Sox Get Carp

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Easy to find this article. Turns out the standard was "at least league average" in ERA+. There have only been three teams during the period of 100+ years they measured that won a ring, but many more teams with great pitching but mediocre hitting won rings. Where has our pitching been since 2009 and how much has been done to improve it this year...or in 2015? If you do not want to look at the article itself, here is the sobering conclusion:

    What you should notice immediately is the plethora of dots above the red line which delineates an average pitching team (ERA+ of 100 or more) and a below average pitching team (ERA+ below 100). There have only been three teams in 106 chances who have won a World Series when their regular season ERA+ was less than 100. They are the 1987 Minnesota Twins, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 1913 Philadelphia A’s. A team of below-average pitching has only won it all 2.83 percent of the time, which I personally find to be mind-blowing.

    More often than not, the team that wins it all is going to land in the top right portion of the graph, which means they’ll have both good pitching and good hitting. But, a team can be below average offensively and still win it all, as 33 of the 106 winners have proven (33.02% percent).

     

    Good article from Hardball Times follows:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

    And if you need more proof that good pitching is nearly essential to winning rings, one more article:

    http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/2/22/1994723/is-it-better-to-be-an-elite-run-producing-or-run-preventing-team

     

     



    First of all: having teams dating back to 1907 weakens the arguement.  Different game back then.  Cross generational comparisons are almost always flawed.

     

    Secondly: this just shows that teams have a very low chance of winning it all with less than average pitching.  "Great pitching" is ERA+ of 120.  I see more dots below that line than above it.

    Of course you are more likely to win w/ subpar offense than subpar pitching because a guy like Verlander (3 games in a seven game series) can carry you all the way to a championship.

    You make some points.  Pitching certainly helps.  But to imply that we arent going anywhere without great pitching is false.  We arent going anywhere without at least average pitching is a far more accurate statement and the one supported by your graph.  

    However, dont marginalize offense.  If you throw out the outliers (the teams that have had HOF top of the rotation pitchers), you need offense and pitching.

    Offense is half the battle.  And its the half thats easier to predict.  If you listed the top 10 offensive teams next year, you would probably get 7 right.  If you tried to list the top 10 pitching teams next year, youd be lucky to get 5.  

    Pitching is a crapshoot.  Offense is predictable.  Focus on your offense and cross your fingers on the pitching, because its a total crapshoot.



    Just going back to the cross-generation thing, since we started the expanded playoff format, there have been 18 seasons.  Using the AL, since I don't know if you have identical claims in the NL, and the RS play in the AL, of 18 teams that lead the league in hitting, 14 made the playoffs and 3 won the WS.  Of the 18 that lead the league in ERA, 11 made the playoffs and 2 won the WS.

    Everything on this will be SSS, but that favors the hitting.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    Their top three SP were Cain, Baumgartner, and Vogelsong. Their ERA+ were 125/103/103 respectively. Our top three SP in ERA were Buchholtz, Lester, and Doubront. Their ERA+ were 95/90/89. Big difference.

    Why just list the top-3 SF pitchers?

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    Has the bar been lowered so much that we are celebrating the acquisition of a .213 hitting Mariner reject ? 

     



    Career batting averages:

     

    Josh Reddick:  .244

    Mike Carp:  .255

    Joe Charboneau:  .266

    Carlton Fisk:  .269

    Jody Reed:  .270

    Ralph Kiner:  .279

    Craig Biggio:  .281

    Tim Naering:  .282

    Carl Yastrzemski:  .285

    Reggie Smith:  .287

    Cecil Cooper:  .298

     

    So tell me again why BA is so important?

    When a guy hits .213 and is DFA'd by a last place club, it is not a good sign, regardless of your thoughts on the importance of BA. It's not as if he hit a ton of home runs or was a defensive whiz.



    But Denny, it is you that questioned the acquisition of Carp based soley on BA "Has the bar been lowered so much that we are celebrating the acquisition of a .213 hitting Mariner reject ?"

    You didn't mention his relatively young age, his good fit with the Sox (LHB that can play 1B and LF), his career .740 in a pitchers park (and .791 in 2011), his peanuts salary in 2013 plus 3 more years of arb control..or the fact that we probably (PTBNL) gave up nothing for a guy squeezed out of the Mariners' roster.

    Nope, it's his 2012 BA.....that's the ticket!

