Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1958lesspaul. Show 1958lesspaul's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    You lobbied to spend every penny to upgrade to Lackey. ............................

    Hernandez is 36 for 2012 and would be a nice clean one year option contract.

    Varitek needs to chase women on a full-time basis.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    The amount of posts complaining about a backup catcher is truly amazing.

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

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back? : moon - You want to use stats? WAR Numbers: Salty   2.5 Varitek 0.5
    Posted by ADG[/QUOTE]


    If UR argument is reduced to WAR stats, hang it up.
    WAR had Lackey over Buch most of last season.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?:
    [QUOTE]The amount of posts complaining about a backup catcher is truly amazing. Simply amazing.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]

    What's more amazing is the fact the team continues to win every year when this "back-up" catcher starts. While they play .500 without him. This has been going on for over a decade.

    And this "back-up" catcher started 40% of the team's games in 2011.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from walterjohnson07. Show walterjohnson07's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    Another year older, another season of declining performance.  As far as we know Tek got NO INTEREST when last a free agent.  Says enough for me.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    Pedroia has to be replaced someday, so let's dump him to free up a roster spot for a developing player.

    Age arguments are ridiculous, it's only value that counts.  The only possible exception would be if a veteran very near the end was eating up the playing time of a developing player.....but if Lav is developing, isn't being the full time catcher in Pawtucket more advantageous?  If you want to argue that Salty should go to unblock Lav I would disagree but think it's a more sensible viewpoint.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back? : ADG: This stat shows that VTek is a very good "back-up". Thanks for providing further evidence to keep him... as THE BACK-UP! Nobody here has ever said VTek should be the full-timer over Salty. I ahppen to think we could trade salty for something good, and either get Ramon Hernandez and use VTek as the sub, or go with lavarnway and Vtek with Salty traded or starting in AAA. Sox: 42-22 with VTek- losing record with Salty. Take away beckett: Sox 22-12 in non-Beckett games. A trend that has continued through all of Vtek's horrible hitting years.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon, I doff my cap to you....I cannot drag my hands over the keyboard anymore defending our damn fine BACKUP catcher and SIXTH starter....both quite cheap, too.  Froggod's sake, our 6th starter had roughly the same stats as the Yankee's 3rd starter!.....at 10% of the money! 

    But so many pinheads want to compare him to Sandy Drysdale....
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    You lobbied to spend every penny to upgrade to Lackey. ............................

    You are back on iggy for your nonstop lies. I barely mentioned Lackey, because I thought he'd get about $100M like everyone was saying. The deal came out of the blue, and when it wwas announced I did say I liked it, as did you. The difference is, I can admit what I said, you erased it (by getting banned) and denied it ever since.

    Hernandez is 36 for 2012 and would be a nice clean one year option contract.

    He could easily get more than one year, but even if he gets just 1, it will be for way more than VTek gets. With limited resources and many other slots and holes to fill, I doubt Theo will or should spend big on the catching position when we already have Lava and Salty and a very cheap option to extend one of the winningest back-up catchers in MLB history for about $1M.

    By the way, look at what happened to Vtek at age 36. That was the year (2008) you started saying we should dump him (because of his age). He hit .220 (.672 OPS) and dropped to a 22% CS rate followed by a 13% rate at 37. VTek also has a nice hitting year at age 35 (.787 OPS). Ramon just has a .788 season. 

    Hmmm.... I'd like Ramon here in 2012, but unless we raise our payroll budget and give these "union slugs" more money, it's not a viable option when we have higher priorities elsewhere... like pitching, pitching, pitching, RF, SS, pitching, DH, bench, and pitching.


     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    The amount of posts complaining about a backup catcher is truly amazing.

    Simply amazing.

    Roy, Couple that with softy's and other's obsession with bashing our 6/7 starter, and the absurdity of it all is shocking.

    What's more amazing is the fact the team continues to win every year when this "back-up" catcher starts. While they play .500 without him. This has been going on for over a decade. 

    And this "back-up" catcher started 40% of the team's games in 2011.

    harness, and the trend has not slowed down a bit as VTek's offense and CS% has declined.

    Another year older, another season of declining performance.  As far as we know Tek got NO INTEREST when last a free agent.  Says enough for me.

    WalterJ,  first, we don't know if there was "no interest", and secondly, how many MLB teams will offer more than $2M for a back-up catcher? Just because no team may or may not have offered VTek more than $2M, does not mean no other MLB team would have wanted Vtek on their 25 man roster.

