Lackey now over.500

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

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    My bad, I thought the author of the thread was saying Lackey's ERA was 5.00 to which he would be wrong as it is a big juicy 6.28. Had it been the ERA we were talking about I might have been excited but anybody can win a game if enough runs are scored.

    Get back to us at the end of the season on trumping Lackey as the #3 starter he is supposed to be.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from william93063. Show william93063's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    Outdueling King Felix is no small feat. Personally I'm happy for Lackey, and God knows we need this with all the injuries to the starting staff.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    "Outdueling" ??? Outdueling you say?  Did they face off at ten paces? Is the Mariners offense even a smidgen of what the RS offense is?

    I fail to see where Lackey actually outdueled Felix.  

    Go sell crazy somewhere else we are all stocked up here.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from william93063. Show william93063's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]"Outdueling" ??? Outdueling you say?  Did they face off at ten paces? Is the Mariners offense even a smidgen of what the RS offense is? I fail to see where Lackey actually outdueled Felix.   Go sell crazy somewhere else we are all stocked up here.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Felix did not have his best game, so sure maybe it wasn't exactly "outdueling" but what would the over under have been of Hernandez going 7 and only allowing one run and Lackey being the guy who surrendered 6 runs?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    Harness, I do think the posting fee accomplished a bit more than "good will," but this is a Lackey thread, and I think we just need to agree to disagree about Matsuzaka.

    As for Big John, it looks like he will outdo James's predictions, as long as his elbow holds out.  In fact, I think he deserves a lot of credit for pitching as well as he has, considering his elbow probably needs surgery (which he will not get, because it affects his contract status in a detrimental way).  He was throwing 93 last night and hitting the corners, AND he had his nasty curve going at times.  If he continues to do that, then he is exactly what the Sox wanted when they signed him.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    I noticed that Lackeys offspeed stuff looked really good and had movement on it, and his control was excellent.  I know some may say he gave up 8 hits against the Mariners...BUT 7 of those were singles and the double he gave up was a blooper that landed between Youk and Crawford, and 8 hits isn't as bad when not only they are all singles but you DON'T walk anyone.  
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NUSoxFan. Show NUSoxFan's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    Lackey gave us seven innings of 1 run ball last night. I'm happy. I don't see the need to argue after a game like that? *is confused*
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777'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]

    Not at all..lackey is what he is..a 14 game winner with around 10 or so losses..A 4.5 ERA and when healthy will give you 200innings (Sounds a little like Wake). No where worth the 17mil, but thats free agency and Im not one to cry about a billionaire spending 17mil per on a pitcher..Ill be honest, I didnt like the signing but understood. I wish him well, whether I agree with the signing or not, because hes on the team I love and cheer for ..
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    If he averaged 20 w's but had a 6.89 era is that good?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    Lackey says that he never had any problem with the heat.http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/07/23/red_sox_bubble_over_with_5_run_rally_in_7th_to_beat_mariners/
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    John Lackey has a poor attitude, he cannot be counted on, and he simply is not the pitcher many of you salivated over when the RS signed him.

    So he pitched a couple of good games, so freaking what?  There are 150+ pitchers in the pro's that could easily have pitched the same way. Stop praising him!  If he wins great, if he loses or blames Scutaro for a loss than that is to be expected.


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

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]John Lackey has a poor attitude, he cannot be counted on, and he simply is not the pitcher many of you salivated over when the RS signed him. So he pitched a couple of good games, so freaking what?  There are 150+ pitchers in the pro's that could easily have pitched the same way. Stop praising him!  If he wins great, if he loses or blames Scutaro for a loss than that is to be expected.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    I am sure that Alibi Ike agrees with you.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500lig

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]My bad, I thought the author of the thread was saying Lackey's ERA was 5.00 to which he would be wrong as it is a big juicy 6.28 . Had it been the ERA we were talking about I might have been excited but anybody can win a game if enough runs are scored. Get back to us at the end of the season on trumping Lackey as the #3 starter he is supposed to be.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    B ... outdueling King Felix is a very fine thing.  Until the 5 run outburst, it was a close effort.  He pitched well.  He has dropped that ERA from 8.01 to 6.28 since May 11 (and his DL, I think)

    Three very good games in a row. 
     
  14. 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 : I am sure that Alibi Ike agrees with you.
    Posted by Your-Echo[/QUOTE]

    At least I might have one who would agree with me... unlike you (you you you).

