SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Chris Sale
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 14:24:26 GMT -5
No one is saying the Sox need another starter at the moment or need another "ace" like starting pitcher. To me and others points here is saying that a need in the rotation could be had at some point in the year because the rotation isn't as much of a lock as others see it. I could easily see Dave Dombrowski acquiring another starter in July even though there's no need for one right now. Circumstances change in terms of both performance and injuries. Go read Larry cooks comments above, people are saying we need another TOR starter right now! You don't talk about trading for Sale in the offseason because maybe something happens and we need a starter in July. A true blockbuster trade for a guy like Sale is a lot easier in the offseason. If your worried about depth then you look at pitchers that could provide depth, not Sale. You trade for Sale because you feel we need another TOR starter.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 14:59:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 14:59:31 GMT -5
No one is saying the Sox need another starter at the moment or need another "ace" like starting pitcher. To me and others points here is saying that a need in the rotation could be had at some point in the year because the rotation isn't as much of a lock as others see it. I could easily see Dave Dombrowski acquiring another starter in July even though there's no need for one right now. Circumstances change in terms of both performance and injuries. Go read Larry cooks comments above, people are saying we need another TOR starter right now! You don't talk about trading for Sale in the offseason because maybe something happens and we need a starter in July. A true blockbuster trade for a guy like Sale is a lot easier in the offseason. If your worried about depth then you look at pitchers that could provide depth, not Sale. You trade for Sale because you feel we need another TOR starter. Maybe there's no Sale available come July but there might be a Sonny Gray (if he rebounds) come July. I'm not one of those people advocating anything.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 15:32:11 GMT -5
Go read Larry cooks comments above, people are saying we need another TOR starter right now! You don't talk about trading for Sale in the offseason because maybe something happens and we need a starter in July. A true blockbuster trade for a guy like Sale is a lot easier in the offseason. If your worried about depth then you look at pitchers that could provide depth, not Sale. You trade for Sale because you feel we need another TOR starter. Maybe there's no Sale available come July but there might be a Sonny Gray (if he rebounds) come July. I'm not one of those people advocating anything. Your on the Chris Sale trade thread bashing our rotation. Saying David Price was a #4 last year, which is a joke, at worst he might have been a #3. I think a good case could he made he was a 2/3 last year. You might not think your advocating for anything, but you are. If you think the chances are very high that we need a pitching upgrade in July, then just say you think we should get a pitcher now. You keep talking about Sale and now Gray. Those aren't depth guys, those are TOR guys. It's a lot easier to get a guy now than in July when prices are sky high, just look at Espinoza trade for Pomeranz. So many teams would love our current rotation and depth. Outside our top 6, you have former top 20 in Owens and a former top 100 prospect in Johnson. That's a solid top 8, without taking into account the 1-2 guys I'm sure DD will stash in AAA for more depth.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 15:39:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 15:39:31 GMT -5
Maybe there's no Sale available come July but there might be a Sonny Gray (if he rebounds) come July. I'm not one of those people advocating anything. Your on the Chris Sale trade thread bashing our rotation. Saying David Price was a #4 last year, which is a joke, at worst he might have been a #3. I think a good case could he made he was a 2/3 last year. Actually when Price was at his worst in April, he was pitching like a number 5 pitcher. At his worst. A pitcher with a ERA around 4 is what you would expect from a number 4 starter maybe a number 3 starter. I'm not bashing anything. I'm clearly just voicing my opinion that the rotation isn't as much of a lock as some here keep pointing out. I like the starting rotation the way it's shaping up as of this moment but spring training hasn't even started yet, so there's that.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 16:20:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jimed14 on Nov 26, 2016 16:20:39 GMT -5
Wright was never actually a DFA candidate, c'mon. I don't disagree other than that. It was a minority position, but there were certainly folks around here who thought Wright would/should be DFAed. See, e.g., here or here or here. Those people were really wrong and I bet the Red Sox didn't even consider it. If Wright was a DFA candidate then everyone is if all it takes is some guy on a message board suggesting it.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 17:16:27 GMT -5
Your on the Chris Sale trade thread bashing our rotation. Saying David Price was a #4 last year, which is a joke, at worst he might have been a #3. I think a good case could he made he was a 2/3 last year. Actually when Price was at his worst in April, he was pitching like a number 5 pitcher. At his worst. A pitcher with a ERA around 4 is what you would expect from a number 4 starter maybe a number 3 starter. I'm not bashing anything. I'm clearly just voicing my opinion that the rotation isn't as much of a lock as some here keep pointing out. I like the starting rotation the way it's shaping up as of this moment but spring training hasn't even started yet, so there's that. What Price did in April has no bearing on his overall year. Trying to use ERA to make your point is so 20 years ago. The fact is he ranked 41st in bwars, in no way can you even come close to saying he was a #4 last year. Can you name 90 starters that were better??? Sure he had a disappointing year, but by saying he's was a #4 your bashing him. According to bwars he was a number 2 starter last year. If you wanted to call him a 2/3 I wouldn't argue that, but calling him a #4 is bashing him. Hoping he can maybe become a #2 next year is bashing him, when the numbers show he was a #2 last year in what was his worst year. Last year's ranking of Sox pitchers in bwars 12. Porcello, 36. Pomeranz, 41 Price, and 79. Wright. Then you have ERods upside if he's healthy and not tipping pitches. We do have some injury concerns, but most teams do when it comes to pitchers. We also have upside that very few teams have.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 26, 2016 17:32:55 GMT -5
In fWAR the top 5 Red Sox pitchers last year were 6, 13, 43, 48, 97 out of 137 pitchers with 100+ innings.
