Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

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

    Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

     

    It is reasonable to conclude that a pitcher who can go at least 5 innings and have an ERA under 4.00 for each start, which means 5 or 6 IP with 2 ER or less or 7 innings plus with 3 runs or less has had a good to great start. By this criteria, quality starts of 6 IP, 3 ER don't qualify. And while 7 to 9 IP with 4 ER is a decent start, they don't qualify either.

     

    I tried to keep somewhat a high standard to list the number of starts where a pitcher pitched well enough to win w/o needing a lot of run support. Border line performances like 6 IP, 3 ER or 7 IP, 4 ER are good enough to keep the team in the game but the pitcher is more dependent on the offense.

     

    Below are the 2010 stats of three pitchers that meet the above criteria. Two are considered aces for their respective teams, and the other is a bust. Who are they?

     

     

     

    Player A       Player B        Player C

    8.0 IP, 0 ER

    8.0 IP, 2 ER

    8.0 IP, 3 ER

    7.2 IP, 2 ER

    7.1 IP, 2 ER

    7.1 IP, 3 ER

    7.0 IP, 1 ER

    7.0 IP, 1 ER

    7.0 IP, 1 ER

    7.0 IP, 1 ER

    7.0 IP, 2 ER

    7.0 IP, 2 ER

    7.0 IP, 2 ER

    7.0 IP, 2 ER

    7.0 IP, 3 ER

    7.0 IP, 3 ER

    6.2 IP, 2 ER

    6.1 IP, 2 ER

    6.0 IP, 0 ER

    6.0 IP, 2 ER

     

    20 GS (33 total)

    143.1 IP

    36 ER

    2.26 ERA

     

    9.0 IP, 1 ER

    9.0 IP, 1 ER

    8.0 IP, 0 ER

    8.0 IP, 1 ER

    8.0 IP, 1 ER

    8.0 IP, 3 ER

    7.0 IP, 0 ER

    7.0 IP, 0 ER

    7.0 IP, 0 ER

    7.0 IP. 0 ER

    7.0 IP, 1 ER

    7.0 IP, 1 ER

    7.0 IP, 2 ER

    7.0 IP, 2 ER

    6.1 IP, 0 ER

    6.1 IP, 0 ER

    6.0 IP, 0 ER

    6.0 IP, 1 ER

    6.0 IP, 2 ER

    6.0 IP, 2 ER

    5.2 IP, 0 ER

    5.0 IP, 2 ER

     

    22 GS (32 total)

    153.1 IP

    20 ER

    1.18 ERA

     

    9.0 IP, 0 ER

    9.0 IP, 1 ER

    9.0 IP, 3 ER

    8.1 IP, 1 ER

    8.0 IP, 1 ER

    8.0 IP, 2 ER

    8.0 IP, 2 ER

    8.0 IP, 2 ER

    8.0 IP, 3 ER

    8.0 IP, 3 ER

    7.0 IP, 1 ER

    7.0 IP, 1 ER

    7.0 IP, 2 ER

    7.0 IP, 2 ER

    7.0 IP, 3 ER

    7.0 IP, 3 ER

    7.0 IP, 3 ER

    6.2 IP, 0 ER

    6.0 IP, 1 ER

    5.2 IP, 0 ER

    5.1 IP, 2 ER

     

    21 GS (33 total)

    146 IP

    36 ER

    2.22 ERA

     

     

     

