Lackey now over.500

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

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    My take on this is that Lackey grinds it out each and every start. He does sometimes have somewhat unrealistic expectations from his defense, and wears his fristrations on his sleeve, which he may not realize can hurt him in the RS column.
    His level of immaturity is unflattering, but he does give it his all on the mound. He is much like Youk in that regard.

    As far as the money, it is difficult to place a value on any player given the exhorbitant salaries, and frankly, if the owners are willing to pay (as well as the fans) then we should not complain about it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from The--Babe----. Show The--Babe----'s posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500 : Sorry Babe.  I'm speaking of the playoffs in 2009.  And, BTW, if you watched any Sox Angels games at the time, he was tough on the Sox despite the stats you quote.  Why don't you google the 2007, 2008 and 2009 playoffs. The Sox might have gotten to him in an inning or gotten his pitch count up or both but he didn't often get shelled.  He battled and made the team work for anything they got.  But keep quoting stats out of context.  It makes you sound really knowledgeable.

    Posted by jimdavis[/QUOTE]

    LOL....right, I'm quoting stats out of context. No, you cherry pick the stats that support your argument. The bottom line is he has typically gotten shelled vs the sawx, has a losing record against them and his numbers are pretty bad at fenway.

    I stated all this when he was signed and moonie and harness were quick to say "Well, that's cause he was facing the sawx".

    Yet here we are midway through his second season with the sawx and guess what....his numbers at fenway are still terrible.

    You saying "well, the sawx only got to him in one inning or his pitch count was up" sounds a lot like when lackey says "I don't know, the ball came out of my hand good".

    Yeah, the ball came out of his hand good, it just launched off the bats a lot better!!

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

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    ERA fluctuates.  You can flash his high ERA, but make sure to note his recent trending.  Not saying ERA isn't a valuable stat.  But let's see what Lackey's is at the end of the year.  ERA tells the story best over the course of a season, not a month or two.

    Last month we might have been balking at Pedey's low BA.  Same thing.  Pitchers, like batters, go through troughs and peaks during the year, and a simple stat like ERA or BA is just a nice, somewhat over-simplistic, view of the whole.  


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : I'm sure Hill will debate this, but what's also important is that Lackey is gonna give up more runs at Fenway, so that's the great equalizer. If he averages the same 14-15 wins a year throughout his Boston tenure, will he be considered a bust?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    H, I have to disagree on this one.  Lackey did not face better hitters last year, the hitters he faced in 2008 and 2009 had a higher OPS.

    Lackey's peripheral stats don't look good.

    Swinging strike % (2005 - 2011):   10.6   9.7    8.9    8.6    8.6    7.0    7.6

    Contact w/ pitches %:   77    79    80     82    80    84    83

    K / 9 :    8.6    7.9    7.2   7.2     7.1    6.5    6.2

    It is obvious he is in decline.   Few pitchers can pitch well if they no longer miss bats. On the positive side his FIP is only 4.51 ( Career 3.86). He needs to turn it around and it has happened to other pitchers before.

     
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from The--Babe----. Show The--Babe----'s posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]ERA fluctuates.  You can flash his high ERA, but make sure to note his recent trending.  Not saying ERA isn't a valuable stat.  But let's see what Lackey's is at the end of the year.  ERA tells the story best over the course of a season, not a month or two. Last month we might have been balking at Pedey's low BA.  Same thing.  Pitchers, like batters, go through troughs and peaks during the year, and a simple stat like ERA or BA is just a nice, somewhat over-simplistic, view of the whole.  

    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    That's nice space, but I'm citing his career ERA at fenway, not a month or two.

