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 libertine on Mar 1, 2016 19:37:20 GMT -5
I'm not going to follow everyone down this rabbit hole of a discussion. But basically I think the 5th starter job is Kelly's to lose. Owens could have a huge spring and win the job but odds are it will probably be Kelly.
That being said with the injury problems suffered by both Kelly and Buchholz in the past I am not overwhelmingly confident in either of their abilities to remain healthy during the course of a full season. So I expect Owens/Johnson/Elias/Wright to all get their chances this season. And just like E-Rod last season I feel when Owens gets his chance this season you won't be able to take him out of the rotation. If Owens is a student of the game it would behoove him to listen to Farrell, Willis, Bannister and his fellow lefty starter Price as much as he can and incorporate what they recommend into his game.
With the coaching staff we have in place right now, and their wealth of pitching knowledge, I am very bullish on the Sox having a much better rotation this year even without factoring in David Price. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 1, 2016 21:08:51 GMT -5
Seriously? If you're going to post factual data, do it...instead of throwing one or two facts into a guesstimate soup. He gave up 145 hits in 134 1/3 innings (with a BABIP 21 points over his inclusive career average). He had a BB/9 of 3.28, or 49 walks. That's your "unmentionable" walk total? His WHIP was 1.44. You seem to spend a lot of effort in trying to portray all of his stats as worse than they are...you write 130(plus), instead of 134.1, completely gloss over the actual walk numbers, focus on (almost) 1.5 as his WHIP instead of being brief and to-the-point by citing the actual number of 1.44, and claim **well over 20+ homeruns** in 180 innings, when actually, with a HR/9 of 1.00, he would have exactly 20 HR in 180 innings, and 23 in 207 innings. So not only are you grossly exaggerating with "well over," and those unmentionable walks, you're citing pseudostats that are heavily editorialized. You're also not agreeing to disagree or you wouldn't have responded. To be clear, I'm not making a case for Kelly here, either. I've said my piece, and I agree with you 100% that there should be competition for the spot. I'm telling you that if you don't like people getting on your case about the quality of your arguments and calling them weak, quote *hard* facts, statistics, use links, etc...*or* state a compelling opinion, even if it goes against CW. But mishmashing the two, and finagling the values of the data to exaggerate your point probably won't work to convince people on this site the way it might on, say, BDC. There was nothing that I said that wasn't inaccurate about my statement. His whip was closer to 1 and a half then it was closer to anything else. I'm not about to do a conductive research to prove something here that something already everyone knows. He is a mediocre/bad/not a good starting pitcher. I'm done trying to convince everyone of that and it's like the other poster said, I'm not going to able to convince anyone that wants Kelly in the rotation anyways. The only things you said that were accurate were the number of hits and HR. Every other number was an estimate (two of which were flat-out wrong) or mistepresentation. That's the definition of inaccurate, and you're doubling down on it. You're not going to be able to convince anyone, because (IMO) you're not acknowledging that and thus not changing it. The "everyone else is wrong" argument is very ineffective. But that's not why you won't convince anyone. I was all for Owens over Kelly last fall. I got (I think in the What can be done...? thread) some intelligent, factually and statistically valid arguments to the contrary, and changed my mind after thinking about it. You might consider that it's not your stance, but your way of representing it, that is unconvincing. |
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Mar 1, 2016 23:31:01 GMT -5
I think the overall league average for starting pitchers used in the 2015 season was 7 plus some change.
No doubt in my mind that , unless traded,we will see wright, Owens and Johnson at some point in this upcoming season.
I too believe it is Kelly's job to lose. And I do wonder if he is 100 percent after last season.
