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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 17, 2015 13:03:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2015 13:24:45 GMT -5
Regarding Buehrle, yes, I think he's certainly at least a number 3 (so maybe that's what I should have clarified, he's not going to get any better - but I think he's already a 2/3 starter now). Over the past 3 years of qualified pitchers, FG ranks him 31st in baseball in spWAR (just ahead of Porcello and Chen; just behind Lackey, Shields and Kazmir) so yeah, I think he absolutely qualifies as a solid number 3 and borderline number 2 pitcher. He doesn't have the upside of Porcello or Rodriguez, but he's much more of a certainty, even at 37, in my opinion at least over Buchholz, Kelly, Owens, etc, etc.
Regarding retirement rumors, yes, they're out there. But I did check and hadn't seen it announced and really haven't heard anything since around Thanksgiving. I think we could get him back with a "Lackey" type of deal. However, I showed two sets of statistics that I believe prove him to be at least a number 3 pitcher (the games started and ERA in 3 years in Toronto most recently, as well as the WAR statistic mentioned above). What reasons would others use to say he isn't that. (If he does in fact retire, then I understand why it wouldn't make sense, but I don't believe he officially has yet).
If Bogaerts after putting up a .320/.355/.421/.776 line as a 22 year old isn't in our top 3 hitters, I just don't know. Even if you don't want him in the top 3, the point remains I have no questions about OF1, 2b, SS, DH and C but serious questions about 3b, 1b, OF2 and OF3 - again, somewhat mitigated by the signing of Chris Young to be OF4.
On Sandoval, I've posted this previously, however, his offense has declined in each of the last 5 seasons (simply looking at OPS+ for ease of numbers) and his defense has declined in 4 of the past 5 seasons (using dWAR). While I will admit that it's unlikely players younger than 30 don't bounce back, I hope others will admit that it's also unlike most of the players that are in that age range are in as awful shape as Sandoval is). He was, literally, the worst 3b in the game last year. If we had a platoon of Holt / Shaw at 3b and Sandoval was forced to regain his spot, I would feel much better about 3b, but I don't think the Red Sox (or the majority of teams) would actually bench someone making $20M a season, even if their lack of performance and better options on the roster dictate it.
I hope to be wrong about Sandoval, I don't think that I am.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2015 13:30:08 GMT -5
I really don't see a need for Buehrle. They just traded Miley because they had too many pitchers and Buehrle seems to be a similar pitcher to what he could offer at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 17, 2015 13:36:31 GMT -5
I would think that Betts, Pedey, Ortiz, Ramirez and Bogaerts in that order to start the year. Unless Ramirez is horrible in spring training or there are injuries. I'd like to see Betts Pedroia Bogaerts Ortiz L Ramirez Sandoval L Castillo Swihart S Bradley L Hanigan Shaw L Holt L Young
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Dec 17, 2015 14:41:40 GMT -5
Key spots in the line-up are 5 and 6. We need Sandoval and Hanley to play like they are supposed to.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2015 15:46:08 GMT -5
JimEd, I can certainly see your point about them trading Miley and thinking it was because they felt they had enough starting pitching and feel it's certainly plausible that DDski chose him as the expendable part; I hope you'll admit that it's just as likely DDski tried making it Buchholz or Kelly in place of Miley and Seattle said "no chance" - honestly, none of us know how it went down, but I believe either scenario is very plausible.
That said, Wade Miley put up season with 32 starts and a 4.46ERA in the AL East. Buehrle on the other hand has averaged the same 32 starts over three seasons wiht a 3.78ERA, I think he is a better pitcher than Miley, but we can agree to disagree on that front, as I agree with your overall point that they'd be of roughly similar value to the Red Sox next season - though I do give an edge to Buehrle.
What I will say is that I would have FAR rather traded Kelly or Buchholz than Miley, and if we still had Miley's dependability, I wouldn't feel the need to add a guy of Buehrle's calibre. However, for whatever reason, Miley is gone and Kelly and Buchholz are still here. We lost a very dependable piece of the rotation and have replaced it with two question marks.
