Miller & Lackey

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

    Re: Miller & Lackey

    Win ratio is still very pertinent. If wins were strictly team induced, then the HOF is full or random winners.

    Last year, Lackey was 14-11  4.40 ERA 1.409 WHIP.
    His career avg. in CA: 14 wins a year  3.88 ERA 1.306 WHIP

    Adjust the numbers realistically for Fenway, pitching in the A.L. East, in Boston's climate, and he's the same pitcher, which, according to this thread author, means he was a "bust" in CA.

    Harness, seriously, using wins or win ratio is not very meaningful. Wins are assigned according to the scoring rules in baseball, which can often lead to a distorted view of a pitcher's performance. As for Lackey's other stats, his numbers in CA are not all that impressive. I made the same mistake Theo did because I was too optimistic about Lackey's ability to pitch effectively in Fenway. I considered his numbers in CA solid but not spectacular. At this point in his career he is not getting any better. I see this as a bad fit; wrong pitcher in the wrong ballpark at the wrong point in his career. 

    As far as who is in the HOF due to wins, that is the HOF's problem. But I don't think wins is all the HOF looks at. Wins are largely a matter of team performance, If any great pitchers failed to make the HOF due to lack of wins, it's time for the HOF to reconsider their criteria. Relievers are now receiving more consideration for the hall and more will be getting in. Their won-loss records are not relevant at all.

    I really don't get into debates about which players are "busts" or not. This is not my issue with Lackey. My only issue is his ability to pitch effectively for the Boston Red Sox.

    Lackey hasn't been completely worthless with the Sox but he hasn't been as solid as I expected him to be. We all can only judge by our own criteria and expectations. But I never emphasize won-loss record, ratio, or any thing to do with wins and losses when I judge a pitcher.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: Miller & Lackey

     I am not one to casually toss aside the won/loss records of starters. If a guy can get you through five with the lead, good for him and good for the team. Sure, there are concerns about burning up the bullpen, but very few starters go deep anymore and bullpens are geared to deal with that. That's why you have an array of relievers, ranging from middle relievers to 7th inning guys, to hold-specialists and closers. Was the year that Dice-k went 18-3 a successful season or to be criticized because he threw alot of pitches or only lasted to the 5th or 6th innings? I think it was a great year for him and the team.
     On Lackey, because of his big money we had hoped for more, but he's 4-0 in his last 4 starts and I'm happy with that. Miller was decent in his last start and kept us in a game that we ultimately won. But any thought of using him as a leftie specialist has to be viewed in the context of his control issues. You just can't have your leftie specialist enter the game in a tight situation and issue free passes.
     One of the keys for me is having Tito hook these guys before they they fall apart and the damage is irreversible. I actually think he has been better at it this year than in previous seasons. He still tends to leave Wake in far too long when it's obvious to everyone else that Wake is faltering. The knuckler flattens out and bye-bye baseball. As for Bedard, he was thought of as a failure in Seattle, so maybe a new start will be just what he needs to get back on track. At least I hope that's the case.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Miller & Lackey

      One of the keys for me is having Tito hook these guys before they they fall apart and the damage is irreversible.
    Posted by trouts[/QUOTE]

    Thats the key to Miller and Lackey's win/loss records trout and why some of us look at things differently.  Going 5 innings with a 1.58 WHIP and 6.28 ERA usually gives a person some indication it may not be the SP that gets credit for a win, but the manager, pen and our strong offense.

    If these guys were left in like "Wake" who I agree at times pitches way too long our wins would more often than not be a loss.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: Miller & Lackey

    In Response to Re: Miller & Lackey:
    [QUOTE]  One of the keys for me is having Tito hook these guys before they they fall apart and the damage is irreversible. Posted by trouts[/QUOTE] Thats the key to Miller and Lackey's win/loss records trout and why some of us look at things differently.  Going 5 innings with a 1.58 WHIP and 6.28 ERA usually gives a person some indication it may not be the SP that gets credit for a win, but the manager, pen and our strong offense. If these guys were left in like "Wake" who I agree at times pitches way too long our wins would more often than not be a loss.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]
     I pretty much agree with everything you've posted. The starting pitcher may get too much credit for the win, while the manager, pen and strong offense were keys to the victory. Nonetheless, anyone who can get us through the 5th in the lead has played his role. There are times when someone like Aceves also gets a "W" for pitching to a couple of batters or maybe one decent inning, while his won/loss record isn't tarnished at all if he comes into the game behind and has a horrible outing. That's okay with me as well, just as long as we are winning.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Miller & Lackey

