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.
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 26, 2016 23:25:24 GMT -5
Clearly, the guy to trot out there every five days needs to be a gamer. A guy who just knows how to pitch. Somebody who really wants the ball on game day. A bulldog.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 27, 2016 0:08:57 GMT -5
Clearly, the guy to trot out there every five days needs to be a gamer. A guy who just knows how to pitch. Somebody who really wants the ball on game day. A bulldog. Does Pedroia pitch ?
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Feb 27, 2016 0:57:43 GMT -5
If Owens can improve his control, even if he does not make our rotation, he could be a huge commodity in July.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 27, 2016 1:38:55 GMT -5
I could quote the Kelly bashers before this rebuttal, but I'll be kind.
Before he went on the DL, Kelly had a 4.41 SIERA. That would rank him 102nd among the 150 starting pitchers with the most IP as a starter last year. That's the bad Joe Kelly, and it's not awful. It's just above the borderline between a 4th starter and a 5th starter.
He came back from the DL trying a completely different pitch mix from anything he'd ever tried. This was at about the same time that Brian Bannister was resurrecting Rich Hill's career, so it seems quite possible that Bannister had a hand in this.
He made 11 starts with the new pitch mix, which is a pretty healthy sample, had his ups and downs, and he had a 4.00 SIERA. That would rank him 60th. That's an average #3 starter. As your 5th starter. Some of the guys who had a higher (league-adjusted) SIERA: John Lackey, Michael Wacha, Jeff Samardzija, and so on. E-Rod ranked 75th, with 4.16.
And you don't want to give this guy another 10 starts to see if he's for real? Are you people in your right minds?
Seriously. End of discussion. You have no rational argument.
(I mean, I'm officially the world's biggest Steven Wright fan, and one of the biggest champions on this board for Owens' upside, and I think Kelly has earned the shot.)
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 27, 2016 21:56:12 GMT -5
Clearly, the guy to trot out there every five days needs to be a gamer. A guy who just knows how to pitch. Somebody who really wants the ball on game day. A bulldog. Does Pedroia pitch ? We all know short RH can't be successful in MLB. Except maybe in relief.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 27, 2016 22:02:41 GMT -5
I could quote the Kelly bashers before this rebuttal, but I'll be kind. Before he went on the DL, Kelly had a 4.41 SIERA. That would rank him 102nd among the 150 starting pitchers with the most IP as a starter last year. That's the bad Joe Kelly, and it's not awful. It's just above the borderline between a 4th starter and a 5th starter. He came back from the DL trying a completely different pitch mix from anything he'd ever tried. This was at about the same time that Brian Bannister was resurrecting Rich Hill's career, so it seems quite possible that Bannister had a hand in this. He made 11 starts with the new pitch mix, which is a pretty healthy sample, had his ups and downs, and he had a 4.00 SIERA. That would rank him 60th. That's an average #3 starter. As your 5th starter. Some of the guys who had a higher (league-adjusted) SIERA: John Lackey, Michael Wacha, Jeff Samardzija, and so on. E-Rod ranked 75th, with 4.16. And you don't want to give this guy another 10 starts to see if he's for real? Are you people in your right minds? Seriously. End of discussion. You have no rational argument. (I mean, I'm officially the world's biggest Steven Wright fan, and one of the biggest champions on this board for Owens' upside, and I think Kelly has earned the shot.) I think the best argument for Kelly is the combination of his expected performance with the fact that he has way more value as a SP, either in trade or on the team. Owens can still get lots of reps and innings in AAA, and has options to burn. If Kelly stinks, bring up HO or BJ, and put Kelly in the pen. If Kelly gets hurt, same deal but he can be sent down for rehab without burning the option. And if he's good, or great, well that's a nice problem to have, and Owens or Johnson will have to wait for Clay to get hurt, or something else. But they're young enough that the Sox have time to assess their value. The Sox are running out of time to figure out who the real Joe Kelly is.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 28, 2016 6:21:16 GMT -5
I could quote the Kelly bashers before this rebuttal, but I'll be kind. Before he went on the DL, Kelly had a 4.41 SIERA. That would rank him 102nd among the 150 starting pitchers with the most IP as a starter last year. That's the bad Joe Kelly, and it's not awful. It's just above the borderline between a 4th starter and a 5th starter. He came back from the DL trying a completely different pitch mix from anything he'd ever tried. This was at about the same time that Brian Bannister was resurrecting Rich Hill's career, so it seems quite possible that Bannister had a hand in this. He made 11 starts with the new pitch mix, which is a pretty healthy sample, had his ups and downs, and he had a 4.00 SIERA. That would rank him 60th. That's an average #3 starter. As your 5th starter. Some of the guys who had a higher (league-adjusted) SIERA: John Lackey, Michael Wacha, Jeff Samardzija, and so on. E-Rod ranked 75th, with 4.16. And you don't want to give this guy another 10 starts to