Buehrle, as mentioned, has averaged 32 starts and a 3.78ERA over the past three seasons in the AL East. The closest we had to that last season was Rodriguez with 21 starts and a 3.85ERA. I guess I just find it far more likely than you do that next season we will have less than 3 pitchers who can give us 30 starts and a sub 3.85ERA, and this is why I would feel a lot better with a Buehrle type acquistion on hand.
It's my contention that the clear pecking order would be Price, Buehrle, Porcello, Rodriugez one of B/K/O/W/J > Price, Porcello, Rodriguez, Miley, B/K/O/W/J >>>> Price, Porcello, Rodriguez and then needing to find two from B/K/O/W/J. We can agree to disagree.
Chris, assuming the players on the roster remain the same, I more or less agree with your line up. Of course, I'd still rather see the Holt / Shaw platoon and make Sandoval prove he deserves the spot offensive and defensively because, frankly, I don't think he does and feel the team is going to be hurt by his presence in the line up and on the diamond.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2015 16:52:32 GMT -5
They want Kelly in the rotation and have 4 other decent depth options after him. I see no reason why Buehrle would be better. He was down to 4.12 K/9 last year and he's throwing a 83.9 mph fastball. I realize that's what he's always been, but there really is no upside there unlike with all of the other options they already have at the back of the rotation. If his walk rate creeps up to his career average or he loses another mph off his fastball, he could be finished quickly. I don't see him being a Jamie Moyer type.
All it takes is one of Kelly, Owens, Johnson, Wright or Elias to show up improved in spring training and there's your guy who is pretty certain to be better than Buehrle, for way less money. If they're still trying to improve the roster, I'd be more inclined to use that money on improving Castillo's roster spot and give the team a little more certainty in the outfield. I think they'd be pretty close to the same team with Buehrle that they'd be without him. If I were Dombrowski, there's no way in hell I'd be asking John Henry to add $10 million to the payroll for Mark Buehrle. And that's even with the unlikely assumption that he'd sign a 1/$10M contract.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 17, 2015 17:08:19 GMT -5
They want Kelly in the rotation and have 4 other decent depth options after him. I see no reason why Buehrle would be better. He was down to 4.12 K/9 last year and he's throwing a 83.9 mph fastball. I realize that's what he's always been, but there really is no upside there unlike with all of the other options they already have at the back of the rotation. If his walk rate creeps up to his career average or he loses another mph off his fastball, he could be finished quickly. I don't see him being a Jamie Moyer type. All it takes is one of Kelly, Owens, Johnson, Wright or Elias to show up improved in spring training and there's your guy who is pretty certain to be better than Buehrle, for way less money. If they're still trying to improve the roster, I'd be more inclined to use that money on improving Castillo's roster spot and give the team a little more certainty in the outfield. I think they'd be pretty close to the same team with him that they'd be without him. If I were Dombrowski, there's no way in hell I'd be asking John Henry to add $10 million to the payroll for Mark Buehrle. And that's even with the unlikely assumption that he'd sign a 1/$10M contract. I'm OK with Castillo due to his defense....as a corner OF he has to hit better than in 2015. I think with another year under his belt, he should improve & it doesn't need to be massive, as long as he improves. He's simply not a train wreck that 1B & 3B could be. Feb 1st will tell us a WHOLE lot when those 2 report to Ft Myers.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2015 17:28:49 GMT -5
I kinda want Kelly in the rotation too.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 17, 2015 17:30:01 GMT -5
I do agree that it's a relatively high-risk roster-- there aren't a lot of guys in that sweet spot 26-30 age range where they have an established track record but aren't into their decline years yet, and the guys that are in that age range (Porcello, Kelly, Sandoval, Castillo) are coming off bad seasons. They had a similar problem last year, and while Betts and Bogaerts (and maybe Rodriguez) had good enough seasons that you'd no longer characterize them as unproven, high-risk guys, that's somewhat offset by veterans like Porcello, Sandoval, and Ramirez proving themselves to be considerably higher-risk than expected and guys like Buchholz, Bradley, Castillo, and Kelly continuing to be question marks. To some extent, I buy the argument that one reason Dombrowski focused in on getting low-risk guys like Price and Kimbrel was to mitigate the riskiness of the rest of the roster. (Of course, he then traded one of the the lowest-risk players on the team in Miley, so...)
