disagree about Paps, and the loss of Paps.  I believe Bailey will be better than Paps was, and will continue to be for the 4 years Paps's new contract is worth. 

    If he can stay healthy, you may be right, but this will be his first test under the immense spotlight that is Boston. Paps is pretty awesome. I wouldn't have paid him that money, but I'd rather have him for 4 years than Bailey if the money was even.

     I truly believe Madson will also be the better pitcher during the next 4 years.  

    Why? Over a 1 year sample size?

    Remember, the Sox have not been in the playoffs since Paps blew that playoff game and season three years ago.  And his ineffectiveness when most needed is part of the reason. 

    I disagree. We "needed him most all year", and he came through at a great percentage of the time. Had he not, we'd have been out of it before we got to that last blown game.

     Yes, his 2011 season looks very strong on paper, as does Bard's.  And there was a 3 month stretch or so where they were pretty much lock down.  But in September they both gave away games, and essentially cost the Sox the season.  

    It was a near full team collapse, not just these 2 guys, and you don't know how Bailey, Melancon or Madsen would have handled that kind of pressure.

    I will be happy to see Bard take Lackey's place in the rotation, and have Bailey and Melancon take Paps's and Bard's places in the pen.

    I hope it works. If it doesn't, I hope we didn't mess up Bard like the Yanks did with Joba.

    I think the biggest surprise will come from one of Silva, Padilla or Cook.  

    Don't forget Doubront, Miller, Alex Wilson or even Tazawa. I think out of these 7 guys, one can and will win a starter slot in ST.

    Especially if Jackson and Oswalt sign elsewhere.  Cook can give the Sox innings, and more than adequately replace what Dice-K and Wake gave the Sox last year, while Silva or Padilla, if healthy, could very well give the Sox a sub 4.00 ERA from the 5th rotation spot, much like the Yankees got out of Garcia last season..

    I agree, but did you know the Sox went 21-14 when Wake & Miller started last year? I'm not sure if Cook, Silva and others can do much better than that.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : No offense, but doesn't being an owner entitle them to benefit? Does your reasoning include Patriot owner Kraft? I don't think he's selfish....just successful.
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

     No offense taken Amp, you're solid. I think the owners are entitled to their profits.
    The union's position has always been that fans come out to see the players, as such the players are entitled to a large share of the profits. Now that the owners are pocketing this unheard of and unthought of appreciation, I'm surprised that the players haven't tried to get a piece of the REAL profits...
    perhaps in the next CBA.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Cody Ross and Iglesias will be allowed to play their game without fan pressure - the reason is that we have a star-studded offense who can cover for them and also abosrb our ire if they (stars) fail.


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I :  No offense taken Amp, you're solid. I think the owners are entitled to their profits. The union's position has always been that fans come out to see the players, as such the players are entitled to a large share of the profits. Now that the owners are pocketing this unheard of and unthought of appreciation, I'm surprised that the players haven't tried to get a piece of the REAL profits... perhaps in the next CBA.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]

    I can't see it YOUKILLUS.  That is opening a monster can of worms.  What if things tank and the value of some franchises depreciates-do the players also share in the hit?

    I think there are some things that should accrue only to the owners.  You have to give an incentive to investors, which they are.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Why? Over a 1 year sample size?

    Hardly, Madson has been an effective reliever for 7 years, and the last 5 straight.  Finally given the chance to be the full-time closer, he responded with 32 saves in 34 opportunities.  He seems to have put his control issues behind him for the last several years, and his WHIP over the last two years is as good as Papelbon's were in 2009 and 2010.  Madson has always struck out more than innings pitched, and the only bad year he had was when Phillie tried to make him a starter (hope Bard is not like that!).  So no, I don't base my opinion on a one-year sample size.  Over the last three seasons Madson has been as good as Papelbon, with one exception.  Madson has been very good in the post-season during that time, Papelbon has not.

    If Papelbon pitches better than Madson over the next 4 years, kudos to you and him.  But he is pitching for a lot less money and will be a better value, IMO.  If Papelbon proves me wrong it won't be the first time.  But some of you think Papelbon is the same guy who pitched lights out in 2007 and 2006.  He has not been that for half a decade now.  And he has blown his fair share of saves, including 8 in 2010 and 6 in 2006, both years the Sox failed to make the playoffs.  HE IS NOT MARIANO RIVERA.  He can be replaced.  And that is my opinion and my point.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Why? Over a 1 year sample size?