see if he's for real? Are you people in your right minds? Seriously. End of discussion. You have no rational argument. (I mean, I'm officially the world's biggest Steven Wright fan, and one of the biggest champions on this board for Owens' upside, and I think Kelly has earned the shot.) I think the best argument for Kelly is the combination of his expected performance with the fact that he has way more value as a SP, either in trade or on the team. Owens can still get lots of reps and innings in AAA, and has options to burn. If Kelly stinks, bring up HO or BJ, and put Kelly in the pen. If Kelly gets hurt, same deal but he can be sent down for rehab without burning the option. And if he's good, or great, well that's a nice problem to have, and Owens or Johnson will have to wait for Clay to get hurt, or something else. But they're young enough that the Sox have time to assess their value. The Sox are running out of time to figure out who the real Joe Kelly is. I just think the competition should exist and this guy shouldn't be guaranteed anything. I obviously have been very clear on where I stand with Kelly but if he clearly WINS the job out of spring training, then there won't be anything else to say but to give him a shot. This is the only position that could be won or lost in spring training and Kelly has a option left too, so if he blows up (again) then the Sox won't have to pay for it in the big leagues or they can throw him in the bullpen. That's where I'm really getting at in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Feb 28, 2016 10:05:14 GMT -5
I like to see Johnson get a legit shot at number 5. If throughout this process Kelly gets beat out and doesn't like the bullpen then he could be excellent trade bait at the deadline. Throw in Hanigan also because I believe both catchers will settle in and claim the job in Boston and thereby making him expendable.
I read in some publications that the Sox might need to make some of our prospects available at the deadline to fix any holes on the team. This could be a good option for this team if need be. There not old either there still young.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 28, 2016 10:18:25 GMT -5
If Joe Kelly loses the fifth starter competition and spends the first half in the bullpen or in Pawtucket, it is unlikely that he'll have much trade value at the deadline.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 28, 2016 11:38:09 GMT -5
I think the best argument for Kelly is the combination of his expected performance with the fact that he has way more value as a SP, either in trade or on the team. Owens can still get lots of reps and innings in AAA, and has options to burn. If Kelly stinks, bring up HO or BJ, and put Kelly in the pen. If Kelly gets hurt, same deal but he can be sent down for rehab without burning the option. And if he's good, or great, well that's a nice problem to have, and Owens or Johnson will have to wait for Clay to get hurt, or something else. But they're young enough that the Sox have time to assess their value. The Sox are running out of time to figure out who the real Joe Kelly is. I just think the competition should exist and this guy shouldn't be guaranteed anything. I obviously have been very clear on where I stand with Kelly but if he clearly WINS the job out of spring training, then there won't be anything else to say but to give him a shot. This is the only position that could be won or lost in spring training and Kelly has a option left too, so if he blows up (again) then the Sox won't have to pay for it in the big leagues or they can throw him in the bullpen. That's where I'm really getting at in this thread. 1) Spring training performance has essentially no predictive value at all. Theo once said (OK, Theo once told me) that he dreamed of claiming some good player who had been DFA'd by some stupid team at the end of ST because he'd had a bad spring. Unfortunately, everyone else had figured that out by then (2005), so it never happened. The only thing you pay attention to in ST is whether anything has changed that a scout can see. Has someone developed a new pitch? Come into camp way out of shape (which is not the same as being heavy, by the way)? Pitching like his elbow is bothering him? But if a player who finished the season as the 60th best pitcher in baseball, gets his head handed to him in ST for no apparent reason, that is meaningless. Ditto if the 160th best pitcher dominates for no apparent reason. A lot of your positions are being torn to shreds because, frankly, you're ignorant of a lot of basic, Baseball 101 sorts of facts. 2) The notion of asking Joe Kelly to win his job again after what he did last year to earn that job would be, pretty obviously, just about the stupidest thing you could on a number of different levels. Great way to demonstrate to all the players that what they do on the field in the regular season will be discounted based on irrational whims. Great motivator, huh? 3) "I just think" is not a rational argument, and if that's all you ever have, people will stop listening and responding to what you have to say.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 28, 2016 13:17:41 GMT -5
And I had a GM tell me that he was hoping that there would be a GM out there dumb enough to sign Carl Crawford for $142
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 28, 2016 13:31:13 GMT -5
And I had a GM tell me that he was hoping that there would be a GM out there dumb enough to sign Carl Crawford for $142 yeah right...
