The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

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

    The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    People expect a lot from the 5 and 6 (and beyond) starters on this team, but take a look at the numbers of the 5th or 6th starters around the American League. I based the choices on a team's worst pitcher(s) by the numbers (mainly ERA) who are top 6 on their team in games started or who have 4 or 5 + starts.

    This is not meant to show that Wake or Lackey is better or worse than others on this list. It is just the data listed that shows the stats of AL team's 5-7 starters (and some #4 starters, if worse than most team's 5th starter).

    Bos
    5) Wake   6-3  5.15 (13 starts)
    6) Dice-K  3-3  5.30  (7)
    7) Lackey 8-8  6.28

    NYY
    5) Burnett 8-8  4.21 (21 starts)
    6) Hughes 1-2  9.47 (6)

    TB
    5) Davis  7-7   4.46  (18)
    6) Sonn   0-2   5.71  (4)

    Tor
    5) J Reyes  5-8  5.40  (20)
    6) Cecil       2-4  5.59  (8)
    7) Drabek   4-5  5.70  (14)

    Bal
    4) Arrieta  9-7   5.02  (20)
    5) Berge.  2-6   5.54  (11)
    6) Jakub.  2-2   6.65  (6)
    7) Matuz  1-4   8.77  (6)

    Det
    5) Coke  1-8   4.68  (14)

    Cleve
    4) Carmona  8-8  4.25  (19)
    5) Talbot       2-6  6.33  (11)
    6) Gomez      0-2  5.70  (4)

    CWS
    5) Floyd      8-9  4.11  (19)
    6) Peavy    4-4   5.19  (10)

    Minn
    5) Duensing  7-8  4.53  (19)
    6) Liriano      6-7  4.56  (17)

    KC
    3) Duffy   2-4  4.58  (11)
    4) Franc  3-11 4.65 (21)
    5) Hoch    6-8  5.29 (21)
    6) O'Sull   2-5  6.92  (9)
    7) Davies  1-9  7.32  (12)

    Tex
    5) Holland 8-4  4.65  (20)
       (No starts beyong top 5 starters!)

    LAA
    5) Pineiro  5-5  4.61 (16)
       (only 4 starts by 6/7th starters)
       6) Palmer 1-1 5.74  (3)

    Oak (* ERA effected by large park)
    5) Cahill  8-9  3.77  (22)
    6) Ander 3-6  4.00  (13)
    7) Hard   2-1  4.63  (4)

    Sea (*ERA effected by large park)
    5) Vargas  6-8  3.94  (20)
     



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

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    Fans nowadays are babies who play too many video games and expect sub 4 ERAs out of the 4 and 5 spots and sub 3 ERAs from the 1, 2, and 3 spots. It ain't gonna happen folks.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    It's often all about context.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    I don't really get the idea of numbering your starters one through five. What is the point?  As far as a number six starter; that is a bit of a stretch.  Seems like a method to justify Wakefield's situation. The fact is that , over the course of a season , all of your starters will probably get roughly the same number of starts. If your ERA is over 5.00 , you really should not be starting on a consistent basis if there is someone on hand who can do better.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from NUSoxFan. Show NUSoxFan's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    I don't really get the idea of numbering your starters one through five. What is the point?  As far as a number six starter; that is a bit of a stretch.  Seems like a method to justify Wakefield's situation. The fact is that , over the course of a season , all of your starters will probably get roughly the same number of starts. If your ERA is over 5.00 , you really should not be starting on a consistent basis if there is someone on hand who can do better.
    Posted by dgalehouse

    All teams have depth charts. They label their pitchers, 1-5 determines who gets in the playoffs (disregarding health issues) as number 5 starters are left off playoff rosters (typically). 6 is an important number because it outlines the first go to guy if someone goes down with an injury (on the Sox, that would be Tim Wakefield). Then all the numbers after that outlines if more starters are injured, or if a backup man is injured, who the team will turn to. Many teams cannot afford to have a sixth guy on the depth chart that has a sub 5 ERA.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    I don't really get the idea of numbering your starters one through five. What is the point?  As far as a number six starter; that is a bit of a stretch.  Seems like a method to justify Wakefield's situation. The fact is that , over the course of a season , all of your starters will probably get roughly the same number of starts. If your ERA is over 5.00 , you really should not be starting on a consistent basis if there is someone on hand who can do better.
    Posted by dgalehouse
    Well there is some sense to it.