Either way I am hoping for a super duel all through training camp between these two.
|
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 2, 2016 1:02:06 GMT -5
The claim that a player's second-half (or any other fraction) is somehow indicative of his next year's performance has been studied methodically not a few times - and there has proven to be simply *zero evidence for it*; to wit, given some projection function, and given the choice to provide as input either an entire season's worth of data or some arbitrarily-delimited partial season, the full season has been shown to be the more reliable and accurate. (it's just a subset of cherrypicking start and end dates.) This is settled (sabermetrics) law. This is well understood by MLB front offices, which presumably Ian Desmond's agent can spectacularly confirm. The rest is just "storyselling" (as I've dubbed it). Of course story A may be more plausible, sounder, certainly better told/written than story B, and sometimes that story may appear "validated" by future events, and even less often may actually describe a non insignificant factor in the future performance, but any attempt to put some veneer of "proof" on it is foolish and either ignorant or dishonest Joe Kelly may or may not be the best bet for the 5th starter, but his 2015 2nd half is certainly not dispositive vis a vis his 2015 as a whole. Yes, looking at a game log, finding the point where a player appeared to get hot or cold, and then believing that there was something real when you had no other reason to do so -- that's a recipe for disaster. And since the vast majority of seasons that appear to have a significant split or splits in them are random variation, any statistical study will come up with no significant predictive value for this technique. You know what? It's also a recipe for disaster when you have good reason to believe it's something real, and you assume it's random variation, as happens once in a great while. Let me give you two examples that stick in my mind, one that I nailed and one that I missed, to my embarrassment. I could give you many more examples where I correctly identified a real cause and made an accurate prediction (and a couple where I missed.) (In fact, Mike Andrews may recall us doing a thing together at a SABR chapter meeting in the 2006 / '07 winter, where I told him that this site had Jed Lowrie ranked insanely too low -- something like 21, when he should have been in the top 10. Why was that? Because he had clearly been playing with a bum ankle at Wilmington, and when you threw out those games (which required cherry-picking the date where it stopped bothering him) he'd had a great season.) Case A
5 straight seasons with wRC+ of 124, 124, 117, 120, and 125. What do you project for his next season? The 125 last season was 149 through July 31. Then he missed 4 games with an injury, was 55 the rest of the year, and missed the final 14 games. It's an injury that very much tends to be chronic. What do you predict for his next year? You know enough stats to not explain the 55 while apparently playing injured as regression to the mean because he had a 149 previously; that's the gambler's fallacy. Case B.
Played his career to age 29 in a pitcher's park and had a 107 wRC+, declining from 115 at ages 26 and 27 to 104 and then 88. Escaped to a good hitter's park and had a 125 wRC+. Scouting and data strongly suggests that he was a bad fit for his original park, sort of the opposite the way Boggs was a good fit for Fenway, and escaping that park explains the career year. But maybe that's after-the-fact rationalization. Indeed, he has a 100 the next year. Which went like this: Missed all of ST with an injury. Had 6 rehab games and made his debut on May 6. Had a 45 wRC+ through June 7 and a 119 thereafter. What's your proper baseline for your projection next year? Somewhere in the 100 to 107 range (which would deny fit-to-park as a real factor as well as reject the hypothesis that the slow start was due to rust), or in the 119 to 125 range? Is case B Mike Lowell? Obviously, injury (and recovery from it) are the perfect examples of looking at individual cases of causality instead of observing a stat line and assigning "stochastic variation" as the impetus for "regression." It's obviously tougher to do the same for mechanical adjustments to swings, or adding new pitches, changing styles, etc. But I think it's fair to say that when a player does have an apparent change in performance that coincides with a change in approach and shows results consistent with that approach, it bears consideration as a "real" effect, and to put it down as entirely random is to misunderstand statistical analysis. I think of Lester learning to generate popups at increasingly higher rates in late 2013 and especially 2014 by changing his cutter location, or Arrieta simply adding and perfecting a cutter, or a fast player leveling his swing/going opposite field and suddenly seeing his BA/OBP go up due to more GB hits. One can't, on the one hand, refer to baseball as a game of adjustments/skill, and on the other support the idea that all variation is random. Otherwise, no scout would have a job (or coach, for that matter). |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 2, 2016 2:13:30 GMT -5
Case A
5 straight seasons with wRC+ of 124, 124, 117, 120, and 125. What do you project for his next season? The 125 last season was 149 through July 31. Then he missed 4 games with an injury, was 55 the rest of the year, and missed the final 14 games. It's an injury that very much tends to be chronic. What do you predict for his next year? You know enough stats to not explain the 55 while apparently playing injured as regression to the mean because he had a 149 previously; that's the gambler's fallacy. Case B.