That said, while it's true that all those guys have low floors, they also have relatively high ceilings. With the exception of Castillo and maybe Kelly, you could imagine pretty much all the nine projected starting position players and five starting pitchers having All-Star-caliber seasons (ADD: largely because they've all had them in the past; I think each member of the rest of the roster has had a 4+ win season except Swihart, Bradley, and Rodriguez, and those three guys certainly have that upside to get there). It's important to not just look at the downside, but also consider the upside. Yeah, these guys could all be really bad, but they could also be really good.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 17, 2015 17:39:49 GMT -5
JimEd, I can certainly see your point about them trading Miley and thinking it was because they felt they had enough starting pitching and feel it's certainly plausible that DDski chose him as the expendable part; I hope you'll admit that it's just as likely DDski tried making it Buchholz or Kelly in place of Miley and Seattle said "no chance" - honestly, none of us know how it went down, but I believe either scenario is very plausible. That said, Wade Miley put up season with 32 starts and a 4.46ERA in the AL East. Bu What I will say is that I would have FAR rather traded Kelly or Buchholz than Miley, and if we still had Miley's dependability, I wouldn't feel the need to add a guy of Buehrle's calibre. However, for whatever reason, Miley is gone and Kelly and Buchholz are still here. We lost a very dependable piece of the rotation and have replaced it with two question marks. It's my contention that the clear pecking order would be Price, Buehrle, Porcello, Rodriugez one of B/K/O/W/J > Price, Porcello, Rodriguez, Miley, B/K/O/W/J >>>> Price, Porcello, Rodriguez and then needing to find two from B/K/O/W/J. We can agree to disagree. Chris, assuming the players on the roster remain the same, I more or less agree with your line up. Of course, I'd still rather see the Holt / Shaw platoon and make Sandoval prove he deserves the spot offensive and defensively because, frankly, I don't think he does and feel the team is going to be hurt by his presence in the line up and on the diamond. I would bet that Kelly is held in higher esteem than Miley because of his potential. Miley is a known. Kelly is still evolving, has a better arm and DD loves high velocity. He improved as the year went on with an effort to pitch rather than purely throw. Whether he is in the pen or a back-end starter, he is a keeper for DD. Buch, when healthy, (I know, I know) is better than Miley was, is or will be. Buerhle is toast...throwing 84 and declining.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2015 17:40:53 GMT -5
While I don't disagree with your first paragraph about Buehrle (and agree, that's what he's always been) where I take exception is your second paragraph.
By saying that we only need one of Kelly, Owens, etc to step up, I take that as you mean that you think there is only one spot in the rotation with a question mark. This is the point I disagree with completely. Honestly, I think the only spot in the rotation without a question mark is Price at the top.
While we agree there are certainly chances that (literally) all of the pitchers you mention could be better than Buehrle, there is also a ton of reason to assume they'd be worse. I agree that I want Porcello in the rotation, assuredly, but his career ERA is 4.39 (all in the AL) and I do think there is upside there, but if he pitches to slightly above his career average (lets call it 31 starts and a 4.00ERA) that is worse than should be expected from Buehrle.
Eduardo Rodriguez, like Porcello, I want in the rotation. He is also the only guy in the upper levels of the system (Price excepted) that I think has a reasonable ceiling of a high level 2 starter. That said, are we really ready to set in stone that a second year player is going to give us 30 starts and a sub 3.80ERA in the AL East. I want him in my rotation, asuredly, but I'm not willing to go there.
I don't think any reasonable person would expect Clay Buchholz to hit even 28 starts with an ERA in the 3.50 range since in a 9 year career he has given 20 plus starts of effecitve pitching exactly once - 6 years ago. Following a pattern of him being excellent, getting hurt, and taking a full year to regain his stuff is exactly what has happened over the past 5 seasons. The best we can hope for from him this year is 15-19 starts of elite pitching - the most likely outcome based on his past 5 years of data is we get (on average) 29 starts of a 5.00ERA pitcher. If we're kind and assume the "good Clay". That means you still need to either replace his production mid way through the year from another starter in the system or by acquring a player before the trade deadline when now one can be had for just money. If we're realistic (based on 5 seasons of data) you're going to have to replace a below average pitcher with someone from your system, HOPING that half a season of atrocious pitching from another slot in the rotation hasn't already sunk the year at that point.