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

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    In Response to Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??:
      It is reasonable to conclude that a pitcher who can go at least 5 innings and have an ERA under 4.00 for each start, which means 5 or 6 IP with 2 ER or less or 7 innings plus with 3 runs or less has had a good to great start. By this criteria, quality starts of 6 IP, 3 ER don't qualify. And while 7 to 9 IP with 4 ER is a decent start, they don't qualify either.   I tried to keep somewhat a high standard to list the number of starts where a pitcher pitched well enough to win w/o needing a lot of run support. Border line performances like 6 IP, 3 ER or 7 IP, 4 ER are good enough to keep the team in the game but the pitcher is more dependent on the offense.   Below are the 2010 stats of three pitchers that meet the above criteria. Two are considered aces for their respective teams, and the other is a bust. Who are they?       Player A       Player B        Player C 8.0 IP, 0 ER 8.0 IP, 2 ER 8.0 IP, 3 ER 7.2 IP, 2 ER 7.1 IP, 2 ER 7.1 IP, 3 ER 7.0 IP, 1 ER 7.0 IP, 1 ER 7.0 IP, 1 ER 7.0 IP, 1 ER 7.0 IP, 2 ER 7.0 IP, 2 ER 7.0 IP, 2 ER 7.0 IP, 2 ER 7.0 IP, 3 ER 7.0 IP, 3 ER 6.2 IP, 2 ER 6.1 IP, 2 ER 6.0 IP, 0 ER 6.0 IP, 2 ER   20 GS (33 total) 143.1 IP 36 ER 2.26 ERA   9.0 IP, 1 ER 9.0 IP, 1 ER 8.0 IP, 0 ER 8.0 IP, 1 ER 8.0 IP, 1 ER 8.0 IP, 3 ER 7.0 IP, 0 ER 7.0 IP, 0 ER 7.0 IP, 0 ER 7.0 IP. 0 ER 7.0 IP, 1 ER 7.0 IP, 1 ER 7.0 IP, 2 ER 7.0 IP, 2 ER 6.1 IP, 0 ER 6.1 IP, 0 ER 6.0 IP, 0 ER 6.0 IP, 1 ER 6.0 IP, 2 ER 6.0 IP, 2 ER 5.2 IP, 0 ER 5.0 IP, 2 ER   22 GS (32 total) 153.1 IP 20 ER 1.18 ERA   9.0 IP, 0 ER 9.0 IP, 1 ER 9.0 IP, 3 ER 8.1 IP, 1 ER 8.0 IP, 1 ER 8.0 IP, 2 ER 8.0 IP, 2 ER 8.0 IP, 2 ER 8.0 IP, 3 ER 8.0 IP, 3 ER 7.0 IP, 1 ER 7.0 IP, 1 ER 7.0 IP, 2 ER 7.0 IP, 2 ER 7.0 IP, 3 ER 7.0 IP, 3 ER 7.0 IP, 3 ER 6.2 IP, 0 ER 6.0 IP, 1 ER 5.2 IP, 0 ER 5.1 IP, 2 ER   21 GS (33 total) 146 IP 36 ER 2.22 ERA      
    Posted by royf19


    Is pitcher A Dice K?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    In Response to Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??:
    In Response to Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they?? : Is pitcher A Dice K?
    Posted by jimdavis


    No. Remember these stats are for last year.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    Lester, Halladay, and i dont know?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    Column A appears to be Lackey.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    In Response to Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??:
    Column A appears to be Lackey.
    Posted by devildavid


    Good guess.

    And B and C?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from fizsh. Show fizsh's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    roy, I understand the point you are making.  Lackey is A and Lester is B.  From the best I could see (and I spent some time looking) C is not someone I would consider an Ace, or even a #1 on that team.  He may have led the team in wins last year, but barring injuries he is the third best pitcher on the team.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    In Response to Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??:
    roy, I understand the point you are making.  Lackey is A and Lester is B.  From the best I could see (and I spent some time looking) C is not someone I would consider an Ace, or even a #1 on that team.  He may have led the team in wins last year, but barring injuries he is the third best pitcher on the team.
    Posted by fizsh


    You're right. Lester is B. As you can see, Lester had just two more top performances.

    Player C is Justin Verlander who finished 18-9 with a 3.37 ERA. He had just one more top performance, but it's worth nothing that in these top performances, Lackey averaged more innings per start but their ERA in those games were about even. 

    I could have added these stats. In their mediocre to bad starts:

    Lackey: 13 G, 71.2 IP, 69 ER, 8.66 ERA
    Lester: 11 G, 54 IP, 50 ER, 8.26 ERA
    Verlander: 12 G, 78.1 IP, 48 ER, 5.53 ERA

    So the big difference between Lackey and a Lester or a Verlander was Lackey had just one or two more bad starts. Lackey and Lester was equally as bad in their bad starts, but Lester was a bit more dominant in their good starts. Lackey and Verlander were as dominant in their good starts, but Verlander didn't blow up as bad in his bad starts as Lackey or Lester.