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Their top three SP were Cain, Baumgartner, and Vogelsong. Their ERA+ were 125/103/103 respectively. Our top three SP in ERA were Buchholtz, Lester, and Doubront. Their ERA+ were 95/90/89. Big difference.

    Why just list the top-3 SF pitchers?




    Because if you make it to the playoffs you are at a great advantage if you have three top of the line SP as opposed to who we have now.

    But thats not really the point I am making-which is that history tells us that you need at least above average pitching as measured by ERA+ to be a realistic contender for a ring. You can bash your way into the playoffs sometimes, but when you get there, as the article says, trying to win a ring without at least above average pitching is like "driving a car without gas". You aren't going anywhere.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Polly-'s comment:

    Bridge year, rebuilding year. enjoy it.  No big deal mate.



    I will enjoy it. I would enjoy it even more if Cherington make a few more moves to bolster our 2015 team, even if we lose more games this year.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Their top three SP were Cain, Baumgartner, and Vogelsong. Their ERA+ were 125/103/103 respectively. Our top three SP in ERA were Buchholtz, Lester, and Doubront. Their ERA+ were 95/90/89. Big difference.

    Why just list the top-3 SF pitchers?

     




     

    Because if you make it to the playoffs you are at a great advantage if you have three top of the line SP as opposed to who we have now.

    But thats not really the point I am making-which is that history tells us that you need at least above average pitching as measured by ERA+ to be a realistic contender for a ring. You can bash your way into the playoffs sometimes, but when you get there, as the article says, trying to win a ring without at least above average pitching is like "driving a car without gas". You aren't going anywhere.



    We argued about this for months when you were comparing total ERAs, and I kept explaining the top-3 were the only ones that count in the playoffs.  Remember, I said in 2011 that the NYY advantage over us in the regular season was they had a better 4/5 at that point in the season, but we had a better chance in the playoffs because out 1/2/3 were better than theirs?

    When did you finally realize I was right?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Has the bar been lowered so much that we are celebrating the acquisition of a .213 hitting Mariner reject ? 



    That's funny, right there.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Their top three SP were Cain, Baumgartner, and Vogelsong. Their ERA+ were 125/103/103 respectively. Our top three SP in ERA were Buchholtz, Lester, and Doubront. Their ERA+ were 95/90/89. Big difference.

    Why just list the top-3 SF pitchers?

     




     

    Because if you make it to the playoffs you are at a great advantage if you have three top of the line SP as opposed to who we have now.

    But thats not really the point I am making-which is that history tells us that you need at least above average pitching as measured by ERA+ to be a realistic contender for a ring. You can bash your way into the playoffs sometimes, but when you get there, as the article says, trying to win a ring without at least above average pitching is like "driving a car without gas". You aren't going anywhere.

     



    We argued about this for months when you were comparing total ERAs, and I kept explaining the top-3 were the only ones that count in the playoffs.  Remember, I said in 2011 that the NYY advantage over us in the regular season was they had a better 4/5 at that point in the season, but we had a better chance in the playoffs because out 1/2/3 were better than theirs?

     

    When did you finally realize I was right?



    I honestly do not recall that arguement. The top three are the MOST important guys in the playoffs, to be sure, and if thats what your point was back then in the arguement I do not recall, then I agree with you. I also think that having five more good pitchers also counts, so total ERA+ does count to a lesser degree. The article I posted here shows that. You can't have a top tier SP go 7 then the rest of the guys blow the game in the late innings.

    I did not mean to imply that Cain/Vogelsong/Baumgartner could do it on their own-only that those three are superior to what we have for our top three SP. That has to change for us to make a run at a ring. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    No matter what you think of the "importance" of Batting Average - can we at least agree that it is FUNNY that the sox have signed/acquired MULTIPLE players that batted less than .225 last year?

    Who does that?

     

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    Has the bar been lowered so much that we are celebrating the acquisition of a .213 hitting Mariner reject ? 

     



    That's funny, right there.

     



    The way I figure it, are we better than we were yesterday?

    I'm not a Carp fan, but instead of the competition for backup 1B/LF being Nava, who doesn't play 1st, and Overbay, who doesn't play LF, now we have someone competing that can play both.  No biggie, but maybe we just picked up a half of a win.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     No biggie, but maybe we just picked up a half of a win.



    Okay - tell me which game to turn off when we are ahead after 5 innings.

    Seriously - Carp is a non factor - he'll be in Pawtucket.  He didn't cost anything.