Then you have the 5th spot, as you alluded to.
If we had a line up that wasn't half question marks, then I'd say you could overcome 4 question marks in the rotation, but we don't. It doesn't have to be Buehrle, but I think we assuredly need another pitcher that has proven to be a number 3 or better starter in the AL over the course of an entire season (for more than 28 games) in order to allow the other three rotation slots to be filled with some manner of question mark if we want to be a serious contender.
From my post, I think it's obvious that I too would rather see the team spend money on a bona fide mid-rotation or better starter than use that money on the OF since we essentialy cannot use it at either corner IF position.
Edit: Jmei, I agree that there is a chance all of these players can bounce back AND the young players improve - it just happened in 2013. I'd love to be proven wrong on guys like Sandoval, Buchholz, etc, I just don't see it happening.
Also, Buehrle's career FB velocity is 85.3, last year it was 83.9, and he pitched VERY well for three years in the AL East at 84MPH on the fast ball. He has also had better k/bb ratios the last three years in the AL East than his career average. If he came back, might he fall off a cliff - sure, 37 year old players do that. I'm just saying it's not something that should be assumed based on his last three years of data. I don't understand why people would disregard 3 years of solid data from Buehrle in the AL East proving he's a very good starter, yet in the same breath look at 5 years of data from Clay Buchholz in the AL East and disregard it to assume this year he will buck the trend and be an effective pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 17, 2015 17:56:05 GMT -5
I don't think any reasonable person would expect Clay Buchholz to hit even 28 starts with an ERA in the 3.50 range since in a 9 year career he has given 20 plus starts of effecitve pitching exactly once - 6 years ago. Following a pattern of him being excellent, getting hurt, and taking a full year to regain his stuff is exactly what has happened over the past 5 seasons. The best we can hope for from him this year is 15-19 starts of elite pitching - the most likely outcome based on his past 5 years of data is we get (on average) 29 starts of a 5.00ERA pitcher. If we're kind and assume the "good Clay". That means you still need to either replace his production mid way through the year from another starter in the system or by acquring a player before the trade deadline when now one can be had for just money. If we're realistic (based on 5 seasons of data) you're going to have to replace a below average pitcher with someone from your system, HOPING that half a season of atrocious pitching from another slot in the rotation hasn't already sunk the year at that point. I'm very skeptical about this "pattern" argument with Buchholz. As far as I can tell, it's only happened twice-- he got hurt in 2011 and then was mediocre in 2012, and then he got hurt at the end of 2013 and was bad in 2014. That's not nearly enough for me to say that he has a pattern of getting hurt and being bad the year after that means he'll likely be bad in 2016 (especially since there are examples of him getting hurt and not being bad afterwards-- see his post-DL performance in 2010, for example), and you certainly can't say that five years of data supports that argument. Over the last five years, Buchholz has averaged 133 innings a year (21 GS) with a 3.94 ERA, a 3.81 FIP, and a 3.95 xFIP. That's probably a more reasonable projection for him next year than "he'll either be really good or really bad" narrative I see floating around. It's like how no one had any idea how Ellsbury was going to perform in 2013 (terrible 2010, great 2011, injured/bad 2012), but then he ends up having a season that was essentially what you'd get if you average 2010-2012 and prorated it out.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2015 18:11:27 GMT -5
My overall point regarding Buchholz is how many years in a 9 season sample has he been effective and durable. Once. In 2010 he was excellent for 28 games (had that weird hamstring injury, but I'll write that off as a fluke since he was running the bases). That was 7 seasons ago. With someone as injury prone as Buchholz has been, isn't it reasonable to assume a 26 year old person would regain health more quickly than a 31 year old person? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't (I'm not a doctor) but that seems logical to me.
We can agree to disagree, but I think the past 5 seasons of data showing we can expect either 15 starts of excellence or 28 starts of roughly 80 ERA+ pitching are more predictive than 2 seasons of data 6 and 5 seasons ago. I mean, does anyone really expect Tim Lincecum to go back to the pitcher he was 5 and 6 years ago and disregard his last 5 seasons of data?