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    Good point.

    I never thought Lackey was ever a "bust."

    But he doesn't fall into the category of "ace" either.

    He , like many MLB pitchers has the talent to be effective every time out.

    This happens for some and not for others, because men are not machines. Measuring men by stats is like calling the weather by a weather forecast. It is not a "prediction" as many think a "forecast" is supposed to be.

    That's why we get showers sometimes when there is only a 30% chance, a no rain on days when there is a 50% chance. You can spin stats any way you like, but if a guy has an argument with his wife, has a headache or just feels crappy that day....he won't do well. These are the "variables" that distinguish humans from machines.

    Stats should be looked at as a"forecast" of what you might expect. But, on any given day the weather could be worse than expected. This is why people always criticize the weatherman when he gets his forecast wrong.
     
    He is looking at the most likely scenerio, this is all that stats tell us-What "should" happen...not what "will" happen.

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

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    I was wrong about C then.  I looked at a pitcher who had 33 starts, 3 CG, 1 shutout and his 3 9 IP starts mirrored the 3 your list.  Came out to be Ervin Santana.  Verlander had 4 CG, but one was a loss on the road, so he didn't pitch 9 innings that game.  So, yeah, I would call Verlander an "Ace". 

    As I said, I understood the reasoning, and it has been mentioned in other threads that Lackey was not as bad as some people think.  For me, I like the idea that the Sox rotation of Lester, Beckett, Buchholz and Lackey are locked up for a few years.  Add in a young starter for a #5 (eventually Ranaudo two or three years down the road?) with Bard as a closer.  I can live with that.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    In Response to Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??:
    I was wrong about C then.  I looked at a pitcher who had 33 starts, 3 CG, 1 shutout and his 3 9 IP starts mirrored the 3 your list.  Came out to be Ervin Santana.  Verlander had 4 CG, but one was a loss on the road, so he didn't pitch 9 innings that game.  So, yeah, I would call Verlander an "Ace".  As I said, I understood the reasoning, and it has been mentioned in other threads that Lackey was not as bad as some people think.  For me, I like the idea that the Sox rotation of Lester, Beckett, Buchholz and Lackey are locked up for a few years.  Add in a young starter for a #5 (eventually Ranaudo two or three years down the road?) with Bard as a closer.  I can live with that.
    Posted by fizsh


    I agree. I did feel like Lackey was overpaid and I wasn't too thrilled with the length -- I would have preferred one less year -- but at the same time, he's a quality arm.

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

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    Z -- Good post.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    Lackey averaged more innings per start but their ERA in those games were about even

    Really pitiful attempt to claim Slackey was anything but a bust, last year. The economy is turning the corner and employment and shovel ready jobs are about to skyrocket if the current administration is re-elected to finish "the job".

    "in those games" doesn't include "in those other games".
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    If you include "those holes" and exclude "those other holes", I am the top golfer in the world.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    Theres value in innings pitched.  Sometimes it's better to have a guy go 8 innings and spread out 4 or 5 runs as opposed to a guy that can go 6.1 and give up 3 runs. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kt888. Show kt888's posts

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    I appreciate the point about looking at some of the less obvious ways in which Lackey contributed last year, but.........
    I agree with softlaw - by Lackey's own standards, he was a bust last season (though he would never publicly admit that) - Beckett as well.  We have seen what they both are capable of, and last year was a disappointing performance for both of them.  If they had pitched closer to their actual capabilities, the Red Sox would have made the playoffs, despite all of the injuries.  
    I didn't mind the Lackey signing once we missed out on Bay, though I didn't see it coming at all.  He is a solid pitcher, though I think his "Ace" status is behind him.  We don't need him to be our Ace anyway - he just needs to pitch up to his potential, which is somewhere in between last year's overall performance and his past two games of this season.  


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

    Re: Two are aces; one is a "bust"; Who are they??

    Beckett was injured all last season. 

    This demonstrates fairly well, that the difference between "aces" like Verlander and a guy like Lackey last season, is only a few starts, a two bad game swing. Lackey didn't have a great year, but in the AL East, I'll take his numbers -- especially knowing that he is likely to pitch better the next season.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share