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.
How do you improve the Red Sox
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 31, 2016 12:29:57 GMT -5
Allen Craig, your moment is here. Time to get off the DL and OBP your way back to the pros. If only. I'd rather use literally anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 31, 2016 12:38:19 GMT -5
Outside of the way he is currently pitching, what data do you have to show he was a #2 this winter? Rick Porcello, 2013-15: 90 xFIP- Jon Lester, 2013-15: 86 xFIP- Granted, Porcello has a history of underperforming his peripherals due to issues with pitching out of the stretch. But even taking that into account, he's on the border between a number two and a number three for me, and I wouldn't be too concerned if he was their second-best starter going into the playoffs. It's not ideal, but it's something I can tolerate considering how great the offense is. If Wright continues to be this good, or only regresses a little bit and still looks like a number two/three starter by October? I wouldn't really be concerned about the rotation at all. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 31, 2016 12:40:42 GMT -5
I would play Hernandez more as the season goes on to rest players like Shaw and Hanley . He is having a great year so far, let's see if he can keep it up. Yes, he is having a great year after all of 16 PAs. 24 hours ago, when he'd had just 12 PAs, he'd been having a terrible year. I mean, I like Hernandez, but I think it's just a bit too early to be deciding that he should play a prominent role for the rest of the season. Well he's hitting .333 at AAA with a OPS of .827, so yea when you combine majors and minors I think he's having a great year. I wouldn't say prominent role, but he sure looks like he can start 10-15 games to give Shaw and Hanley the rest they need. |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 31, 2016 12:51:05 GMT -5
Of course the team could use more pitching (you can never have enough, but I will echo the sentiment that a LHH LFer would be my primary target right now. Even better if he can play some 1B, but not necessary. In addition to being the biggest need, this potential LF doesn't need to be a star, and therefore should require a limited return in the form of prospects. He would simply platoon with Young.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on May 31, 2016 13:00:51 GMT -5
Do we need to pigeon-hole our search to just LF? If a good left handed OF bat was available and was a natural right or center fielder, couldn't we either move them to left or move Betts or Bradley?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 31, 2016 13:02:58 GMT -5
Of course the team could use more pitching (you can never have enough, but I will echo the sentiment that a LHH LFer would be my primary target right now. Even better if he can play some 1B, but not necessary. In addition to being the biggest need, this potential LF doesn't need to be a star, and therefore should require a limited return in the form of prospects. He would simply platoon with Young. So like a Brett Gardner type only not that one. Unless unwritten rules are broken. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 31, 2016 13:34:36 GMT -5
Outside of the way he is currently pitching, what data do you have to show he was a #2 this winter? Rick Porcello, 2013-15: 90 xFIP- Jon Lester, 2013-15: 86 xFIP- Granted, Porcello has a history of underperforming his peripherals due to issues with pitching out of the stretch. But even taking that into account, he's on the border between a number two and a number three for me, and I wouldn't be too concerned if he was their second-best starter going into the playoffs. It's not ideal, but it's something I can tolerate considering how great the offense is. If Wright continues to be this good, or only regresses a little bit and still looks like a number two/three starter by October? I wouldn't really be concerned about the rotation at all. XFIP- for Porcello last year 92 for this year 91. Really does anyone believe he's basically the same pitcher? Last two years 80.5 for Lester, Porcello was 94.5. Now 100 is average, 90 is above average, 80 is great and 70 is excellent. So even using your numbers Porcello was just above average and Lester was above average/Great. Not sure how stats that show Porcello as above average show he was a #2 this winter. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 31, 2016 13:51:51 GMT -5