If we set the over / under for Clay at 22 games started with a 3.90ERA as you suggested measures of durability and effectiveness he's hit ONCE in a 9 season career if he comes in better than those numbers "you" win and if he comes in worse "I" win, would you place a $25 donation to the Jimmy Fund on it?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2015 18:11:39 GMT -5
While I don't disagree with your first paragraph about Buehrle (and agree, that's what he's always been) where I take exception is your second paragraph. By saying that we only need one of Kelly, Owens, etc to step up, I take that as you mean that you think there is only one spot in the rotation with a question mark. This is the point I disagree with completely. Honestly, I think the only spot in the rotation without a question mark is Price at the top. While we agree there are certainly chances that (literally) all of the pitchers you mention could be better than Buehrle, there is also a ton of reason to assume they'd be worse. I agree that I want Porcello in the rotation, assuredly, but his career ERA is 4.39 (all in the AL) and I do think there is upside there, but if he pitches to slightly above his career average (lets call it 31 starts and a 4.00ERA) that is worse than should be expected from Buehrle. Eduardo Rodriguez, like Porcello, I want in the rotation. He is also the only guy in the upper levels of the system (Price excepted) that I think has a reasonable ceiling of a high level 2 starter. That said, are we really ready to set in stone that a second year player is going to give us 30 starts and a sub 3.80ERA in the AL East. I want him in my rotation, asuredly, but I'm not willing to go there. I don't think any reasonable person would expect Clay Buchholz to hit even 28 starts with an ERA in the 3.50 range since in a 9 year career he has given 20 plus starts of effecitve pitching exactly once - 6 years ago. Following a pattern of him being excellent, getting hurt, and taking a full year to regain his stuff is exactly what has happened over the past 5 seasons. The best we can hope for from him this year is 15-19 starts of elite pitching - the most likely outcome based on his past 5 years of data is we get (on average) 29 starts of a 5.00ERA pitcher. If we're kind and assume the "good Clay". That means you still need to either replace his production mid way through the year from another starter in the system or by acquring a player before the trade deadline when now one can be had for just money. If we're realistic (based on 5 seasons of data) you're going to have to replace a below average pitcher with someone from your system, HOPING that half a season of atrocious pitching from another slot in the rotation hasn't already sunk the year at that point. Then you have the 5th spot, as you alluded to. If we had a line up that wasn't half question marks, then I'd say you could overcome 4 question marks in the rotation, but we don't. It doesn't have to be Buehrle, but I think we assuredly need another pitcher that has proven to be a number 3 or better starter in the AL over the course of an entire season (for more than 28 games) in order to allow the other three rotation slots to be filled with some manner of question mark if we want to be a serious contender. From my post, I think it's obvious that I too would rather see the team spend money on a bona fide mid-rotation or better starter than use that money on the OF since we essentialy cannot use it at either corner IF position. Edit: Jmei, I agree that there is a chance all of these players can bounce back AND the young players improve - it just happened in 2013. I'd love to be proven wrong on guys like Sandoval, Buchholz, etc, I just don't see it happening. Also, Buehrle's career FB velocity is 85.3, last year it was 83.9, and he pitched VERY well for three years in the AL East at 84MPH on the fast ball. He has also had better k/bb ratios the last three years in the AL East than his career average. If he came back, might he fall off a cliff - sure, 37 year old players do that. I'm just saying it's not something that should be assumed based on his last three years of data. I don't understand why people would disregard 3 years of solid data from Buehrle in the AL East proving he's a very good starter, yet in the same breath look at 5 years of data from Clay Buchholz in the AL East and disregard it to assume this year he will buck the trend and be an effective pitcher. What exactly do you expect from Buehrle? We're talking about a likely 2 win pitcher at best. It's not expecting the moon for one of 5 guys to improve to that level. Most of them have at least that much potential. And again, there's no way in hell they would have traded Miley if they thought they need someone like Buehrle. There are zero rumors about them talking to any free agent starters so they're clearly pleased to go with what they've got at this point unless something winds up in their lap. They will not improve the team by upgrading the #5 pitcher to one with no upside, like all of the ones competing for the #5 have. And even if you thought they could, it's certainly not going to be worth an additional $10 million+ on the payroll.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2015 18:15:09 GMT -5