    For one thing 1-4 are the guys who you are going to start in the post season. #4 is only going to pitch once in any 7 game series, #1 would be the only one to pitch twice in a 5 game series that went the limit.

    Wakefield was #6 coming into the year. A guy that would spot start and be there when and if a pitcher went on the DL. Many years teams don't have a #6 on the 25 man roster and have to go to AAA to call-up a starter. The 2011 RS had two guys that could slot as "6" in Wake and Aceves. Miller's progress in Pawtucket gave them 3. And still the injury issues got bad enough that Weiland was called up.

    As each position of priority moves down, so does the effectiveness. If a team is really deep there isn't a lot of separation between the first two or three starters. If you are Phillies that runs 4 deep. But every team in baseball has quite a difference in quality from their #1 guy to the 5th guy. And if they are lucky enough to able to have a "6" on the 25 man roster, the gap between #1 and that pitcher is going to be big.

    Supply and demand and the reality of payroll budget insure this IMO.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    If my 6th starter is hanging around a 5 era and give us a quality start most of the time, Im OK with it..Some here believe that all starters should have an ERA under 4..thats just not realistic IMO..only 1-2-3 should be under 4era..
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL : All teams have depth charts. They label their pitchers, 1-5 determines who gets in the playoffs (disregarding health issues) as number 5 starters are left off playoff rosters (typically). 6 is an important number because it outlines the first go to guy if someone goes down with an injury (on the Sox, that would be Tim Wakefield). Then all the numbers after that outlines if more starters are injured, or if a backup man is injured, who the team will turn to. Many teams cannot afford to have a sixth guy on the depth chart that has a sub 5 ERA.
    Posted by NUSoxFan

    Yes , I understand all that, but you can determine your playoff pitchers if and when you get there.  What is the significance during the season?  If one of your five starters goes down , you can pick a replacement from your relievers or someone from the minors. Having someone designated as your " sixth starter " really means nothing. For a team with championship aspirations , a pitcher with an ERA over five should not be starting on a consistent basis , if someone else can do better. That is all I am saying.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    I don't really get the idea of numbering your starters one through five. What is the point?  As far as a number six starter; that is a bit of a stretch.  Seems like a method to justify Wakefield's situation. The fact is that , over the course of a season , all of your starters will probably get roughly the same number of starts. If your ERA is over 5.00 , you really should not be starting on a consistent basis if there is someone on hand who can do better.
    Posted by dgalehouse


    1) Then forget the numbers I assigned these guys.
    2) Simply put, they are not their teams top starters.
    3) ERA is a flawed stat, but it was the easiest number, along with W-Ls to record. Several of these starters listed have deflated ERAs due to playing in huge parks, while others have inflated ERAs due to playing in smaller parks or parks not suited to their styles.
    4) Most AL teams have starters slotted 5-6 that are worse than Wake in ERA and W-Ls.
    5) Some teams have #3-4 slotted starters who have worse numbers than Wake.
    6) Some posters assume that quality 5-6 starters grow on trees. Those posters are wrong.


