The John Lackey Thread

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : Yup, if he goes 4 innings and gives up 5 runs (or something to that effect) I said that something drastic should be CONSIDERED.......
    Posted by andrewmitch


    "If this guy can't go 5+ Innings without allowing fewer than 4 Runs I think it's time to seriously reconsider the John Lackey experiment."

    How exactly would you interpret reconsidering the John Lackey experiment?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TORNSOX. Show TORNSOX's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to The John Lackey Thread : And you're basing this off of 2 outtings?  Take a couple deep breaths.
    Posted by JB-3


    i think he's also referring to THE 2010 LACKEY. or as i like to call it ANOTHER THEO MISTAKE (ATM).
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1for89. Show 1for89's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : 2 positives. 9 negatives. Was this a trick question?
    Posted by SleeStack1


    Nice.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : 3 Outings and if his ERA hit 20, DUMP HIM!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, let's say his ERA ballons to 20 after tonight.  And then let's say he "only" gives up 4 runs per 5 innings on average - which would be a HUGE turnaround by the way.....You are still taking about (one of the highest paid pitchers) an ERA in double digits.  How long can ANY team have a pitcher have 30 starts w/ an ERA north of TEN ??? OK.......What I originally said is something drastic should be CONSIDERED.  If they have insurance on his contract pull a Nancy Kerrigan.  Get rid of him and get your money back and give his job to someone hungry making minimun wage....
    Posted by andrewmitch


    Contracts aren't insured against performance, so they wouldn't be getting that money back.  Also, giving up 4 earned runs per 5 innings (7.20 ERA) wouldn't be a huge turnaround, it would actually still be a regression.  

    What you're saying is that this pitcher, who threw 215 innings in 33 starts last season (~6.5 IP per start) with a 4.40 ERA last the ability to pitch overnight?  And you want to write off $61M based on how he started the 2011 season?

    Yes, his ERA look ugly now given his small sample, but the same could be said about any pitcher if you use a cherry picked sample of similar size.  I mean hell, it's a good thing the Cards didn't extend Pujols right?  He's washed up (.527 OPS this year)!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : Contracts aren't insured against performance, so they wouldn't be getting that money back.  Also, giving up 4 earned runs per 5 innings (7.20 ERA) wouldn't be a huge turnaround, it would actually still be a regression.   What you're saying is that this pitcher, who threw 215 innings in 33 starts last season (~6.5 IP per start) with a 4.40 ERA last the ability to pitch overnight?  And you want to write off $61M based on how he started the 2011 season? Yes, his ERA look ugly now given his small sample, but the same could be said about any pitcher if you use a cherry picked sample of similar size.  I mean hell, it's a good thing the Cards didn't extend Pujols right?  He's washed up (.527 OPS this year)!
    Posted by JB-3


    *  Who said anything about performance?  I guess the Nancy Kerrigan bit went over your head

    *  Do the Math - Unless Lackey pitches well tonight, I can guarantee you that his ERA will be at least ONE FULL RUN higher than what he did last year

    *  I am going to ignore your comparison of Lackey to Puljous......
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : have you ever noticed how many THEO acquisitions are UNTRADEABLE. not because they're good, but because no other team wants them.
    Posted by TORNSOX


    B I N G O
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to The John Lackey Thread : And you're basing this off of 2 outtings?  Take a couple deep breaths.
    Posted by JB-3


    3 Outings and if his ERA hit 20, DUMP HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Seriously, let's say his ERA ballons to 20 after tonight.  And then let's say he "only" gives up 4 runs per 5 innings on average - which would be a HUGE turnaround by the way.....You are still taking about (one of the highest paid pitchers) an ERA in double digits.  How long can ANY team have a pitcher have 30 starts w/ an ERA north of TEN ???