My overall point regarding Buchholz is how many years in a 9 season sample has he been effective and durable. Once. In 2010 he was excellent for 28 games (had that weird hamstring injury, but I'll write that off as a fluke since he was running the bases). That was 7 seasons ago. With someone as injury prone as Buchholz has been, isn't it reasonable to assume a 26 year old person would regain health more quickly than a 31 year old person? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't (I'm not a doctor) but that seems logical to me. We can agree to disagree, but I think the past 5 seasons of data showing we can expect either 15 starts of excellence or 28 starts of roughly 80 ERA+ pitching are more predictive than 2 seasons of data 6 and 5 seasons ago. I mean, does anyone really expect Tim Lincecum to go back to the pitcher he was 5 and 6 years ago and disregard his last 5 seasons of data? If we set the over / under for Clay at 22 games started with a 3.80ERA as you suggested (again, a number he's hit ONCE in a 9 season career) if he comes in better than those numbers "you" win and if he comes in worse "I" win, would you place a $25 donation to the Jimmy Fund on it? Buchholz was worth 1.1 more fWAR than Buehrle in 85 less innings last year. Add in whoever replaced Buchholz' missed starts like Owens or Hill and you probably get 3 more wins with Buchholz + replacements over Buehrle.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2015 18:19:56 GMT -5
I don't think any reasonable person would expect Clay Buchholz to hit even 28 starts with an ERA in the 3.50 range since in a 9 year career he has given 20 plus starts of effecitve pitching exactly once - 6 years ago. Following a pattern of him being excellent, getting hurt, and taking a full year to regain his stuff is exactly what has happened over the past 5 seasons. The best we can hope for from him this year is 15-19 starts of elite pitching - the most likely outcome based on his past 5 years of data is we get (on average) 29 starts of a 5.00ERA pitcher. If we're kind and assume the "good Clay". That means you still need to either replace his production mid way through the year from another starter in the system or by acquring a player before the trade deadline when now one can be had for just money. If we're realistic (based on 5 seasons of data) you're going to have to replace a below average pitcher with someone from your system, HOPING that half a season of atrocious pitching from another slot in the rotation hasn't already sunk the year at that point. I'm very skeptical about this "pattern" argument with Buchholz. As far as I can tell, it's only happened twice-- he got hurt in 2011 and then was mediocre in 2012, and then he got hurt at the end of 2013 and was bad in 2014. That's not nearly enough for me to say that he has a pattern of getting hurt and being bad the year after that means he'll likely be bad in 2016 (especially since there are examples of him getting hurt and not being bad afterwards-- see his post-DL performance in 2010, for example), and you certainly can't say that five years of data supports that argument. Over the last five years, Buchholz has averaged 133 innings a year (21 GS) with a 3.94 ERA, a 3.81 FIP, and a 3.95 xFIP. That's probably a more reasonable projection for him next year than "he'll either be really good or really bad" narrative I see floating around. It's like how no one had any idea how Ellsbury was going to perform in 2013 (terrible 2010, great 2011, injured/bad 2012), but then he ends up having a season that was essentially what you'd get if you average 2010-2012 and prorated it out. So basically a players career isn't long enough to have patterns for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2015 18:24:27 GMT -5
I'd expect 32 starts with a 3.80ERA from Buehrle, since that's what he's averaged his last three years in Toronto (same divsion, also a hitter's park), roughly a 2.5WAR. Or, right in line with what Porcello averaged his seaons in Detroit.
That is far better than Buchholz put up recently coming off injury (like last year) in 2012 and 2014. It's also much better than what Kelly has put up in his last 42 starts in the majors.