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL : 1) Then forget the numbers I assigned these guys. 2) Simply put, they are not their teams top starters. 3) ERA is a flawed stat, but it was the easiest number, along with W-Ls to record. Several of these starters listed have deflated ERAs due to playing in huge parks, while others have inflated ERAs due to playing in smaller parks or parks not suited to their styles. 4) Most AL teams have starters slotted 5-6 that are worse than Wake in ERA and W-Ls. 5) Some teams have #3-4 slotted starters who have worse numbers than Wake. 6) Some posters assume that quality 5-6 starters grow on trees. Those posters are wrong.
    Posted by moonslav59

    Actually ERA or any stat , taken alone , can be be flawed.  Obviously , the team that wins the most games wins the division. So, all games, whether the starter is your number one or number five,  are equally important. It does not matter who other teams are using, it only matters what is best for the Sox. They should not justify using a pitcher with an ERA of 5.00 or higher if they have better options. I fully realize that Wake is a great guy and has many faithful fans , but it is my feeling that he should not be starting when there are others who can do a better job.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL : Yes , I understand all that, but you can determine your playoff pitchers if and when you get there.  What is the significance during the season?  If one of your five starters goes down , you can pick a replacement from your relievers or someone from the minors. Having someone designated as your " sixth starter " really means nothing. For a team with championship aspirations , a pitcher with an ERA over five should not be starting on a consistent basis , if someone else can do better. That is all I am saying.
    Posted by dgalehouse
    Well that is a fair take. When one of the 5 starters goes down, the reliever you pick was designated as the 6, if you have one to do it with. There were lots of years the RS did not.

    In a perfect world a team with championship aspirations wouldn't have an ERA over 5 starting on a consistent basis, but most do end up with as many as 20 starts manned by guys with ERA over 5. 2009 NYY, 2008 PHI, 2007 RS all did.

    Right now the RS are in a bind. 4 of the 5 starters have been on the DL, one is there for the rest of the year and one we do not know when he will be back.

    In a perfect world there would be an endless supply of starters with ERAs under 5  but the 2011 RS aren't living in that world.

    As far as Wakefield goes, if and when Buch gets back it is probably still very much a horse race whether he or Miller would be that 5th starter.

    And there is one last thing about those numbers, teams do try and line-up their best against the opponents best as the games mean more, going as far as to reshuffle the rotation if it is out of order to get those match-ups (Beckett v. CC etc).
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL : Well that is a fair take. When one of the 5 starters goes down, the reliever you pick was designated as the 6, if you have one to do it with. There were lots of years the RS did not. In a perfect world a team with championship aspirations wouldn't have an ERA over 5 starting on a consistent basis, but most do end up with as many as 20 starts manned by guys with ERA over 5. 2009 NYY, 2008 PHI, 2007 RS all did. Right now the RS are in a bind. 4 of the 5 starters have been on the DL, one is there for the rest of the year and one we do not know when he will be back. In a perfect world there would be an endless supply of starters with ERAs under 5  but the 2011 RS aren't living in that world. As far as Wakefield goes, if and when Buch gets back it is probably still very much a horse racewhether he or Miller would be that 5th starter. And there is one last thing about those numbers, teams do try and line-up their best against the opponents best as the games mean more, going as far as to reshuffle the rotation if it is out of order to get those match-ups (Beckett v. CC etc).
    Posted by fivekatz


    Now you've got my interest. ERA is a good indicator. But as I said before,
    it's heavily reliant on venue. Also on factors like quality of BP/defense/team need.
    A pitcher can take it on the chin to save the pen for the rest of the series, and can have a really ugly ERA as a result.

    Furthering team need, Miller is likely headed for the pen in Sept. But this depends on the need for a lefty there. Also on Wake's durability. And Buch's...
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL : Actually ERA or any stat , taken alone , can be be flawed.  Obviously , the team that wins the most games wins the division. So, all games, whether the starter is your number one or number five,  are equally important. It does not matter who other teams are using, it only matters what is best for the Sox. They should not justify using a pitcher with an ERA of 5.00 or higher if they have better options. I fully realize that Wake is a great guy and has many faithful fans , but it is my feeling that he should not be starting when there are others who can do a better job.
    Posted by dgalehouse


    I keep asking, who are these "better options" people keep talking about. Finally, softy answered that he'd have started Miller May 1st instead of Wake. If you look at Miller's AAA numbers for April and the beginning of May, there is no evidence that he'd have done better than Wake's 6-3 (9-4 team record) 5.22 and 1.399 WHIP as a Sox starter this year. Doubront has been hurt or unreliable. Weiland is an option, but if you go by the ERA litmus test, he fails worse than all our starters.
    Until the grandslam yesterday, Wake had a better starter ERA than all but Beckett, Lester, and Buch . He has also had more inherited runners allowed to score than any other starter, and more than his share of cheap hits as well. Even if we go beyond all the adjustments, Wake still rates as equal or better than the "other options" in several key stats.