    Hardly, Madson has been an effective reliever for 7 years, and the last 5 straight.  Finally given the chance to be the full-time closer, he responded with 32 saves in 34 opportunities. 

    You know I was talking about a 1 year sample size of being a FT closer. He's been much better the past 2 years, but his career WHIP is 1.294.

     He seems to have put his control issues behind him for the last several years, and his WHIP over the last two years is as good as Papelbon's were in 2009 and 2010.  Madson has always struck out more than innings pitched, and the only bad year he had was when Phillie tried to make him a starter (hope Bard is not like that!).  So no, I don't base my opinion on a one-year sample size.  Over the last three seasons Madson has been as good as Papelbon, with one exception.  Madson has been very good in the post-season during that time, Papelbon has not.

    It's interesting how you have selected 4 different sampe sizes to make your point. 7 years, last 5 straight, last 2, and last 3 playoff seasons.

    Just throw out Paplebon's lights out playoff performances and concentrate on just his last 2 games (2 IP).

    Since Paps became a closer his WHIP has only been above 0.952 twice and 1.147 once. His numbers blow Madson's away almost anyway you look at it, except for your highly selective, every-changing, specific sample size time frames.

    Career:
              Madson  Papelbon
    WHIP  1.294     1.018
    K/BB    2.86      4.43  
    ERA+   123       197
    ERA    3.59       2.33

    Playoffs:
    WHIP  1.229    0.815
    K/BB    4.30     2.88
    ERA     2.31     1.00

    Let's look closer at 2 of your many time frames:

    Last 2 years:
    WAR: Paps #2 (4.2), Madson #17 (3.0)
    WHIP: Paps #16 (1.10), Madson #16 (1.10)
    xFIP: Paps #9 (2.87), Madson #7 (2.85)

    Last 5 years:
    WAR:  #2 Paps (11.4, just .2 from Mo), Madson #11 (5.9)
    WHIP: Paps #2 (1.02), Madson #10 (1.19)
    xFIP: Paps #4 (2.96), Madson #9 (3.34)
    tERA: Paps #3 (2.67), Madson #11 (3.36)

    If Papelbon pitches better than Madson over the next 4 years, kudos to you and him.  But he is pitching for a lot less money and will be a better value, IMO.  If Papelbon proves me wrong it won't be the first time.  But some of you think Papelbon is the same guy who pitched lights out in 2007 and 2006.  He has not been that for half a decade now.  And he has blown his fair share of saves, including 8 in 2010 and 6 in 2006, both years the Sox failed to make the playoffs.  HE IS NOT MARIANO RIVERA.  He can be replaced.  And that is my opinion and my point.

    You forget; I was happy we didn't outbid for Paps. Paps is not Mo, but he has been way better than Madson. Overpaying for closers is not my idea of fiscal responsibility. 

    I don't know if he will continue to be or not. It will probably be close, but I wouldn't bet on Madson.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Baseball is an effective monopoly and the valuation numbers just show that a baseball franchise is almost a definite cash cow. Any team can pull a Loria and completely gut the franchise and just pocket the revenue sharing money and make serious cash. And then get a stadium deal and put a little cash in to be competitive and then sell the team for a fortune in appreciated franchise value. 

    And who pays the bills....we do in outrageous ticket prices while their TV revenues are sky rocketing. The last Angels TV deal was over $3 billion or some ridiculous number like that. Baseball is a license to make money. An almost guaranteed 10-15% return on investment.

    And it is a business with people making business decisions even when it sometimes hurts the team's success. Exhibit A is Papi. Retained more for fan appeal and TV revenue than calculated baseball success. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Baseball is an effective monopoly and the valuation numbers just show that a baseball franchise is almost a definite cash cow. Any team can pull a Loria and completely gut the franchise and just pocket the revenue sharing money and make serious cash. And then get a stadium deal and put a little cash in to be competitive and then sell the team for a fortune in appreciated franchise value.  And who pays the bills....we do in outrageous ticket prices while their TV revenues are sky rocketing. The last Angels TV deal was over $3 billion or some ridiculous number like that. Baseball is a license to make money. An almost guaranteed 10-15% return on investment. And it is a business with people making business decisions even when it sometimes hurts the team's success. Exhibit A is Papi. Retained more for fan appeal and TV revenue than calculated baseball success. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

     Taking the Expos and putting them in DC, was brilliant. The Union opposed contraction and the result was the owners benefitted greatly, the owners don't know what's good for them!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I :  Taking the Expos and putting them in DC, was brilliant. The Union opposed contraction and the result was the owners benefitted greatly, the owners don't know what's good for them!
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]

    Now, just move TB to NC and...