    OK.......What I originally said is something drastic should be CONSIDERED.  If they have insurance on his contract pull a Nancy Kerrigan.  Get rid of him and get your money back and give his job to someone hungry making minimun wage....
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TORNSOX. Show TORNSOX's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    So, what i am understanding from general sentiment in this tough time:  if Lackey falters tonight he should be ... released?  traded?  And the same thing with Dice-K.  And of course Wakefield shouldn't even have been on the roster to begin with.  I'm all for it.  Sure hope Andrew Miller is ready to go!  We're gonna need some pitchers when the axe comes down on these bums. 
    Posted by SpacemanEephus


    have you ever noticed how many THEO acquisitions are UNTRADEABLE.
    not because they're good, but because no other team wants them.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    Uh huh...So you think Beckett is 100% back now?  After ONE start followed by a terrible one?  Let's see what he does his next start. And in case you didn't get the memo, we have the worst starting pitching in the league - BY FAR; it's not even close. And as per usual, thank you so much for sharing with the world your "gold standard" for what a "real fan" is.  Horse - High - Get Off!!!!!!!!
    Posted by andrewmitch


      i did get the memo, it said its APRIL. you said you give pitcher 3 starts. how about doing that?  as far as the gold standard of being a real fan, my standard is not to far to the left or the right. support the team that's fielded, not criticize every move made by the manager and GM, every pitcher who doesnt blow away27 batters by way of the K, and every player who doesnt go 4 for 4 every game played. it gets old andrew. give it a rest. youre a classic example of the glass half empty
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : The 5.40 ERA is a BEST-CASE Scenario The Albert thing is nuts.  Any comparison of Lackey to Albert can only be construed as non-sense.
    Posted by andrewmitch


    Which is why there was a "+" after it......

    And good, I'm glad you can see how non-sensical it is to draw conclusions about huge decline 11 games into the baseball season.  Now you just need to figure out how to learn something and then apply it to other situations.  You're half way there!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : You said if he doesn't go 5+ innings while giving up less than 4 runs he should be released.  All I'm saying is that these numbers are meaningless.  How is 5 and 4 acceptable (7.20 ERA) but 8 and 5 not acceptable (5.625 ERA)?  I'm also saying that last year he lead the team in starts in which he went 6+ innings giving up 3 or fewer runs.
    Posted by JB-3


    Wrong, I said that IF he goes 4 innings and gives up 5 runs (or something to that effect) I said that something drastic should be CONSIDERED.......

    So that's enough w/ the misquotes from you.......

    The point is, we'll know where Lackey stands very soon....
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : Also, he would have to give up more than 10 runs in 5 innings for his ERA to climb over 20 night, so I'm still not sure where that 4 runs over 5 innings came from. Take a deep breath, clear your head and try to think things through.
    Posted by JB-3


    I think you got confused by the #'s; or I may not have been clear.

    I am hoping he can go 5+ and give up under 4.

    But if he gets shelled again he has a real chance to be at around 20
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TORNSOX. Show TORNSOX's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    Lackey keeps saying the ball comes out of his hand good.     The hitters fully agree with him.
    Posted by Diamondtalk


    that's the problem with LACKEY; he continues to let the ball come out of his hand.  same is true with DICE-K.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TORNSOX. Show TORNSOX's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : Are you sure about that?  Lackey blew away AndrewMitch's criteria constantly last season.  In fact, Lackey lead the team in a little thing called quality starts (6+IP, 3- ER), which has stricter criteria than what AndrewMitch is looking for. You seem very uninformed based on your posts today.  Perhaps you should learn something about the game and the Red Sox, before you keep posting your drivel.
    Posted by JB-3


    yes gilbertgrape.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaBabe1. Show DaBabe1's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to The John Lackey Thread : And you're basing this off of 2 outtings?  Take a couple deep breaths.

    Posted by JB-3

    Maybe he's basing it on his 15-12 record with a 5.00+++ ERA as a sawx pitcher.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : i think he's also referring to THE 2010 LACKEY. or as i like to call it ANOTHER THEO MISTAKE (ATM).
    Posted by TORNSOX


    Are you sure about that?  Lackey blew away AndrewMitch's criteria constantly last season.  In fact, Lackey lead the team in a little thing called quality starts (6+IP, 3- ER), which has stricter criteria than what AndrewMitch is looking for.