    WHIP
    1) Beck 0.905
    2) Lest  1.207
    3) Buch 1.294 (Not an option right now: injured)
    4) Wake 1.399
    5) Dice   1.404 (No longer an "option")
    6) Lack   1.538
    7) Acev  1.571
    8) Miller 1.742
    9) Weil   1.900

    K/BB
    1) Beck
    2) Lest
    3) Lack
    4) Buch
    5) Wake
    6) Dice
    7) Acev
    8) Weil
    9) Miller

    Starter ERA
    1) Beck  2.07
    2) Lest   3.31
    3) Buch  3.48
    4) Miller 4.65
    5) Dice   4.95
    6) Acev  5.14 (Is he not an option, because he is over 5.00?)
    7) Wake 5.22
    8) Lack  6.28 (Should he be benched for Aceves?)
    9) Weil    8.10

    By your criteria, we only have 3 starters (Buch is out)who should be starting to choose from, and Miller is one of them with a 1.742 WHIP.

    Out of the 7 pitchers we have right now who can start (Beck, Lest, Lack, Wake, Aceves,Miller, & Weiland), Wake has the 5th best ERA, the 3rd best WHIP, and the 4th best K/BB ratio. The numbers aren't showing he should be the 6th starter.  

    Who else should we start?

    Where are the bench Lackey threads?

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

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    moon. Please don't ask for bench Lackey threads, they will give them to you.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    And the winner is!!!!   Moon

    The other options argument is hopefully dead.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL : Now you've got my interest. ERA is a good indicator. But as I said before, it's heavily reliant on venue. Also on factors like quality of BP/defense/team need. A pitcher can take it on the chin to save the pen for the rest of the series, and can have a really ugly ERA as a result. Furthering team need, Miller is likely headed for the pen in Sept. But this depends on the need for a lefty there. Also on Wake's durability. And Buch's...
    Posted by harness
    Yes there are lots of variables from the health of the rest of the staff to how the two guys pitch in the next 30 days.

    It is not inconceivable to think that Miller could create enough separation as a starter between himself and Wake that Miller's better adaptability to the bullpen and the need for a LH arm out of the bullpen could be trumped by Miller's value as a starter v. Tim.

    Or that Tim could get into one of those grooves where his knuckleball is virtually unhittable.

    Of course not only are the performances of these two hard to predict but the fates of the other starters also will be determined in real time. Lackey is pitching much better but his elbow is a nagging factor, one that probably caused the awful starts earlier. And Buch's 2011 is far from clear.

    It is all just opinion of course but I don't think the starting role come September is Wake's by default. Come September everything "speeds up" and a team is trying to get their best team in line for the run if they are still in the race, which the RS certainly appear they will be. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    great thread as always moon, you contribute a lot and show things thru facts and stats, good look around the league

    The slobbering hateful opinions of the non-Sox fans in regards to Wakefield are 100% wrong, proven so, and show classless disgusting character
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucbom. Show lucbom's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    Good post "dgale"!  I agree 110% with your thoughts. 

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

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL : 1) Then forget the numbers I assigned these guys. 2) Simply put, they are not their teams top starters. 3) ERA is a flawed stat, but it was the easiest number, along with W-Ls to record. Several of these starters listed have deflated ERAs due to playing in huge parks, while others have inflated ERAs due to playing in smaller parks or parks not suited to their styles. 4) Most AL teams have starters slotted 5-6 that are worse than Wake in ERA and W-Ls. 5) Some teams have #3-4 slotted starters who have worse numbers than Wake. 6) Some posters assume that quality 5-6 starters grow on trees. Those posters are wrong.
    Posted by moonslav59
    That sums it up nicely. The Sox have been fortunate to have ANYONE who can pitch decently to fill in for their number 2 and 3 starters.