So you can argue the Red Sox have two #1s, two #2s and a #4.
Chris Sale is great, but this is already one of the best rotations in baseball with lots of upside.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 18:24:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Nov 26, 2016 18:24:35 GMT -5
No one is saying the Sox need another starter at the moment or need another "ace" like starting pitcher. To me and others points here is saying that a need in the rotation could be had at some point in the year because the rotation isn't as much of a lock as others see it. I could easily see Dave Dombrowski acquiring another starter in July even though there's no need for one right now. Circumstances change in terms of both performance and injuries. I absolutely agree with that. I'm only arguing against the "we need another TOR guy;" I also understand that you aren't necessarily "for" a big starter. You and I probably agree that a solid depth addition would be valuable, given the issues starters 6-9 have had.
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Nov 26, 2016 18:30:25 GMT -5
In fWAR the top 5 Red Sox pitchers last year were 6, 13, 43, 48, 97 out of 137 pitchers with 100+ innings. So you can argue the Red Sox have two #1s, two #2s and a #4. Chris Sale is great, but this is already one of the best rotations in baseball with runs off upside. I wish I could like this comment twice. Price and Porcello will be a very strong 1/2 combo. Pomeranz pitched well in August until the innings got to him, and I expect him to be a solid #3 next year. Then we have Rodriguez and Wright filling it out with Buchholz in reserve, so I don't see why this team needs Sale. Sure, he'd help. But is it worth trading (probably) JBJ and prospects? Not a chance.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 18:33:14 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Nov 26, 2016 18:33:14 GMT -5
In fWAR the top 5 Red Sox pitchers last year were 6, 13, 43, 48, 97 out of 137 pitchers with 100+ innings. So you can argue the Red Sox have two #1s, two #2s and a #4. Chris Sale is great, but this is already one of the best rotations in baseball with runs off upside. And the lower bWAR rankings are mostly due to defensive adjustment (since the Sox were an excellent defensive team). There are plenty of questions, but I'm pretty confident in this rotation. If Rodriguez is a 4 next year, I'll be very disappointed. I think it's fair to expect 1a performance from Price, 2 from Porcello, 2/3 from Pomeranz and Rodriguez, and 3 from Wright. Odds say one or two will get hurt/underperform, but there's also a real huge upside...two legit 1s, a pair of 1a guys, and a 2.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2016 19:24:51 GMT -5
In fWAR the top 5 Red Sox pitchers last year were 6, 13, 43, 48, 97 out of 137 pitchers with 100+ innings. So you can argue the Red Sox have two #1s, two #2s and a #4. Chris Sale is great, but this is already one of the best rotations in baseball with runs off upside. I mean, you could argue that, but it wouldn't be a very good argument. Basing your entire projection of next year's performance off of last year's performance is bad analysis. For what it's worth, the Red Sox rotation ranks 9th in Fangraphs' depth chart projections. The rate stats are fine (though not as rosy as telson and others have suggested), but the innings total from the back end of the rotation is middling, which seems right to me. Even if you're more bullish on Wright (an entirely fair position) and want to bump his rate stats and innings totals up, it doesn't crack the top 5. This is the wrong thread to make this point in (I don't think they need to or should make a trade for Sale), but calling it "one of the best rotations in baseball" seems optimistic to me.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 19:52:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 19:52:54 GMT -5
Actually when Price was at his worst in April, he was pitching like a number 5 pitcher. At his worst. A pitcher with a ERA around 4 is what you would expect from a number 4 starter maybe a number 3 starter. I'm not bashing anything. I'm clearly just voicing my opinion that the rotation isn't as much of a lock as some here keep pointing out. I like the starting rotation the way it's shaping up as of this moment but spring training hasn't even started yet, so there's that. What Price did in April has no bearing on his overall year. Trying to use ERA to make your point is so 20 years ago. The fact is he ranked 41st in bwars, in no way can you even come close to saying he was a #4 last year. Can you name 90 starters that were better??? Sure he had a disappointing year, but by saying he's was a #4 your bashing him. According to bwars he was a number 2 starter last year. If you wanted to call him a 2/3 I wouldn't argue that, but calling him a #4 is bashing