Played his career to age 29 in a pitcher's park and had a 107 wRC+, declining from 115 at ages 26 and 27 to 104 and then 88. Escaped to a good hitter's park and had a 125 wRC+. Scouting and data strongly suggests that he was a bad fit for his original park, sort of the opposite the way Boggs was a good fit for Fenway, and escaping that park explains the career year. But maybe that's after-the-fact rationalization. Indeed, he has a 100 the next year. Which went like this: Missed all of ST with an injury. Had 6 rehab games and made his debut on May 6. Had a 45 wRC+ through June 7 and a 119 thereafter. What's your proper baseline for your projection next year? Somewhere in the 100 to 107 range (which would deny fit-to-park as a real factor as well as reject the hypothesis that the slow start was due to rust), or in the 119 to 125 range? Is case B Mike Lowell? Obviously, injury (and recovery from it) are the perfect examples of looking at individual cases of causality instead of observing a stat line and assigning "stochastic variation" as the impetus for "regression." It's obviously tougher to do the same for mechanical adjustments to swings, or adding new pitches, changing styles, etc. But I think it's fair to say that when a player does have an apparent change in performance that coincides with a change in approach and shows results consistent with that approach, it bears consideration as a "real" effect, and to put it down as entirely random is to misunderstand statistical analysis. I think of Lester learning to generate popups at increasingly higher rates in late 2013 and especially 2014 by changing his cutter location, or Arrieta simply adding and perfecting a cutter, or a fast player leveling his swing/going opposite field and suddenly seeing his BA/OBP go up due to more GB hits. One can't, on the one hand, refer to baseball as a game of adjustments/skill, and on the other support the idea that all variation is random. Otherwise, no scout would have a job (or coach, for that matter). Case B is not Lowell, but you're on the right track in that the next year for both guys was his first in a Sox uni. I failed to consider the injury to player A but did know about the missed ST of player B. I want thursty to post his projections before I say any more. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 2, 2016 4:03:42 GMT -5
There was nothing that I said that wasn't inaccurate about my statement. His whip was closer to 1 and a half then it was closer to anything else. I'm not about to do a conductive research to prove something here that something already everyone knows. He is a mediocre/bad/not a good starting pitcher. I'm done trying to convince everyone of that and it's like the other poster said, I'm not going to able to convince anyone that wants Kelly in the rotation anyways. The only things you said that were accurate were the number of hits and HR. Every other number was an estimate (two of which were flat-out wrong) or mistepresentation. That's the definition of inaccurate, and you're doubling down on it. You're not going to be able to convince anyone, because (IMO) you're not acknowledging that and thus not changing it. The "everyone else is wrong" argument is very ineffective. But that's not why you won't convince anyone. I was all for Owens over Kelly last fall. I got (I think in the What can be done...? thread) some intelligent, factually and statistically valid arguments to the contrary, and changed my mind after thinking about it. You might consider that it's not your stance, but your way of representing it, that is unconvincing. I'm not saying everyone is wrong. I'm saying I have good reasons for thinking Owens should be in a rotation over Kelly. If Kelly wins the 5th spot, I hope he does well because if he doesn't it will be costing the Sox wins all over again. I won't be sitting here saying "I told you so." I'll be here ticked off because I think everyone should of saw it coming. I'll let it play out though. I think the leash is shorter than people think. Just like with Farrell, this guy doesn't have many second or third chances left on his plate. In 5-8 starts if he has a ERA over 5 again, the plug could be pulled soon. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 2, 2016 4:07:38 GMT -5
You win the message board by a decimal point. Congratulations. Hahaha Common man, you don't see how saying 1.44 rounds to 1.5 is a stupid thing to say, especially when you use it in defense to the assertion that you are exaggerating stats?... The range of WHIP over the population of qualified pitchers is ~60pts, meaning if you were to round WHIP to a decimal you limit yourself to 5-7 outcomes. You also should know why 4 does not round up. I too was on the Kelly to the bullpen wagon, I was even advocating for it in the second half of the season. The FO made a statement with the Miley trade though, that they trust Kelly and the depth behind him for the 5th spot. There is a competition for the spot, but out of spring training it's Kelly's to lose. Simply being outperformed by Owens in spring training will not be enough to bump Kelly out of the rotation for April 1st. And where is the love for my man Brian Johnson? Johnson had the split decision over Owens in the July rankings, and would have gotten the call if it wasn't for his injury. I think he is just as likely as Owens to win a starting spot, and I'd argue he has less to learn in the minors than Owens. Exaggerating just a tiny bit will drive people off a cliff sometimes I guess on a message board. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 2, 2016 4:21:41 GMT -5
