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

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

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

    Sonics the only thing is that "assuming" Lester and Buch return to form.... we said the same thing last year. However it is obvious that if they did return it would make a huge impact. Not only one can though, the team would need both... as the staff otherwise is nothing but "5's"

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

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

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sonics the only thing is that "assuming" Lester and Buch return to form.... we said the same thing last year. However it is obvious that if they did return it would make a huge impact. Not only one can though, the team would need both... as the staff otherwise is nothing but "5's"

    [/QUOTE]

    Last year, we had 3 guys many were calling solid #1s or 2s. I had mentioned back then, that over the years all 3 had never put it all together and stayed healthy for a full season. I said that expecting all 3 to do it in 2012 was not realistic or reasonable. Now we have 2, both coming off inconsistent and/or injury seasons, and again we are hearing several poster expecting them both to do well in 2013. 

    It could happen, but it should not be expected. If it is not "expected", then for us to be serious contenders we should have planned accordingly. Dempster is not the plan I had in mind either.

    Burr, I get your point and basically agree wholeheartedly, except I'd say we have 2 guys that may be able to pitch like solid #2 starters and then 3 guys that rate to be #4 type starters (Dempster, Lackey & Doubie). Morales, Tazawa, or even Mortensen could be good #5/6 slot starters, and maybe de la Rosa or Webster could do well in that role midway this year, but this staff sorely needs an ace. Beckett was that guy in 2007. He looked close to that for most of 2009 and 2011, and Lester has shown ace-type skills for long stretches of several seasons, but we really haven't had a true go to ace since 2007.

    I know it is not easy to get one, and you don't see me pining for King Felix anymore, but I do think we could have at least tried to get a solid #2 type as a step in the right direction.

    If Beckett goes on to have another solid odd year season this year, can anybody really think we'll be better off with Dempster because of his better clubhouse nature? 

    Again, we will not be true contenders until we solidify our rotation. I know teams have won with worse rotations on paper at this point in the year, but they are few and far between.

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

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

    Great post Sir.

    Mainly at the time I wrote this ... it seemed there was a general feeling the team was going to the show in 2011 even though all of our starters were basically scratching to get beyond 5 innings, and they often gave up 5 runs in or around 5 or 6 innings pitched..... the offense bailing them out all summer and into late August. When the offense went soft in September the pitching was then exposed to the blind cheerleaders. 

    Frankly a #3 or #4 starter of quality is useless if you have no #1 or #2 ahead of them.

    We still have the same issue a year and a half later.

     

    ** the offense never went off the rails in September but their ability to score 10 runs a game had diminished to 4-6 runs ... which our pitching made insufficient.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

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

    In response to harness' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Please! This is a baseball thread. Have a little respect for the puny poster who started this player bashing.

    [/QUOTE]


    harness...is that really you? nice to see you again...happy New year

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

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

    All I'm going to say is, I have to admit the thread title is pretty funny.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

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

    entertaining? u r a good man Hfx.

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

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

    BTW Dempster slides right into the 5"s. A 5 era, 5-6 innings a start, and the over-all value of a #5 starter.

     
  8. 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 EnchiladaT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    BTW Dempster slides right into the 5"s. A 5 era, 5-6 innings a start, and the over-all value of a #5 starter.

    [/QUOTE]


    i don't think anyone was expecting dempster to be anything but a #5.. at least nobody i saw here was expecting him to anchor our staff or anything. I think you underrate our pitching but who can blame you? after the performance of 2012 it's your right. But i have faith that Buch/lester will rebound. They are competitors and have to be embarrassed after their poor 2012 campaigns. I expect they will come back strong and with the addition of farrel to help them get into the right mindset and correct any faulty mechanics.

    You're going to be surprised with our pitching staff this year enchi. just my gut feeling though

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

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

    Our starting rotation is not any better on paper than last winter, or the one before that, or the one before...

    Yes, things might turn out differently this year, but it would be a "surprise" if it did.

     
  10. 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 moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our starting rotation is not any better on paper than last winter, or the one before that, or the one before...

    Yes, things might turn out differently this year, but it would be a "surprise" if it did.

    [/QUOTE]


    the surprise was the poor job they did last season. you really think our pitching this season will be worse than it was last season? i think your off your rocker moon..

