Lackey now over.500

  1. 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 : Babe, this is currently being addressed on the REALISTIC thread. EDIT: You don't think Schilling was signed as a front line starter?

    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    The realistic thread is mostly unrealistic.

    And nowhere did I say anything about shelling.

    I simply said your drivel about lackey being signed as "pitching depth" and not as a "front of the rotation starter" is complete BS.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Never heard of Shelling neither.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from The-Babe--------. Show The-Babe--------'s posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500:
    [QUOTE]Never heard of Shelling neither.

    Posted by Your-Echo[/QUOTE]

    That's what I like to call him.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Harness wasn't talking to you.

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    posted at 7/27/2011 10:28 PM EDT
    www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=d2758c82b798a89af023f25f131a4bfb&plckUserId=d2758c82b798a89af023f25f131a4bfb">
    Posts: 17093
    First: 10/16/2007
    Last: 7/29/2011
    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500 : 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.
    Posted by craze4sox


    I wasn't comparing Lackey's skill-set to that of Schilling's. No way.
    Just the "letting up" factor. Schill let bottom-of-the-order pesky hitters get to him.

    Lackey was signed for pitching depth. Schill was signed as a top-of-the-rotation pitcher. Expectations for Lackey are unrealistic and intertwined with his FA salary.
    Hence, any analogy is self-defeating unless it's made using a similar monetary perimeter.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500 : You are definitely in denial.  Anyone who watched the game saw lackey not only give up 11 in hits in 5 plus innings and in trouble throughout.  The fact You can't even take the "below articles seriously" as proof of how people perceive Lackey speaks volumes.  We would'nt be looking for a solid #3 starter if Theo had confidence in Lackey.   Any pitcher we trade for will probably get the start ahead of Lackey in the PS if Clay is hurt. When you find an article or anyone legit to back up your statement, then you may possibly find someone who will listen.  Here is todays link, it doesn't give Lackey and more credit than the first one. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/771584-red-sox-trade-rumors-latest-news-and-buzz-on-bostons-deadline-deals/entry/111112-red-sox-trade-rumors-erik-bedard-gives-red-sox-insurance-for-clay-buchholz http://bleacherreport.com/articles/782809-mlb-trade-rumors-clay-buchholz-injury-worsening-red-sox-forced-to-trade
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    Man, you don't get it. I said he was inked for pitching depth. He is a 14-game winner from a winning franchise. That is what the FO signed. What they or the fans think that'll equate to in Boston is largely based on unrealistic/salary based expectation.

    As for the game, you claim you saw the whole picture, and I'm trying to show you that you never did.

    You think a Fenway game in July is the same thing as a game in Sept. when the wind holds up dingers that would be gone in July/August. Or that pitching in Boston is the same as pitching in CA. Your take is limited to numbers, not venue or time of year. Chen got lit up on a night when the ball was flying out like a superball.That's why he let up a 13-season, career  high  10 runs.

    UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS, Lackey allowed his team to win.
    Try expanding your vision.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    those are good points on the difference between pitching in Fenway after the All-Star Break against guys who pitch in home valleys like Oakland and KC. I know I've given Lackey a lot of hell, but I am about winning, and he's won his last 4 starts, so give him credit for pitching the team in the lead rather than pitching from behind.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500 : Man, you don't get it. I said he was inked for pitching depth. He is a 14-game winner from a winning franchise. That is what the FO signed. What they or the fans think that'll equate to in Boston is largely based on unrealistic/salary based expectation. As for the game, you claim you saw the whole picture , and I'm trying to show you that you never did. You think a Fenway game in July is the same thing as a game in Sept. when the wind holds up dingers that would be gone in July/August. Or that pitching in Boston is the same as pitching in CA. Your take is limited to numbers, not venue or time of year. Chen got lit up on a night when the ball was flying out like a superball.That's why he let up a 13-season , career   high   10 runs. UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS, Lackey allowed his team to win. Try expanding your vision.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Thats your response?  Maybe you should send a letter to Theo so he and Terry can caculate Lackey's starts according to the Doppler radar :) 


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

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Same response as before. You just didn't get it. Look at tonight's game and how many fly balls off Wake are finding leather. Would that happen in Fenway?