Rick Porcello, 2013-15: 90 xFIP- Jon Lester, 2013-15: 86 xFIP- Granted, Porcello has a history of underperforming his peripherals due to issues with pitching out of the stretch. But even taking that into account, he's on the border between a number two and a number three for me, and I wouldn't be too concerned if he was their second-best starter going into the playoffs. It's not ideal, but it's something I can tolerate considering how great the offense is. If Wright continues to be this good, or only regresses a little bit and still looks like a number two/three starter by October? I wouldn't really be concerned about the rotation at all. XFIP- for Porcello last year 92 for this year 91. Really does anyone believe he's basically the same pitcher? Last two years 80.5 for Lester, Porcello was 94.5. Now 100 is average, 90 is above average, 80 is great and 70 is excellent. So even using your numbers Porcello was just above average and Lester was above average/Great. Not sure how stats that show Porcello as above average show he was a #2 this winter. You are making those benchmarks up. In any given year, the 31st to 60th best starting pitchers in the league (the guys who you would call a "number two starter") have roughly an xFIP- between 89 and 97. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 31, 2016 13:56:38 GMT -5
XFIP- for Porcello last year 92 for this year 91. Really does anyone believe he's basically the same pitcher? Last two years 80.5 for Lester, Porcello was 94.5. Now 100 is average, 90 is above average, 80 is great and 70 is excellent. So even using your numbers Porcello was just above average and Lester was above average/Great. Not sure how stats that show Porcello as above average show he was a #2 this winter. You are making those benchmarks up. In any given year, the 31st to 60th best starting pitchers in the league (the guys who you would call a "number two starter") have roughly an xFIP- between 89 and 97. Haha those are from Fangraph website. |
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on May 31, 2016 14:06:47 GMT -5
You are making those benchmarks up. In any given year, the 31st to 60th best starting pitchers in the league (the guys who you would call a "number two starter") have roughly an xFIP- between 89 and 97. Haha those are from Fangraph website. lol |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 31, 2016 14:38:07 GMT -5
XFIP- for Porcello last year 92 for this year 91. Really does anyone believe he's basically the same pitcher? Last two years 80.5 for Lester, Porcello was 94.5. Now 100 is average, 90 is above average, 80 is great and 70 is excellent. So even using your numbers Porcello was just above average and Lester was above average/Great. Not sure how stats that show Porcello as above average show he was a #2 this winter. You are making those benchmarks up. In any given year, the 31st to 60th best starting pitchers in the league (the guys who you would call a "number two starter") have roughly an xFIP- between 89 and 97. You're saying the same thing... A 61st-90th best starter is just about an average starter, so the 70/80/90/100 scale works. But that also means a #4 is by definition below average, and also, there are more below average starters than above average ones (because attrition, turnover, injuries, etc.) It also means that only a couple guys a season are "excellent". |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 31, 2016 14:38:59 GMT -5
Jmei do you really think there are 30 #1 pitchers every year? You really think because a guy ranked 31-60 in one given year that makes him a #2 pitcher? For me a lot of #2 will be in that top 30 any given year due to injuries, players having bad years and the fact that there aren't 30 #1, #2 and #3 starters every year.
It's the Wade Miley debate, sure last year he ranked as a #3 pitcher, but for me that doesn't make him one. He's a 4\5 to me all day long.
|
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 31, 2016 14:42:34 GMT -5
Jmei do you really think there are 30 #1 pitchers every year? You really think because a guy ranked 31-60 in one given year that makes him a #2 pitcher? For me a lot of #2 will be in that top 30 any given year due to injuries, players having bad years and the fact that there aren't 30 #1, #2 and #3 starters every year. It's the Wade Miley debate, sure last year he ranked as a #3 pitcher, but for me that doesn't make him one. He's a 4\5 to me all day long. Can you EXPECT him to be a number 2, maybe not, but did you get #2 performance out of him? Yes (ditto Miley and #3). If it's subjective, then of course you're always right, but the fact is, #31-60 are number twos (with some room at the margins depending on which metric you use) |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,020
|
Post by ericmvan on May 31, 2016 14:43:27 GMT -5