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

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

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our starting rotation is not any better on paper than last winter, or the one before that, or the one before...

    Yes, things might turn out differently this year, but it would be a "surprise" if it did.

    [/QUOTE]


    the surprise was the poor job they did last season. you really think our pitching this season will be worse than it was last season? i think your off your rocker moon..

    [/QUOTE]

    No, it was not a surprise to some of us last year. I wasn't off my rocker last winter when I said we'd be just as lucky for just one of the big 3 to have a great and healthy season as all 3.

    Also, I said recently that our rotation, not our pitching staff is no better off "on paper" than last year. I stand by my position as strongly as ever. Last winter, we were looking at this for a starting rotation:

    Beckett coming off a 30 start season and a 2.89 ERA & 1.026 WHIP. I felt a lot better about Beckett's 2012 projection of last winter than Dempster's 2013 projection for 2013.

    Lester was coming off 4 straight pretty darn awesome seasons. Are you saying you feel better about Lester this winter than last winter? I won't mention anything about not being on your rocker.

    Buchholtz was coming off an injury, and I don't see any reason to be more optimistic about 2013 as I felt about 2012 last winter: push.

    Bard was converting from the pen to the rotation, and although I was very much against the conversion, I certainly did not get much of a sense from you or others on this board that he was expected to fail. Do you feel better about Lackey in 2013 than you felt about Bard last winter? I'll call this a push.

    Doubront is probably projected to be better in 2013 than he was going into 2012, but sorry if I am not too thrilled about a 4.86 ERA and a 1.45 WHIP.

    Dice-K, Cook, Miller vs Morales as the 6th starter? I'll give you this one.

    Now, who is that laying on the floor next to the rocking chair in your living room?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wolfpack13. Show Wolfpack13's posts

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

    Moon, no need for the long explanation you are correct...  this year's starting staff is no better on paper. I actually think there was more of a reason to be optimistic at the beginning of 2012 compared to this year. Where is the improvement? Dempster for Beckett? A"healthy" Lackey?

     

     

     

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

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

    In response to Wolfpack13's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Moon, no need for the long explanation you are correct...  this year's starting staff is no better on paper. I actually think there was more of a reason to be optimistic at the beginning of 2012 compared to this year. Where is the improvement? Dempster for Beckett? A"healthy" Lackey?

    [/QUOTE]

    The main room for improvement is Lester and Buchholz.  They *should* be able to knock a full run off their ERA's.  Bill James thinks they will.  Doubront will also get better hopefully.  Lackey is a total question mark.

    Considering the starters set a franchise record for highest ERA, there's nowhere to go but up...or better, that is.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

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

    The question was not weather Lester, Buch and others will do better in 2013 than they did in 2012, but rather does our starting rotation look better on paper now as compared to this time last year.

    Beckett>Dempster

    Lester '12> Lester '13

    Buch '12 = Buch '13

    D Bard > Lackey 

    Doub '12 < Doub '13

    6th starters '12 < 6th starters '13

     

    I do think Lester will do better in 2013, but at this time last year, I was expecting Lester to be our ace in 2012.

    I do think Buch can do better in 2013, but I worry about his health and knack for inconsistency (perhaps injury related).

    I do think Lackey can turn things around, but I'm not going to hold my breath over it.

    I like Doubront, but apparently not as much as others here.

    Dempster is old and in a tougher division/league. I will root for him to do better than Beckett, but I'm sorry if I am trying to be realistic about his chances at pitching like a 1/2 slot starter.

     

     

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

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

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The question was not weather Lester, Buch and others will do better in 2013 than they did in 2012, but rather does our starting rotation look better on paper now as compared to this time last year.

    Beckett>Dempster

    Lester '12> Lester '13

    Buch '12 = Buch '13

    D Bard > Lackey 

    Doub '12 < Doub '13

    6th starters '12 < 6th starters '13

    [/QUOTE]

    Bard was a complete unknown quantity, so I think that one is a push if anything.  And we should have known Beckett would stink last year because it was an even-numbered year. :-)  Seriously, for his talent level I think Beckett is the most erratic starter I've ever seen.

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

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

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The question was not weather Lester, Buch and others will do better in 2013 than they did in 2012, but rather does our starting rotation look better on paper now as compared to this time last year.