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 28, 2016 13:37:00 GMT -5
I just think the competition should exist and this guy shouldn't be guaranteed anything. I obviously have been very clear on where I stand with Kelly but if he clearly WINS the job out of spring training, then there won't be anything else to say but to give him a shot. This is the only position that could be won or lost in spring training and Kelly has a option left too, so if he blows up (again) then the Sox won't have to pay for it in the big leagues or they can throw him in the bullpen. That's where I'm really getting at in this thread. 1) Spring training performance has essentially no predictive value at all. Theo once said (OK, Theo once told me) that he dreamed of claiming some good player who had been DFA'd by some stupid team at the end of ST because he'd had a bad spring. Unfortunately, everyone else had figured that out by then (2005), so it never happened. The only thing you pay attention to in ST is whether anything has changed that a scout can see. Has someone developed a new pitch? Come into camp way out of shape (which is not the same as being heavy, by the way)? Pitching like his elbow is bothering him? But if a player who finished the season as the 60th best pitcher in baseball, gets his head handed to him in ST for no apparent reason, that is meaningless. Ditto if the 160th best pitcher dominates for no apparent reason. A lot of your positions are being torn to shreds because, frankly, you're ignorant of a lot of basic, Baseball 101 sorts of facts. 2) The notion of asking Joe Kelly to win his job again after what he did last year to earn that job would be, pretty obviously, just about the stupidest thing you could on a number of different levels. Great way to demonstrate to all the players that what they do on the field in the regular season will be discounted based on irrational whims. Great motivator, huh? 3) "I just think" is not a rational argument, and if that's all you ever have, people will stop listening and responding to what you have to say. 1-You mentioned how Joe Kelly was a borderline number 3 starter in his last few number of starts but fail to mention his first 17 starts where he had a ERA over 6. That is also a bigger sample size than your number 3 comparisons. 2-Joe Kelly did NOTHING to earn his job last year, especially at the end of the year. He wasn't performing at all by the end of the year. He spent the last 2-3 weeks on the DL at the end of last season, which you also fail to mention. 3-If it was such a crummy argument to make, then why would John Farrell even mention that in fact that the spot is up for grabs? Am I missing something here? Ohh and by the way, Theo isn't the gm of the Sox anymore, Dave is.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 28, 2016 16:40:54 GMT -5
1-You mentioned how Joe Kelly was a borderline number 3 starter in his last few number of starts but fail to mention his first 17 starts where he had a ERA over 6. That is also a bigger sample size than your number 3 comparisons. 2-Joe Kelly did NOTHING to earn his job last year, especially at the end of the year. He wasn't performing at all by the end of the year. He spent the last 2-3 weeks on the DL at the end of last season, which you also fail to mention. 3-If it was such a crummy argument to make, then why would John Farrell even mention that in fact that the spot is up for grabs? Am I missing something here? Ohh and by the way, Theo isn't the gm of the Sox anymore, Dave is. No one is forgetting the first 17 starts. We just think the last few were very promising, and make us cautiously optimistic. The claim that "Kelly did NOTHING to earn his job last year" (oh, no, capital letters are so convincing!) is true in that he did nothing to guarantee him a slot. But he performed in a way that makes him a strong candidate to win that spot. That he was hurt at the end of the year is a factor, but does not make him any more or less likely to get hurt than another player. Or more likely to be picked as the 5th starter, because hey, there's a sixth and seventh starter waiting at Pawtucket or in the Sox bullpen in case he gets hurt/ That Farrell said there will be competition does not mean that Owens is better than Kelly, or that Kelly is as bad as you say (and say and say and say). Still making weak arguments, almost exclusively.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Feb 28, 2016 16:54:32 GMT -5
Good for you guys calling out Eric's posts. Most of mine get deleted and I'm told I'm disrespectful. Never questioned his knowledge or brain power, as he does those who question him, and I've never cursed or called someone names in all my years here. So be it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 28, 2016 17:00:52 GMT -5
