Papelbon is the closer according ESPN

[RobZombie]

Assumption again. Boot camp didn't get me in shape. I was already in shape at boot camp. I too was an athlete as a teenager, and I continued to work out while working in a physically demanding job up to the point I went to boot camp. I guess I don't get credit for staying fit because I wasn't a professional athlete?

 

It isn't even close to the same thing. You by your own admission greatly increased your physical activity in boot camp. Jonathan Papelbon isn't going to greatly increase his physical activity. Besides, the problem isn't that he is in shape. He's plenty strong enough. The problem is that he needs more physical exertion to throw 95 than other pitchers.

 

I can't believe that you continue to compare an experience in boot camp to that of a pro athlete. You may have been an athlete as a teenager...but you were not at the level of most of these guys. If you were, you wouldn't have been in bootcamp.

 

You just won't give this complete ******** line up. A CIVILIAN EVEN A FIT ONE GOING TO BOOTCAMP HAS NO RELEVANCE TO A PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE GOING FROM THE BULLPEN TO STARTING PITCHING. NONE ZERO. Its a completely assinine analogy.

 

And no my contempt for professional killers is not absolute. If I met one that was smart and reasonable I could change my mind. I have yet to do so. Again I'd be happy to explain it in an off-topic forum.

[CrespoBlows]

Hey, what do you think about who brought down the WTC towers?

[RobZombie]

Hey' date=' what do you think about who brought down the WTC towers?[/quote']

 

Perfect question for an off-topic thread.

[RobZombie]

Because I don't want to start ANOTHER fight in this thread' date=' and because I respect both of your baseball knowledge, I'm going to leave it at that. I might start a thread about it later if I get antsy.[/quote']

 

Hi Yager-

 

I wanted to say that I really liked your original post. It was really well thought out and had some good facts. That said I wanted to respond to a couple of things especially regarding PECOTA.

 

I personally don’t like the idea that PECOTA is more “accurate”. Is overall accuracy really the best way to judge a projection system? To illustrate the point lets take two players.

 

Player A has hit 30 HRs a year for the past 5 years and PECOTA projects him to again hit 30 HRs and he does.

 

Player B has averaged 5 HRs during the past five years but PECOTA projects him to hit 12 nearly tripling his output. He hits 30 HRs.

 

The projection for player A was more accurate but the projection for player B was much more valuable. Perhaps the best way to judge a projection system is to see how well the projection system did at predicting surprises, especially those where there wasn’t a Coco Crisp like freak injury that ruined the players season.

 

I also don’t think that PECOTA is as good for players who are either changing roles or have little or no minor league experience. The reason for this is that translated minor league stats aren’t as good as major league stats at projecting performance though they do correlate well. The problem is survival bias. In the majors, the players that play well, play the following season if healthy. In the minors this isn’t true. Players are still by and large only promoted to the majors if they have positive scouting evaluations. There are still tons of players who have poor scouting evaluations but strong translated minor league statistics. There is no way to tell what these players would do if given a full time major league job, and it might throw off the correlation significantly.

 

PECOTA even uses translated minor league statistics as far back as A ball. There is simply no way you can compare a player in A ball to one who made the majors at the same age, even if the translated minor league statistics are similar. Many of the players in A ball won’t even sniff the majors, and those that do are going to be completely different players by the time they reach the majors.

 

Also keep in mind that in the majors winning is paramount and in the minors winning is secondary to development. A pitcher may know that he can get you out with a certain pitch but may try to get you out with another pitch that he’s developing for example.

 

As far as all this relates to Paps….he came to pitching later in life. So he may not match up with players similar to him agewise. Plus when pitchers change roles, they can often be completely different. As an aside, it seems to me that pitchers, who start late, are often relievers. Perhaps its because they never perfected their pitching motion as youngsters and hence have to exert more energy per pitch. You can see this when comparing Paps with Beckett as Beckett seems to throw 98 with less effort than it takes Papelbon to throw 95.

 

Finally as to your question as to why throwing 60 innings can be worse than throwing 200 the car analogy is probably just one among a ton of reasons. Personally I think managers are more apt to overuse relievers. They pitch with the game on the line, so managers maybe more reluctant to protect them when things get tight. Whatever the reason it does seem that most top relievers either lose effectiveness or suffer a serious injury after a few years. The exception is of course Rivera who throws a pitch that puts minimal stress on the arm and is virtually unhitable.

