We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

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

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    We've already had 14 starts from the 6-8 starters with many more on the horizon.

    Those 3 starters (Wake 9, Aceves 4, and Miller 1) are 5-4.
    Wake:     4-3  4.50  (Sox are 5-4 in his starts)
    Aceves : 1-1  5.14  (Sox are 1-3 in his starts)
    Miller:      0-0  4.76  (Sox are 1-0 in his start)

    The Sox are 7-7 in starts by their 6-8 starters. I'd say that is better than any other team could possibly hope for. We could easily have been 8-6 or 9-5 with just a little luck or better pen support.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    Moonslav, did you go to any of these games in Pittsburgh? Are you aware that NHSteven was there Friday night?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxmeister. Show soxmeister's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    Beckett had the real flu, not the stomache version reportedly going around.  If you ever had influenza you would know ... it kills people every year.   It is not just a bad cold ....
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    Yes, I went to both games and am going tonight. The Sox have not had much luck when I go to games.

    Tonight is the night!

    I wouldn' know NH if I saw him, so...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In Response to Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!:
    [QUOTE]Yes, I went to both games and am going tonight. The Sox have not had much luck when I go to games. Tonight is the night! I wouldn' know NH if I saw him, so...
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    But he should be able to identify you.  Just look for the Red Sox fan that looks exactly like Friedrich Nietzsche. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Modano09. Show Modano09's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!


    I'm fine with Wakefield as the #5. He's cheap and he's reliable. He might get lit up from time to time, but as a #5 starter you really don't expect him to win every time out. If he goes into a funk and the team starts to struggle, obviously consider making a change, but if he's going to be good 1 out of 3 and they're still winning behind starters 1 to 4 most of the time, I can handle that.

    Lackey's a bigger issue. He's supposed to be their #3, now he's #4 and pitches like an unstable #5. I really think they need to look into a reliable starter. Lackey isn't going anywhere due to the money, and I'm sure his ego won't allow him to move smoothly into the bullpen, so make him #5 and just hope he offers something.

    I wonder if he'd be better suited for the National League? What's Derek Lowe's contract situation with Atlanta? He'd be ideal. He had success in Boston, he's not an ace but he'd be more solid than Lackey. I haven't followed him much this year so this could be a terrible idea for all I know.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In Response to Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!:
    [QUOTE]Yes, I went to both games and am going tonight. The Sox have not had much luck when I go to games. Tonight is the night! I wouldn' know NH if I saw him, so...
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    The stadium will be empty for you. It is a day game, today.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    All things being equal, I'd rather have three #1s and 5 #5s than a traditional 1-5 rotation, particularly when the post-season starts.  

    The Jury is still out on Lackey and Miller.  If Lackey can rebound, I think he could be about what Burnett is to the Yankees - a #3 guy that can get more wins than he should due to the offense behind him.  Miller could be the best pitcher on the staff.  Or he could be released in a month.  I get excited about his starts right now, though.


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

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In Response to Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!:
    [QUOTE]More tribute to the number 5. http://youtu.be/YfZkoYR4I7A
    Posted by Sheriff-Rojas[/QUOTE]

    You missed the best No. 5 of all.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ---The--Babe----. Show ---The--Babe----'s posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In Response to Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!:
    [QUOTE]Yes, I went to both games and am going tonight. The Sox have not had much luck when I go to games. Tonight is the night! I wouldn' know NH if I saw him, so...

    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    That only means you should attend more games.

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

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In Response to Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!:
    [QUOTE]If Lackey can rebound, I think he could be about what Burnett is to the Yankees - a #3 guy that can get more wins than he should due to the offense behind him.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    I agree except for the #3 starter part.  Right now Lackey's FIP is just about 0.5 higher than Burnett, suggesting that it's certainly possible Lackey could come to Burnett's level this season.  Lackey has been pitching far better than his ERA indicates, as his FIP is 2.28 lower than his ERA.

    If Lackey comes down to Burnett's 4.50 FIP range I don't think that makes him a #3 starter though.  Consider for a minute all the heat that Wake has been taking of late.  His ERA as a starter this season?  4.50.  Some people are calling for him to move back into the pen with the return of Buch.  If a 4.50 ERA isn't good enough for a 5th starter, then how can it be considered a 3rd starter?

    Wake has a 1.20 WHIP as a starter and is averaging just under 6 and a third innings per start, so that also isn't the issue.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    Miller is the wild card to be sure... I can't see Milwood being any worse than Lackey as that is mathematically impossible. 

    If Buchholz can just do what he was doing the last 5 games he pitched it would make a positive difference to how things look today.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1for89. Show 1for89's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In Response to Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!:
    [QUOTE]Beckett had the real flu, not the stomache version reportedly going around.  If you ever had influenza you would know ... it kills people every year.   It is not just a bad cold ....
    Posted by soxmeister[/QUOTE]

    Must have gotten that proverbial 'bad icecube'
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    All things being equal, I'd rather have three #1s and 5 #5s than a traditional 1-5 rotation, particularly when the post-season starts.  

