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.
Red Sox just extended Porcello, through the 2019 season
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 8, 2015 15:03:52 GMT -5
You don't get a draft pick in that scenario anymore though. The Reds would get a pick if they kept him, which is why he includes it. But more importantly, what Cueto goes for will not be determined in reference to what he's worth to the Reds. It'll be what any other team is willing to trade for Cueto. Winner's curse and all that. Well, I included it when I was talking about the Red's value equation, but then I did forget that you no longer get a pick for a guy that you trade for mid-year. Which is why trading for walk-year guys the previous winter (a la Porcello and Latos) seems like a better move. The gained potential pick is probably worth more than what you have to give up to get four extra months of value (especially since you're not bidding against other teams desperate to add a pitcher).
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Apr 8, 2015 20:15:27 GMT -5
Just bet 100 bucks with my brother, who is a Cubs fan, that Porcello will have more WAR/$ through his contract than Lester through his. Pretty confident I'm going to win this one.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,436
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Apr 9, 2015 8:57:20 GMT -5
Wonder when Kiley will divulge his info on who were looking at
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Apr 9, 2015 10:19:52 GMT -5
Just bet 100 bucks with my brother, who is a Cubs fan, that Porcello will have more WAR/$ through his contract than Lester through his. Pretty confident I'm going to win this one. You know Lester is signed for 6 years, Porcello only 5, right? You're banking on him having a terrible performance/injury in one of those years for this to be a fair bet.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 9, 2015 10:21:14 GMT -5
Just bet 100 bucks with my brother, who is a Cubs fan, that Porcello will have more WAR/$ through his contract than Lester through his. Pretty confident I'm going to win this one. You know Lester is signed for 6 years, Porcello only 5, right? You're banking on him having a terrible performance/injury in one of those years for this to be a fair bet. I think that "/" is meant to indicate a fraction.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Apr 9, 2015 10:50:00 GMT -5
My apologies, I misread that.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 9, 2015 11:22:36 GMT -5
Copying my findings from the gameday thread: Year | Bases empty K% | Bases empty BB% | Men on K% | Men on BB% | 2012 | 14.2% | 2.6% | 13.0% | 9.1% | 2013 | 21.7% | 4.0% | 15.6% | 8.3% | 2014 | 17.5% | 3.1% | 11.8% | 7.8% |
RISP numbers are even worse than overall men on numbers. Basically, Porcello has been pitching much worse with men on than with the bases empty. If better coaching / gamecalling could teach him to always pitch as well as he does with the bases empty, he could be pretty damn good. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 9, 2015 13:17:52 GMT -5
Copying my findings from the gameday thread: Year | Bases empty K% | Bases empty BB% | Men on K% | Men on BB% | 2012 | 14.2% | 2.6% | 13.0% | 9.1% | 2013 | 21.7% | 4.0% | 15.6% | 8.3% | 2014 | 17.5% | 3.1% | 11.8% | 7.8% |
RISP numbers are even worse than overall men on numbers. Basically, Porcello has been pitching much worse with men on than with the bases empty. If better coaching / gamecalling could teach him to always pitch as well as he does with the bases empty, he could be pretty damn good. Thoughts? I'm confused. Why would you expect him to pitch better from the stretch than from the wind-up? This is all pretty logical. Unless you've got an MLB baseline to compare this to, I'm not seeing the problem. Also, why are we using strikeout percentage for a groundball pitcher?