[ORS]

I can't believe that you continue to compare an experience in boot camp to that of a pro athlete.

I never said this training occured in boot camp. I said it was for a deployment prep. I had already been in the service for two years at that point.

 

See if you can follow. I was in peak physical shape, yet I still needed to train for a new event. Papelbon is in peak physical shape, but he needs to train for a new event. That is the analogy, and it fits. And, regardless of whether or not you agree with the analogy, it doesn't make what you say true. Think about it. Are you really trying to say that a 26 y/o cannot condition his body for a change in usage? And if so, do you have any evidence to back this up?

[jacksonianmarch]

Assumption again. Boot camp didn't get me in shape. I was already in shape at boot camp. I too was an athlete as a teenager, and I continued to work out while working in a physically demanding job up to the point I went to boot camp. I guess I don't get credit for staying fit because I wasn't a professional athlete?

 

It isn't even close to the same thing. You by your own admission greatly increased your physical activity in boot camp. Jonathan Papelbon isn't going to greatly increase his physical activity. Besides, the problem isn't that he is in shape. He's plenty strong enough. The problem is that he needs more physical exertion to throw 95 than other pitchers.

 

I can't believe that you continue to compare an experience in boot camp to that of a pro athlete. You may have been an athlete as a teenager...but you were not at the level of most of these guys. If you were, you wouldn't have been in bootcamp.

 

You just won't give this complete ******** line up. A CIVILIAN EVEN A FIT ONE GOING TO BOOTCAMP HAS NO RELEVANCE TO A PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE GOING FROM THE BULLPEN TO STARTING PITCHING. NONE ZERO. Its a completely assinine analogy.

 

And no my contempt for professional killers is not absolute. If I met one that was smart and reasonable I could change my mind. I have yet to do so. Again I'd be happy to explain it in an off-topic forum.

 

 

Is it ban o'clock? Wanna burn a flag while you are at it you f***ing traitorous f***?

[TheKilo]

 

Is it ban o'clock? Wanna burn a flag while you are at it you f***ing traitorous f***?

 

I think we should leave this to the professionals. Go to work, Jacko.

[jacksonianmarch]

Kilo, I have some friends who were in the war in Iraq, some family completely f***ed in the head because of Nam and grandparents who came back heroes from Europe in WWII. I will argue with a guy about baseball regardless of what he has done. But if you call out his duty to this wonderful country of ours, then we have problems. Rob, you are in my sites, you have some explaining to do.

[jacksonianmarch]

I think I scared the traitor away.

[jacksonianmarch]

good night. Here is to hoping RZ is shipped off to China before I wake up. Goddamn commie.

[BSN07]

This thread took a wrong turn down weird avenue LOL

[jacksonianmarch]

sorry for the momentary relapse into theriv, but it was necessary. I just dont get how some people have absolutely zero respect for those who would die for their country.

[ORS]

sorry for the momentary relapse into theriv' date=' but it was necessary. I just dont get how some people have absolutely zero respect for those who would die for their country.[/quote']

My guess is it is self-loathing. Deep down inside, those types know there is a need for people to do that job, and they know they could never do it. This causes internal strife, so when the topic comes to military service they project. I'll bet dollars to donuts that RobZombie wore a trench coat in High School.

[jacksonianmarch]

My guess is it is self-loathing. Deep down inside' date=' those types know there is a need for people to do that job, and they know they could never do it. This causes internal strife, so when the topic comes to military service they project. I'll bet dollars to donuts that RobZombie wore a trench coat in High School.[/quote']

 

I wouldnt be surprised. No matter how much we fight or hassle each other, just know that I appreciate your service to this country. We all owe you a debt of gratitude. And to anyone else on this board who served, the same goes.

[BSN07]

I wouldnt be surprised. No matter how much we fight or hassle each other' date=' just know that I appreciate your service to this country. We all owe you a debt of gratitude. And to anyone else on this board who served, the same goes.[/quote']

 

I share the same thoughts:D

[CrespoBlows]

My guess is it is self-loathing. Deep down inside' date=' those types know there is a need for people to do that job, and they know they could never do it. This causes internal strife, so when the topic comes to military service they project. I'll bet dollars to donuts that RobZombie wore a trench coat in High School.[/quote']

 

He is probably a guy whose name rhymes with Play Muckfoltz.