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Why? Over a 1 year sample size? Hardly, Madson has been an effective reliever for 7 years, and the last 5 straight.  Finally given the chance to be the full-time closer, he responded with 32 saves in 34 opportunities.  You know I was talking about a 1 year sample size of being a FT closer. He's been much better the past 2 years, but his career WHIP is 1.294.  He seems to have put his control issues behind him for the last several years, and his WHIP over the last two years is as good as Papelbon's were in 2009 and 2010.  Madson has always struck out more than innings pitched, and the only bad year he had was when Phillie tried to make him a starter (hope Bard is not like that!).  So no, I don't base my opinion on a one-year sample size.  Over the last three seasons Madson has been as good as Papelbon, with one exception.  Madson has been very good in the post-season during that time, Papelbon has not. It's interesting how you have selected 4 different sampe sizes to make your point. 7 years, last 5 straight, last 2, and last 3 playoff seasons. Just throw out Paplebon's lights out playoff performances and concentrate on just his last 2 games (2 IP). Since Paps became a closer his WHIP has only been above 0.952 twice and 1.147 once. His numbers blow Madson's away almost anyway you look at it, except for your highly selective, every-changing, specific sample size time frames. Career:           Madson  Papelbon WHIP  1.294     1.018 K/BB    2.86      4.43   ERA+   123       197 ERA    3.59       2.33 Playoffs: WHIP  1.229    0.815 K/BB    4.30     2.88 ERA     2.31     1.00 Let's look closer at 2 of your many time frames: Last 2 years: WAR: Paps #2 (4.2), Madson #17 (3.0) WHIP: Paps #16 (1.10), Madson #16 (1.10) xFIP: Paps #9 (2.87), Madson #7 (2.85) Last 5 years: WAR:  #2 Paps (11.4, just .2 from Mo), Madson #11 (5.9) WHIP: Paps #2 (1.02), Madson #10 (1.19) xFIP: Paps #4 (2.96), Madson #9 (3.34) tERA: Paps #3 (2.67), Madson #11 (3.36) If Papelbon pitches better than Madson over the next 4 years, kudos to you and him.  But he is pitching for a lot less money and will be a better value, IMO.  If Papelbon proves me wrong it won't be the first time.  But some of you think Papelbon is the same guy who pitched lights out in 2007 and 2006.  He has not been that for half a decade now.  And he has blown his fair share of saves, including 8 in 2010 and 6 in 2006, both years the Sox failed to make the playoffs.  HE IS NOT MARIANO RIVERA.  He can be replaced.  And that is my opinion and my point. You forget; I was happy we didn't outbid for Paps. Paps is not Mo, but he has been way better than Madson. Overpaying for closers is not my idea of fiscal responsibility.  I don't know if he will continue to be or not. It will probably be close, but I wouldn't bet on Madson.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]


    I get that you like Papelbon better, and I respect that.  I wasn't being selective, I was trying to show trends.  Overall, Madson has been getting better and Papelbon has, if anything, been getting worse.  I prefer to use that to determine what the next 4 years will be like than to use lifetime averages and assume that every year going forward they will regress to their means (which are forever shifting).  If you disagree, that's fine.  I just would rather have Madson at 8.5 million than Papelbon at 12.5 million over 4 years.  I consider Madson a safer bet.  You do not.

    If I had been selective over stats I might have tried to state that Madson has fewer blown saves over the last three years, without acknowledging that he had far fewer total chances.  Or that Madson has only 2 years with a WHIP over 1.25, the same as Papelbon.  Selectively picking the over/under as you did, can make all the difference.  And the fact that you conveniently left out Papelbon's first year, when his WHIP was 1.47 (thus making it two years with WHIP substantially above 1.15, not one) and including Madson's failed year, trying to convert to a starter, in a lifetime comparison of relievers kind of makes you the one who is selecting his stats to make his case. 