    ...If you want to argue that Salty should go to unblock Lav I would disagree but think it's a more sensible viewpoint.

    Sonics, I have made this point as well, but since Salty has a AAA option left, we can keep him and try Lava on the big club next April if he looks good in ST.

    Moon, I doff my cap to you....I cannot drag my hands over the keyboard anymore defending our damn fine BACKUP catcher and SIXTH starter....both quite cheap, too.  Froggod's sake, our 6th starter had roughly the same stats as the Yankee's 3rd starter!.....at 10% of the money!  

    But so many pinheads want to compare him to Sandy Drysdale....

    Thanks sonics. I'm starting to get tired of defending a player I don't even like that much, but when people use stats to say he should be dumped, but then don't use those same stats to show that he's better than what we got behind him and better than most of the league's 7th starter, 6th starter, and many 4th and 5th starters, I have to shine the light on the silliness of it all.


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1958lesspaul. Show 1958lesspaul's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    The deal came out of the blue, and when it wwas announced I did say I liked it, as did you.

    No, prevaricator, I said not to offer prima donna Lackey more than 3 years and 30M. When he was signed, I said, of the 3 big FA of winter 2009, he was the only one who made any sense. I never once said I liked it, making it clear that I would not have offered more than 3 and 30 and called Lackey a prima donna before and after. You wanted the money spent on Lackey as one of the only FA top end starter profiles. You applauded it before and after. 

    Hernandez will not "easily get 2 years" due to age. Any 2 year deal will drop the base a huge amount. Early Offer 3 or 4 and player opt out team buyout year 2 3M@ 1.5M and he will sign.
     
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back? : If UR argument is reduced to WAR stats, hang it up. WAR had Lackey over Buch most of last season.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I will stir up this well worn debate and say rightfully so!

               JL    2010     CB
    inn     215               174
    QS      21                 19
    K/9     6.53              6.22

    Granted Clay had one 1 inning game due to injury and another 1 inning game where he was not able to try to salvage the game after 5 1st inning runs.

    Of course, Clay is better but value can be measured many ways.

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

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    WAR is a flawed stat for sure, but it is a metric that includes several stats into one. By itself, it is no less a valuable measurement than those who live and die by ERA or W-Ls or WHIP. It's better to use several measuring tools to make a point, not just one. It's like that with hitters as well, and other sports stats also.

    Part of WAR's number involves the amount of time you played. Putting up identical stats in 214 IP vs 174 IP will give one pitcher more value than another. The same is true for Salty, in part because of his 60-40 playing time ratio over Vtek.

    WAR also does not factor in pitcher performance with each catcher. Call it voodoo or luck, but I'll take VTek's voodoo luck over Salty's CS% anyday.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    I don't underestimate the value of IP.
    But there's no way in hell I choose 2010 Lackey over 2010 Buch.

    WAR needs a total make-over if it's to have any credibility.
    It doesn't prioritize properly.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?:
    [QUOTE]I don't underestimate the value of IP. But there's no way in hell I choose 2010 Lackey over 2010 Buch. WAR needs a total make-over if it's to have any credibility. It doesn't prioritize properly.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I agree, but it is no different than those posters who cling to one stat like ERA or Flg% to make definitive judgements on who is better than who.

    ERA does not tell the whole story... not even close.
    Flg % is perhaps the most often abused stat on this site. It is but a small fraction of a gauge at saying how good a fielder is.

    At least WAR tries to combine several stats into one. It is far from perfect, but if you look at the top WAR players each year, it is more indicative of who actually are the best players than by listing the top players based on any singular stat like OPS, BA, HR, RBI, OBP, Slg%, ERA, WHIP, etc...  Yes, there are always some flukes and eye-openers. It certainly weighs some factors too much and others too little. I had a big issue with WAR placing Crawford so high based on his "great fielding" for a left fielder. They counted LF fielding way too much for what it is actually worth. They count SS fielding too little. They don't even count "catcher relevant" issues. There are serious flaws, but it doesn't mean it is a useless stat. 

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

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    If it's taking 2010 Lackey over 2010 Buch, it's as close to useless as it gets.
    No way to justify that. Whatever they use for criteria in that example needs to be adjusted. I don't think it'll have much credibility with that type of barometer.

