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.
7/8-7/10 Red Sox vs. Rays Series Thread
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 9, 2016 17:11:40 GMT -5
Hembree warming up with a lead this late is a good sign.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 9, 2016 17:14:05 GMT -5
I would send Porcello back out to start the 8th inning too.
At least to the first two batters until Brad Miller comes up, who hits good against Porcello.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,388
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 9, 2016 17:14:06 GMT -5
Another solid outing for porcello. Used his pitches well today.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 9, 2016 17:21:52 GMT -5
Hembree warming up with a lead this late is a good sign. But of course Farrell was just warming up two guys for funsies again. It's because his "special" pitchers need a clean inning whereas the scrubs can come in with the bases loaded.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 9, 2016 17:24:19 GMT -5
You're right, O'Brien, the rest of baseball is just undervaluing pitcher wins. You are the avant-garde.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 9, 2016 17:25:13 GMT -5
I would of preferred Hembree too but Barnes looks to be having a fun time against the Rays lineup. I guess I don't hate this move.
The fact that he warms up pitchers for fun irritates me too.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jul 9, 2016 17:33:58 GMT -5
I would of preferred Hembree too but Barnes looks to be having a fun time against the Rays lineup. I guess I don't hate this move. The fact that he warms up pitchers for fun irritates me too. Perhaps Hembree will pitch the 9th.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 9, 2016 17:47:53 GMT -5
He can frame... and he can even hit too!
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 9, 2016 17:48:41 GMT -5
Wow - Tampa fans also begging for rob umps, too, after that strike three call.
Not that I care. We've been burned so often this year, but such a joke for the league.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 9, 2016 17:50:59 GMT -5
Great win!
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 9, 2016 17:55:12 GMT -5
Nice win today. Sox pitchers were amazing.
Add in some timely hitting and decent defense and you have a recipe for Wins.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 9, 2016 19:53:45 GMT -5
Rick has been very good after getting rocked he bounces back ....can't ask for much more .
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jul 9, 2016 20:04:42 GMT -5
I would of preferred Hembree too but Barnes looks to be having a fun time against the Rays lineup. I guess I don't hate this move. The fact that he warms up pitchers for fun irritates me too. Like the way he has brought along Barnes. As he has developed, John has given him more responsibility. Barnes was outstanding in consecutive appearances yesterday and today. That's been a help to the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 9, 2016 20:46:07 GMT -5
Rick has been very good after getting rocked he bounces back ....can't ask for much more . We're going to need a definition for "getting rocked". He gave up a single run in 7 innings. I'm not sure that qualifies.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Jul 9, 2016 21:40:14 GMT -5
Thank the lord for Rick porcello. He is a very good pitcher. Actually not on that bad of a contract either.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 9, 2016 23:48:47 GMT -5
I love all of the Porcello doubt by some people on this site. He's 11-2, 3.66 with peripherals to match, in a tough division and a small ballpark. Everyone lost their minds (myself included) when the Sox lowballed Lester, and then had to trade him. Then he somehow became an "ace," despite having a year in 2012 almost identical to Porcello's 2015 (Lester went 9-14, 4.82/4.11/3.82 ERA/FIP/xFIP in 2012, while Porcello went 9-15, 4.92/4.13/3.72). After going 15-8, 3.75/3.59/3.90 ERA/FIP/xFIP in 2013, Lester got his lowball offer. Well, the Sox turned Lester into Porcello, who has a contract almost identical to the Lester offer, adjusted for inflation (about $2.5M per year more AAV). And suddenly, Porcello's 2016 is looking an awful lot like Lester's 2013. Yet people still say Porcello can't be trusted as the third starter in a WS? Give me a break. And, Porcello is two years younger today that Lester was when the Sox made their 4/70 offer. So he's signed for *just* prime years. So, right now the Sox have a pitcher that they got for Lester, who's almost exactly five years younger, and is pitching very similarly to what Lester did in 2013. He's also signed to a shorter contract, on an AAV about $5M less per year. And, he has similar K rates and slightly better walk rates. As much as I like Jon Lester, Porcello has become a perfectly viable replacement. www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4930&position=Pwww.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2717&position=P
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 9, 2016 23:50:26 GMT -5
Rick has been very good after getting rocked he bounces back ....can't ask for much more . We're going to need a definition for "getting rocked". He gave up a single run in 7 innings. I'm not sure that qualifies. I think he meant the 12 hits/6IP last time out.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 10, 2016 8:02:14 GMT -5
We're going to need a definition for "getting rocked". He gave up a single run in 7 innings. I'm not sure that qualifies. I think he meant the 12 hits/6IP last time out. There's the answer. 2 ER in 6 innings 3.00 ERA is getting rocked. Porcello has poise and isn't a pu$$y. Unlike Clay. He can pitch with men on base by bearing down.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 10, 2016 8:47:46 GMT -5
In fairness it did not appear Lester worked very hard to try and stay in Boston and when he left he simply went to the team that offered him the most money. There were also reports he wasn't wild about going to the Giants due to the taxes there which gives you the idea of the mindset he had, since their offer was very high too.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 10, 2016 9:30:40 GMT -5