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

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    ERA is overrated. Getting pulled in the 2nd or 3rd inning of a start because you are getting bombed--that's a better way to determine a guy's worth. Is he getting to through the 6th with a lead? I want that to determine your status, not overall statistics. If you throw a shutout and around that shutout you have a 7 runs in 2 IP game and a 6 runs in the 1st inning game, and that is occupying half your starts. I'd rather have the guy who is consisent in keeping a 5-3 lead after 6 innings. Lackey has been stronger last 3 starts, the team has won his last 3 starts. That's what is important. Not his ERA.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : Harness, I agree completely.  However, good scouting and player development has led the Sox to the Ellsbury situation.  Since they set the market for corner outfielders with speed and decent power potential, they will either pay him in Crawford's neighborhood or will lose him to the highest bidder.  A bit ironic, but maybe that's why the have Crawford signed for seven years. 
    Posted by CablesWyndBairn[/QUOTE]


    No, they have Crawford signed for 7 years because the Angels upped the anti. Theo didn't want to go anywhere near that long initially.
    They valued his skill-set and the tandem he would create with Jake.

    My allusion to scouting/development was actually directed toward pitching. My point is, it takes longer to develop pitchers due to refining the skill-set.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from -The---Babe----------. Show -The---Babe----------'s posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : No, they have Crawford signed for 7 years because the Angels upped the anti. Theo didn't want to go anywhere near that long initially. They valued his skill-set and the tandem he would create with Jake. My allusion to scouting/development was actually directed toward pitching. My point is, it takes longer to develop pitchers due to refining the skill-set.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    And you know this from the many discussions you've had with theo over lunch discussing the fate of the red flops?

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

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    Yes. Over crow. He said NY would be the team to beat, but they are only getting smaller in the rear view...
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from -The---Babe----------. Show -The---Babe----------'s posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]Yes. Over crow. He said NY would be the team to beat, but they are only getting smaller in the rear view...
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear............

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

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : H, I have to disagree on this one.  Lackey did not face better hitters last year, the hitters he faced in 2008 and 2009 had a higher OPS. Lackey's peripheral stats don't look good. Swinging strike % (2005 - 2011):   10.6   9.7    8.9    8.6    8.6    7.0    7.6 Contact w/ pitches %:   77    79    80     82    80    84    83 K / 9 :    8.6    7.9    7.2   7.2     7.1    6.5    6.2 It is obvious he is in decline.   Few pitchers can pitch well if they no longer miss bats. On the positive side his FIP is only 4.51 ( Career 3.86). He needs to turn it around and it has happened to other pitchers before.  
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    But he faced the 2010 hitters playing in Boston, Tom.
    You have to adjust for venue.

    Also, I don't buy into the missed bats jazz, unless it's accompanied with other pronounced data determining steep regression.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500 : Tough town where first impression are everything. JD Drew is a poster child of this, though Drew has now bookended his RS career with a bad start and a less than glorious end. And contracts create expectations for FA that don't neccesarily align to the contract but to what fans think the contract should buy. So while Lackey's contract buys a pitcher like Burnett or DLowe, the expectation in Boston was that it was going to buy a Doc Halladay. Add the troubled beginning to this year and the dude was raw meat for WEEI Whiner Line. Now if Lackey had started quickly in Boston the perception would be different. His facial expressions when plays aren't made would be intensity, his not wanting to come out his fiery competitive nature. Boston is a tough market. Once you check into the doghouse, checking out takes a lot of great performances and any stumbles will check you right back in.  This isn't St. Louis for sure.  
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    You are right.  Remember Jason Bay had an early walkoff.  After that, he had no issues.  Your Drew Lackey analogy is a perfect one.  Boston is a tough town, for sure.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    2011 Lackey

    Total 16 games combined

    Average IP = 5.4

    Average hits given up 5.4 IP = 7.0

    Average earned runs 5.4 IP = 4.1

    Average BB 5.4 IP = 1.8

    Average SO 5.4IP = 4.4

    Hopefully his last few outings will dictate the second half of the season but these numbers don't exactly deserve an 80mil investment.  I don't buy the bad elbow excuse but you never know.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from thewags. Show thewags's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    You know, I dont buy bad elbow either, but I do buy psychological meltdown. Some things hit some people worse than others, and I think Lackey has ahd a rough time of it, and that is a legitimate excuse. I know he's making 80 mil and that should be enough motivation blah blah but he's had a hard time of it and it sucks, and the RS are dealing with it. Its tough that the team has to be affected, but sometimes that happens. Hopefully his past few starts are indicative of a new trend, and we can rely on him for the rest of the season.