    You seem very uninformed based on your posts today.  Perhaps you should learn something about the game and the Red Sox, before you keep posting your drivel.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    another positive thread.......sheesh....do you ever have anything to say good?
    Posted by sday4x4


    2-9.....how many positives do you see?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to The John Lackey Thread:
    If this guy can't go 5+ Innings without allowing fewer than 4 Runs I think it's time to seriously reconsider the John Lackey experiment.  IE Something drastic should at least be considered. Let's give him a chance tonight but man, this guy is on thin ice and every baserunner he allows could certainly be his last IMO; or should I say if I were the decision-maker.  I'd hate to be pitching under these circumstances too but then again, I am not the one with an ERA rapididly approaching 20.00 !!!!
    Posted by andrewmitch


    And you're basing this off of 2 outtings?  Take a couple deep breaths.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to The John Lackey Thread : And you're basing this off of 2 outtings?  Take a couple deep breaths.
    Posted by JB-3


    Andrew said Sunday, after becketts stellar performance, he gives pitchers THREE (3) starts. since he may not have beckett to bash, he's moved on to Lackey. with fans like andrew, who need the trolls.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TORNSOX. Show TORNSOX's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : You said if he doesn't go 5+ innings while giving up less than 4 runs he should be released.  All I'm saying is that these numbers are meaningless.  How is 5 and 4 acceptable (7.20 ERA) but 8 and 5 not acceptable (5.625 ERA)?  I'm also saying that last year he lead the team in starts in which he went 6+ innings giving up 3 or fewer runs.
    Posted by JB-3


    man, you sure know how to polish a turd.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ..Babe.... Show ..Babe...'s posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    another positive thread.......sheesh....do you ever have anything to say good?

    Posted by sday4x4

    I thought it was positive....from a Yankee fan point of view!!

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : I think you got confused by the #'s; or I may not have been clear. I am hoping he can go 5+ and give up under 4. But if he gets shelled again he has a real chance to be at around 20
    Posted by andrewmitch


    You said if he doesn't go 5+ innings while giving up less than 4 runs he should be released.  All I'm saying is that these numbers are meaningless.  How is 5 and 4 acceptable (7.20 ERA) but 8 and 5 not acceptable (5.625 ERA)?  I'm also saying that last year he lead the team in starts in which he went 6+ innings giving up 3 or fewer runs.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : You need to do the math, or decide what point you want to make.  So far you've improved your expectations for Lackey from a 20+ ERA to a 5.40+ ERA. I guess the Pujols comparison went over your head.  It was meant to show the absurdity of using such small sample sizes, by taking a far superior ballplayer and demonstrating that over the same chunk of the season, he can look god awful.
    Posted by JB-3


    The 5.40 ERA is a BEST-CASE Scenario

    The Albert thing is nuts.  Any comparison of Lackey to Albert can only be construed as non-sense.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : *  Who said anything about performance?  I guess the Nancy Kerrigan bit went over your head *  Do the Math - Unless Lackey pitches well tonight, I can guarantee you that his ERA will be at least ONE FULL RUN higher than what he did last year *  I am going to ignore your comparison of Lackey to Puljous......
    Posted by andrewmitch


    You need to do the math, or decide what point you want to make.  So far you've improved your expectations for Lackey from a 20+ ERA to a 5.40+ ERA.

    I guess the Pujols comparison went over your head.  It was meant to show the absurdity of using such small sample sizes, by taking a far superior ballplayer and demonstrating that over the same chunk of the season, he can look god awful.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mos_cutter. Show Mos_cutter's posts

    Re: The John Lackey Thread

    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread:
    In Response to Re: The John Lackey Thread : You need to do the math, or decide what point you want to make.  So far you've improved your expectations for Lackey from a 20+ ERA to a 5.40+ ERA. I guess the Pujols comparison went over your head.  It was meant to show the absurdity of using such small sample sizes, by taking a far superior ballplayer and demonstrating that over the same chunk of the season, he can look god awful.

    Posted by JB-3

    Excuse me, but lackey is 15-12 with an ERA well north of 5.00 as a sawx pitcher.

    Hardly a small sample size.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share