    Every stat is flawed, but I'll go with ERA over WAR any day.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    I do think WAR for pitchers is more flawed than for hitters, but let's take a look:

    2011 WAR top 10:     ERA top 10
    Halliday           Kershaw
    Sabathia          Halliday
    Verlander         CLee
    Kershaw           Verlander
    C.Lee                Weaver
    D Haren            Lincecum
    CJ Wilson         Hamels
    J Weaver          Vogelsong
    Hernandez       Shields
    Bumgarner      Fister

    2009-2011 
    WAR                     ERA
    Halliday         Wainwright
    Verlander      Halliday
    CLee               Kershaw
    Sabathia        Hernandez
    Hernandez    Vogelson
    Greinke          Lincecum
    Lincecum      CLee
    Haren            Cain
    Jimenez        Carpenter
    Lester            Weaver

    I'm not sure if one is clearly better than the other. If you adjust the NL ERAs upwards, it might be better, but now we are admitting ERA is highly flawed by league, park dimesion, defense, etc.. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?:
    [QUOTE]I do think WAR for pitchers is more flawed than for hitters, but let's take a look: 2011 WAR top 10:     ERA top 10 Halliday           Kershaw Sabathia          Halliday Verlander         CLee Kershaw           Verlander C.Lee                Weaver D Haren            Lincecum CJ Wilson         Hamels J Weaver          Vogelsong Hernandez       Shields Bumgarner      Fister 2009-2011  WAR                     ERA Halliday         Wainwright Verlander      Halliday CLee               Kershaw Sabathia        Hernandez Hernandez    Vogelson Greinke          Lincecum Lincecum      CLee Haren            Cain Jimenez        Carpenter Lester            Weaver I'm not sure if one is clearly better than the other. If you adjust the NL ERAs upwards, it might be better, but now we are admitting ERA is highly flawed by league, park dimesion, defense, etc.. 
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    This does put it into another perspective. Venue/level of comp./"D" affects far more than just ERA.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back? : Of course it was not Salty's fault. Almsot the whole team played worse. The team lost with VTek as well (3-6) in September. Who knows if we lose less if tito had used VTek more down the stretch.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Guys I know you love Tek and believe the team and staff could never do as well without him.  Just look at Texas "Napoli" and Detroit "Avila" both teams have new catchers who have more than one skill and look where they are.  Tek has had a great career but he is not a make or break decision as to whether our team will be successful.
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?:
    [QUOTE]When he is eligible for the HOF, that should be an intresting thread. We'll get numbers that were never used before. Like if the count is 3-0 and Varitek puts down the fastball sign, the percentages of his pitchers who throw the next pitch for strikes. Give them credit I could never keep up and do the research. Whatever the Sox do in the off-season is fine by me. Still think with Tito gone, Jasons days on the Sox are numbered.
    Posted by bobbysu[/QUOTE]

    Tek doesn't have HOF numbers but you never know.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from hambonawilliams. Show hambonawilliams's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    I'm so tired of all this drivel about Tek...get rid of him now..it's time...he can contribute on the field nothing to the Sox anymore....give him a job in the minor league system helping to develop our young catchers and help them develop game calling skills....he wears the "C" on his uniform, but no longer plays everyday, so has no power to stop the BS that occurred in the club-house this past season...everyone's time comes to an end...give him a day at Fenway, a nice caddy , a wonderful watch and a painting of himself in uniform and all that nonsense and let that be that. All these stats arguing over a guy whose time is up is a waste of time...spend it re-hashing the truly awful decision by Theo to sign Crawford but not Vmart and Beltre, both of whom played great last year and who have had major impacts on their respective PLAYOFF teams.
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?

    In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Sure You Don't Want Varitek Back? : Wait you will get stats and numbers that will make Johnny Bench look like Kevin Cash.
    Posted by bobbysu[/QUOTE]

    If you throw out Teks first season where he had one AB these are some of the more important career Stats, HOF standards and monitor.

    A solid career but HOF would be a stretch

    BA, 253
    300 BA "zero"
    HR 193
    RBI'S 757
    RUNS 664
    OBP, 336
    SLG, 436
    OPS, 772
    BB, 616
    SO, 1216
    CS% 23
    PB 105
    FLD% 994 "16th"
    All Star games "3"
    Gold Glove, "one"
    Silver slugger "one"

    Hall of Fame MonitorBatting - 54 (366), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
    Hall of Fame StandardsBatting - 31 (288), Average HOFer ≈ 50



     
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share