    Well said slomag.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from betterredthandead. Show betterredthandead's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    Any player that isn't capable of instilling confidence in his manager in a post season pitching roster spot should not be squatting all year on the active roster.

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

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In Response to Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!:
    [QUOTE]Any player that isn't capable of instilling confidence in his manager in a post season pitching roster spot should not be squatting all year on the active roster.
    Posted by betterredthandead[/QUOTE]

    So MLB should go to a 4 man rotation?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from OhEFFU. Show OhEFFU's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In Response to Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!:
    [QUOTE]Miller is the wild card to be sure... I can't see Milwood being any worse than Lackey as that is mathematically impossible.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    No it isn't.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from OhEFFU. Show OhEFFU's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    Lackey's disappointing, for sure.  Wakefield is a decent #5, but best if if Clay comes back and Lackey gets at least reasonable and Miller keeps his spot, Wake to the BP. There's a long way to go, they're deep at SP, and every team goes through injuries and adjustments.  No panic. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    Thought I'd add 5 more things to this thread.







    poster fivekatz



    http://youtu.be/faJE92phKzI
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    Your contribution(s) are ........ I was going to say something nice but I drew a blank.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In Response to Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!:
    [QUOTE]Your contribution(s) are ........ I was going to say something nice but I drew a blank.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Drawing a blank?  That's an improvement for you. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In response to BurritoT's comment:
    [QUOTE]Well blind Homers explain again (sigh) away how valuable Wake is, and how fairly good Lackey is, both as #5starters.

      How many # 5's can a team be so lucky to have on the starting staff at one time?  3? 4? All 5?   Seems all it takes to please most of you is a guy who can "keep his team in the game" by giving up 5 runs in 5 innings. Perhaps what it boils down to is the NUMBER 5 is your favorite number. Anything " 5" is okay with you.   I had high hopes for Dice-K going into April but even when he was here it was just another fiver on the staff.   Let's hear it for " 5" !!!    

    [/QUOTE]


    June 26, 2011 I sounded the alarm! A year and a half later and I am still on the money.

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

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In response to harness's comment:

    This has all the earmarks of one of your finer efforts.




    !

     

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

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BurritoT's comment:
    [QUOTE]Well blind Homers explain again (sigh) away how valuable Wake is, and how fairly good Lackey is, both as #5starters.

      How many # 5's can a team be so lucky to have on the starting staff at one time?  3? 4? All 5?   Seems all it takes to please most of you is a guy who can "keep his team in the game" by giving up 5 runs in 5 innings. Perhaps what it boils down to is the NUMBER 5 is your favorite number. Anything " 5" is okay with you.   I had high hopes for Dice-K going into April but even when he was here it was just another fiver on the staff.   Let's hear it for " 5" !!!    

    [/QUOTE]


    June 26, 2011 I sounded the alarm! A year and a half later and I am still on the money.

    [/QUOTE]

    • I'd say we have five nbr 2-4 starters, assuming Lester and/or Buchholz return to form.  And that's not too bad given that there are so few true aces and they are extremely hard to come by.  Supported by a deep and strong bullpen, too.
    • What alternatives were there this winter? $150m for Greinke?  No thanks.
    • Trade for another mid-rotation guy like McCarthy?  Is he going to be that much better than the free (other than salary) Dempster or the returning Lackey?
    • Dickey?  I'd have been ok with him, but at what cost?  And is he really an ace?
    • Sanchez?  $80m?  Is he going to be that much better than the free (other than salary) Dempster or the returning Lackey?

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: We are very Fortunate to have so many Solid #5 Starters!

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BurritoT's comment:
    [QUOTE]Well blind Homers explain again (sigh) away how valuable Wake is, and how fairly good Lackey is, both as #5starters.

      How many # 5's can a team be so lucky to have on the starting staff at one time?  3? 4? All 5?   Seems all it takes to please most of you is a guy who can "keep his team in the game" by giving up 5 runs in 5 innings. Perhaps what it boils down to is the NUMBER 5 is your favorite number. Anything " 5" is okay with you.   I had high hopes for Dice-K going into April but even when he was here it was just another fiver on the staff.   Let's hear it for " 5" !!!    

    [/QUOTE]


    June 26, 2011 I sounded the alarm! A year and a half later and I am still on the money.

    [/QUOTE]

    • I'd say we have five nbr 2-4 starters, assuming Lester and/or Buchholz return to form.  And that's not too bad given that there are so few true aces and they are extremely hard to come by.  Supported by a deep and strong bullpen, too.
    • What alternatives were there this winter? $150m for Greinke?  No thanks.
    • Trade for another mid-rotation guy like McCarthy?  Is he going to be that much better than the free (other than salary) Dempster or the returning Lackey?
    • Dickey?  I'd have been ok with him, but at what cost?  And is he really an ace?
    • Sanchez?  $80m?  Is he going to be that much better than the free (other than salary) Dempster or the returning Lackey?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    +1.

     

Share