There was nothing that I said that wasn't inaccurate about my statement. His whip was closer to 1 and a half then it was closer to anything else. I'm not about to do a conductive research to prove something here that something already everyone knows. He is a mediocre/bad/not a good starting pitcher. I'm done trying to convince everyone of that and it's like the other poster said, I'm not going to able to convince anyone that wants Kelly in the rotation anyways. C'mon man. His WHIP is closer to 1.44 than it is to anything else. And WHIP is a terrible stat because it doesn't account for BABIP, though I'm not sure you're aware of what that is. If you're not going to do "conductive research" (which can't be the right word) to prove something while others are, then just drop out of the conversation. The stupid thing about this is that no one even disagrees that Kelly is going to need to earn and keep earning that spot. It's just that your logic and understanding of advanced statistics isn't there. Please understand that there are things you don't know or understand and that we've all been there before. I still am there to some extent. Although Eric was probably at that point when he was 5 years old. I know what BABIP is. It tries to account for all the "unluckiness" of base hits and tries to level that out in some degree. I just don't think a argument doesn't have to start and end with stats. There are ideas and concepts that can be discussed without having a stat to prove each other wrong with. Stats can be used in every way to use against or for someone's arguments. I try to eliminate that. I gave good reasons why I thought Owens should be in rotation over Kelly- -Recent durability history (although there was conflict in this statement too) -Gaining valuable experience in the majors versus the minors for Owens -Getting more performance out of Kelly -Surprisingly getting more trade value out of Kelly too because of the recent value of good relievers. Just to add that I already mentioned in my very first post, I thought Owens first 10 games in the big leagues wasn't a fluke. He looked liked he belonged. During Kelly's 8-1 stretch, I thought he was a bit lucky during that time but we will see of it was or not. I'll add one more thing too. This debate isn't going away either unless Kelly does step up and actually show his potential instead of just showing signs of it. In fact it won't be a debate of Kelly versus Owens if Kelly struggles, it will be a debate by that time of Owens versus Johnson and maybe Wright. |
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981 
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 2, 2016 6:23:17 GMT -5
I know what BABIP is. It tries to account for all the "unluckiness" of base hits and tries to level that out in some degree. I just don't think a argument doesn't have to start and end with stats. There are ideas and concepts that can be discussed without having a stat to prove each other wrong with. Stats can be used in every way to use against or for someone's arguments. I try to eliminate that. [...], I thought Owens first 10 games in the big leagues wasn't a fluke. He looked liked he belonged. During Kelly's 8-1 stretch, I thought he was a bit lucky during that time but we will see of it was or not. So you don't think an argument should start and end with stats, but you think Owens' performance was not a fluke, and the that Kelly was lucky. If not stats, are you using your "spidey sense"? "This debate will not end." It's not really a debate. It's repetition and 100% refutation. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 2, 2016 8:07:31 GMT -5
This discussion is getting increasingly stale and repetitive. Please, let's move on. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 2, 2016 8:11:52 GMT -5
C'mon man. His WHIP is closer to 1.44 than it is to anything else. And WHIP is a terrible stat because it doesn't account for BABIP, though I'm not sure you're aware of what that is. If you're not going to do "conductive research" (which can't be the right word) to prove something while others are, then just drop out of the conversation. The stupid thing about this is that no one even disagrees that Kelly is going to need to earn and keep earning that spot. It's just that your logic and understanding of advanced statistics isn't there. Please understand that there are things you don't know or understand and that we've all been there before. I still am there to some extent. Although Eric was probably at that point when he was 5 years old. I know what BABIP is. It tries to account for all the "unluckiness" of base hits and tries to level that out in some degree. I just don't think a argument doesn't have to start and end with stats. There are ideas and concepts that can be discussed without having a stat to prove each other wrong with. Stats can be used in every way to use against or for someone's arguments. I try