    Try pitching in a band box with the ball jumping, and then come back.
    I have. Have you?

    Once again:
    Lackey in CA:        3.66 ERA  1.290 WHIP
    Lackey in Fenway: 5.20 ERA  1.509 WHIP

    BTW: The Doppler comment was funny.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500:
    [QUOTE]Same response as before. You just didn't get it. Look at tonight's game and how many fly balls off Wake are finding leather. Would that happen in Fenway? Try pitching in a band box with the ball jumping, and then come back. I have. Have you? Once again: Lackey in CA:        3.66 ERA  1.290 WHIP Lackey in Fenway: 5.20 ERA  1.509 WHIP BTW: The Doppler comment was funny.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Can't say I have harness but I contribute John's struggles more to the following circumstances.

    #1 Pressure of facing better batters on a regular basis in the the AL East
    #2 Trying to live up to the standards of Jon, Josh and Clays performances
    #3 Not having as good of stuff as he may have had years ago

    I'm not sure weather would fly too much with anyone but Wakes knuckleball but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.




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

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500 : Can't say I have harness but I contribute John's struggles more to the following circumstances. #1 Pressure of facing better batters on a regular basis in the the AL East #2 Trying to live up to the standards of Jon, Josh and Clays performances #3 Not having as good of stuff as he may have had years ago I'm not sure weather would fly too much with anyone but Wakes knuckleball but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    I totally agree on #1.

    #2 is a tough call. Lackey doesn't want for envy. He believes he's good, IMO, and it's conveyed in how he approaches his art. I don't think I've ever seen him shake off a catcher. He obviously feels any mix will do. That could mean he knows his limitations, or that he believes in his stuff. While there was major fluctuation between Mathis/Napoli catching the Angels staff over several years, consistently favoring Mathis, the numbers with Lackey didn't always go there. Lackey was the lone outlier - and for a reason.

    He's throwing 93 MPH, which was about his velocity in CA, but the depth of his bread & butter breaking stuff is not as crisp, but still quite palatable. In short, I partially agree with #3. OTOH, he has come up with a new (variation) of a cutter
    since coming to Boston, so he has the ability to adjust.

    Don't ever underestimate the effects of venue. It plays on a pitcher's mind.
    Venue can easily alter approach. And the actual dimensions speak for themselves. 315 FT to LF in most parks is an easy out. It takes time to make the adjustments. Beckett in 2007 has a road ERA of almost half what it was at home, and his W/L record was reflective of this. (which is why he should have won the CY that year. CC faced lesser without pitching in a bandbox).

    Same goes for the time of season. April/Sept. air kills potential dingers. Hitter's "heat up" in the summer months for a reason. When you see a vet like Chen come in at 5-3 3.30 for a team like KC, and get lit up for a career-high 10 runs, a light should go on regarding other possible factors at play. 

    Lackey in his previous 3 starts had a 1.87 ERA. It was a hitter's night.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500 : I totally agree on #1. #2 is a tough call. Lackey doesn't want for envy. He believes he's good, IMO, and it's conveyed in how he approaches his art. I don't think I've ever seen him shake off a catcher. He obviously feels any mix will do. That could mean he knows his limitations, or that he believes in his stuff. While there was major fluctuation between Mathis/Napoli catching the Angels staff over several years, consistently favoring Mathis, the numbers with Lackey didn't always go there. Lackey was the lone outlier - and for a reason. He's throwing 93 MPH, which was about his velocity in CA, but the depth of his bread & butter breaking stuff is not as crisp, but still quite palatable. In short, I partially agree with #3. OTOH, he has come up with a new (variation) of a cutter since coming to Boston, so he has the ability to adjust. Don't ever underestimate the effects of venue. It plays on a pitcher's mind. Venue can easily alter approach. And the actual dimensions speak for themselves. 315 FT to LF in most parks is an easy out. It takes time to make the adjustments. Beckett in 2007 has a road ERA of almost half what it was at home, and his W/L record was reflective of this. (which is why he should have won the CY that year. CC faced lesser without pitching in a bandbox). Same goes for the time of season. April/Sept. air kills potential dingers. Hitter's "heat up" in the summer months for a reason. When you see a vet like Chen come in at 5-3 3.30 for a team like KC, and get lit up for a career-high 10 runs, a light should go on regarding other possible factors at play.  Lackey in his previous 3 starts had a 1.87 ERA. It was a hitter's night.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Fair enough harness, at this point I feel Lackey is underachieving when we need him most.  Maybe I'm hoping for more than John can deliver but regardless I hope we find another arm for insurance.  Covering our bases might be the best thing we can do with all our present concerns with the staff.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    That's what Theo is trying to do. Gotta credit him for pushing the envelope on Beddard/Quentin over being happy for a compromised Oct. run with the status quo.