    If he doesnt turn it around after this season and regain mental toughness, then I'll be likely to jump to the hater bandwagon.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]You know, I dont buy bad elbow either, but I do buy psychological meltdown. Some things hit some people worse than others, and I think Lackey has ahd a rough time of it, and that is a legitimate excuse. I know he's making 80 mil and that should be enough motivation blah blah but he's had a hard time of it and it sucks, and the RS are dealing with it. Its tough that the team has to be affected, but sometimes that happens. Hopefully his past few starts are indicative of a new trend, and we can rely on him for the rest of the season. If he doesnt turn it around after this season and regain mental toughness, then I'll be likely to jump to the hater bandwagon.
    Posted by thewags[/QUOTE]

    wags, You could be right, I don't dislike Lackey but did expect more than the Stats hes putting up.  I can see last year being an adjustment period not this season.  Maybe John really does have a hard time with criticism and the pressure of living up to Jon and Josh's standards.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]You know, I dont buy bad elbow either, but I do buy psychological meltdown. Some things hit some people worse than others, and I think Lackey has ahd a rough time of it, and that is a legitimate excuse. I know he's making 80 mil and that should be enough motivation blah blah but he's had a hard time of it and it sucks, and the RS are dealing with it. Its tough that the team has to be affected, but sometimes that happens. Hopefully his past few starts are indicative of a new trend, and we can rely on him for the rest of the season. If he doesnt turn it around after this season and regain mental toughness, then I'll be likely to jump to the hater bandwagon.
    Posted by thewags[/QUOTE]

    Lackey didn't get cortisone shots in his elbow back in May for nothing.
    His elbow issue was real. He's throwing 93 now (his normal mph) and is healthy.
    And consequently, he's 6-3 after he returned from his DL stint.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500 : Lackey didn't get cortisone shots in his elbow back in May for nothing. His elbow issue was real. He's throwing 93 now (his normal mph) and is healthy. And consequently, he's 6-3 after he returned from his DL stint.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    As you would say to fellow posters harness,
    can you prove Lackey had these shots?  Were you there or can you supply any proof, other than what you read or assume?  :)  I don't need an answer but thought you might like to see how you address others.

    Lackey has pitched well during the six wins you speak of, while our lineup averaged 8.7 runs a game for him.  Lets see how he finishes off the season before making any further statements.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : No, they have Crawford signed for 7 years because the Angels upped the anti. Theo didn't want to go anywhere near that long initially. They valued his skill-set and the tandem he would create with Jake. My allusion to scouting/development was actually directed toward pitching. My point is, it takes longer to develop pitchers due to refining the skill-set.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    In the end the Angel offered comparable annual $$$ for six yrs. and Sox did for seven years. Crawford liked how the Sox FO dealt with him on a personal basis. Much too early to decide on the long term wisdom of his deal in the real world. In a chatroom or forum the time is probably up already since Internet posters demand instant gratification.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from The-Babe-----------------------. Show The-Babe-----------------------'s posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : In the end the Angel offered comparable annual $$$ for six yrs. and Sox did for seven years. Crawford liked how the Sox FO dealt with him on a personal basis. Much too early to decide on the long term wisdom of his deal in the real world. In a chatroom or forum the time is probably up already since Internet posters demand instant gratification.
    Posted by Your-Echo[/QUOTE]

    And because you, pike, have taken the time to poll "most" of the millions upon millions of internet posters in the millions of forums and chatrooms out in cyberspace....including my 5000 versions of "The-Babe".......