I realize that Kelly has an option left, but it makes a lot more sense to keep him in the rotation unless there is clear evidence that Owens is good deal better. That's almost impossible to determine in spring training. I think they'll want him as a starter to keep the depth in tact. Sending Owens to the minors probably won't frustrate him or piss him off nearly as much as it would Kelly. Owens and Johnson will get their chances.
It also seems that Elias is the forgotten man.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 28, 2016 17:07:42 GMT -5
Good for you guys calling out Eric's posts. Most of mine get deleted and I'm told I'm disrespectful. Never questioned his knowledge or brain power, as he does those who question him, and I've never cursed or called someone names in all my years here. So be it. I completely agree with how Eric handled it. If you can't keep up in a conversation with him, don't even bother trying. There are many discussions I just watch because I know my limitations or know that I'm too lazy to do the required work to back up a disagreement. Instead of disagreeing and typing certain phrases in all caps, try asking a question. Don't start spouting off about ERA to prove your point. Know what you don't know.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 28, 2016 18:10:30 GMT -5
1-You mentioned how Joe Kelly was a borderline number 3 starter in his last few number of starts but fail to mention his first 17 starts where he had a ERA over 6. That is also a bigger sample size than your number 3 comparisons. 2-Joe Kelly did NOTHING to earn his job last year, especially at the end of the year. He wasn't performing at all by the end of the year. He spent the last 2-3 weeks on the DL at the end of last season, which you also fail to mention. 3-If it was such a crummy argument to make, then why would John Farrell even mention that in fact that the spot is up for grabs? Am I missing something here? Ohh and by the way, Theo isn't the gm of the Sox anymore, Dave is. No one is forgetting the first 17 starts. We just think the last few were very promising, and make us cautiously optimistic. The claim that "Kelly did NOTHING to earn his job last year" (oh, no, capital letters are so convincing!) is true in that he did nothing to guarantee him a slot. But he performed in a way that makes him a strong candidate to win that spot. That he was hurt at the end of the year is a factor, but does not make him any more or less likely to get hurt than another player. Or more likely to be picked as the 5th starter, because hey, there's a sixth and seventh starter waiting at Pawtucket or in the Sox bullpen in case he gets hurt/ That Farrell said there will be competition does not mean that Owens is better than Kelly, or that Kelly is as bad as you say (and say and say and say).Still making weak arguments, almost exclusively. Which basically points out that it isn't Kelly's job to lose exclusively like you keep pointing out. It only gives him a slight edge, maybe. I'm not making weak arguments, I'm pointing out what was said by the manager and making the point obvious to everyone. I'm sorry you don't like me or my arguments but the fact remains that there is a job to be won out of spring training whether you want to admit or not. I think Kelly is exclusively bad in the rotation but didn't say he would be terrible in the bullpen. Usually ERA doesn't tell the whole story but if it's 17 games into the season and it's over 6 AND you have already been demoted to the minor leagues that year, then that is really telling in my eyes. I personally think I'm right about Kelly than say 75% of the people here that want to give him a extra chance. We will see how it plays out in spring training and the first month of the season. I don't see Kelly lasting into June with that 5th spot for long. Just my take.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 28, 2016 18:18:01 GMT -5
I realize that Kelly has an option left, but it makes a lot more sense to keep him in the rotation unless there is clear evidence that Owens is good deal better. That's almost impossible to determine in spring training. I think they'll want him as a starter to keep the depth in tact. Sending Owens to the minors probably won't frustrate him or piss him off nearly as much as it would Kelly. Owens and Johnson will get their chances. It also seems that Elias is the forgotten man. The problem with this team the past 2 years is that Farrell has been more worried about the "feelings" about players like Nava, Gomes, Victorino, Pablo, Hanley, Kelly, Porcello, Buchholz and probably a lot more veterans on this team. His job is on the line, if he wants to keep it, then he better start worrying about what's best for this team and not what players think anymore.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Feb 28, 2016 18:20:01 GMT -5