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

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    Thanks, boom and ex.

    I did this same post in 2008 and 2009, and it actually showed Wake was better (on paper) than a few teams #1, 2 and 3 starters, was better than all but 4-5 team's #4 starter, and as good or better than any other team's #5 starter, yet we still had calls for his DFA or retirement.

    As I have said before, I do not think Wake can start 34 games and give us over 210 IP. I think he may be due for a rest, but with Buch out, I don't see better options. I look beyond just ERA and see some troubling signs with Miller (1.742 WHIP for one) and Weiland (inecperience when the clutch games arrive). I love Aceves, but he has not done great as a starter this year and is so valuable in the pen. Wake has been fine in the pen as well, but not as good as Aceves. I am not counting on Doubront this year. As of now, at worst, it is Wake as default.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    People expect a lot from the 5 and 6 (and beyond) starters on this team, but take a look at the numbers of the 5th or 6th starters around the American League. I based the choices on a team's worst pitcher(s) by the numbers (mainly ERA) who are top 6 on their team in games started or who have 4 or 5 + starts. This is not meant to show that Wake or Lackey is better or worse than others on this list. It is just the data listed that shows the stats of AL team's 5-7 starters (and some #4 starters, if worse than most team's 5th starter). Bos 5) Wake   6-3  5.15 (13 starts) 6) Dice-K  3-3  5.30  (7) 7) Lackey 8-8  6.28 NYY 5) Burnett 8-8  4.21 (21 starts) 6) Hughes 1-2  9.47 (6) TB 5) Davis  7-7   4.46  (18) 6) Sonn   0-2   5.71  (4) Tor 5) J Reyes  5-8  5.40  (20) 6) Cecil       2-4  5.59  (8) 7) Drabek   4-5  5.70  (14) Bal 4) Arrieta  9-7   5.02  (20) 5) Berge.  2-6   5.54  (11) 6) Jakub.  2-2   6.65  (6) 7) Matuz  1-4   8.77  (6) Det 5) Coke  1-8   4.68  (14) Cleve 4) Carmona  8-8  4.25  (19) 5) Talbot       2-6  6.33  (11) 6) Gomez      0-2  5.70  (4) CWS 5) Floyd      8-9  4.11  (19) 6) Peavy    4-4   5.19  (10) Minn 5) Duensing  7-8  4.53  (19) 6) Liriano      6-7  4.56  (17) KC 3) Duffy   2-4  4.58  (11) 4) Franc  3-11 4.65 (21) 5) Hoch    6-8  5.29 (21) 6) O'Sull   2-5  6.92  (9) 7) Davies  1-9  7.32  (12) Tex 5) Holland 8-4  4.65  (20)    (No starts beyong top 5 starters!) LAA 5) Pineiro  5-5  4.61 (16)    (only 4 starts by 6/7th starters)    6) Palmer 1-1 5.74  (3) Oak (* ERA effected by large park) 5) Cahill  8-9  3.77  (22) 6) Ander 3-6  4.00  (13) 7) Hard   2-1  4.63  (4) Sea (*ERA effected by large park) 5) Vargas  6-8  3.94  (20)  
    Posted by moonslav59


    moonslav, guys like Burnett and Lackey were not originally signed, or paid to be 5/6 starters.  Burnett was supposed to be the 2/3 when Pettitte was still pitching and Lackey our 3/4 behind Jon, Beck and Clay.  Theo had no clue which direction Beckett was heading, or if Clay would have success.