him. Hoping he can maybe become a #2 next year is bashing him, when the numbers show he was a #2 last year in what was his worst year. Last year's ranking of Sox pitchers in bwars 12. Porcello, 36. Pomeranz, 41 Price, and 79. Wright. Then you have ERods upside if he's healthy and not tipping pitches. We do have some injury concerns, but most teams do when it comes to pitchers. We also have upside that very few teams have. ERA isn't 20 years ago. It's the baseline stat to look at starting pitching. Price gave up a lot of contact and gave a lot of runs last year and the Sox had a great defense last year. So you could make a case he was actually lucky to have a ERA that low. When you consider all that, to me he was a 3 or 4 with a ton of innings (which raises his value). That's what he was to me. Of course where he should be slotted in a rotation last year is just talk about nothing really. Price at worst will be pitching game 2 of the season next year. Hopefully he performs a lot better to start the year next time. The Sox aren't paying him to be even be a number 2/3 starter like you think he was last year. He needs to pitch like one of the best pitchers in the league if the Sox even have a chance next year. His clunkers (like in the playoffs) gives the Sox very little chance to go very far into September and October. He's got to be better. This is all I'll say about that.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 20:02:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 20:02:01 GMT -5
No one is saying the Sox need another starter at the moment or need another "ace" like starting pitcher. To me and others points here is saying that a need in the rotation could be had at some point in the year because the rotation isn't as much of a lock as others see it. I could easily see Dave Dombrowski acquiring another starter in July even though there's no need for one right now. Circumstances change in terms of both performance and injuries. I absolutely agree with that. I'm only arguing against the "we need another TOR guy;" I also understand that you aren't necessarily "for" a big starter. You and I probably agree that a solid depth addition would be valuable, given the issues starters 6-9 have had. Yes I agree that more depth is needed in some form. Along with catching and outfield depth too. I'm also saying that I wouldn't rule out especially Dave Dombrowski making a big move in the rotation come July though too. Right now he's made it perfectly clear that there's no need for it right now. This can all change due to variables in the season like performance and injuries. My one hope in the 6-9 depth department spot is that Brian Johnson becomes what he was ascending to be in the big leagues before all his issues started in July of 2015. He was looking like he could become a solid back end starter for a lot of years to come before that point. His minor league track record was solid before then.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 20:04:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by rookie13 on Nov 26, 2016 20:04:59 GMT -5
What Price did in April has no bearing on his overall year. Trying to use ERA to make your point is so 20 years ago. The fact is he ranked 41st in bwars, in no way can you even come close to saying he was a #4 last year. Can you name 90 starters that were better??? Sure he had a disappointing year, but by saying he's was a #4 your bashing him. According to bwars he was a number 2 starter last year. If you wanted to call him a 2/3 I wouldn't argue that, but calling him a #4 is bashing him. Hoping he can maybe become a #2 next year is bashing him, when the numbers show he was a #2 last year in what was his worst year. Last year's ranking of Sox pitchers in bwars 12. Porcello, 36. Pomeranz, 41 Price, and 79. Wright. Then you have ERods upside if he's healthy and not tipping pitches. We do have some injury concerns, but most teams do when it comes to pitchers. We also have upside that very few teams have. ERA isn't 20 years ago. It's the baseline stat to look at starting pitching. Price gave up a lot of contact and gave a lot of runs last year and the Sox had a great defense last year. So you could make a case he was actually lucky to have a ERA that low. When you consider all that, to me he was a 3 or 4 with a ton of innings (which raises his value). That's what he was to me. Of course where he should be slotted in a rotation is just talk about nothing really. Price at worst will be pitching game 2 of the season next year. Hopefully he performs a lot better to start the year next time. The Sox aren't paying him to be even be a number 2/3 starter like you think he was last year. He needs to pitch like one of the best pitchers in the league if the Sox even have a chance next year. His clunkers (like in the playoffs) gives the Sox very little chance to go very far into September and October. He's got to be better. This is all I'll say about that. I don't think Price's performance will be the main factor in the Sox making the playoffs. Even in a down year, his era- was 90 and fip- was 86. Neither of those numbers are what we'd expect from price, but they're still better than league average. IMO, Price was at worst a #3 starter this year, and he was excellent in july/august before slowing down a bit in September. I expect a rebound from him and I really don't think the Sox have anything to worry about when it comes to the rotation. They have more pressing needs. Edit: typo.