to eliminate that. I gave good reasons why I thought Owens should be in rotation over Kelly- -Recent durability history (although there was conflict in this statement too) -Gaining valuable experience in the majors versus the minors for Owens -Getting more performance out of Kelly -Surprisingly getting more trade value out of Kelly too because of the recent value of good relievers.Just to add that I already mentioned in my very first post, I thought Owens first 10 games in the big leagues wasn't a fluke. He looked liked he belonged. During Kelly's 8-1 stretch, I thought he was a bit lucky during that time but we will see of it was or not. I'll add one more thing too. This debate isn't going away either unless Kelly does step up and actually show his potential instead of just showing signs of it. In fact it won't be a debate of Kelly versus Owens if Kelly struggles, it will be a debate by that time of Owens versus Johnson and maybe Wright. Starters are still worth way more than relievers. Ian Kennedy just got $70 million. No relief pitcher ever got that much. And there is no guarantee that Kelly would be better as a relief pitcher. He's better when he's using four pitches, not two. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 2, 2016 9:40:44 GMT -5
Honestly, if you're that worked up about the difference between Kelly and Owens, you're really overrating the precision with which we can project baseball players. It's basically a coin flip between the two, and barring something crazy happening in spring training, the job is going to go to Kelly on the basis of seniority. Also, Buchholz is going to get hurt five minutes from now and make this whole discussion pointless.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Mar 2, 2016 9:56:27 GMT -5
Honestly, if you're that worked up about the difference between Kelly and Owens, you're really overrating the precision with which we can project baseball players. It's basically a coin flip between the two, and barring something crazy happening in spring training, the job is going to go to Kelly on the basis of seniority. Also, Buchholz is going to get hurt five minutes from now and make this whole discussion pointless.Hey now, that's not fair. Did you see his new physique? Ten minutes from now. |
|
|
|
Post by ibsmith85 on Mar 2, 2016 10:16:22 GMT -5
Case BPlayed his career to age 29 in a pitcher's park and had a 107 wRC+, declining from 115 at ages 26 and 27 to 104 and then 88. Escaped to a good hitter's park and had a 125 wRC+. Scouting and data strongly suggests that he was a bad fit for his original park, sort of the opposite the way Boggs was a good fit for Fenway, and escaping that park explains the career year. But maybe that's after-the-fact rationalization. Indeed, he has a 100 the next year. Which went like this: Missed all of ST with an injury. Had 6 rehab games and made his debut on May 6. Had a 45 wRC+ through June 7 and a 119 thereafter. What's your proper baseline for your projection next year? Somewhere in the 100 to 107 range (which would deny fit-to-park as a real factor as well as reject the hypothesis that the slow start was due to rust), or in the 119 to 125 range? Bill Mueller? |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 2, 2016 10:56:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on Mar 2, 2016 14:04:41 GMT -5
Typically scary, yet effective line for Owens today. He scraped and clawed through two innings, but in the end got the Ks when he needed them.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 2, 2016 17:17:14 GMT -5
I know what BABIP is. It tries to account for all the "unluckiness" of base hits and tries to level that out in some degree. I just don't think a argument doesn't have to start and end with stats. There are ideas and concepts that can be discussed without having a stat to prove each other wrong with. Stats can be used in every way to use against or for someone's arguments. I try to eliminate that. I gave good reasons why I thought Owens should be in rotation over Kelly- -Recent durability history (although there was conflict in this statement too) -Gaining valuable experience in the majors versus the minors for Owens -Getting more performance out of Kelly -Surprisingly getting more trade value out of Kelly too because of the recent value of good relievers.Just to add that I already mentioned in my very first post, I thought Owens first 10 games in the big leagues wasn't a fluke. He looked liked he belonged. During Kelly's 8-1 stretch, I thought he was a bit lucky during that time but we will see of it was or not. I'll add one more thing too. This debate isn't going away either unless Kelly does step up and actually show his potential instead of just showing signs of it. In fact it won't be a debate of Kelly versus Owens if Kelly struggles, it will be a debate by that time of Owens versus Johnson and maybe Wright. Starters are still worth way more than relievers. Ian Kennedy just got $70 million. No relief pitcher ever got that much. And there is no guarantee that Kelly would be better as a relief pitcher. He's better when he's using four pitches, not two. Worth more on the open market? Sure. Worth more on the trade market as to being a 4/5 starter versus a dominant reliever? No. The recent trade history of relievers bears that out. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 2, 2016 20:07:47 GMT -5