    Lackey is 4-0 with a 2.50 ERA over his last 4 starts. With sub-par Miller/Weiland/Wake recently, plus Lester just coming back, doesn't that qualify as "needing Lackey the most"?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    no, it qualifies that the Sox offense supported Lackey quite a bit in his 4 wins, and not supporting Lester much, and certainly not supporting Wakefield tonight.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Lackey didn't need all that support with a 2.50 ERA.
    Wake/Miller did.

    Do you want me to quote you the ERA's Wake/Miller in their last four games?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    no ERAs are not relevant unless you are softlaw's brother.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Use whatever criteria you choose.
    There's no"dismissing" Lackey from being effective over the last 4 games...resulting in 4 wins.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    he's been effective in 2 of those 4 starts, let's use facts here or are we now just throwing out cliches.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Read this thread. He's been effective in all 4 games, considering all the variables.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    According to your new variable system, it doesn't matter that the Sox scored 1 run on 3 hits in 9 IP or that the Sox SP threw a 3-hitter over 7 IP, all that matters is the Sox lost. So blame the pitcher, blame the park.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Adrian Gonzalez, you know the guy who played his entire career in the retirement league, the one you exposed, he wasn't in tonight's lineup. That doesn't affect the team's effectiveness in a close game? RBI leader in baseball not playing?

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

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Isn't that a variable too? I mean once we start taking statistics of guys and then apologizing for their ineffectiveness based on the ballpark, then you might as well forget evaluating performance altogether. "Sorry, Tim, you lost tonight, you weren't dominant and you lost. And you would have given up 5 runs in Fenway throwing the same stuff. You were lucky to allow only 2 legit hits in 7 innings. Must be that you were throwing in Chicago."
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    "John, all is forgiven. You gave up 14 baserunners in a start at Fenway, but you won and that's all that matters. If you were in Chicago, you would have only given up 8 baserunners, but if the Sox scored 5 runs you won the game, thus making your start better than Wakefield's start because you won"
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500:
    [QUOTE]According to your new variable system, it doesn't matter that the Sox scored 1 run on 3 hits in 9 IP or that the Sox SP threw a 3-hitter over 7 IP, all that matters is the Sox lost. So blame the pitcher, blame the park.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    You don't think the park had anything to do with it? How many times do you see the RedSox limited to tonight's poor hit/run production at Fenway?

    Do you think it's a coincidence the team hits .308 at home - and .253 on the road?
    When was the last time Wake gave up 3 hits in 7 IP at Fenway?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    The Sox have always hit better at Fenway, have always had better batting averages at Fenway. What's new? I don't know the last time Tim threw a 3-hitter at Fenway, but I do know he's had some really bad games on the road and some really good games at Fenway. It's not all the ballpark for the pitchers. Lefties have notoriously been bombed at Fenway over the years, so explain John Tudor and Bill Lee, who did quite well at Fenway. Explain how Bruce Hurst seemed to thrive there and have some rough outings on the road? Explain the difference between a Papelbon save at Fenway or a Papelbon save at Anaheim?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    How did Lowe throw a no hitter at Fenway?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share