I kind of have a vague memory of arguing all winter that Porcello was a #2. He's pitching like a #2 again. What does it take to become a "proven #2"? Is there a USDA procedure, where they brand you like a side of beef? I also have a vague memory of posting, within the last couple of days, a rundown of the actual rotation quality of recent WS winners. Most of whom would have needed an extra frontline starter according to folks like you. For me to call Porcello a #2 he needs to continue to pitch like he has for a full season. It's a long season and many players have huge first half's only to come back down to earth in second half. Outside of the way he is currently pitching, what data do you have to show he was a #2 this winter? In my opinion even his breakthrough 2014 he was a #3 in my book and in 2015 he was not very good. To look at a team like Royals and say cause they did it with OK starters we can is not a great way of looking at it. While we have improved Pen, we don't have a lockdown Pen like they did. So we need better starters . He had awful defense and bad pitch-framing behind him in Detroit. I had him actually better than Lester in 2014 when you adjusted for framing. Last year he was bad before his DL stint with his new 4-seam-heavy pitch mix, then great when he went back to his 2014 mix afterwards. (I believe I win a large cash prize when I point that out here for the 50th time, so I apologize to most of the rest of the board.) |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 31, 2016 14:48:33 GMT -5
Also, very few teams, if any can afford to have more than one top 30 pitcher, and those which can don't always get the results they expect (see Greinke, Scherzer, DeGrom and many more)
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 31, 2016 14:55:03 GMT -5
Also, very few teams, if any can afford to have more than one top 30 pitcher, and those which can don't always get the results they expect (see Greinke, Scherzer, DeGrom and many more) We can afford it, Porcello and Bucholz are making combined what it would cost to get any ACE /#1 pitcher. All while we pay Price. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,020
|
Post by ericmvan on May 31, 2016 14:57:28 GMT -5
You are making those benchmarks up. In any given year, the 31st to 60th best starting pitchers in the league (the guys who you would call a "number two starter") have roughly an xFIP- between 89 and 97. You're saying the same thing... A 61st-90th best starter is just about an average starter, so the 70/80/90/100 scale works. But that also means a #4 is by definition below average, and also, there are more below average starters than above average ones (because attrition, turnover, injuries, etc.) It also means that only a couple guys a season are "excellent". Jmei do you really think there are 30 #1 pitchers every year? You really think because a guy ranked 31-60 in one given year that makes him a #2 pitcher? For me a lot of #2 will be in that top 30 any given year due to injuries, players having bad years and the fact that there aren't 30 #1, #2 and #3 starters every year. It's the Wade Miley debate, sure last year he ranked as a #3 pitcher, but for me that doesn't make him one. He's a 4\5 to me all day long. The way to do this: 1-15, #1 16-45, #2 46-75, #3 76-105, #4 106-135, #5 136-150, needs replacement Good teams have an ace, bad teams don't, so there are only 15 aces. Good teams have a #5 starter who is adequate, bad teams don't, so at the other end, there are 15 guys in MLB rotations who aren't even #5's. And this puts the 1 through 3 guys as above average and the 4 and 5 as below, which is exactly how we think of it. For xFIP-, based on the 758 guys with 80 IP as a starter, 2011-2015 82 is borderline #1/#2 at or below 94 is #2 95 to 100 is #3 at or below 107 is #4 108 to 116 is #5 Porcello has a 90 xFIP- over his last 4 seasons, clearly #2 caliber peripherals. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 31, 2016 15:03:46 GMT -5
Jmei do you really think there are 30 #1 pitchers every year? You really think because a guy ranked 31-60 in one given year that makes him a #2 pitcher? For me a lot of #2 will be in that top 30 any given year due to injuries, players having bad years and the fact that there aren't 30 #1, #2 and #3 starters every year. It's the Wade Miley debate, sure last year he ranked as a #3 pitcher, but for me that doesn't make him one. He's a 4\5 to me all day long. It's not just one year-- Porcello's peripherals have been at that level for the past three-and-a-half years now. The issue is that your personal sense of what a number one, two, three, etc. starter is is poorly calibrated. It doesn't accurately reflect the actual distribution of starting pitcher performance or the actual composition of postseason rotations. By both those non-arbitrary standards, if Rick Porcello is the second-best starting pitcher in your rotation, you're doing OK. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 31, 2016 15:06:14 GMT -5