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

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500 : As you would say to fellow posters harness, can you prove Lackey had these shots?  Were you there or can you supply any proof, other than what you read or assume?  :)  I don't need an answer but thought you might like to see how you address others. Lackey has pitched well during the six wins you speak of, while our lineup averaged 8.7 runs a game for him.  Lets see how he finishes off the season before making any further statements.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    Truth

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

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500 : As you would say to fellow posters harness, can you prove Lackey had these shots?  Were you there or can you supply any proof, other than what you read or assume?  :)  I don't need an answer but thought you might like to see how you address others. Lackey has pitched well during the six wins you speak of, while our lineup averaged 8.7 runs a game for him.  Lets see how he finishes off the season before making any further statements.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    I don't make statements w/o being able to back them up.
    Numerous accounts in press releases and by Lacky's own admission of the cortisone shots. If I didn't read it in multiple sources, I wouldn't bring it up.

    No need to answer, unless you wish to back up UR claims...

    As for how Lackey finishes this season, I projected he'll be at least .500 from his DL return thru the end of the season. Yes, he gets run support. But he sure didn't in three losses, where the team scored 1 lone run. Scores of 2-0/2-1/5-0.
    Things tend to even out.

    Burrito: You wouldn't know truth if it were your final breath.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]His record is now 8-8. With a bad elbow in May, limiting him to two starts, and what he's dealing with off-the-field, including the wrath of many on this board, he may very well duplicate his 14-11 2010 season. Of note: His two May starts resulted in a cortisone shot and a DL stay. Excluding this, he's 8-6  5.44 ERA. Not great, but not horrid. In three of his losses the team scored a total of 1 run. 4/19: 5-0 loss. Line: 6 IP     4 H  1 ER 4/30: 2-0 loss. Line: 6 IP     7 H  2 ER 6/29: 2-1 loss. Line: 7.6 IP  8 H  2 ER Nice game tonight - outdueling 2010 CY winner Felix.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Lackey should thank G. for our offense.  At times he looks great, then just loses it in a heartbeat.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Lackey now at.500 : Lackey should thank G. for our offense.  At times he looks great, then just loses it in a heartbeat.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]


    That's true for many pitchers. Schilling used to 'let up' with a big lead.
    Not enough to endanger the game, but enough to scew his numbers
    (He's a HOF'er IMO).

    It's a matter of concentration and intensity level.
    Lackey is 124 - 90 n/i tonight. He finds a way to win.
    With more consistent RS, he could have won 17-18 games last year.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : And because you, pike, have taken the time to poll "most" of the millions upon millions of internet posters in the millions of forums and chatrooms out in cyberspace....including my 5000 versions of "The-Babe".......
    Posted by The-Babe-----------------------[/QUOTE]

    No Babe, just go to responses to sports columnists and to a few forums or chatrooms and you will quickly find out that those who respond are anti-authority, always critical, unread, loud mouths, inarticulate, and simple-minded. One only needs to take a sample. Do it for NYC, Baltimore, Miami, Boston, or LA. The results will all be the same. It is universal. If you spoke to someone in person, they would do their best to sound intelligent but over the internet- everything goes. Many act ignorant on purpose ( trolls).
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500 : That's true for many pitchers. Schilling used to 'let up' with a big lead. Not enough to endanger the game, but enough to scew his numbers (He's a HOF'er IMO). It's a matter of concentration and intensity level. Lackey is 124 - 90 n/i tonight. He finds a way to win. With more consistent RS, he could have won 17-18 games last year.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I agree it's a lack of focus but with Lackey it tends to start early and often, regardless of the lead.  Schil is a HOF'r for obvious reasons, especially his ability to focus throughout a big game.  Curt's lapses normally came after pitching brilliantly with very few hits/runs given up.  Curt also had the ability to recover quickly and in most cases pitch deep into the game, not just 5 plus innings on an average like John. 

    Lackey is a very hittable pitcher "much like Buehrle" neither have great stuff and usually need help to get through a game.  I would take Schill in a big game anytime but never put that kind of trust in John. 
     

Share