[ORS]

He is probably a guy whose name rhymes with Play Muckfoltz.

No, I still think that is Nate. The original DaFuture boy wouldn't have or be able to articulate a coherent criticism of PECOTA, and RZ has done that.

[ksushi]

Funny that the last relevant post in this thread was by Rob, huh?

 

This is going off-topic in the wrong direction. If you have complaints about a certain member, anyone is welcome to PM myself or one of the other moderators and voice concern, but for right now this discussion is off. This isn't the place.

[ORS]

What's funny about that? I mean, it's not like it's true.

[ksushi]

This isn't something worth wasting 2 more pages of this thread on. Just stop.

[Gom]

It's kind of simple, Gom. He strengthened his shoulder to an extent that the medical personnel of the team think that with a defined usage pattern the risk is reduced. If that didn't happen, he'd still be starting.

 

I get what you are saying. I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree with it. Especially in light of the fact that the head of a renowned orthopedic institute concurs with their assessment of the situation.

 

ORS, his usage pattern will be defined in the pen as well. Tito came out and said one inning only, and not on back to back days. He will also be used less, therefore less strain. Can't have it both ways. Pick one.

[ORS]

Exactly, Gom. They said OK to the greater risk only with the caveat of a defined usage pattern. Most relievers don't need strict rule for their usage. It's more a judgement call. The fact that he needs a defined usage pattern to go back to relieving, says a lot about how their perception hasn't changed. If they had "come to their senses" like you claim, why a usage pattern? The facts just don't agree with your position.

[Gom]

Exactly' date=' Gom. They said OK to the greater risk only with the caveat of a defined usage pattern. Most relievers don't need strict rule for their usage. It's more a judgement call. The fact that he needs a defined usage pattern to go back to relieving, says a lot about how their perception hasn't changed. If they had "come to their senses" like you claim, why a usage pattern? The facts just don't agree with your position.[/quote']

 

Could it be that his shoulder never really got better? To paraphrase Occam's razor, all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one. Doesn't that seem like the most likely scenario?

 

So what you are now saying...this is priceless...assuming that relieving is more dangerous to Papelbon than starting, therefore to equalize the risk, he can only pitch one inning per appearance, and not on back to back games, that the Red Sox are a better team with Papelbon in the bullpen than as a starter? Assuming of course, that he could give a serviceable 6-7 innings a start, i.e., the MLB average, but he would be more valuable to the Red Sox pitching 120 LESS innings over the course of a season? Wait, also, as a reliever, he could only pitch one inning at a time AND he couldn't pitch on back to back days? It's better to have him as an All-Star closer rather than an All-Star starting pitcher?

 

Is there anyone in New England with a brain? I know your position ORS, you would rather join the Iraqi insurgency than admit that you are wrong [shame, they might be getting a halfway decent soldier, too]. Is there anyone out there, who has followed this thread, that thinks you guys are better off with Papelbon in the bullpen, assuming [incorrectly, nonetheless] that relieving is MORE stressfull than starting? Please, chime in, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

[ORS]

And, I know your position, Gom. You know, the one where you completely ignore the opinion of the director of an orthopedic institute who is not on the Sox payroll.

 

Now, as to the question of value, the FO appears to think this is a "Go For it Now" year. With the guys they have on the roster now, I can understand that, and given the fact that Papelbon lost a year of his development into a starting pitcher, I think he will provide more immediate value as reliever because he lacks the endurance to go as deep into games as you suggest he would. This is where I agree with RZ. Papelbon was struggling to maintain his velocity in ST. His highest immediate value is as the closer. I also happen to think his highest ultimate value is as a starter.

 

Go ahead, Gom. Continue your circular logic where you ignore the advice of a non-partisan expert. I mean, s***, he only went to med school, the training necessary to specialize in that field, and gained the experience necessary to become the director of the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopedic Institute. That's nothing compared to the resident expert on everything.

[Gom]

Which is why first they listen to him, and then they don't. His advice is sound and good (sic), and they initially follow it, but then they change their mind, and it is ok. Papelbon has the strongest shoulder in camp

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/03/23/papelbon_takes_closing_argument/

yet his velocity drops tremendously after 3 innings of work. In fact, no additional tests were done on Papelbon when he "decided" to go back to closing, just a talk between Epstein and his doctor. Real sound medical advice, make a decision of this magnitude without any tests, x-rays, etc. Could it be that the doctor is completely and utterly unqualified, or it is UNQUESTIONABLY easier on the shoulder to close than start and that a test isn't even needed to do what COMMON SENSE dictates?