Good for you guys calling out Eric's posts. Most of mine get deleted and I'm told I'm disrespectful. Never questioned his knowledge or brain power, as he does those who question him, and I've never cursed or called someone names in all my years here. So be it. I completely agree with how Eric handled it. If you can't keep up in a conversation with him, don't even bother trying. There are many discussions I just watch because I know my limitations or know that I'm too lazy to do the required work to back up a disagreement. Instead of disagreeing and typing certain phrases in all caps, try asking a question. Don't start spouting off about ERA to prove your point. Know what you don't know.
[/b] I'm fine with all you said. Wish all my posts that were deleted could be read. It's not balanced. I know I don't know plenty. We,ve had plenty of debates here jimed and all of it is there to read for others. Not so with me and Eric. Also, I don't remember spouting off about ERA. May have used caps or quotes here and there for making a point.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 28, 2016 19:11:46 GMT -5
I completely agree with how Eric handled it. If you can't keep up in a conversation with him, don't even bother trying. There are many discussions I just watch because I know my limitations or know that I'm too lazy to do the required work to back up a disagreement. Instead of disagreeing and typing certain phrases in all caps, try asking a question. Don't start spouting off about ERA to prove your point. Know what you don't know.
[/b] I'm fine with all you said. Wish all my posts that were deleted could be read. It's not balanced. I know I don't know plenty. We,ve had plenty of debates here jimed and all of it is there to read for others. Not so with me and Eric. Also, I don't remember spouting off about ERA. May have used caps or quotes here and there for making a point.[/quote] No he was referring to me, I like to emphasize points by using capital letters with the correct words. It agrivates some people but it'll definitely push your point accross I think. Of course I'm not going to tell people how to write, I make a ton of mistakes in that department, I just try to be as legible as I can be.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 28, 2016 23:20:44 GMT -5
Kelly's ERA for the season was 4.82. His career ERA is under 4. Besides, Eric did talk about the first half of the year...he quoted SIERA, which is an extrapolated value stripped of park and fielding effects. Basically, it says Kelly had a lot of rotten luck last year. He certainly wasn't helped by a BABIP of .320, either. And you're basing your assessment of him as "terrible" on a few weeks at the end of 2014 (when he actually wasn't that bad, but was coming off of injury), and a terrible first two months of 2015, when he had a ton of rotten luck and a terrible defense behind him. And, you discount his 8-1 run completely, despite a much improved ERA, SIERA, and other peripherals, *despite* a BABIP of over .330 (career value: about .290 before last season). So your entire argument against Kelly is basically predicated on a crummy half-season and some injury troubles. It's just very unconvincing, and comes across as irrational.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 29, 2016 4:49:23 GMT -5
3-If it was such a crummy argument to make, then why would John Farrell even mention that in fact that the spot is up for grabs? Am I missing something here? Yes. Do you really think that what managers say to the press is the complete truth, regardless of how it might affect his players? You do want Henry Owens and Steven Wright to think they have an outside shot at winning the job, and you don't want Joe Kelly to be complacent about having already earned it, even if he more or less has. You're mistaking two levels of job security: the first is when there's no possibility of someone else starting (Ortiz, Pedroia, Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley) and the other where who should start is absolutely, perfectly clear, but there are other potentially viable alternatives. With the Sox, not only does Kelly fit that description, but so do Hanley and Sandoval, and Farrell has gone out of his way to say that they will both be on short leashes should they underperform at the season's start. That they are being advertised as guaranteed to start the season is only due to deference to their salaries. If they were inconsistent, young players coming off those seasons but with previous seasons as good as they actually had, you can bet that