    But...

    Some day it would be cool to see them pick up a guy who actually bats higher than .225 - in the meantime, I look forward to testing the theory that BA doesn't matter.

    We should find out this year.  They could have 5 .220 hitters starting every day.

     

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Their top three SP were Cain, Baumgartner, and Vogelsong. Their ERA+ were 125/103/103 respectively. Our top three SP in ERA were Buchholtz, Lester, and Doubront. Their ERA+ were 95/90/89. Big difference.

    Why just list the top-3 SF pitchers?

     




     

    Because if you make it to the playoffs you are at a great advantage if you have three top of the line SP as opposed to who we have now.

    But thats not really the point I am making-which is that history tells us that you need at least above average pitching as measured by ERA+ to be a realistic contender for a ring. You can bash your way into the playoffs sometimes, but when you get there, as the article says, trying to win a ring without at least above average pitching is like "driving a car without gas". You aren't going anywhere.

     



    We argued about this for months when you were comparing total ERAs, and I kept explaining the top-3 were the only ones that count in the playoffs.  Remember, I said in 2011 that the NYY advantage over us in the regular season was they had a better 4/5 at that point in the season, but we had a better chance in the playoffs because out 1/2/3 were better than theirs?

     

    When did you finally realize I was right?

     



    I honestly do not recall that arguement. The top three are the MOST important guys in the playoffs, to be sure, and if thats what your point was back then in the arguement I do not recall, then I agree with you. I also think that having five more good pitchers also counts, so total ERA+ does count to a lesser degree. The article I posted here shows that. You can't have a top tier SP go 7 then the rest of the guys blow the game in the late innings.

     

    I did not mean to imply that Cain/Vogelsong/Baumgartner could do it on their own-only that those three are superior to what we have for our top three SP. That has to change for us to make a run at a ring. 



    We had about 50 posts going back and forth, and you don't remember?  And you were absolutely adamant about it.

    Anyway, here's the rule for the next time you midremember.

    Best 5 wins the regular season.

    Best 3 wins in the playoffs.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

     No biggie, but maybe we just picked up a half of a win.

     



     

    Okay - tell me which game to turn off when we are ahead after 5 innings.

    Seriously - Carp is a non factor - he'll be in Pawtucket.  He didn't cost anything.

    But...

    Some day it would be cool to see them pick up a guy who actually bats higher than .225 - in the meantime, I look forward to testing the theory that BA doesn't matter.

    We should find out this year.  They could have 5 .220 hitters starting every day.

     

     

     

     



    Well, if you are so sure that he won't bat higher than .225, I'll make you a charity bet.  You send $25 to my charity if he hits higher than .225, and if he doesn't, I'll send $25 to your charity.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Their top three SP were Cain, Baumgartner, and Vogelsong. Their ERA+ were 125/103/103 respectively. Our top three SP in ERA were Buchholtz, Lester, and Doubront. Their ERA+ were 95/90/89. Big difference.

    Why just list the top-3 SF pitchers?

     




     

    Because if you make it to the playoffs you are at a great advantage if you have three top of the line SP as opposed to who we have now.

    But thats not really the point I am making-which is that history tells us that you need at least above average pitching as measured by ERA+ to be a realistic contender for a ring. You can bash your way into the playoffs sometimes, but when you get there, as the article says, trying to win a ring without at least above average pitching is like "driving a car without gas". You aren't going anywhere.

     



    We argued about this for months when you were comparing total ERAs, and I kept explaining the top-3 were the only ones that count in the playoffs.  Remember, I said in 2011 that the NYY advantage over us in the regular season was they had a better 4/5 at that point in the season, but we had a better chance in the playoffs because out 1/2/3 were better than theirs?

     

    When did you finally realize I was right?

     



    I honestly do not recall that arguement. The top three are the MOST important guys in the playoffs, to be sure, and if thats what your point was back then in the arguement I do not recall, then I agree with you. I also think that having five more good pitchers also counts, so total ERA+ does count to a lesser degree. The article I posted here shows that. You can't have a top tier SP go 7 then the rest of the guys blow the game in the late innings.

     

    I did not mean to imply that Cain/Vogelsong/Baumgartner could do it on their own-only that those three are superior to what we have for our top three SP. That has to change for us to make a run at a ring. 

     



    We had about 50 posts going back and forth, and you don't remember?  And you were absolutely adamant about it.