 

No. No way. ORS and the front office are right, always have been.

 

You are lost. The ONLY thing you have said that makes any sense is that ultimately, his highest value is as a starter. You get a gold star with glitter for that, lol.

 

Let me make this simple for you, as you obviously need help.

 

1) His shoulder is not "the strongest shoulder in camp". If it was, he would be starting. His velocity would not be dropping a good 8-10 MPH after 3 innings of work. Your shoulder is probably stronger than his is at this point.

 

2) With that assumption [which is pretty much a fact at this point], your so-called medical experts had previously stated that it was better for him to start than relieve. Either they were Sox fans, or completely dropped the ball. Probably both. With his shoulder so-called stronger [lie], but velocity dropping dramatically after 3 innings [proof of that lie], it makes more sense to relieve because it is more stressful [another lie].

 

3) With this circus, it was determined that it was OK for him to go back to relieving with no tests done on his shoulder whatsoever, just a medical opinion based on observation. Mind you, extensive tests, x-rays, etc., were done to convince everyone in New England it was ok for him to start, but it only took a five minute conversation without any tests to reverse what you call sound medical advice.

 

Remind me not to get sick in Boston.

 

Game, set, match. It's like the posting version of the five game series we had last year. Except that you still think you are doing well, lol.

[ORS]

I've never, in my life, seen someone so regularly make such fantastic leaps of faith in touting their assumptions as fact. I'm done with this. The experts have spoken. You aren't one of them.

[ksushi]

When has Papelbons velocity been down? Even when he was starting his velocity was up around 94 each pitch.....

 

Gom you made no sense and just made a fool of yourself i think.

[jacksonianmarch]

I just pulled up to the cpu, grabbed a Wegman's sub and saw this thread was posted in, and I get to watch the fireworks. A thing of beauty. Neither of you are right and both of you are right. Wrap that around your minds.

[ORS]

Why not join the fray, huh Jacko? I'm not trying to take a position that there is a definite answer. I'm just contending Gom's characterization of both the FO, who he portrays as coniving, and the fans, who he portrays as sheep. The medical opinions for the position they took are real and valid, and I happen to agree with the logical basis of them. That doesn't mean I feel it is an absolute position. Gom is the only one going out on that limb, and he's making a fool of himself along the way, but that's nothing new.

[jacksonianmarch]

My position is that you do what is best for the team as a player and as a FO. If they have no closer, why the hell would they watch games go by the wayside when they have them won. THIS SEASON, Paps is more valuable as a closer. I dont care if it is for 50 innings vs 200IP as a starter. Those 50 innings are the most important innings of the game. And as any yankee fan who watched the Jose Acevedo's, Antonio Osuna's, and Kyle Farnsworth's of the world try and close while Rivera was out, you know that not just any old schmuck can pitch the 9th. And the sox have a lot of any old schmuck's in that bullpen. If you want an example of what a great team with a s*** closer looks like, take a look at the Guardians from a yr ago. They blew something like 30 saves last yr and had a Sv% of 30-40%. You convert 80% which any good closer can do, and that team is fighting for the playoffs. The sox are built very similarly. Top loaded rotation, a good but not fantastic offense and an absolute pile of s*** bullpen. I would have loved seeing Tavarez as the closer. Nothing like seeing the sox piss away their season in May. Now they will have to wait until their middle relief or lack of SP depth bites them in the ass.

 

As far as a medical opinion goes, I dont really see how starting could be less stressful on the arm. Then again, it isnt my specialty, but a starter pitches 150 times (including warmups) then comes and throws a bullpen 2 days later, then is starting 2 days after that again. Yeah, it is scheduled and yes it gives the arm time to regenerate, but I am not sure of the physiology of stress in an unnatural position. But then again, I am not a preeminent orthopedic surgeon as Dr. Andrews is. And to do what he did, the guy had to do..

 

4 yrs of college

4 yrs of med school

5 yrs of residency (6 in some places)

2-3 yrs of fellowship

 

and then logged thousands of shoulder and elbow surgeries to become what he is today. Lets just say, his opinion matters a wee bit more than anyone else's on this board. Doesnt mean he is right, but I'll take his word over anyone else's until he is disproven scientifically.