    My point is and was that Madson, over the last three years, has had about as good a career as Papelbon.  And that over the last 5 seasons straight, and 7 of his eight years in the majors, Madson has been a very good and dependable reliever, only once having a WHIP over 1.25 (in 2007 he had a WHIP of 1.27).  So I based my opinion on 7 years of relief, not the one you exclaimed.

    Going forward I expect Madson to be the better value, unless and until someone goes and gives him a 4-year deal similar to the one the Phillies gave Papelbon.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I would have been happy with Bard as the closer. I think I was in the minority. I'm not sure if it would upset him to stay the set-up man, but I think this whole "come to ST to try and become a starter" thing might divert the hurt if he ends up back in the pen. He'd be a great 7/8th inning guy.

    Me, too.  And we were, especially where it counts, in the Sox FO.  But going forward, I am not so convinced he will continue to be a grea 7th/8th inning guy.  That may be just as frought with disappointment as his attempt to become a starter.  The last thing I want to see on this team are players who are discouraged by, or complacent about their role on the team. 


    Paps is pretty awesome. I wouldn't have paid him that money, but I'd rather have him for 4 years than Bailey if the money was even.

    Who wouldn't?  But that is not possilbe, why even bring it up?


    It was a near full team collapse, not just these 2 guys, and you don't know how Bailey, Melancon or Madsen would have handled that kind of pressure.

    Of course these two alone don't share all the blame for the September collapse, that is a horrific misreading of what I wrote.  But in the games these guys blew, they were in fact responsible for giving the game away, none more famously than Papelbon on the final day of the season, which cost the Sox a chance at the playoffs (A chance, I am quite certain, they would have found a way to blow in a one-game playoff with Tampa).

    I hope it works. If it doesn't, I hope we didn't mess up Bard like the Yanks did with Joba.

    And I hope he doesn't fail like Madson did with the Phillies.  But he deserves the chance, especially since he was not considered to be good enough to close by the powers that be.  And I have all along supported the idea that for 2012 the Sox would be better off financially trying to fix their rotation by bringing in some new bullpen arms on FA contracts and move Aceves and Bard to the rotation than to overpay Wilson or Buerlhe.  Curiously, they have backed away from that stance, and are now looking to perhaps overpay Oswalt or Jackson, afraid that Bard and Aceves might not be decent in the rotation.  I simply cannot believe that Aceves and Bard will not pitch more effectively than Lackey, Dice-K and Wakefield did in 2011.

    Don't forget Doubront, Miller, Alex Wilson or even Tazawa. I think out of these 7 guys, one can and will win a starter slot in ST.

    Didn't.  But we've been there, done that with a few of these guys.  And none of Miller, Doubront or Tazawa has approached the success Silva and Padilla once enjoyed.  Meanwhile both Doubront and Tazawa are injury question marks just as much as Padilla and Silva.  I think the Sox may come out of ST looking to trade what looks to be a surplus of rotation talent.  Maybe that is when they land their 2012 SS.

    I agree, but did you know the Sox went 21-14 when Wake & Miller started last year? I'm not sure if Cook, Silva and others can do much better than that.

    That is based almost entirely on the curious win-loss record that Miller accrued.  I wanted to believe that such a record proved Miller was a winner, but the more he pitched with his horrendous WHIP, the more I considered it luck and small sample size.  I think Cook and Silva could do better in keeping the Sox in games that Wake & Miller, and still only end up around .500.  But that is about all you expect from your #5 and #6 starters.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I get that you like Papelbon better, and I respect that. 

    I don't "like" Papelbon better. I am glad we did not outbid Philly for his services.  If a gun was held to my head, I'd rather have Madson ay $17M/2 than Paps at $50M/4. 

    My issue was how you were trying to show that madson has been better than Paps: he hasn't.

     I wasn't being selective, I was trying to show trends.  

    You selected 4 different time frames to make your points. You assume that because Paps last 2 playoff games were poor (3 ER in 2 IP) after 16 straight scoreless appearances (25 IP/0ER), and you label that a "trend"? Paps just had his best WHIP in 4 years. That's not a trend downwards. Since Madson became a relief pitcher in 2007:

    Madson:    1.27>1.23>1.23>1.04>1.15
    Papelbon: 0.77>0.95>1.15>1.27>0.93

    Important: Adjustments should be made in Paps favor because of several factors:
    1) Tougher home park.
    2) Tougher away parks.
    3) Tougher opponent's offenses.
    4) Pitching vs many more teams with DHs.