     

    Anyway, here's the rule for the next time you midremember.

    Best 5 wins the regular season.

    Best 3 wins in the playoffs.




    I thought thats what I wrote already. Also, you forgot to add the fact that the other five guys do matter in the playoffs, though not as much. In case you misremember.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

     No biggie, but maybe we just picked up a half of a win.

     



     

    Okay - tell me which game to turn off when we are ahead after 5 innings.

    Seriously - Carp is a non factor - he'll be in Pawtucket.  He didn't cost anything.

    But...

    Some day it would be cool to see them pick up a guy who actually bats higher than .225 - in the meantime, I look forward to testing the theory that BA doesn't matter.

    We should find out this year.  They could have 5 .220 hitters starting every day.

     

     

     

     



    Well, if you are so sure that he won't bat higher than .225, I'll make you a charity bet.  You send $525 to my charity if he hits higher than .225, and if he doesn't, I'll send $25 to your charity.

     




    I have a better idea - why don't you bet 525 dollars on the Sox game of your choice.  Go to Vegas and bet that the Red Sox will get "half a win"

    I'll spend 25 dollars on beer and laugh at you.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Their top three SP were Cain, Baumgartner, and Vogelsong. Their ERA+ were 125/103/103 respectively. Our top three SP in ERA were Buchholtz, Lester, and Doubront. Their ERA+ were 95/90/89. Big difference.

    Why just list the top-3 SF pitchers?

     




     

    Because if you make it to the playoffs you are at a great advantage if you have three top of the line SP as opposed to who we have now.

    But thats not really the point I am making-which is that history tells us that you need at least above average pitching as measured by ERA+ to be a realistic contender for a ring. You can bash your way into the playoffs sometimes, but when you get there, as the article says, trying to win a ring without at least above average pitching is like "driving a car without gas". You aren't going anywhere.

     



    We argued about this for months when you were comparing total ERAs, and I kept explaining the top-3 were the only ones that count in the playoffs.  Remember, I said in 2011 that the NYY advantage over us in the regular season was they had a better 4/5 at that point in the season, but we had a better chance in the playoffs because out 1/2/3 were better than theirs?

     

    When did you finally realize I was right?

     



    I honestly do not recall that arguement. The top three are the MOST important guys in the playoffs, to be sure, and if thats what your point was back then in the arguement I do not recall, then I agree with you. I also think that having five more good pitchers also counts, so total ERA+ does count to a lesser degree. The article I posted here shows that. You can't have a top tier SP go 7 then the rest of the guys blow the game in the late innings.

     

    I did not mean to imply that Cain/Vogelsong/Baumgartner could do it on their own-only that those three are superior to what we have for our top three SP. That has to change for us to make a run at a ring. 

     



    We had about 50 posts going back and forth, and you don't remember?  And you were absolutely adamant about it.

     

    Anyway, here's the rule for the next time you midremember.

    Best 5 wins the regular season.

    Best 3 wins in the playoffs.

     




    I thought thats what I wrote already. Also, you forgot to add the fact that the other five guys do matter in the playoffs, though not as much. In case you misremember.

     

     



    There are only two other SPs.  Most of the time, or almost all of the time, you don't carry your #5 on the roster.  The #4 makes a difference with maybe one playoff appearance, but it won't be significant.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

     No biggie, but maybe we just picked up a half of a win.

     



     

    Okay - tell me which game to turn off when we are ahead after 5 innings.

    Seriously - Carp is a non factor - he'll be in Pawtucket.  He didn't cost anything.

    But...

    Some day it would be cool to see them pick up a guy who actually bats higher than .225 - in the meantime, I look forward to testing the theory that BA doesn't matter.

    We should find out this year.  They could have 5 .220 hitters starting every day.

     

     

     

     



    Well, if you are so sure that he won't bat higher than .225, I'll make you a charity bet.  You send $525 to my charity if he hits higher than .225, and if he doesn't, I'll send $25 to your charity.

     

     




     

    I have a better idea - why don't you bet 525 dollars on the Sox game of your choice.  Go to Vegas and bet that the Red Sox will get "half a win"

    I'll spend 25 dollars on beer and laugh at you.



    I was hoping I changed the $525 before anyone noticed.

