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
|
Post by Smittyw on Jul 2, 2015 6:10:41 GMT -5
Did not see this coming...very nice! Who is this guy? obviously clueless.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 2, 2015 7:26:37 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 I'm sure a couple of weeks ago you were ready to say the same about Miley and Pablo. Both are now performing at about as expected. Playing the second guessing game sure is fun.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 2, 2015 8:05:23 GMT -5
Not Pablo. I never wanted Miley and stick by that.
ADDED: I was more about Headley than Pablo, mostly because I thought you could get relatively the same guy for fewer dollars and years, but I saw Pablo as a nice luxury item if they wanted to do that. I also actually thought Hanley would be no different than Manny Ramirez in LF - i.e. sub-standard but not a complete embarrassment. Gomesian at worst.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 2, 2015 8:20:09 GMT -5
Not Pablo. I never wanted Miley and stick by that. Was referencing the previous poster. Not to derail the thread, but I think moving forward Miley is going to be fine as an innings eating 4th starter. There was more predictability with Wade then there was with Rubby. It'll be interesting to see how he fares moving forward now that he's matched last years IP. Either way, the point is, I don't foresee anyone feeling the need to come onto the forum and trash posters who were/are for the trade as I see Miley performing well enough while I don't see Rubby turning into a future Cy Young caliber pitcher. A few weeks ago, this was a different story as I'm sure he was locked in and ready to dig up some Pablo Sandoval and Wade Miley posts.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 2, 2015 11:41:53 GMT -5
Contract is still fine. He's fine. .328 BABIP, 63.8 LOB% 14.8 HR/FB%. Give it a rest with the told-you-sos.
BTW, he's only making 12.5m this year and is roughly on pace to be worth it.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 2, 2015 12:32:55 GMT -5
Contract is still fine. He's fine. .328 BABIP, 63.8 LOB% 14.8 HR/FB%. Give it a rest with the told-you-sos. BTW, he's only making 12.5m this year and is roughly on pace to be worth it. Statistical anomalies or not, I don't think a pitcher with an ERA over 6 heading into July can be considered "worth it" in any scenario. Maybe if his numbers start to correct themselves, but saying that now is a little premature as he's been arguably the worst starting pitcher in baseball this year.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 2, 2015 16:09:27 GMT -5
double post
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 2, 2015 16:15:10 GMT -5
BTW, he's only making 12.5m this year and is roughly on pace to be worth it. Statistical anomalies or not, I don't think a pitcher with an ERA over 6 heading into July can be considered "worth it" in any scenario. He can if you ignore ERA.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 2, 2015 19:08:40 GMT -5
Statistical anomalies or not, I don't think a pitcher with an ERA over 6 heading into July can be considered "worth it" in any scenario. He can if you ignore ERA. At the end of the day, he's still is averaging 6 runs per 9 innings. The numbers may suggest he should be better and that he may get better, but by no account can you consider a 6 era by July "worth" it no matter the cost. He's even alluding to pressure getting to him. I don't believe in clutch, but I do believe in choking and it seems like something more than the numbers is hurting Porcello.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 3, 2015 0:34:07 GMT -5
Statistical anomalies or not, I don't think a pitcher with an ERA over 6 heading into July can be considered "worth it" in any scenario. He can if you ignore ERA. Why should it be ignored? We don't live in a virtual world. We live in a real one. His ERA reflects what he has truly given up (runs/9 innings is more accurate) this year as opposed to what he "should have" given up. What he has done matters more than what he should have done. He's been terrible this year. He shouldn't be as bad, as his peripherals (which aren't that wonderful, given his contract) suggest he shouldn't, but until his "real" results catch up to his mediocre peripherals it's fair to suggest that he's been a major disappointment.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 3, 2015 6:00:20 GMT -5
First, I'm not going to get into a debate about FIP vs ERA. You seem like a smart person, so the only reason ERA represents "real results" to you is because you've been conditioned to think that way.