    Even if you descern a downeards trend here, his line has still been way below Madson's.

    Overall, Madson has been getting better and Papelbon has, if anything, been getting worse.

    Madson was very steady for 3 years, got much better a year, then a little worse. 
    Papelbon trended downwards for 3 years, but he was still better than Madson's 5 year total at his worst year (2010). Paps trended much better last year.

    I know the blown save line has been unstable, but I do not think that is the best stat to judge a pitcher. 

      I prefer to use that to determine what the next 4 years will be like than to use lifetime averages and assume that every year going forward they will regress to their means (which are forever shifting).  If you disagree, that's fine.  I just would rather have Madson at 8.5 million than Papelbon at 12.5 million over 4 years.  I consider Madson a safer bet.  You do not.

    Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I said I would bet that Papelbon does better over the next 4 years than Madson as a closer, but I never said he was a safer bet. I factor in salary, and paying Papelbon $50M is a huge gamble. especially since it goes 4 years and not 2 like Madson's. Plus Madson's even has an opt out next year. He is certainly a "safer bet", but that is different than saying he has a better chance of doing better.

    When I do projections, I usually look at career norms and the recent 3 year averages and trends. If age is not a big factor, I usually predict the future as somewhere between career norm and recent norm. 
    Pap's career norm WHIP is 1.018. His last 3 years is about 1.10. Last year was 0.933. I'd project him to be 
    1.00 to 1.10 this year, 1.05 to 1.15 next year, and maybe 1.10-1.25 the last 2 years of his deal. 
    Madson's career norms (1.29) and recent norms/trends (1.09) looks like he may do this: 
    1.10 to 1.15 the next 2 years, then a slight decline (1.15 to 1.20).

    If I had been selective over stats I might have tried to state that Madson has fewer blown saves over the last three years, without acknowledging that he had far fewer total chances.  Or that Madson has only 2 years with a WHIP over 1.25, the same as Papelbon.  Selectively picking the over/under as you did, can make all the difference.  And the fact that you conveniently left out Papelbon's first year, when his WHIP was 1.47 (thus making it two years with WHIP substantially above 1.15, not one) and including Madson's failed year, trying to convert to a starter, in a lifetime comparison of relievers kind of makes you the one who is selecting his stats to make his case.  

    I didn't count Paps firt year, since he started some and was not a closer (his relief WHIP that year was 1.389), but your point is well taken.

    BTW, SV% last 3 years:
    Madson: 63%>50%>94% (Career 67%) in way less chances.
    Papelbon: 93%>82%>91% (Career 88%)


    My point is and was that Madson, over the last three years, has had about as good a career as Papelbon.  And that over the last 5 seasons straight, and 7 of his eight years in the majors, Madson has been a very good and dependable reliever, only once having a WHIP over 1.25 (in 2007 he had a WHIP of 1.27).  So I based my opinion on 7 years of relief, not the one you exclaimed.

    I'll agree that Madosn's stats compare well with Pap's over the past 3 years, but it is not a fair comparison. 
    1) Madson was not a closer all those years.
    2) The adjustments listed above should be applied.

    A 5 year comparison is not even close. paps blows Madson away even before any adjustments made.

    A 7 year or career comparison again, shows Paps as way better.

    Go ahead and throw out Pap's first year and Madson's 2006 season and nothing changes. Paps has been way better.

    Going forward I expect Madson to be the better value, unless and until someone goes and gives him a 4-year deal similar to the one the Phillies gave Papelbon.

    Since Paps is way overpaid, that shouldn't be too hard.

    I'm glad we don't have either at those prices. Bailey at $3.9M is better (as long as he stay healthy).
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    We keep signing God Awful pitching depth options. One after the other. We aren't getting Oswalt or Jackson. This approach hearkens back to pre 2003 days. The bank of John Henry is now closed and maybe that's ok for next year. I'm not happy about it but he and the owndership group have been outstanding and we do appreciate it. We just aren't happy about it....
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]We keep signing God Awful pitching depth options. One after the other. We aren't getting Oswalt or Jackson. This approach hearkens back to pre 2003 days. The bank of John Henry is now closed and maybe that's ok for next year. I'm not happy about it but he and the owndership group have been outstanding and we do appreciate it. We just aren't happy about it....
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    I look at it like this: we did this year's spending back in April with the AGon and Buch extensions. We added Bailey, Melancon, Ross, Sweeney, Shoppach and some project pitchers for dirt cheap. I'd love to see us get Floyd, and I think we will get one solid pitcher before winter is over, but we are contenders now, as is, so I'm not complaining.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    We both wanted them to sign 2 starters though Moon, if I remember correctly. We both considered it to be their top priority if I remember correctly. They didn't get that done. They really didn't get that done.

