Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.

    Yeah, I thought Lackey had turned the corner but ...

    If Doubrant -- wasn't softy crying for him earlier in the year -- could have done the job, Lackey's outing would have been more respectable, 5 IP, 3 ER.
     
    I'm still holding out that Lackey turns in to Lowe circa 2004. Remember, Lowe was nearly as bad, an ERA around 5.50 in the regular season then came up big in the postseason. (Although right now, I'd certainly start Bedard in Game 3 and I'd even consider Wakefield in Game 4 over Lackey).

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

    Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.

    In Response to Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.:
    Yeah, I thought Lackey had turned the corner but ... If Doubrant -- wasn't softy crying for him earlier in the year -- could have done the job, Lackey's outing would have been more respectable, 5 IP, 3 ER.   I'm still holding out that Lackey turns in to Lowe circa 2004. Remember, Lowe was nearly as bad, an ERA around 5.50 in the regular season then came up big in the postseason. (Although right now, I'd certainly start Bedard in Game 3 and I'd even consider Wakefield in Game 4 over Lackey).

    Posted by royf19

    So you are saying that doubrant should have been able to get out of a bases loaded, no out jam without letting up any runs?

    I mean, c'mon, he's no David Robertson.

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

    Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.

    Lackey's ERA over the past 2 years combined is now over 5.00. 

    That means we now have 3 starters in that category: Lackey, Wake and Miller. Cut 'em all now. They are holding back out great prospects.

    Softy was right, we should have given Weiland, Doubront, and Bowden the ball every 5th day 9even when they were on the DL). They clearly have more "upside" and we'd be 10 up by now. We should all listen to softy. He was right on Jake being a 4th OF'er, AGon becoming a FA, BHall being the best choice, Salty-Vtek being failures, Theo InEpstien, Drew, Pedey only hitting in the 2 slot, CC leading off, etc...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from joyceand. Show joyceand's posts

    Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.

    In Response to Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.:
    I'll take Bedard in a must win game over Lackey any time. According to baseballreference.com, opponents are hitting nearly .300 against Lackey this year and his WHIP is around 1.5. Other teams must be licking their chops on the days Lackey pitches.
    Posted by davetheknave

    I am with you 100%.  Let's be real, the Sox are thin in the starting pitching dep't. right now.  Miller isn't ready for prime time and Lackey has an ERA of about 6.00, not acceptable.  His win total is mainly because of good run support.  Bedard is no sure-fire thing but he is a safer option.  Sigh.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Goofywocky. Show Goofywocky's posts

    Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.

    In Response to Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.:
    Yeah, I thought Lackey had turned the corner but ... If Doubrant -- wasn't softy crying for him earlier in the year -- could have done the job, Lackey's outing would have been more respectable, 5 IP, 3 ER.   I'm still holding out that Lackey turns in to Lowe circa 2004. Remember, Lowe was nearly as bad, an ERA around 5.50 in the regular season then came up big in the postseason. (Although right now, I'd certainly start Bedard in Game 3 and I'd even consider Wakefield in Game 4 over Lackey).
    Posted by royf19

    You are right, DLowe was the key to 2004..but his slider began to bite in Aug & he was unstoppable.  Lackey has done better, before today, but has no where near the command he needs to help us go to the promised land
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.

    In Response to Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.:
    In Response to Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good. : You are right, DLowe was the key to 2004..but his slider began to bite in Aug & he was unstoppable.  Lackey has done better, before today, but has no where near the command he needs to help us go to the promised land
    Posted by Goofywocky


    Yeah -- even when he's pitching well, he seems to be doing it with smoke in mirrors. Like you said, Lowe managed to get that one pitch to be nasty and was able to build around it. Lackey hasn't been able to do that. If he could get his breaking ball to really bite, then he could make better use of spotting his fastball. But he continues to leave to much up in the zone and he doesn't have an out pitch right now.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from antiqueman1. Show antiqueman1's posts

    Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.

    I would prefer Wakefield to Lackey. Lackey gives up way too many runs period. He was overpaid by the Sox. 4th or 5th starter at best. The Red Sox are in a slide for sure.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Diamondtalk. Show Diamondtalk's posts

    Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.

    Lackey's ERA currently sitting at 6.11   ..........  not good and not deserving of being a No. 3 starter.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.



    Lackey would not even last a month in a Korean or Japanese baseball league. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.

    Lackey has not been lights out all year.  He always underwhelms and truly is an albatross around this team's neck.  Whoever heard of a mediocre player making top money as a pitcher?  Wait I have heard of a left fielder doing so? And they are on the same team. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Lackey's been a little less bad, but still isn't very good.

    Well, he might be the most consistent pitcher on the team...

    April: 5.65 ERA / 1.54 WHIP
    May: 14.34 ERA / 2.53 WHIP (2 starts)
    June: 5.28 ERA / 1.24 WHIP
    July: 4.61 ERA / 1.61 WHIP
    August: 5.31 ERA / 1.49 WHIP

    And then today's start...

    For all the "Lackey has been better lately..." talk, he's stunk in every month of the season so far. He stinks at home, he stinks on the road; he stinks in day games, he stinks at night; he stinks pitching to Salty and he stinks pitching to Tek. All for the bargain price of $17 million per year.

    I always try to give our players the benefit of the doubt and not to rag on them unnecessarily, but this might have been the day I lost patience with John Lackey. 

    As an aside...how huge now is Theo picking up Bedard at the trade deadline? 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share