there would be a supposed competition between both guys and Travis Shaw, although in reality their jobs would be theirs to lose, just as Kelly is going to have to look really bad to scouts to lose his job. In fact, this long argument makes precisely as much sense as arguing that Hanley shouldn't even get a shot at 1B, and that we should just hand the job to Shaw. Oh, so the fact that Theo is now the President of Baseball Ops for the Cubs, or that he misread Carl Crawford's ability to play in Boston, somehow means that he (and, oh yeah, everybody else) was wrong about ST performance being meaningless? And we all noticed that your recap of Kelly's 2015 conveniently deleted the part where he tried a radically new pitch mix during the stretch where he was dramatically better -- which in fact pretty much eliminates the earlier part of the season from meaning anything. C'mon, at least say something amusing about why the new pitch mix shouldn't matter. I think Kelly is exclusively bad in the rotation The thing is, merely thinking something doesn't make it true. Posting opinions that are contradicted by facts is usually considered a weak form of argumentation. In his work with the Sox before his DL stint, Kelly threw 68% FBs, 13% curves, 10% changeups, and 9% sliders. That's a really high FB%;that would have ranked 15th out of 173 starting pitchers last ye,ar for how often they threw the fastball. After his DL stint, he threw 58% FBs, 20% sliders, 14% changeups, and 8% curves. That FB% would have been tied for 85th, and that's a more or less radical change. And he's throwing more than twice as many sliders, 40% more changeups, and 40% fewer curves. Again, this was very likely done on the advice of Brian Bannister, and it had dramatically positive effects. Why is it that, in your brain, this never happened? How is the performance of a Joe Kelly who's in the 92nd% percentile for throwing fastballs have any relevance at all to a version who's in the 51st%? This is precisely the sort of change that does turn a pitcher with great stuff from a mediocrity into a good one.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 29, 2016 6:34:55 GMT -5
3-If it was such a crummy argument to make, then why would John Farrell even mention that in fact that the spot is up for grabs? Am I missing something here? Yes. Do you really think that what managers say to the press is the complete truth, regardless of how it might affect his players? You do want Henry Owens and Steven Wright to think they have an outside shot at winning the job, and you don't want Joe Kelly to be complacent about having already earned it, even if he more or less has. You're mistaking two levels of job security: the first is when there's no possibility of someone else starting (Ortiz, Pedroia, Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley) and the other where who should start is absolutely, perfectly clear, but there are other potentially viable alternatives. With the Sox, not only does Kelly fit that description, but so do Hanley and Sandoval, and Farrell has gone out of his way to say that they will both be on short leashes should they underperform at the season's start. That they are being advertised as guaranteed to start the season is only due to deference to their salaries. If they were inconsistent, young players coming off those seasons but with previous seasons as good as they actually had, you can bet that there would be a supposed competition between both guys and Travis Shaw, although in reality their jobs would be theirs to lose, just as Kelly is going to have to look really bad to scouts to lose his job. In fact, this long argument makes precisely as much sense as arguing that Hanley shouldn't even get a shot at 1B, and that we should just hand the job to Shaw.Oh, so the fact that Theo is now the President of Baseball Ops for the Cubs, or that he misread Carl Crawford's ability to play in Boston, somehow means that he (and, oh yeah, everybody else) was wrong about ST performance being meaningless? And we all noticed that your recap of Kelly's 2015 conveniently deleted the part where he tried a radically new pitch mix during the stretch where he was dramatically better -- which in fact pretty much eliminates the earlier part of the season from meaning anything. C'mon, at least say something amusing about why the new pitch mix shouldn't matter. I think Kelly is exclusively bad in the rotation The thing is, merely thinking something doesn't make it true. Posting opinions that are contradicted by facts is usually considered a weak form of argumentation. In his work with the Sox before his DL stint, Kelly threw 68% FBs, 13% curves, 10% changeups, and 9% sliders. That's a really high FB%;that would have ranked 15th out