    They did add a RF who can extend the lineup well. They did add some relievers at little cost. Even with losing Papelbon's contract and Drew's contract not to mention others like Scutaro, we still didn't have the cash to get priority #1 done. I can't help but project that starter depth will continue to be a huge problem for them going forward. Hopefully Matsuzaka will come back strong but considering the injury recovery period for most players that is not likely as control problems are typical during that comeback and Matsuzaka needs pinpoint control to be effective. Our best shot is for Doubront and Bard to come through. If at least one of them comes through strong and everyone else stays relatively healthy we probably are ok. Neither is a good bet though to me. Neither. I'm hoping for a 500 record from either of them. That would be great.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Between Dice-K coming back and at least a couple of viable pending free-agent pitchers available in July is that not enough fall-back? Maybe not - now that Lackey is out (which actually is wonderful).
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I would have been happy with Bard as the closer. I think I was in the minority. I'm not sure if it would upset him to stay the set-up man, but I think this whole "come to ST to try and become a starter" thing might divert the hurt if he ends up back in the pen. He'd be a great 7/8th inning guy.

    Me, too.  And we were, especially where it counts, in the Sox FO.  But going forward, I am not so convinced he will continue to be a grea 7th/8th inning guy.  That may be just as frought with disappointment as his attempt to become a starter.  The last thing I want to see on this team are players who are discouraged by, or complacent about their role on the team. 

    I think Bard has a good attitude. I think (hope) it won't effect him, if he fails to win a starting role or gets demoted later in the season. Bobby V has to let him know the plan ahead of time. He should tell him he plans on limiting his innings, so he may move him to the pen for a stretch here or there to lessen the load on his young arm.


    Paps is pretty awesome. I wouldn't have paid him that money, but I'd rather have him for 4 years than Bailey if the money was even.

    Who wouldn't?  But that is not possilbe, why even bring it up?

    Because it sounded like you were saying since Paps was trending down and madson up, that you would project a better next 4 years from Madson than Paps. That may happen, but I think not, but the money differential and risk of the length of the deals tilts the balance to Madson. (Or Bailey)


    It was a near full team collapse, not just these 2 guys, and you don't know how Bailey, Melancon or Madsen would have handled that kind of pressure.

    Of course these two alone don't share all the blame for the September collapse, that is a horrific misreading of what I wrote.  But in the games these guys blew, they were in fact responsible for giving the game away, none more famously than Papelbon on the final day of the season, which cost the Sox a chance at the playoffs (A chance, I am quite certain, they would have found a way to blow in a one-game playoff with Tampa).

    3 blown saves all year, and you think Paps would have had back-to backs? Yes, Paps had 8 blown saves in 2010, and in his last 2 playoff games, but I wouldn't judge from that record that he will continue to pitch poorly when it counts. The guy still has a great overall record in the clutch. 

    I hope it works. If it doesn't, I hope we didn't mess up Bard like the Yanks did with Joba.

    And I hope he doesn't fail like Madson did with the Phillies.  But he deserves the chance, especially since he was not considered to be good enough to close by the powers that be.  And I have all along supported the idea that for 2012 the Sox would be better off financially trying to fix their rotation by bringing in some new bullpen arms on FA contracts and move Aceves and Bard to the rotation than to overpay Wilson or Buerlhe.  Curiously, they have backed away from that stance, and are now looking to perhaps overpay Oswalt or Jackson, afraid that Bard and Aceves might not be decent in the rotation.  I simply cannot believe that Aceves and Bard will not pitch more effectively than Lackey, Dice-K and Wakefield did in 2011.

    I think they will pitch more effectively too, but not as deep into games. This will tax the pen that got worse by their departure. I think Ben/BobbyV are seeing that if we can get a solid innings eater as our 4th starter, it greatly improves 2 areas with one move: the rotation and the pen. If we can find a 5th starter out of our long list of pitchers, then Bard and Aceves in the pen gives us one of the strongest and deepest pens in MLB.