    But I take it that you don't feel comfortable backing your .225 prediction with a wager?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Their top three SP were Cain, Baumgartner, and Vogelsong. Their ERA+ were 125/103/103 respectively. Our top three SP in ERA were Buchholtz, Lester, and Doubront. Their ERA+ were 95/90/89. Big difference.

    Why just list the top-3 SF pitchers?

     




     

    Because if you make it to the playoffs you are at a great advantage if you have three top of the line SP as opposed to who we have now.

    But thats not really the point I am making-which is that history tells us that you need at least above average pitching as measured by ERA+ to be a realistic contender for a ring. You can bash your way into the playoffs sometimes, but when you get there, as the article says, trying to win a ring without at least above average pitching is like "driving a car without gas". You aren't going anywhere.

     



    We argued about this for months when you were comparing total ERAs, and I kept explaining the top-3 were the only ones that count in the playoffs.  Remember, I said in 2011 that the NYY advantage over us in the regular season was they had a better 4/5 at that point in the season, but we had a better chance in the playoffs because out 1/2/3 were better than theirs?

     

    When did you finally realize I was right?

     



    I honestly do not recall that arguement. The top three are the MOST important guys in the playoffs, to be sure, and if thats what your point was back then in the arguement I do not recall, then I agree with you. I also think that having five more good pitchers also counts, so total ERA+ does count to a lesser degree. The article I posted here shows that. You can't have a top tier SP go 7 then the rest of the guys blow the game in the late innings.

     

    I did not mean to imply that Cain/Vogelsong/Baumgartner could do it on their own-only that those three are superior to what we have for our top three SP. That has to change for us to make a run at a ring. 

     



    We had about 50 posts going back and forth, and you don't remember?  And you were absolutely adamant about it.

     

    Anyway, here's the rule for the next time you midremember.

    Best 5 wins the regular season.

    Best 3 wins in the playoffs.

     




    I thought thats what I wrote already. Also, you forgot to add the fact that the other five guys do matter in the playoffs, though not as much. In case you misremember.

     

     

     



    There are only two other SPs.  Most of the time, or almost all of the time, you don't carry your #5 on the roster.  The #4 makes a difference with maybe one playoff appearance, but it won't be significant.

     




    Usually its 8 pitchers on the roster. The top three SP are the most important, obviously. But the other five matter too, to a lesser extent. Thats what I am saying. If the #5 SP is not on the roster then he doesn't matter, does he.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    I don't see this as the Sox making a big splash...the board has made a bigger splash than this trade has made. As a bench player he is certainly better than anything the Sox had last year (regardless of BA) and should fit in nicely with the "nice guys in the clubhouse" effect the Sox are going for this year. I like the deal and if it doesn't work out...it's the old nothing ventured, nothing gained bit...although that low risk high gain stuff got old under Theo.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    But I take it that you don't feel comfortable backing your .225 prediction with a wager?




    When did I predict that he would hit .225? 

     

    My prediction was he would be in Pawtucket.

     

    If he plays in Boston - expect him to bat .218

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    So the Red Sox have Carp, and we still have Pike.  

    Professional Baseball Players Named After Fish  

    By Jeff Sullivan on Mar 27, 7:12p 67

     

    Carp (Mike, etc)
    Trout (Steve, etc)
    Bass (Brian, etc)
    Salmon (Tim, etc)
    Zander (Edmund, etc)
    Catfish?
    Marlin (Stuart, etc)
    Fish (Robert, etc)
    Bream (Sid, etc)
    Dorado (Reyes)
    Garibaldi (Art, etc)
    Guppy (Chester)
    Haddock (George, etc)
    Herring (Art, etc)
    Pike (Jess, etc)
    Sturgeon (Bobby, etc)

    Speaking of fish, I used to use a lure when fishing.  After spinning it around for some time, I would get

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    bottom line is that it has been a some time since lester, clay, and lackey have been top of the rotation pitchers...if they can do it this year, the sox have a chance - like slots however, how often do you get three lemons to match up and pay off?

     



    I think that's a little bit harsh:

     

    • Buch, 28, has pitched very well for the last three years barring the first half of 2012 when recovering from a back injury;
    • Lester, 29, has pitched very well for the last 5 years barring Sep 11 - Sep 12...who knows why?;
    • Lackey, 33, was very effective for 5 years through 2009.  Obviously had elbow issues as evidenced by the specific TJ clause in his contract....then was poor in 2010, historically terrible in 2011 and missed all of 2012.