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Apr 9, 2015 14:25:13 GMT -5
Copying my findings from the gameday thread: Year | Bases empty K% | Bases empty BB% | Men on K% | Men on BB% | 2012 | 14.2% | 2.6% | 13.0% | 9.1% | 2013 | 21.7% | 4.0% | 15.6% | 8.3% | 2014 | 17.5% | 3.1% | 11.8% | 7.8% |
RISP numbers are even worse than overall men on numbers. Basically, Porcello has been pitching much worse with men on than with the bases empty. If better coaching / gamecalling could teach him to always pitch as well as he does with the bases empty, he could be pretty damn good. Thoughts? I'm confused. Why would you expect him to pitch better from the stretch than from the wind-up? This is all pretty logical. Unless you've got an MLB baseline to compare this to, I'm not seeing the problem. Also, why are we using strikeout percentage for a groundball pitcher? Not to Bobby V.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 9, 2015 15:53:17 GMT -5
Also, why are we using strikeout percentage for a groundball pitcher? Because strikeouts are good, even for a groundball pitcher, and walks are bad, even for a groundball pitcher? His GB/FB ratio didn't vary significantly between the situations FWIW. Unless you've got an MLB baseline to compare this to, I'm not seeing the problem. OK, that is a fair criticism. So I checked some recent Red Sox pitchers and various other 2-3 win pitchers I randomly plucked from Porcello's vicinity on the GB% leaderboard for last year. The following are all career splits: Pitcher | K%-BB%  | K%-BB%  | Diff |
---|
| Empty | Men On | |
---|
Kelly | 6.8 | 7.3 | +0.5 | Masterson | 9.7 | 9.9 | +0.2 | Niese | 12.1 | 11.1 | -1.0 | Lester | 14.3 | 12.8 | -1.5 | Leake | 11.1 | 8.8 | -2.3 | Ventura | 12.1 | 9.7 | -2.4 | Buchholz | 10.8 | 7.6 | -3.2 | Fister | 13.5 | 9.4 | -4.1 | Lackey | 13.9 | 8.8 | -5.1 | McCarthy | 13.1 | 7.8 | -5.3 | Miley | 13.9 | 7.5 | -6.4 | Porcello | 11.5 | 4.4 | -7.1 |
So, yes, pitching a bit worse from the stretch is normal. Turning into a pumpkin isn't.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Apr 9, 2015 21:26:38 GMT -5
Total shot in the dark, but I wonder if the holes that open with guys on first base and the first baseman holding the runner hurt a guy like Porcello more than others. For that to hold water, GB pitchers as a class would show worse performance with runners on than FB pitchers ... from that little list, that doesn't seem to hold water, but it's too small a sample.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 10, 2015 5:45:16 GMT -5
Total shot in the dark, but I wonder if the holes that open with guys on first base and the first baseman holding the runner hurt a guy like Porcello more than others. Perhaps but you would see that in their BABIP, not in their K% or BB%, or am I misunderstanding what you're talking about?
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Apr 10, 2015 6:02:33 GMT -5
Just bet 100 bucks with my brother, who is a Cubs fan, that Porcello will have more WAR/$ through his contract than Lester through his. Pretty confident I'm going to win this one. You know Lester is signed for 6 years, Porcello only 5, right? You're banking on him having a terrible performance/injury in one of those years for this to be a fair bet. Let's see if either you or your brother remember this bet in the fall of 2020.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 10, 2015 7:58:36 GMT -5
]OK, that is a fair criticism. So I checked some recent Red Sox pitchers and various other 2-3 win pitchers I randomly plucked from Porcello's vicinity on the GB% leaderboard for last year... I started off thinking what Hatfield said (but differently): "duh, all pitchers pitch worse with runners on." My reasoning is more an expectation of clustering - I expect that limiting clustering hits/walks is a skill, but all pitchers display some clustering. But, when you look at three years numbers vs the AL average you see how starkly Porcello has failed in this area. In other words, I think you are right, but I have no idea what this means (correctable or not, small sample, an area to expect improve, etc.): AL AVERAGE Empty Rs On (low is bad) K%-B% K%-B% Diff Ratio 2014 13.8% 11.0% 2.8% 0.80 2013 13.2% 10.4% 2.8% 0.79 2012 13.1% 9.4% 3.7% 0.72 12-14 13.4% 10.3% 3.1% 0.77
PORCELLO K%-B% K%-B% Diff Ratio 2014 14.5% 4.0% 10.4% 0.28 2013 17.6% 7.3% 10.3% 0.41 2012 11.6% 3.9% 7.7% 0.33 12-14 14.6% 4.9% 9.7% 0.34
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 10, 2015 9:04:50 GMT -5
Going back to the groundball pitcher thing, perhaps with runners on, he's trying harder to induce a double play grounder, hence the drop in K rate? Not sure how I square that with the spike in walk rate though.