    To put them in the 5/6 spots is probably more like you're perception of where they belong now due to poor performance and I would agree.  I'm sure if you ask Cash or Theo they will both admit they wouldn't have dished out that kind of cash for a 5/6 starter.  I respect and appreciate the research but it simply wasn't where they were intended to be.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    In Response to The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL : moonslav, guys like Burnett and Lackey were not originally signed, or paid to be 5/6 starters.  Burnett was supposed to be the 2/3 when Pettitte was still pitching and Lackey our 3/4 behind Jon, Beck and Clay.  Theo had no clue which direction Beckett was heading, or if Clay would have success. To put them in the 5/6 spots is probably more like you're perception of where they belong now due to poor performance and I would agree.  I'm sure if you ask Cash or Theo they will both admit they wouldn't have dished out that kind of cash for a 5/6 starter.  I respect and appreciate the research but it simply wasn't where they were intended to be.
    Posted by craze4sox


    craze, this thread is not about labelling the slots of pitchers. I do not consider Burnett or Lackey a 5th starter. I know they were not signed to be such. This thread was meant to show that nearly every team has a starter or 2 (or more in some cases) out of their best 5-6 starters that have numbers comparable or worse to our 4-5-6th starters.

    Many posters here seem to think every team has or should have 5 or 6 starters who all have ERAs below 5.00 and WHIP below 1.40 and .500 or better winning percentages. It just isn't so, and to expect it is not being realistic. Some here even think that better 5th starters can be found in the "dumpster". They can not.

    There are some teams that have been lucky to have none or very few starts from their 6th or beyond starters. Lucky them! Some teams have 5 starters that have good ERAs, but they are rarities.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL : craze, this thread is not about labelling the slots of pitchers. I do not consider Burnett or Lackey a 5th starter. I know they were not signed to be such. This thread was meant to show that nearly every team has a starter or 2 (or more in some cases) out of their best 5-6 starters that have numbers comparable or worse to our 4-5-6th starters. Many posters here seem to think every team has or should have 5 or 6 starters who all have ERAs below 5.00 and WHIP below 1.40 and .500 or better winning percentages. It just isn't so, and to expect it is not being realistic. Some here even think that better 5th starters can be found in the "dumpster". They can not. There are some teams that have been lucky to have none or very few starts from their 6th or beyond starters. Lucky them! Some teams have 5 starters that have good ERAs, but they are rarities.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Fair enough moon and I agree.  My point is very few 4/5 or even 6th, starters make Burnett or John type money so mediocrity is expected.  An owner/GM would expect a bit more consistency out of guys like John and AJ.  I don't dislike Lackey, or for that matter anyone on our team but was expecting more when he was signed.

    When Wake shows as much or more consistency than an 80mil investment there has to be some cause for concern No?

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

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    DGalehouse is worried about Moon justifying their #5 or #6 starters but Moon presented the stats of other teams' #5 and #6 starters as a comparison. Galehouse wants a perfect world / scenario and it is a pipe dream. The Phillies are the closest to having five great starters. Me thinks that Galehouse won't ever be happy until the Sox are 20 games up all year long and he can go to the beach and not have to listen to the games in agony. Being a Sox fan is a bi-tch if you expect perfection.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL

    In Response to Re: The Truth About # 5-6 Starters in the AL:
    DGalehouse is worried about Moon justifying their #5 or #6 starters but Moon presented the stats of other teams' #5 and #6 starters as a comparison. Galehouse wants a perfect world / scenario and it is a pipe dream. The Phillies are the closest to having five great starters. Me thinks that Galehouse won't ever be happy until the Sox are 20 games up all year long and he can go to the beach and not have to listen to the games in agony. Being a Sox fan is a bi-tch if you expect perfection.
    Posted by Your-Echo

    You are getting a little carried away. I don't expect perfection, at all. Just going by what I have seen , it is my opinion that Aceves would be a better choice to start than Wake.  You can argue that , if you want.  The usual argument is that Aceves is " too valuable in the pen."  Also, the fact that his ERA as a reliever is better than as a starter. However, he has not gotten very many chances to start, so it is hard to say that he could not do it effectively.  Just going by what I have seen , I think Aceves is a better pitcher than Wake. I would like to see him get a full shot.  I fully understand that Wake has an army of faithful fans, but that should not get in the way of objectivity.  The so called " fifth starter " is more important than the long reliever, in my opinion.  And, the best pitcher should get the shot. That is all I am saying.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share