    Is it reasonable to assume that all 3 will revert to their career norms/highs?  No, too many variables as with any pitcher.  But I don't think Buch or Lester returning to strong nbr 2 starters or Lackey to a decent nbr 4 is a pipe dream.

     

     




    Good post, but let me add this.

    Lester was good for ALL of 2011 except for two starts in September. People should look it up. In four of his six starts he was good to excellent. He was BAD -- HORRIBLE -- in just two starts.

    Lackey was better in 2010 than he is given credit for. He was very good the last two or three months of the season. Overall, he had just two fewer good starts than Lester -- (starts where their ERAs for the start was under 4.00). The difference in their ERAs was Lackey's ERA in his bad starts was a bit higher than Lester's, and Lester was more dominant in his good starts than Lackey was.

    For Buchholz, it wasn't the first half of 2012 when he struggled, it was just his first six starts. From May 11 through the end of the year, he posted a 3.62 ERA. I'll glad take that from his this year for the entire year, although he is very capable of being better.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Sheriff-Rojas' comment:

    So the Red Sox have Carp, and we still have Pike.  

    Professional Baseball Players Named After Fish 

    By Jeff Sullivan on Mar 27, 7:12p 67

     

    Carp (Mike, etc)
    Trout (Steve, etc)
    Bass (Brian, etc)
    Salmon (Tim, etc)
    Zander (Edmund, etc)
    Catfish?
    Marlin (Stuart, etc)
    Fish (Robert, etc)
    Bream (Sid, etc)
    Dorado (Reyes)
    Garibaldi (Art, etc)
    Guppy (Chester)
    Haddock (George, etc)
    Herring (Art, etc)
    Pike (Jess, etc)
    Sturgeon (Bobby, etc)

    Speaking of fish, I used to use a lure when fishing.  After spinning it around for some time, I would get



    and then there is Pike.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    bottom line is that it has been a some time since lester, clay, and lackey have been top of the rotation pitchers...if they can do it this year, the sox have a chance - like slots however, how often do you get three lemons to match up and pay off?

     



    I think that's a little bit harsh:

     

    • Buch, 28, has pitched very well for the last three years barring the first half of 2012 when recovering from a back injury;
    • Lester, 29, has pitched very well for the last 5 years barring Sep 11 - Sep 12...who knows why?;
    • Lackey, 33, was very effective for 5 years through 2009.  Obviously had elbow issues as evidenced by the specific TJ clause in his contract....then was poor in 2010, historically terrible in 2011 and missed all of 2012.

    Is it reasonable to assume that all 3 will revert to their career norms/highs?  No, too many variables as with any pitcher.  But I don't think Buch or Lester returning to strong nbr 2 starters or Lackey to a decent nbr 4 is a pipe dream.

     

     

     




    Good post, but let me add this.

     

    Lester was good for ALL of 2011 except for two starts in September. People should look it up. In four of his six starts he was good to excellent. He was BAD -- HORRIBLE -- in just two starts.

    Lackey was better in 2010 than he is given credit for. He was very good the last two or three months of the season. Overall, he had just two fewer good starts than Lester -- (starts where their ERAs for the start was under 4.00). The difference in their ERAs was Lackey's ERA in his bad starts was a bit higher than Lester's, and Lester was more dominant in his good starts than Lackey was.

    For Buchholz, it wasn't the first half of 2012 when he struggled, it was just his first six starts. From May 11 through the end of the year, he posted a 3.62 ERA. I'll glad take that from his this year for the entire year, although he is very capable of being better.

     



    I don't want to knit-pick, but I wouldn't call 7 IP 4 ER "Good to excellent". It's not horrible, but 3 of Lester's last 4 starts in 2011 were not good to horrible. The 4th start he only lasted 6 IP and allowed 8 H+BB. What worries me most about Jon is his loss of velocity. Fangraphs had a great article on pitchers who lose their velocity never get it back. It dropped for almost all of 2011 and then a little more in 2012.

     

    http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx?playerid=4930&position=P&pitch=FA

     

    With Buch, it's all about his health. Nobody doubts that he has abilty, but back injuries are often reoccuring, and Clay's velocity has been lower the last 2 years as well.

     

    http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx?playerid=3543&position=P&pitch=FA

     

    Sure, these two can adjust and become better pitchers as opposed to "throwers", but that usually takes time... as in months or years.

     

    Lackey is a big wild card. Maybe the biggest in MLB for 2013.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share