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

    Re: Lackey now at.500lig

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500lig:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500 : B ... outdueling King Felix is a very fine thing.  Until the 5 run outburst, it was a close effort.  He pitched well.  He has dropped that ERA from 8.01 to 6.28 since May 11 (and his DL, I think) Three very good games in a row. 
    Posted by SinceYaz[/QUOTE]


    I think his era is 2.15 or something in those 3 starts... he needs to still continue that in order to be a benefit for the team this season. Time will tell.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]A lot of posters here are not going to want to read this, or acknowledge it at all.  Lackey is the JD Drew of the pitching staff; hated for the big contract he earned by being the best available in a year the Sox had a need.  Therefore he is overpaid a bit for the talent and production he brings to the team.  As a result, to many here Lackey is a complete bum and no amount of statistics will change their minds. I, on the other hand, always thought the Sox were counting on getting a #3 or #4 starter who could win 14 - 16 games a season for most of his contract (not a 20-game winning ace).  They knew they were overpaying a bit for the only pitcher that was available who could add that kind of value to their starting rotation.  I suspect that like Drew, Lackey's production will be what the Sox FO knew they were getting when they offered the contract.  And, like Drew, there will be those here who will never cut him any slack, will constantly remind us all of how ridiculous his salary is, and will ignore any stats and reasoning to the contrary.
    Posted by parhunter1[/QUOTE]

    Lackey isn't really in the same class as Clay, Jon or Josh in my opinion and just a notch above Wake, Miller and possibly Aceves.  John is definately overpaid but its not our money to gripe about and every decent outing helps oue cause.


     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : Interesting analogy. Lackey has averaged 14-15 wins a year in his career. What makes people think that's gonna change? They signed him as pitching depth. What do fans think 17 mil a year will bring for a starting pitcher on the FA market?

    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    LOL...he's only had more than 14 wins once in his career. He's reached 14 wins 3 times and 19 once in 10 seasons. Hardly what I would call averaging 14-15 wins a season.

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

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    One might say that Lackey pitched two gems v. 2 of the worst teams in baseball--Seattle and Baltimore...I'm not going to take that away from John, and I'm happy he is throwing well of late. I don't think he was entirely terrible in that other start in between Seattle/Baltimore. So in essence, three pitched games that helped the Sox win 3 straight starts for him. Some pitchers might have responded differently to the Toronto debacle after having so many other issues this year. I should have started a rip Lackey to shreds thread earlier this year--seems to work with slumping Sox.  Any way you slice it, he's basically regained his rotation stranglehold. And he may get bombed his next start, but as long as he can pitch well 3 out of 4 starts, I'll take it.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]The thing about Lackey is he's always been a better second half than first half pitcher. I don't have any stats to back that up, but I remember reading it in the Globe last year I think.
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]

    Very interesting comment.  I hope that you are right.  He is definitely better than he was at the beginnng of the season.  Hopefully, he keeps it up. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : LOL...he's only had more than 14 wins once in his career. He's reached 14 wins 3 times and 19 once in 10 seasons. Hardly what I would call averaging 14-15 wins a season.
    Posted by -TheBabe------------[/QUOTE]
    Hello there  -TheBabe------------ ... I know you're "new" here, this being only your fourth post, but we like to do our homework here. Over his last full seven seasons, John Lackey is averaging 14 wins.

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

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    The talking points should be how is Lackey doing in recent starts. How is Crawford doing in his last 140 ABs? Babe can keep moving the goal posts and change the topic of conversation or debate.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    A lot of posters here are not going to want to read this, or acknowledge it at all.  Lackey is the JD Drew of the pitching staff; hated for the big contract he earned by being the best available in a year the Sox had a need.  Therefore he is overpaid a bit for the talent and production he brings to the team. 

    As a result, to many here Lackey is a complete bum and no amount of statistics will change their minds.


    Parhunter,

    I posted somewhere else that Lackey is the JD Drew after JD Drew is gone.  He will never live up to that contract and will continually be trashed even if he can string together some good stretches.  Lackey's demeanor does not endear him to anyone, which is ironic since many people read Drew's stoicism as apathy, while Lackey's fire is seen as showing up his team mates.   

    Crawford in in danger of taking the ire levied at JD Drew if he doesn't pick it up.  Great player, will turn it around I'm sure at some point, but even those who liked the signing cringed at that contract. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NUSoxFan. Show NUSoxFan's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    Lackey's got the "bulldog" mentality. Not somebody I want to seeing start game one of the world series, but over the course of 162 game season, is typically a guy who will help your team more than hurt it. A guy who will give up runs, but keep you in the game. Lackey's blown up quite a few times this year due to health and off the field issues. But I liked having him last year and based on what's appearing to be him turning the corner, I like having him this year. With Buch and Lester's health an uncertainty (although Lester appears to be returning), Lackey will be important to keeping the playoff push continued.
     
  25. 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 : LOL...he's only had more than 14 wins once in his career. He's reached 14 wins 3 times and 19 once in 10 seasons. Hardly what I would call averaging 14-15 wins a season.
    Posted by -TheBabe------------[/QUOTE]

    Do you know what averaging means? Over a full season, he averages 14-15 wins a year. Show me a FA signing that has averaged more over time, at the same monetary level.
     

Share