of 173 starting pitchers last ye,ar for how often they threw the fastball. After his DL stint, he threw 58% FBs, 20% sliders, 14% changeups, and 8% curves. That FB% would have been tied for 85th, and that's a more or less radical change. And he's throwing more than twice as many sliders, 40% more changeups, and 40% fewer curves.Again, this was very likely done on the advice of Brian Bannister, and it had dramatically positive effects. Why is it that, in your brain, this never happened? How is the performance of a Joe Kelly who's in the 92nd% percentile for throwing fastballs have any relevance at all to a version who's in the 51st%? This is precisely the sort of change that does turn a pitcher with great stuff from a mediocrity into a good one. Only Hanley is actually a proven big league bat while Kelly hasn't proved anything much yet. You're assuming Kelly all of a sudden keeps pitching the same way throughout the rest of his time here and/or batters don't make the adjustment? You're going to assume that Kelly won't get flustered again and won't go back to throwing a ton of fastballs because of Bannister? C'mon say something to at least humor me to say Bannister is the end all be all to Kelly's troubles. See how that works?Ohh and I didn't mention anything about Crawford. Theo leaving this organization along with Ben and replaced with Dave completely changed the outlook of how this organization is going to be run. Nothing Theo has ever said will ever apply to the thinking of Dave.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 29, 2016 6:58:29 GMT -5
Kelly's ERA for the season was 4.82. His career ERA is under 4. Besides, Eric did talk about the first half of the year...he quoted SIERA, which is an extrapolated value stripped of park and fielding effects. Basically, it says Kelly had a lot of rotten luck last year. He certainly wasn't helped by a BABIP of .320, either. And you're basing your assessment of him as "terrible" on a few weeks at the end of 2014 (when he actually wasn't that bad, but was coming off of injury), and a terrible first two months of 2015, when he had a ton of rotten luck and a terrible defense behind him. And, you discount his 8-1 run completely, despite a much improved ERA, SIERA, and other peripherals, *despite* a BABIP of over .330 (career value: about .290 before last season). So your entire argument against Kelly is basically predicated on a crummy half-season and some injury troubles. It's just very unconvincing, and comes across as irrational. In Boston in 35 games he has a seasons full of starts in a year and half. I can go through how hard he's been hit and how many walks he's given up in that span if you want. I don't really care what Kelly has done in the weak NL central back then pitching for a pitcher's park while getting 2-3 free outs a game pitching to pitchers either. While he's been in Boston he has a seasons full of starts while being here in a year and a half, he has given up a lot of contact and walks, he has been a below average starting pitcher. Not "terrible" okay not a good use of adjectives but really not good either, or mediocre, or bad. I like Kelly but only out of the bullpen because he can actually increase his value that way if you want to stop thinking along the ways of WAR and BWAR for a minute. Putting him in the bullpen would increase his future performance possibly while uping his trade value through the market. The market is paying top dollar in terms of trade throughout the trade market for relievers. Having 2-3 years of a good Kelly in the bullpen would be really valuable and more valuable than as a back end starter with all the recent trend and trades for bullpen pieces lately- The MgGee trade. The Kimbrel trade. Chapman could of gotten a good package if traded last trade deadline. The Andrew Miller deal. The Giles trade. Now let's look at back end rotation trades recently- The Wade Miley to Boston deal. Nathan Karns for one year of Logan Morrison and Brad Miller. Nathan Euvaldi for Martin Prado. The only two good deals was when Dave D. actually traded away some back rotation arms in Wade Miley for Smith and trading Porcello for one year of Cespedes with no pick attached. Those deals were either all had questionable returns or only decent returns (with the Smith trade looking good for the Sox and being the one exception). There's also increased value in having Owens start the year with the big league club for future performance. If he's growing and developing in the big leagues, then that also is a added bonus. I can take growing pains on a 24 year old learning to pitch in the big leagues. We already know Owens can get minor leaguers out. I think personally it's a waste to have him not developing in majors.
|
|
|