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 20:26:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 26, 2016 20:26:58 GMT -5
In fWAR the top 5 Red Sox pitchers last year were 6, 13, 43, 48, 97 out of 137 pitchers with 100+ innings. So you can argue the Red Sox have two #1s, two #2s and a #4. Chris Sale is great, but this is already one of the best rotations in baseball with runs off upside. I mean, you could argue that, but it wouldn't be a very good argument. Basing your entire projection of next year's performance off of last year's performance is bad analysis. For what it's worth, the Red Sox rotation ranks 9th in Fangraphs' depth chart projections. The rate stats are fine (though not as rosy as telson and others have suggested), but the innings total from the back end of the rotation is middling, which seems right to me. Even if you're more bullish on Wright (an entirely fair position) and want to bump his rate stats and innings totals up, it doesn't crack the top 5. This is the wrong thread to make this point in (I don't think they need to or should make a trade for Sale), but calling it "one of the best rotations in baseball" seems optimistic to me. 'one of the best' is subjective. You say 'not top 5, so not 'one of the best' is fine. I think top 10 is a fair assessment - with potential to be better if things break right. Basing future projections off of the most recent data is better than using past data, so it's not a bad way to go, but more data is always better. As fWAR is FIP based and not ERA based I find it more useful in determining future performance than past results. Not arguing that there pitchers are all as good as stated, but an argument can be made which is far more accurate than what was previously posted proposing they have a poor rotation. It makes more sense if you read it within the context of the thread. My 2 cents: immediate performance (jbj) plus future performance in exchange for immediate performance makes no sense as there isn't an excess of OFers.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 20:56:03 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Nov 26, 2016 20:56:03 GMT -5
I mean, you could argue that, but it wouldn't be a very good argument. Basing your entire projection of next year's performance off of last year's performance is bad analysis. For what it's worth, the Red Sox rotation ranks 9th in Fangraphs' depth chart projections. The rate stats are fine (though not as rosy as telson and others have suggested), but the innings total from the back end of the rotation is middling, which seems right to me. Even if you're more bullish on Wright (an entirely fair position) and want to bump his rate stats and innings totals up, it doesn't crack the top 5. This is the wrong thread to make this point in (I don't think they need to or should make a trade for Sale), but calling it "one of the best rotations in baseball" seems optimistic to me. 'one of the best' is subjective. You say 'not top 5, so not 'one of the best' is fine. I think top 10 is a fair assessment - with potential to be better if things break right. Basing future projections off of the most recent data is better than using past data, so it's not a bad way to go, but more data is always better. As fWAR is FIP based and not ERA based I find it more useful in determining future performance than past results. Not arguing that there pitchers are all as good as stated, but an argument can be made which is far more accurate than what was previously posted proposing they have a poor rotation. It makes more sense if you read it within the context of the thread. My 2 cents: immediate performance (jbj) plus future performance in exchange for immediate performance makes no sense as there isn't an excess of OFers. My two cents in light of that: there is only "recent" data on Wright/Rodriguez, and those data suggest fWAR rates well within #3 starter territory (2.5/190 IP). Both are inexperienced, and so volatile, but I think 3 territory is a fair median projection. I'm not going to address Price/Porcello for obvious reasons. I've outlined reasons to believe in Pomeranz as a 3; obviously, the staff though higher of him, given that they traded Espinoza for him. No guarantees, but I don't think it's especially "rosy."