    In Response to Re: Miller & Lackey:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Miller & Lackey : Thats the key to Miller and Lackey's win/loss records trout and why some of us look at things differently.  Going 5 innings with a 1.58 WHIP and 6.28 ERA usually gives a person some indication it may not be the SP that gets credit for a win, but the manager, pen and our strong offense. If these guys were left in like "Wake" who I agree at times pitches way too long our wins would more often than not be a loss. Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]  I pretty much agree with everything you've posted. The starting pitcher may get too much credit for the win, while the manager, pen and strong offense were keys to the victory. Nonetheless, anyone who can get us through the 5th in the lead has played his role. There are times when someone like Aceves also gets a "W" for pitching to a couple of batters or maybe one decent inning, while his won/loss record isn't tarnished at all if he comes into the game behind and has a horrible outing. That's okay with me as well, just as long as we are winning.
    Posted by trouts[/QUOTE]

    Aceves, was a great addition and I love the guy whether he pitches one inning or three because he rescues our starter more often than not.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: Miller & Lackey

    In Response to Re: Miller & Lackey:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Miller & Lackey :  I pretty much agree with everything you've posted. The starting pitcher may get too much credit for the win, while the manager, pen and strong offense were keys to the victory. Nonetheless, anyone who can get us through the 5th in the lead has played his role. There are times when someone like Aceves also gets a "W" for pitching to a couple of batters or maybe one decent inning, while his won/loss record isn't tarnished at all if he comes into the game behind and has a horrible outing. That's okay with me as well, just as long as we are winning. Posted by trouts[/QUOTE] Aceves, was a great addition and I love the guy whether he pitches one inning or three because he rescues our starter more often than not.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]
     I agree that Aceves has been a terrific addition to the pen with one caveat: I remember that outing with the 5 straight walks and am wondering which Aceves we'll get during the heat of the pennant race this fall. I'm hoping it's the one we've seen on the mound of late.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Miller & Lackey

    In Response to Re: Miller & Lackey:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Miller & Lackey : After reading you're final argument, we the jurors find Mr. harness guilty of the the following offenses ... A: Being an expert "wannabe" meteorologist from "Seattle" who travels to ball parks from Boston to California evaluating weather patterns and air quality. B: Being an average fan who Google's all night gathering Stats you may use in a debate. C: Impersonating a Bostonian to hundreds of innocent fans.  My bet is you have never even stepped foot in Boston, or simply choose to ignore the truth.  Lackey still needs major improvement. D: Actually believing most of us just entered the country illegally on a "banana boat" and buy what you write. Like I said, Theo and his staff would laugh at your take.  I'm also quite confident  They did their home work before handing over 80mil to Lackey  You choose to Google, copy and paste them with an added twist to make your argument look more convincing to others.  Beckett never really missed a beat from his days in Florida to Boston.  Whats your latest rant?  Are you going to try and differentiate hurricane season from earthquakes to make Lackeys situation different than Josh's :) 
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    That's how you debate baseball? Go after the poster when you've been schooled?
    You're over UR head, Yale man.
    Stick with keeping UR ear to the Boston ground for the repetitive hyperbole.
    A good trick for one who resides in CT :)
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Miller & Lackey

    In Response to Re: Miller & Lackey:
    [QUOTE]Win ratio is still very pertinent. If wins were strictly team induced, then the HOF is full or random winners. Last year, Lackey was 14-11  4.40 ERA 1.409 WHIP. His career avg. in CA: 14 wins a year  3.88 ERA 1.306 WHIP Adjust the numbers realistically for Fenway, pitching in the A.L. East, in Boston's climate, and he's the same pitcher, which, according to this thread author, means he was a "bust" in CA. Harness, seriously, using wins or win ratio is not very meaningful. Wins are assigned according to the scoring rules in baseball, which can often lead to a distorted view of a pitcher's performance. As for Lackey's other stats, his numbers in CA are not all that impressive. I made the same mistake Theo did because I was too optimistic about Lackey's ability to pitch effectively in Fenway. I considered his numbers in CA solid but not spectacular. At this point in his career he is not getting any better. I see this as a bad fit; wrong pitcher in the wrong ballpark at the wrong point in his career.  As far as who is in the HOF due to wins, that is the HOF's problem. But I don't think wins is all the HOF looks at. Wins are largely a matter of team performance, If any great pitchers failed to make the HOF due to lack of wins, it's time for the HOF to reconsider their criteria. Relievers are now receiving more consideration for the hall and more will be getting in. Their won-loss records are not relevant at all. I really don't get into debates about which players are "busts" or not. This is not my issue with Lackey. My only issue is his ability to pitch effectively for the Boston Red Sox. Lackey hasn't been completely worthless with the Sox but he hasn't been as solid as I expected him to be. We all can only judge by our own criteria and expectations. But I never emphasize won-loss record, ratio, or any thing to do with wins and losses when I judge a pitcher.
    Posted by devildavid[/QUOTE]



    There was a time, in the era of 5-man rotations, when the criteria for getting into the HOF was 300 wins. Anybody who could accomplish that will have solid accompanying numbers. Those like Blyleven who fell short either didn't get in or waited far too long. If winning was more a team function, than why weren't there more 300 game winners back then?