    Beckett>Dempster

    Lester '12> Lester '13

    Buch '12 = Buch '13

    D Bard > Lackey 

    Doub '12 < Doub '13

    6th starters '12 < 6th starters '13

    [/QUOTE]

    Bard was a complete unknown quantity, so I think that one is a push if anything.  And we should have known Beckett would stink last year because it was an even-numbered year. :-)  Seriously, for his talent level I think Beckett is the most erratic starter I've ever seen.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm OK with calling Bard/Lackey a push, but I will not ever say that anyone should feel more confident about Dempster right now than we felt about Beckett last January 1st.

    At best, our rotation is about the same on paper as last January 1st. The same as the team who finished in last place.

     

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

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

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm OK with calling Bard/Lackey a push, but I will not ever say that anyone should feel more confident about Dempster right now than we felt about Beckett last January 1st.

    At best, our rotation is about the same on paper as last January 1st. The same as the team who finished in last place.

    [/QUOTE]

    But that's mixing and matching, because the team certainly wasn't projected to finish in last place last year, it was probably projected to win 87-89 games and fight it out for a wild card spot.  So if we're the same on paper, on paper we're projected for those type of results this year.

    Last year's actual results were of course worse than expected, to a disastrous degree.

      

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

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

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm OK with calling Bard/Lackey a push, but I will not ever say that anyone should feel more confident about Dempster right now than we felt about Beckett last January 1st.

    At best, our rotation is about the same on paper as last January 1st. The same as the team who finished in last place.

    [/QUOTE]

    But that's mixing and matching, because the team certainly wasn't projected to finish in last place last year, it was probably projected to win 87-89 games and fight it out for a wild card spot.  So if we're the same on paper, on paper we're projected for those type of results this year.

    Last year's actual results were of course worse than expected, to a disastrous degree.

      

    [/QUOTE]

    I still think we are worse on paper than last year concerning our rotation, and my expectations for last year were not as high as most on this board. 

    I never expected our 3 top starters to all be healthy and pitch great for the first time ever. 

    I don't expect Lester, Buch, and Dempster to either. 

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

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

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I still think we are worse on paper than last year concerning our rotation, and my expectations for last year were not as high as most on this board. 

    I never expected our 3 top starters to all be healthy and pitch great for the first time ever. 

    I don't expect Lester, Buch, and Dempster to either. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I see Dempster as more of a back-end innings eater.  I think Doubront is more likely than Dempster to pitch like a #3.

    But the key is Lester and Buch.  Buchholz had a horrible start last year, then pitched great for several months, then had a few bad starts at the end that jacked his ERA again.

    In 2010 Lester was 4th in Cy Young voting and Buch was 6th.  They're young and they have proven ability.  I think it's possible they will both return to much better form.  And if they don't then yes, we have no chance.  

     

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

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

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I still think we are worse on paper than last year concerning our rotation, and my expectations for last year were not as high as most on this board. 

    I never expected our 3 top starters to all be healthy and pitch great for the first time ever. 

    I don't expect Lester, Buch, and Dempster to either. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I see Dempster as more of a back-end innings eater.  I think Doubront is more likely than Dempster to pitch like a #3.

    But the key is Lester and Buch.  Buchholz had a horrible start last year, then pitched great for several months, then had a few bad starts at the end that jacked his ERA again.

    In 2010 Lester was 4th in Cy Young voting and Buch was 6th.  They're young and they have proven ability.  I think it's possible they will both return to much better form.  And if they don't then yes, we have no chance.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What do you think the chances are that both Lester and Buch stay healthy and pitch very well in 2013? (Top 10 in Cy Young)

    Are the chances better that both do well and stay healthy or neither do well and/or stay healthy?

    My guess is that maybe the odds are 50-50 both do well and stay healthy all year. That means that there is about a 50% chance we "have no chance" after just looking at our 2 best starters.

    Let's say both do well. Now, what do we need from Dempster, Doubront and Lackey to have a serious chance at winning a ring?

    Put it all together and what do you say the odds are that our rotation puts it all together enough to be a  serious contender?

    Yes, our pen could be better.

    Yes, our offense should be better.

    Yes, we have a chance to make the playoffs, but I still don't see us as serious contenders unless we add a solid starting pitcher.

     

Share