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 22:10:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Nov 26, 2016 22:10:00 GMT -5
Jmei does make a good point though: volatility is an issue. That's why I'd advocate keeping Buchholz. Odds are, one of those guys spends significant time on the DL and/or underperforms. By the trade deadline, the picture re: Owens/Johnson/Elias will be clearer and so will any need; likewise, we'll know more about the 3b/1b situation re: Travis and Moncada (and Pablo/Shaw).
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 26, 2016 22:43:51 GMT -5
Your on the Chris Sale trade thread bashing our rotation. Saying David Price was a #4 last year, which is a joke, at worst he might have been a #3. I think a good case could he made he was a 2/3 last year. Actually when Price was at his worst in April, he was pitching like a number 5 pitcher. At his worst. A pitcher with a ERA around 4 is what you would expect from a number 4 starter maybe a number 3 starter. I'm not bashing anything. I'm clearly just voicing my opinion that the rotation isn't as much of a lock as some here keep pointing out. I like the starting rotation the way it's shaping up as of this moment but spring training hasn't even started yet, so there's that. You lack any credibility when you state Price was @ #4 last year, to then point out t how he did in April as if it justifies your opinion on the whole season makes it even worse. You are wrong here, clear as day and no explanation can make that go away. The starting rotation should be good (to even very good) and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone besides yourself to disagree with that.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 22:52:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 22:52:38 GMT -5
Actually when Price was at his worst in April, he was pitching like a number 5 pitcher. At his worst. A pitcher with a ERA around 4 is what you would expect from a number 4 starter maybe a number 3 starter. I'm not bashing anything. I'm clearly just voicing my opinion that the rotation isn't as much of a lock as some here keep pointing out. I like the starting rotation the way it's shaping up as of this moment but spring training hasn't even started yet, so there's that. You lack any credibility when you state Price was @ #4 last year, to then point out t how he did in April as if it justifies your opinion on the whole season makes it even worse. You are wrong here, clear as day and no explanation can make that go away. The starting rotation should be good (to even very good) and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone besides yourself to disagree with that. I always said I liked the rotation if you read all of the posts here. I'm sorry if you think I lack credibility, but Price's numbers weren't all that impressive last year (outside of the innings and strike outs). That isn't my opinion, it's the truth. I expect him to rebound in 2017 however and the Sox need him to rebound if the Sox want the best chances of winning a lot next year. Ohh and Price was awful in April. It took the whole season up until the very last start to get his ERA under 4 because of that bad month.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 23:29:40 GMT -5
You lack any credibility when you state Price was @ #4 last year, to then point out t how he did in April as if it justifies your opinion on the whole season makes it even worse. You are wrong here, clear as day and no explanation can make that go away. The starting rotation should be good (to even very good) and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone besides yourself to disagree with that. I always said I liked the rotation if you read all of the posts here. I'm sorry if you think I lack credibility, but Price's numbers weren't all that impressive last year (outside of the innings and strike outs). That isn't my opinion, it's the truth. I expect him to rebound in 2017 however and the Sox need him to rebound if the Sox want the best chances of winning a lot next year. Ohh and Price was awful in April. It took the whole season up until the very last start to get his ERA under 4 because of that bad month. Omg you just make crap up, it's ridiculous. On August 27th he got his ERA under 4, it only rose above 4 for one bad start in September. Go look at the game logs.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 23:33:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Nov 26, 2016 23:33:36 GMT -5
You lack any credibility when you state Price was @ #4 last year, to then point out t how he did in April as if it justifies your opinion on the whole season makes it even worse. You are wrong here, clear as day and no explanation can make that go away. The starting rotation should be good (to even very good) and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone besides yourself to disagree with that. I always said I liked the rotation if you read all of the posts here. I'm sorry if you think I lack credibility, but Price's numbers weren't all that impressive last year (outside of the innings and strike outs). That isn't my opinion, it's the truth. I expect him to rebound in 2017 however and the Sox need him to rebound if the Sox want the best chances of winning a lot next year. Ohh and Price was awful in April. It took the whole season up until the very last start to get his ERA under 4 because of that bad month. Look deeper than ERA, though. His WHIP was good (not great), and his FIP/xFIP were borderline excellent. ERA is highly variable (more noisy than FIP/xFIP). His strand rate and BABIP weren't the issue, so it's probably more sequencing and the increased BAA. The HR rate was unusually high for him, hence the lower xFIP vs FIP and ERA. He was still a 4+WAR/200 inning pitcher; 2.5/180-200 is an average 3. So his numbers say 2, and more importantly suggest 1a/2 going forward, when his past several years are taken into account. He certainly could be declining, but you can dig just a tiny bit below ERA to see he was much better than a 4. I'm not going to impugn your credibility for it, but I'd encourage you to reconsider your statement by further review.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 23:35:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 23:35:49 GMT -5
I always said I liked the rotation if you read all of the posts here. I'm sorry if you think I lack credibility, but Price's numbers weren't all that impressive last year (outside of the innings and strike outs). That isn't my opinion, it's the truth. I expect him to rebound in 2017 however and the Sox need him to rebound if the Sox want the best chances of winning a lot next year. Ohh and Price was awful in April. It took the whole season up until the very last start to get his ERA under 4 because of that bad month. Omg you just make crap up, it's ridiculous. On August 27th he got his ERA under 4, it only rose above 4 for one bad start in September. Go look at the game logs. Well now you're starting to look at ERA I suppose too. Okay Price had a ERA over 4 all but one month into the season. Happy?