Second, nowhere did I say he's been good this year. I said he's on track to be *roughly* worth his contract. 12.5m doesn't buy you much these days in baseball. Justin Masterson got 10m and he was a total flyer. Is that a big disappointment? Sure. They should have gotten surplus value out of a guy like Porcello this year, not a mediocre to below average year where they might even be overpaying slightly. It also doesn't mean that he projects to be a bad pitcher going forward or that 20m a year for him is a joke like many people are going to make it out be.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 3, 2015 8:11:05 GMT -5
First, I'm not going to get into a debate about FIP vs ERA. You seem like a smart person, so the only reason ERA represents "real results" to you is because you've been conditioned to think that way. Second, nowhere did I say he's been good this year. I said he's on track to be *roughly* worth his contract. 12.5m doesn't buy you much these days in baseball. Justin Masterson got 10m and he was a total flyer. Is that a big disappointment? Sure. They should have gotten surplus value out of a guy like Porcello this year, not a mediocre to below average year where they might even be overpaying slightly. It also doesn't mean that he projects to be a bad pitcher going forward or that 20m a year for him is a joke like many people are going to make it out be. The first point has been debated in certain circles. I don't think I've been conditioned to think this way. I'm saying that I try to separate things that happen from things that should have happened based on A, B, and C. I'm not knocking FIP as an analytical tool. It's an attempt to strip out everything beyond HR/K/BB and make the pitcher responsible for absolutely nothing else. I can believe some of that but not all of that. As far as being conditioned on ERA, I don't think that's the case. I'm discussing runs/9 innings which is what actually happened whether it should have or not. I start with the reality stat when I'm evaluating and then look at the anaytical stat to see if things should be better or not and look at that as a way of trying to determine if things will be better or worse going forward, but I don't totally disregard what happened when making a judgment. I think Porcello should be better when he starts pulling down the big $ in his contract, but it would be hard to be worse. I know $20 million/year isn't ace money, but I'd hope he at least would be as good as what John Lackey gave them in 2013. To me the Porcello deal is similar to the Lackey deal money-wise. The differences are that Lackey was already beyond 30 and that Lackey's awful season in 2011 was totally based on an injury he was trying to pitch through. Don't know if that's the case with Porcello. You're correct about the money part of things unfortunately. Wasting that kind of money almost forces you into wanting to just try the kids out instead, but there's always the fear of ruining them or wasting their valuable service time on a larger learning curve that comes from being force fed into the majors too soon.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 3, 2015 9:24:51 GMT -5
I think Porcello should be better when he starts pulling down the big $ in his contract, but it would be hard to be worse. I know $20 million/year isn't ace money, but I'd hope he at least would be as good as what John Lackey gave them in 2013. Your hopes are way too high, at least if you think they're more than 20% likely. Sure it's possible Porcello will be that good in one of his 5 years here, but more likely, he'll be a little worse than that most years, with a down year or two. The hope for him is to be an innings eater who gives us a chance to win most weeks.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 3, 2015 11:54:42 GMT -5
I think Porcello should be better when he starts pulling down the big $ in his contract, but it would be hard to be worse. I know $20 million/year isn't ace money, but I'd hope he at least would be as good as what John Lackey gave them in 2013. Your hopes are way too high, at least if you think they're more than 20% likely. Sure it's possible Porcello will be that good in one of his 5 years here, but more likely, he'll be a little worse than that most years, with a down year or two. The hope for him is to be an innings eater who gives us a chance to win most weeks. John Lackey, 2013: 3.52 ERA, 3.86 FIP, 3.49 xFIP, 2.6 fWAR/200 IP Rick Porcello, Steamer RoS projection: 3.95 ERA, 3.71 FIP, 2.6 fWAR/200 IP
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 3, 2015 12:58:34 GMT -5
It's just pure speculation, not good baseball analysis, to predict that Porcello will not be worth his pay. It is based on a relatively small sample size of poor performance with the Sox, ignoring his past.
The reason Porcello is pitching poorly is that he is not pitching like he did in the past. He isn't Rick Porcello. If he recovers himself, he will be a good pitcher for the Sox. I'm not saying he will. There are examples of pitchers who have lost it in the peak of their careers for no apparent reason. That may be possible here, but I doubt it. The problems he has are correctable.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 3, 2015 13:43:05 GMT -5
He is 26. His career is not over.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 3, 2015 13:48:07 GMT -5
John Lackey, 2013: 3.52 ERA, 3.86 FIP, 3.49 xFIP, 2.6 fWAR/200 IPRick Porcello, Steamer RoS projection: 3.95 ERA, 3.71 FIP, 2.6 fWAR/200 IPHow do both of those lines equal 2.6 fWAR/200? The first line is clearly better. And it's basically what I was thinking, that Lackey's 2013 is half a run better than I expect Porcello (ok, a little less thank half a run).
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 3, 2015 14:08:22 GMT -5
John Lackey, 2013: 3.52 ERA, 3.86 FIP, 3.49 xFIP, 2.6 fWAR/200 IPRick Porcello, Steamer RoS projection: 3.95 ERA, 3.71 FIP, 2.6 fWAR/200 IPHow do both of those lines equal 2.6 fWAR/200? The first line is clearly better. And it's basically what I was thinking, that Lackey's 2013 is half a run better than I expect Porcello (ok, a little less thank half a run). Well, Lackey had a worse FIP which is what fWAR is based off of (I'm guessing the lower run environment these days evens them out). ZiPS likes him less though, to the tune of a 4.04 ERA/3.88 FIP. Also, I wouldn't use fWAR to evaluate Porcello because it looks like he has legitimate sequencing issues, as has been discussed here. Yeah, he's played in front of some bad defenses, but I'd bet on him underperforming his FIP in the future, and the projections agree with him. Oddly, he's projected for a higher RA9 WAR despite a higher ERA, not sure what that's about. I think Porcello will be acceptable going forward, but closer to average than to 3+ wins which is what they were paying for with this extension. I loved it at the time, but it's not looking great now.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 3, 2015 15:37:29 GMT -5
Rick Porcello, Steamer RoS projection: 3.95 ERA, 3.71 FIP, 2.6 fWAR/200 IP I honestly feel like a 0.24 ERA-FIP is an overly optimistic projection for Porcello at this point.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 3, 2015 16:52:52 GMT -5
Rick Porcello, Steamer RoS projection: 3.95 ERA, 3.71 FIP, 2.6 fWAR/200 IP I honestly feel like a 0.24 ERA-FIP is an overly optimistic projection for Porcello at this point. Over his career (1000+ IP), it's 0.38, but that's still a smallish enough sample that you need to regress it some. But I take the point that considering his issues pitching from the stretch, FIP/fWAR may not be the best illustration of his true talent level.
|
|
|