My guess is it's just that his wind-up to stretch drop-off is just bigger than a lot of other pitchers. Would be nice if he could work on that.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 10, 2015 9:34:00 GMT -5
His GB% goes up with men on, so, maybe? A bet a full analysis looking at where his pitches are with men on vs. empty would help make that clear... Umm, I'm going to go back to work now.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 10, 2015 9:48:04 GMT -5
His GB% goes up with men on, so, maybe? Well, not really. I mean this all looks like noise to me: | Empty | MenOn | GB/FB | 1.90 | 1.88 | LD% | 21.6% | 18.1% | GB% | 51.4% | 53.5% | FB% | 27.0% | 28.4% | IFFB% | 9.2% | 9.0% | HR/FB | 11.1% | 11.7% |
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 12, 2015 18:24:15 GMT -5
A full analysis looking at where his pitches are with men on vs. empty would help ... Or one of his velocity and movement. Or what he's throwing (and perhaps in what count). I keep on meaning to e-mail Dan Brooks and suggest that the pitch/fx tool desperately needs base-out situation filters in addition to batter handedness and count. (It could also use quality of opposing hitter and, ultimately, score differential, but first things first.) One trust the Sox are aware of the problem, have figured out what causes it, and are working on a solution. Thinking that the splits have a chance to be improved would of course be a rationale for confidence in the contract extension.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Jul 1, 2015 22:42:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redtiger13 on Jul 2, 2015 0:55:43 GMT -5
I was pretty confident that they'd do this and was kind of wondering why there hadn't been reports about negotiations. Fantastic. My guess is that just four years is designed to get Porcello into the FA market, if that's the way it goes, at a good age. Rather than a 7-year deal with an opt-out after four, just do the four years. It's better for him, and it's better for a club that doesn't like pitchers in their 30's and is confident about developing or trading for younger talent. I am no so sure if this deal has a short term design as your speculating here. Sure the shorter term helps the Sox...but I am not so sure it helps Porcello...who carries most of the risk of earning less than he might be worth over a productive career (vis-a-vis your proverbial 6-7 yr FA contract - also he is a FA next year). This is a lot different than the normal buying out of arb years...as is often done. If he performs at a high level for the next....let's say 3 years.....they could easily rip this up and extend him further. Point of fact...this is the kind of contract teams should be making. Pay more in the years there is a greater statistical probability they will be productive....and revisit as needed. It's done in other sports frequently. Classic
|
|
|
Post by redtiger13 on Jul 2, 2015 0:59:53 GMT -5
Love this move from the Sox perspective, but it's also a really interesting move by Porcello and his agent. If he rode the season out and stayed healthy he could've gotten 7+ years at his age. A bit of a gamble (if you can call picking up $82M a gamble) but he could be losing out on an extra $50M-70M. Pure gold
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jul 2, 2015 1:03:33 GMT -5
Is there a point to this?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 2, 2015 1:26:58 GMT -5
Why didn't you tell us your opinion of this extension 3 months ago, huh?
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 2, 2015 2:52:42 GMT -5
What classless trolling. I'll give the new poster a pass, but unless you're calling yourself out on an old comment that you now wish you could take back (I wish I could take back my "like" of several posts) then shut the eff up, sincerely, someone who can't sleep but still doesn't want to read this drivel.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 2, 2015 4:57:29 GMT -5
Love this move from the Sox perspective, but it's also a really interesting move by Porcello and his agent. If he rode the season out and stayed healthy he could've gotten 7+ years at his age. A bit of a gamble (if you can call picking up $82M a gamble) but he could be losing out on an extra $50M-70M. Pure gold Hey, I can fall for a paper move just like anyone else. But I was wrong. I just fired myself.
|
|
|