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 23:38:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Nov 26, 2016 23:38:55 GMT -5
I always said I liked the rotation if you read all of the posts here. I'm sorry if you think I lack credibility, but Price's numbers weren't all that impressive last year (outside of the innings and strike outs). That isn't my opinion, it's the truth. I expect him to rebound in 2017 however and the Sox need him to rebound if the Sox want the best chances of winning a lot next year. Ohh and Price was awful in April. It took the whole season up until the very last start to get his ERA under 4 because of that bad month. Omg you just make crap up, it's ridiculous. On August 27th he got his ERA under 4, it only rose above 4 for one bad start in September. Go look at the game logs. When he was on that scorching second-half streak I really thought he might make a dark-horse run at the Cy. Even Pedro added a full run to his ERA in his first year in Boston (1.90 to 2.89...good God, he was fun to watch), so I'm fairly confident that Price will be back down in the low-3s or even 2s next year.
|
|
|
Chris Sale
Nov 26, 2016 23:39:03 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 23:39:03 GMT -5
I always said I liked the rotation if you read all of the posts here. I'm sorry if you think I lack credibility, but Price's numbers weren't all that impressive last year (outside of the innings and strike outs). That isn't my opinion, it's the truth. I expect him to rebound in 2017 however and the Sox need him to rebound if the Sox want the best chances of winning a lot next year. Ohh and Price was awful in April. It took the whole season up until the very last start to get his ERA under 4 because of that bad month. Look deeper than ERA, though. His WHIP was good (not great), and his FIP/xFIP were borderline excellent. ERA is highly variable (more noisy than FIP/xFIP). His strand rate and BABIP weren't the issue, so it's probably more sequencing and the increased BAA. The HR rate was unusually high for him, hence the lower xFIP vs FIP and ERA. He was still a 4+WAR/200 inning pitcher; 2.5/180-200 is an average 3. So his numbers say 2, and more importantly suggest 1a/2 going forward, when his past several years are taken into account. He certainly could be declining, but you can dig just a tiny bit below ERA to see he was much better than a 4. I'm not going to impugn your credibility for it, but I'd encourage you to reconsider your statement by further review. I do like Price, unlike people here suggest but he didn't have a David Price like year. Maybe the "number 4" statement was pushed a little too far. Maybe I was better to call him a number 3 starter instead. His peripherals do look good outside of the homerun numbers, so I do agree and that's why I do like a bounce back in 2017.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 23:54:49 GMT -5
Omg you just make crap up, it's ridiculous. On August 27th he got his ERA under 4, it only rose above 4 for one bad start in September. Go look at the game logs. Well now you're starting to look at ERA I suppose too. Okay Price had a ERA over 4 all but one month into the season. Happy? I always look at ERA, but I also look at things like WHIP which is much more important to me. I also look at innings, strikeouts, QS, HRs, and ERA +. If your going to just use ERA, you should use ERA+ which is park adjusted thus you can compare players. I will be happy if you learn how to actually look at pitchers the right way. Outside wins, ERA is the second worthless stat a pitcher can have.
|
|
|