Starters are still worth way more than relievers. Ian Kennedy just got $70 million. No relief pitcher ever got that much. And there is no guarantee that Kelly would be better as a relief pitcher. He's better when he's using four pitches, not two. Worth more on the open market? Sure. Worth more on the trade market as to being a 4/5 starter versus a dominant reliever? No. The recent trade history of relievers bears that out. The Arizona Diamondbacks might disagree with you. Miller was a solid 3 and cost *way* more than Kimbrel or Giles. As for 4/5s, Miley (a soft 3/solid 4) netted a 5 *and* a dominant reliever with 5 years of control. The market as been pretty unpredictably volatile the last few years (compare the deals for 1.5 years of Price to 3 years of Shelby Miller, for example), so at any given point, you *might* be right regarding the trade market, if the demand is there and there's a bidding war. The recent love-fest for dominant relief arms certainly would help your case. But keep this in mind: when you say "dominant reliever," you're talking about the best proven closers in MLB and pitchers with similarly transcendent results but often lots of years of control (Kimbrel, Chapman, Giles, Smith, Miller are the best examples I can think of). Joe Kelly is **exceptionally** unlikely to close, which significantly lowers his value off the bat. He's also probably going to be the third or fourth bullpen option, limiting his innings and exposure in high-leverage situations, which will also negatively affect his value (but not nearly to the extent that not being a closer would). Lastly, expecting him to put up a low- or sub-2 ERA like those guys is a tall order. Chances are he doesn't fit in that class. You're reasoning a pie-in-the-sky, best-case for Joe Kelly as a reliever (which would be catastrophic, for the Sox...since both Kimbrel and Koji would have to be out for the season), at the same time as a best-case reliever market, versus 50-90% floor of Joe Kelly as a starter, where he basically shows no improvement (despite being at the age/experience level where pitchers often have one) and pitches to his career performance, or at worst, like last season. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 3, 2016 3:45:31 GMT -5
Worth more on the open market? Sure. Worth more on the trade market as to being a 4/5 starter versus a dominant reliever? No. The recent trade history of relievers bears that out. The Arizona Diamondbacks might disagree with you. Miller was a solid 3 and cost *way* more than Kimbrel or Giles. As for 4/5s, Miley (a soft 3/solid 4) netted a 5 *and* a dominant reliever with 5 years of control. The market as been pretty unpredictably volatile the last few years (compare the deals for 1.5 years of Price to 3 years of Shelby Miller, for example), so at any given point, you *might* be right regarding the trade market, if the demand is there and there's a bidding war. The recent love-fest for dominant relief arms certainly would help your case. But keep this in mind: when you say "dominant reliever," you're talking about the best proven closers in MLB and pitchers with similarly transcendent results but often lots of years of control (Kimbrel, Chapman, Giles, Smith, Miller are the best examples I can think of). Joe Kelly is **exceptionally** unlikely to close, which significantly lowers his value off the bat. He's also probably going to be the third or fourth bullpen option, limiting his innings and exposure in high-leverage situations, which will also negatively affect his value (but not nearly to the extent that not being a closer would). Lastly, expecting him to put up a low- or sub-2 ERA like those guys is a tall order. Chances are he doesn't fit in that class. You're reasoning a pie-in-the-sky, best-case for Joe Kelly as a reliever (which would be catastrophic, for the Sox...since both Kimbrel and Koji would have to be out for the season), at the same time as a best-case reliever market, versus 50-90% floor of Joe Kelly as a starter, where he basically shows no improvement (despite being at the age/experience level where pitchers often have one) and pitches to his career performance, or at worst, like last season. Shelby Miller is number two or three starter in the majors. I was talking about the value of back end starters in trades. Euvaldi got the Marlins Martin Prado for example. Wade Miley also got the DBacks Wesbter and De La Rosa. Back end starters cost way less than domanint relievers. Even non closers are fetching good returns like MgGee and Andrew Miller. As long as the reliever is dominant (which Kelly has more of a chance at in the bullpen), he can fetch a great return. Not to mention Koji and Tazawa are up at the end of the year and the Sox will probably need the bullpen help anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 3, 2016 6:37:07 GMT -5
When evaluating trades, you can't just look at the names, you have to look at the whole picture including contract status, projected returns and projected salaries then boil it all back to present value. Player salaries and projected WAR are a much more logical way to do that type of analysis.