The reason I think we NEED that is because I find it highly unlikely you get production that good from 4 and 5 of those we presently have, and it's rougly what one should expect from Porcello - if we're kind enough to just throw out his worst (and most recent) season's worth of data.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 17, 2015 18:29:53 GMT -5
My overall point regarding Buchholz is how many years in a 9 season sample has he been effective and durable. Once. In 2010 he was excellent for 28 games (had that weird hamstring injury, but I'll write that off as a fluke since he was running the bases). That was 7 seasons ago. With someone as injury prone as Buchholz has been, isn't it reasonable to assume a 26 year old person would regain health more quickly than a 31 year old person? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't (I'm not a doctor) but that seems logical to me. We can agree to disagree, but I think the past 5 seasons of data showing we can expect either 15 starts of excellence or 28 starts of roughly 80 ERA+ pitching are more predictive than 2 seasons of data 6 and 5 seasons ago. I mean, does anyone really expect Tim Lincecum to go back to the pitcher he was 5 and 6 years ago and disregard his last 5 seasons of data? If we set the over / under for Clay at 22 games started with a 3.90ERA as you suggested measures of durability and effectiveness he's hit ONCE in a 9 season career if he comes in better than those numbers "you" win and if he comes in worse "I" win, would you place a $25 donation to the Jimmy Fund on it? I'm not saying that data from 5 or 6 years ago is especially predictive, I'm saying that you can't call it a "pattern" if it's only happened twice. If you prefer a more recent example of Buchholz pitching effectively after he got hurt, look at his post-DL stats from 2014. We don't like to do bets of money on here, not even charitable money (we do do profile picture bets). But your proposed bet doesn't capture the essence of our disagreement. You think he'll be at one of the extremes (either pitch very few good innings or a lot of bad innings), but I think he'll be somewhere in the middle, and your bet doesn't really reflect that. If you want to do a straight bWAR bet and set the over/under at 1.5, I'll happily take the over for the privilege of setting your profile picture next offseason, but I don't think that really captures it either.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 17, 2015 18:32:43 GMT -5
So basically a players career isn't long enough to have patterns for the most part. A pattern isn't a pattern if it's only happened twice. But yes, I tend to think that most so-called patterns are more noise than predictive.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2015 18:39:51 GMT -5
I am very interested in Kelly this year. I wouldn't be surprised if he was terrible because he has been in the recent past, but I wouldn't be surprised if he strung it together and pitched like a number 2.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 17, 2015 18:43:34 GMT -5
Nope, it isn't a pattern. There are any number of players - more position types but pitchers also - who can bring it on in their 30s and beyond. If he can only go so far, who cares? They've got more options than they can count.
To bootstrap on your argument, why in the world would the team go after Buehrle? Last year was a perfect example of giving up all hope, throwing in the towel, bringing up the talent, and then watching them shift you into a completely different gear. It all started to click, and that's even with a well below average mix of bullpen talent. The defense was better, that made the pitching better, and the hitting was certainly better. Dombrowski showed up at the right time, and with a clean palate. He watched them perform even as they pushed aside Ramirez and Sandoval. None of that was lost on him, none of it.
I hang around this site because of the value of young players, guys that you actually should... play... if you want to get a feeling for that talent. Johnson is better right now than Buehrle, in my opinion. He's younger, he has better stuff, and he has very good control. He only needs to be in AAA to show that his arm is ok, otherwise he doesn't belong there. He belongs on the ML roster learning the hitters, and given the way a season typically unfolds, he'll get it. As for Owens, he deserves to get his shot at more big-leaguer batters as soon as they can find room for him. He needs to continue his development at that level. That's before we discuss the left- and right-handed swing men, Elias and Wright.
They don't need to be digging around the remainder bin for players. They've got plenty of talent and more coming. Does that mean the FO should ignore real talent that's available? Not at all. But the 2016 Sox look to be well stocked with pitchers, and they even have a lights-out bullpen to finish the opposition off.
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Dec 17, 2015 19:42:19 GMT -5
I agree we have some question marks in our rotation. I've said so many times. That being said, Buehrle is not my choice at all. I would love to get a #2. I would feel way more comfortable with someone that can eat innings, as a #2. Buehrle is not a #2, in my opinion.
Also, why argue over whether or not Buchholz has a patterned bad year after an injury. The bottom line with him is... HE IS THE MOST CONSISTENT INCONSISTENT PITCHER I'VE EVER SAW. I would never wish to depend on him as the #2 pitcher for the Sox. In nine years he has pitched over 20 starts three times. Of those three seasons? Only one was considered a good year. That is no where near a #2 pitcher.