    Don't forget Doubront, Miller, Alex Wilson or even Tazawa. I think out of these 7 guys, one can and will win a starter slot in ST.

    Didn't.  But we've been there, done that with a few of these guys.  

    They really haven't had a long look here in Boston, and they are younger than guys like Silva and cook.

    And none of Miller, Doubront or Tazawa has approached the success Silva and Padilla once enjoyed.  

    True. Some have not had the horrible seasons either.

    Meanwhile both Doubront and Tazawa are injury question marks just as much as Padilla and Silva.  I think the Sox may come out of ST looking to trade what looks to be a surplus of rotation talent.  Maybe that is when they land their 2012 SS.

    I think we hold on to as much depth as we can. We have been using 8-10 starters most recent seasons. I think we are going with the SSs we have, and if it's not working by july 31st, we may see a change then.

    I agree, but did you know the Sox went 21-14 when Wake & Miller started last year? I'm not sure if Cook, Silva and others can do much better than that.

    That is based almost entirely on the curious win-loss record that Miller accrued.  I wanted to believe that such a record proved Miller was a winner, but the more he pitched with his horrendous WHIP, the more I considered it luck and small sample size.  I think Cook and Silva could do better in keeping the Sox in games that Wake & Miller, and still only end up around .500.  But that is about all you expect from your #5 and #6 starters.

    I didn't mean to imply that Miller and Wake deserved a 21-14 record combined, but merely to point out that it was the record of our 6/7 starters, and that it will be hard to improve upon even with better pitching by this years crew.

    I don't think we are that far apart on our thinking. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    It is starting to look as though the Sox are betting on the Big Three for health and happiness, on Bard for luck, and then -- prayers. Maybe Aceves is given a try at the 5th slot. If not, the merry-go-round begins in ST.
    The club, if interested, appears not to have or won't give what it takes to acquire pitchers whose names are being mentioned. Jackson may want too much money or too many years, or both. Theo and Hoyer are not going to deliver Garza on a silver platter.
    Floyd apparently has trade value that Boston can't or won't match. All or some of this could change in a flash if adjustments were made on one side or the other, or on both sides. But at this point,  Sox fans should probably begin to prepare themselves for what's on hand, at least to start the season.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, I'm kind of not feeling what you are reasoning, which I still feel are a good amount of question marks. The team is very much pre-2003 styled--rehab projects taking what could be several spots on the pitching staff. Cody Ross is an upgrade I guess for RF, but only a slight one. Still see SS and LF as massive question marks. Trying to figure out if Aceves and Bard are starters now--to me it's a fishing expedition. Hopefully one will establish right away in ST they can do the job. To me, one needs to be put in the pen based on need. Don't think you should have both in the rotation. Clay had back troubles, Beckett PR troubles, and Lester seems to me a sure, sure thing of the three to perform at a top level.

    Doesn't mean both Beckett and Clay won't be top-line starters, which both are obviously easily capable of. Youkilis range will be an issue. Ortiz performing at even 2011 standards also a question mark--and what if they feel after the fact they wanted to not pay that money?  I do not expect CC to be a major contributor---again. Maybe the other AL teams have similar question marks, etc, but this is the first season since 2002 I've felt that the team is not almost a sure thing for postseason. Even the years the team missed in the past decade were considered better coming into the year--2005, 2010, 2011.

    Pedroia, AGON, Ellsbury, Youkilis (hitting-wise), Ortiz (historically) do give the team a solid offensive base. A focused Beckett, healthy Clay, historical Lester, Bailey at closer, Aceves at middle relief (there I made my choice for pen) could be enough to carry the staff. If Ross turns into Darren Bragg, the one after the Sox got him for Jamie Moyer at all-star break, I would take that (then I checked his stats back then, and no I'd rather not take that...lol...Darren played great defense though). But he could just as easily be a light-hitting disappointment (more like Bragg). I'm still thinking 83 to 85 wins for this team until or if the team either gets a real 4th starter and/or real SS and/or a real power hitting OF. Maybe they get 90 if things work out.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Let me add C as a another absolute question mark. Can the staff even feel confident with the catching situation. Maybe that makes Shoppach more important than Salty.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share