I love all of the Porcello doubt by some people on this site. He's 11-2, 3.66 with peripherals to match, in a tough division and a small ballpark. Everyone lost their minds (myself included) when the Sox lowballed Lester, and then had to trade him. Then he somehow became an "ace," despite having a year in 2012 almost identical to Porcello's 2015 (Lester went 9-14, 4.82/4.11/3.82 ERA/FIP/xFIP in 2012, while Porcello went 9-15, 4.92/4.13/3.72). After going 15-8, 3.75/3.59/3.90 ERA/FIP/xFIP in 2013, Lester got his lowball offer. Well, the Sox turned Lester into Porcello, who has a contract almost identical to the Lester offer, adjusted for inflation (about $2.5M per year more AAV). And suddenly, Porcello's 2016 is looking an awful lot like Lester's 2013. Yet people still say Porcello can't be trusted as the third starter in a WS? Give me a break. And, Porcello is two years younger today that Lester was when the Sox made their 4/70 offer. So he's signed for *just* prime years. So, right now the Sox have a pitcher that they got for Lester, who's almost exactly five years younger, and is pitching very similarly to what Lester did in 2013. He's also signed to a shorter contract, on an AAV about $5M less per year. And, he has similar K rates and slightly better walk rates. As much as I like Jon Lester, Porcello has become a perfectly viable replacement. www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4930&position=Pwww.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2717&position=PThis is indeed a well written post....but I am not sold on Porcello being 2013 Lester just yet. It is a half years worth of performance, coming off of a terrible year last year. I also think Lester being a left hander increases his value over Porcello just for reasons of scarcity in the marketplace. Not to mention Lester's performance in the playoffs....which was outstanding. He has been great for us this year and continued success will be a key for our playoff chances going forward.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 10, 2016 10:30:30 GMT -5
I think he meant the 12 hits/6IP last time out. There's the answer. 2 ER in 6 innings 3.00 ERA is getting rocked. Porcello has poise and isn't a pu$$y. Unlike Clay. He can pitch with men on base by bearing down. It's funny, because the reason he'd so dramatically underperformed his stuff and peripherals before this season was because he was so poor with runners on base. He's seemingly corrected to some level whatever was causing that, and he's really taken an important step forward. It's rare to have a pitcher with a 95 ERA+ over 1200 MLB innings coming into the year post a 124 at mid-season and have it not feel like a fluke.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 10, 2016 10:43:02 GMT -5
I love all of the Porcello doubt by some people on this site. He's 11-2, 3.66 with peripherals to match, in a tough division and a small ballpark. Everyone lost their minds (myself included) when the Sox lowballed Lester, and then had to trade him. Then he somehow became an "ace," despite having a year in 2012 almost identical to Porcello's 2015 (Lester went 9-14, 4.82/4.11/3.82 ERA/FIP/xFIP in 2012, while Porcello went 9-15, 4.92/4.13/3.72). After going 15-8, 3.75/3.59/3.90 ERA/FIP/xFIP in 2013, Lester got his lowball offer. Well, the Sox turned Lester into Porcello, who has a contract almost identical to the Lester offer, adjusted for inflation (about $2.5M per year more AAV). And suddenly, Porcello's 2016 is looking an awful lot like Lester's 2013. Yet people still say Porcello can't be trusted as the third starter in a WS? Give me a break. And, Porcello is two years younger today that Lester was when the Sox made their 4/70 offer. So he's signed for *just* prime years. So, right now the Sox have a pitcher that they got for Lester, who's almost exactly five years younger, and is pitching very similarly to what Lester did in 2013. He's also signed to a shorter contract, on an AAV about $5M less per year. And, he has similar K rates and slightly better walk rates. As much as I like Jon Lester, Porcello has become a perfectly viable replacement. www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4930&position=Pwww.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2717&position=PThis is indeed a well written post....but I am not sold on Porcello being 2013 Lester just yet. It is a half years worth of performance, coming off of a terrible year last year. I also think Lester being a left hander increases his value over Porcello just for reasons of scarcity in the marketplace. Not to mention Lester's performance in the playoffs....which was outstanding. He has been great for us this year and continued success will be a key for our playoff chances going forward. While the playoff part is true, and Lester started off strong Lester was really bad for like the middle two months of the season in 2013, to the point people on this site began to even question if the Sox would offer him a QO at the end of 2014.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 10, 2016 12:03:50 GMT -5
Scott Lauber @scottlauber 1h1 hour ago No Hanley again. #RedSox vs. TB: Betts RF, Pedroia 2B, Bogaerts SS, Ortiz DH, Bradley CF, Hill 3B, Shaw 1B, Brentz LF, Leon C, Price
Scott Lauber @scottlauber 2h2 hours ago Eduardo Rodriguez will be recalled from Triple-A Pawtucket to make the first start after the All-Star Break for...
Scott Lauber @scottlauber 2h2 hours ago Wright and Price also will start in NY. Porcello after that on July 19. Eventually, Clay Buchholz will rejoin rotation as fifth starter.
Scott Lauber @scottlauber 2h2 hours ago Thanks to an off-day July 18, Red Sox won't absolutely need a fifth starter (Buchholz) until July 23.
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Jul 10, 2016 12:17:21 GMT -5
In fairness it did not appear Lester worked very hard to try and stay in Boston and when he left he simply went to the team that offered him the most money. There were also reports he wasn't wild about going to the Giants due to the taxes there which gives you the idea of the mindset he had, since their offer was very high too. I am sure familiarity with the executive team has to be one of the reason in his and Lackey signing there.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 10, 2016 13:00:19 GMT -5
Those all-star unis are.... uh... well at least they're not camo.
|
|
|