Porcello is a #3. Not a great #3, but solid and with potential for a #2. He had a good 2014 and a good 2nd half last year, but thats it. How can anyone say with certainty he is a #2 right now?
Kelly has a lot of potential. Throws hard, which DD likes, so iI've heard. He has not put it together yet. He has a good six weeks last year.....
Rodriguez has so much talent. I'm excited, but I also keep reminding myself that a 4.00 era and 180 innings will be fine.
As for position players: Don't let Sandoval hit against lefties. Put in Shaw or Holt. Make sure we get Young in there vs lefties... either Bradley or Castillo can sit. Swihart is in vs RHP's and Hanigan vs LHP's.
|
|
|
Post by 75tillnow on Dec 17, 2015 20:20:19 GMT -5
First, since this is my first post, let me say thank you to Chris and all the posters for creating and developing a board that is truly collegial, informative and sophisticated. Most boards are lacking in all of these categories and, as a result, I have made it a habit to visit the board on a daily basis. These things really DO matter. I hope I understand how difficult it is to maintain a board like this without it degenerating into something quite worse -- so kudos.
As for my contribution (if any) -- it is but an addition to Norm’s post (the “lights-out bullpen”). The bullpen may well change before April, but it looks to me that DD has built not only a great bullpen but a protected one. Without being too much like Captain Obvious, we have Kimbrel, Koji, Smith, Taz, Layne, Ross and Wright. But, like the rotation, some may be injured or unable to perform to expectations. But then we have (at least) Elias and Varvaro (who protect both L [Layne, Ross] and R), as well as Barnes (Smith, Taz, Koji) and, later (hopefully), Workman (who, in this scenario, would replace Wright) – and the replacements may end up being better than the starters. Which argues that at the trading deadline DD would be freed up to go for a starter (#2?) and not a reliever. Did they plan this? I assume so. It’s a nice set-up.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2015 20:40:26 GMT -5
Since there are four question marks in the line up (Sandoval, Ramirez, Bradley Jr and Castillo), I would prefer not to have four question marks in the rotation as well (everyone but Price). I like Buehrle becaue he has had spWAR below 2.1 exactly twice in his career, and has put up 2.3; 3.1 and 2.1 the past three season in the AL East. Clay has had an spWAR below 1.6 in 5 of 8 full seasons in the bigs. His past 5 seaons of spWAR have gone .7;.8;2.8;1.5; and 3.0. I don't think the team is equipped to handle the volatility of his expected performance.
I think a big thing regarding Buchholz is some of us are arguing that patterns and that past game played stastics are very predictive, while others apparently do not. This is ok, we're just never going to convince the other as to our perspective, so hopefully we can agree to disagree on what we expect from Clay this season, but I think there is about a 12.5% chance you get a healthy and effective Clay Buccholz and an 87.5% chance you don't.
To Norm's point, agree, the offense and defense got much better as the year wore on, which had a good effect on the pitching. However, removing Ramirez and replacing him with a superior option improved the team. Sandoval played roughly 1/3 of the team's games in September, and was replaced by a superior option offensively and defensively helped the team. Unfortunately, both of those players are going to be plugged right back in and I think so long as they're healthy (regardless of how terrible they are) they'll continue to play.
I'll put this another way - if we actually went full on young and went with a line up of Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ortiz, Shaw, Castillo, Holt, Swihart and Bradley Jr and in essence platooned Sandoval (against RHP) and Ramirez (against LHP) AND then went with a rotation of Price, Porcello, Rodriguez, and the winners of Kelly, Johnson, Owens, Wright and Elias and used Buchholz to acquire more prospects (even to be used in a mid season trade) I think the team would be a lot better.
*If Ramirez can play a passable 1b, obviously he plays, I just don't think it's likely that he can.
Also, my apologies on the "Jimmy Fund bet", I wasn't aware but I meant no disrespect there. Agree though, the ideas we shared don't accuarately represent what (I think) we each expect from Clay this season. Though, my bad.
|
|
|