For me to call Porcello a #2 he needs to continue to pitch like he has for a full season. It's a long season and many players have huge first half's only to come back down to earth in second half. Outside of the way he is currently pitching, what data do you have to show he was a #2 this winter? In my opinion even his breakthrough 2014 he was a #3 in my book and in 2015 he was not very good. To look at a team like Royals and say cause they did it with OK starters we can is not a great way of looking at it. While we have improved Pen, we don't have a lockdown Pen like they did. So we need better starters . He had awful defense and bad pitch-framing behind him in Detroit. I had him actually better than Lester in 2014 when you adjusted for framing. Last year he was bad before his DL stint with his new 4-seam-heavy pitch mix, then great when he went back to his 2014 mix afterwards. (I believe I win a large cash prize when I point that out here for the 50th time, so I apologize to most of the rest of the board.) Ok explain to me how Porcello 8 starts to end the year are better a projecting 2016 then Kelly's were? Based on Kelly's end to last year he should be CY Young contender this year . |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 31, 2016 15:07:58 GMT -5
We're within two weeks of the usual pattern of Buchholz hitting the DL for what will reportedly be 3-4 weeks with a strange injury, it taking eight weeks for him to come back for reasons that seem vague, everyone questioning his toughness, and them him coming back to pitch great for 10 weeks and everyone talking about how he'd be an ace if he puts it together for a full season ( followed by an infuriating discussion of what an "ace" is - let's not do that part again this year, okay everyone? Please?). I said please. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 31, 2016 15:12:35 GMT -5
We're within two weeks of the usual pattern of Buchholz hitting the DL for what will reportedly be 3-4 weeks with a strange injury, it taking eight weeks for him to come back for reasons that seem vague, everyone questioning his toughness, and them him coming back to pitch great for 10 weeks and everyone talking about how he'd be an ace if he puts it together for a full season ( followed by an infuriating discussion of what an "ace" is - let's not do that part again this year, okay everyone? Please?). I said please. This is a standard baseball argument that comes up on every baseball message board over and over again. And the gist of it is that some fans want several aces and their worst pitcher to be a #2 or else their team isn't good enough so they frame the argument in that direction. It's almost more fun to talk baseball when the team isn't that good. When they're in first place, some fans expect way more than is reasonable. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,020
|
Post by ericmvan on May 31, 2016 15:15:58 GMT -5
He had awful defense and bad pitch-framing behind him in Detroit. I had him actually better than Lester in 2014 when you adjusted for framing. Last year he was bad before his DL stint with his new 4-seam-heavy pitch mix, then great when he went back to his 2014 mix afterwards. (I believe I win a large cash prize when I point that out here for the 50th time, so I apologize to most of the rest of the board.) Ok explain to me how Porcello 8 starts to end the year are better a projecting 2016 then Kelly's were? Based on Kelly's end to last year he should be CY Young contender this year . Kelly had never pitched that way or that good before in his life. Porcello had pitched that way all his life, previously, and been really good for the previous 2 seasons. No one viewed the end of Porcello's season as the emergence of an ace; it was just the typical stretch of ace pitching that #2 starters will throw here and there. He did it again this year in April, and pitched like a #3 in May. Jon Lester is a #2 who parlayed a habit of pitching like an ace in October into a massive ace's contract. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 31, 2016 15:20:24 GMT -5
I see no evidence that a team who is good enough to make the playoffs with their pitchers isn't good enough to win in the playoffs with the same pitchers. Making the playoffs is the hard part. Winning the World Series is mostly luck because anything can happen in a short series, including all your aces giving up 8 infield singles in a row and the worst pitcher in the league getting 12 line drive outs.
|
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 31, 2016 15:30:01 GMT -5
Also, very few teams, if any can afford to have more than one top 30 pitcher, and those which can don't always get the results they expect (see Greinke, Scherzer, DeGrom and many more) We can afford it, Porcello and Bucholz are making combined what it would cost to get any ACE /#1 pitcher. All while we pay Price. You're right, they should have signed Greinke in the off-season. Or maybe they should have traded for Shelby Miller? Also, what all those other guys said. |
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on May 31, 2016 21:06:31 GMT -5
Last offseason a lot of us did not want the sox to sign cuerto, but thus far he has done pretty well for the Giants.
|
|
|