    Clemens, with or w/o the juice was a winner every where he went. He has highly questionable ethics, but his talent - his wins - were not a function of team as much as it was himself/juice.

    I disagree with a prior statement of yours saying how pitchers in the era of CG's got many more decisions because of the CG's. The reason was the 4-man rotation. In today's era of specialists, starters get the decisions more than you can imagine.
    But they get fewer starts in the 5-man rotations.

    If you do a study of win per-start-ratio, you'll find it coincides with corresponding data over the long run. Any one stat in a vacuum is limited, but win-per-start ratio is very under-rated.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Miller & Lackey

    The human launching pad, Wakefield, is the ugliest of all. Slackey was a 2010 bust, but at least his ERA was around 4.5. Wakefield's been over 5 for over 2 years!

    Quality 2011 100% pure beef prime choice cut:

    Lester
    Beckett

    Maybe quality 4-6 starts before going horizontal:

    Bedard

    Hot Dog Meat 2011:

    Miller
    Slackey

    Old partially openend spam:

    Wakefield

    Good news is that, contrary to false claims, only 2 good starters are needed to compete in the playoffs, with a strong offense. Bad news is Phillies would be a big hurdle against at team that has no OF slugging against LHP (Reddick small sample).

    In the raw meat freezer:

    Doubrant
    Weiland

    Give any innings for first 5 to these two, not the human launching pad.

    The way to approach Wakefield is to mix in a few bunts the first 2 times through. Wild pitch and BB will produce early runs. Then, start launching the 3rd time through the order, as Wakefield hangs those T-Ball pitches.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Miller & Lackey

    Funny spin.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Miller & Lackey

    In Response to Re: Miller & Lackey:
    [QUOTE]The human launching pad, Wakefield, is the ugliest of all. Slackey was a 2010 bust, but at least his ERA was around 4.5. Wakefield's been over 5 for over 2 years! Quality 2011 100% pure beef prime choice cut: Lester Beckett Maybe quality 4-6 starts before going horizontal: Bedard Hot Dog Meat 2011: Miller Slackey Old partially openend spam: Wakefield Good news is that, contrary to false claims, only 2 good starters are needed to compete in the playoffs, with a strong offense. Bad news is Phillies would be a big hurdle against at team that has no OF slugging against LHP (Reddick small sample). In the raw meat freezer: Doubrant Weiland Give any innings for first 5 to these two, not the human launching pad. The way to approach Wakefield is to mix in a few bunts the first 2 times through. Wild pitch and BB will produce early runs. Then, start launching the 3rd time through the order, as Wakefield hangs those T-Ball pitches.
    Posted by softylaw[/QUOTE]

    Wakefield is expected to have these type of Stats and is paid accordingly. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from marstan. Show marstan's posts

    Re: Miller & Lackey

    IN MY OPINION, WHICH I KNOW DOESN'T COUNT FOR MUCH TO
    DIEHARD SOX POSTERS, I THINK [thinking is dangerous] THAT
    MILLER SHOWS MORE POTENTIAL AT THIS POINT THAN LACKEY.
    HE IS A BULLDOG OUT THERE AND SHOWS SOME EMOTION PLUS
    THE FACT HE'S A LEFTY WITH 96 mph SPEED ON HIS HEATER.
    YES...HE DOES HAVE BAD STREAKS...BUT HE NEEDS SOME TIME
    TO WORK OUT THE GREMLINS IN HIS ACT, AND HE IS STILL
    YOUNG WITH A GOOD ARM. IT COULD BE HE'S A LATE BLOOMER.
    LACKEY STUNK AGAINST THE TRIBE, GIVING UP LEADS AND
    BASICALLY VERY HITTABLE ONCE THE INDIANS SAW HIM ON
    THE SECOND TIME AROUND THE LINEUP. MILLER HUNG IN ON
    THE CHISOX AND WE DID WIN THE GAME. MAYBE HE WAS
    LUCKY, AND THEN AGAIN MAYBE HE IS LEARNING TO BE A REAL
    PITCHER IF WE GIVE HIM THE TIME AND ENCOURAGEMENT
    WHICH IS A DILEMMA FOR FRANCONA IN A PENNANT RACE.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share