For a true, unfeathered view, compare the free agent prices for 4/5 starters vs 7th inning relievers. You will have your answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 3, 2016 7:15:27 GMT -5
When evaluating trades, you can't just look at the names, you have to look at the whole picture including contract status, projected returns and projected salaries then boil it all back to present value. Player salaries and projected WAR are a much more logical way to do that type of analysis. For a true, unfeathered view, compare the free agent prices for 4/5 starters vs 7th inning relievers. You will have your answer. But even relievers are having a much more present value in the trade market then in terms of WAR. If what you said was true, the Sox would have never landed Eduardo Rodriguez. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 3, 2016 7:24:09 GMT -5
When evaluating trades, you can't just look at the names, you have to look at the whole picture including contract status, projected returns and projected salaries then boil it all back to present value. Player salaries and projected WAR are a much more logical way to do that type of analysis. For a true, unfeathered view, compare the free agent prices for 4/5 starters vs 7th inning relievers. You will have your answer. But even relievers are having a much more present value in the trade market then in terms of WAR. If what you said was true, the Sox would have never landed Eduardo Rodriguez. You really think it's a given that Joe Kelly turns into a relief pitcher as dominant as Andrew Miller? Rodriguez made great strides after the trade. He was not nearly as highly regarded as people think he was at the time of the trade. Furthermore, Miller got 4/$32 million as a free agent as one of the most dominant relief pitchers ever available as a free agent, while Ian Kennedy got 5/$70 million as a #4/5 starter. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 3, 2016 7:48:03 GMT -5
Rodriguez' stock has risen dramatically AFTER the trade. Going in, he would have only been the Orioles 4th ranked starter behind Bundy, Gausman and Harvey. He was in the midst of somewhat of a setback year statistically (due to an injury). It wasn't until after the Sox obtained him that he recovered and started getting notoriety.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 3, 2016 8:02:05 GMT -5
But even relievers are having a much more present value in the trade market then in terms of WAR. If what you said was true, the Sox would have never landed Eduardo Rodriguez. You really think it's a given that Joe Kelly turns into a relief pitcher as dominant as Andrew Miller? Rodriguez made great strides after the trade. He was not nearly as highly regarded as people think he was at the time of the trade. Furthermore, Miller got 4/$32 million as a free agent as one of the most dominant relief pitchers ever available as a free agent, while Ian Kennedy got 5/$70 million as a #4/5 starter. I think Kelly could get away with less control and I think he could ramp his fastball to 98-100 in short stints. Yes I think he has a chance to be dominant there. He has a arm that you dream about coming out of a bullpen late in games. I'm not doubting the value in the open market. No doubt starters will always be paid more than relievers. It's the trade market, that's overvaluing relief pitching. I know Rodriguez made great strides as a Sox but he had already made a appearance in the futures game and was in aa for Baltimore by age 19/20. He's the kind of guy you don't trade for a half year of Miller unless you are overvaluing relief pitching. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 3, 2016 8:08:53 GMT -5
Shout out to the podcast featuring Pete Abraham by @soxprospects.
Listened to it all and I heard the part about the fifth spot in the rotation.
Pete talked about how Kelly was the favorite but mentioned his recent injury history and mentioned that a terrible performance in spring training could cost Kelly his job.
That makes me feel better. At least I feel better that Kelly is going to have to make the red sox feel like he's going to have be at least decent and prove it in spring training.
|
|
|
