The Beckett Deal Revisited (or is it The Ramirez Deal?)

[yeszir]

Hmmm...let's check 2008 values and costs thus far:

 

Lowell + Beckett: 12.9 VORP; $21.5 million (plus $1 million in amortized signing bonuses)

Hanley Ramirez: 23.7 VORP; $439,000

 

Plus one world series ring.

 

At this point I'd rather have Hanley. We all knew he was going to be incredible. But you have to factor in the ring.

[a700hitter]

Plus one world series ring.

 

At this point I'd rather have Hanley. We all knew he was going to be incredible. But you have to factor in the ring.

Stud starters are just so rare that their value is over-inflated. Pitching wins and there is so little of it around. Beckett is a horse and a post season monster with no equal except for possibly Schilling (who may be through).

[Jayhawk Bill]

Plus one world series ring.

 

At this point I'd rather have Hanley. We all knew he was going to be incredible. But you have to factor in the ring.

 

If you look back, I did factor in the World Series performances, at significant premium.

 

Stud starters are just so rare that their value is over-inflated. Pitching wins and there is so little of it around. Beckett is a horse and a post season monster with no equal except for possibly Schilling (who may be through).

 

Of course, we paid Beckett the money that could've signed AJ Burnett, and we gave away Anibal Sanchez in the deal. Sanchez was 12-4 with a 3.24 ERA in his MLB time, and he might still be pitching today had the Marlins used him more carefully. Burnett has been 25-21 for the Blue Jays with an ERA since 2006 comparable to Beckett's.

 

***

 

I understand that Boston won the 2007 World Series with Lowell and Beckett, and it's tough to see that the team might've been even better without them. It's also tough to see salary dollars as convertible into talent directly, and it's true that signing good free agent starting pitchers got significantly tougher after 2005-2006.

 

I still see the trade as a loss for Boston and a win for the Marlins. Certainly other posters made it clear that they saw the issue differently this past winter, and I respect that perspective.

 

I still disagree with that position, though, and 2008 stats are looking pretty good for Hanley Ramirez. Again.

[a700hitter]

If you look back, I did factor in the World Series performances, at significant premium.

 

 

 

Of course, we paid Beckett the money that could've signed AJ Burnett, and we gave away Anibal Sanchez in the deal. Sanchez was 12-4 with a 3.24 ERA in his MLB time, and he might still be pitching today had the Marlins used him more carefully. Burnett has been 25-21 for the Blue Jays with an ERA since 2006 comparable to Beckett's.

I didn't think much of Anibel Sanchez's stuff and I don't remember him being compared to a young Beckett. Also, because pitching is such a rare commodity, I would have been wary of spending a lot on Burnett who had a history of serious arm injuries at an early age.

***

 

I understand that Boston won the 2007 World Series with Lowell and Beckett' date=' and it's tough to see that the team might've been even better without them. It's also tough to see salary dollars as convertible into talent directly, and it's true that signing good free agent starting pitchers got significantly tougher after 2005-2006.[/quote']I understand what you are saying, but the fortuitous of timing has a lot to do with perception. While economic values might reflect otherwise, I don't think the Sox could have gotten another pitcher that would have given the team what Beckett did last year. Not only was he lights out in the regular season many of which were big games, but he also was lights out in the post season. Your numbers may factor that into the valuation, but I have to ask, who else was available to the Sox who would have given them what Beckett gave them.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I didn't think much of Anibel Sanchez's stuff and I don't remember him being compared to a young Beckett. Also' date=' because pitching is such a rare commodity, I would have been wary of spending a lot on Burnett who had a history of serious arm injuries at an early age.[/quote']

 

The stats for Anibal suggest that he was BETTER than Beckett, except that his performance was truncated by injury.

 

But you requested subjective evaluations of his talent. From BP, the year quoted being the year of the annual where the words were first published:

 

2006

 

Dominated the Carolina League for two months, then moved up to Portland and continued to pitch well. After allowing just three earned runs in his first five outings in Double-A, he tired in August and was limited to 60 pitches per outing. Armed with a lively 95 mph fastball and a plus curveball, his best pitch is a nasty changeup that he hides well with consistent arm speed. He had ligament surgery on his pitching arm in 2003, but has completely recovered. Although Hanley Ramirez was the big-name prospect in the Beckett deal, Sanchez was the guy the team hated to give up. He would likely have gotten to Boston in 2006.

 

2005

 

After losing his entire 2003 season to elbow surgery, Sanchez came back throwing his excellent fastball faster than he had been before the surgery. He absolutely destroyed hitters in the NY-Penn League last year with that fastball, a good curve, and change-up. He'll only be 21 this year and, just like all the other young pitchers, if he can keep himself healthy, he's got a great shot to climb the ladder quickly.

 

Anibal Sanchez was certainly highly regarded.

 

I understand what you are saying, but the fortuitous of timing has a lot to do with perception. While economic values might reflect otherwise, I don't think the Sox could have gotten another pitcher that would have given the team what Beckett did last year. Not only was he lights out in the regular season many of which were big games, but he also was lights out in the post season. Your numbers may factor that into the valuation, but I have to ask, who else was available to the Sox who would have given them what Beckett gave them.

 

Last year in isolation? No single starting pitcher, of course--but a combination of Hanley Ramirez, AJ Burnett and Anibal Sanchez, plus whatever first baseman took Lowell's place (probably Carlos Pena, given that he actually made the team in 2006) would've exceeded the contributions of Beckett, Lowell and, umm, Julio Lugo in 2007. <_ remember one can get a pretty good batter if is willing to pay roughly million year the sum of lugo and lowell salaries. before season rockies might given away todd helton for very little return anybody accept his full contract...there are other hitters value approaching that those two but clear examples once rumored be headed boston actually there time should enough.>

 

From 2006-2007? Those stats are earlier in the thread--it's not even close with Beckett's bad 2006.

 

From 2006-2008? Well, I just posted the 2008 stats...Hanley Ramirez is worth more than every other player in the deal this year...almost twice as much, in fact, and that's not even considering salary.

 

In the 2007 postseason? Boston scored 34 runs in Beckett's four wins, no fewer than four in each game. One quality start in the ALDS and three games allowing six or fewer ruuns would have sufficed--hardly the stuff of legend. Had Beckett's start been lost in the ALDS, it would've been 2-1 Boston after three games...again, not an impossible challenge.

 

***

 

The only way I can see anybody supporting Boston's having won the trade is that the Red Sox won the 2007 World Championship, a far from trivial feat. But the fact that Boston did it with Lowell and Beckett doesn't mean that it could not have been done with Sanchez, Ramirez, and the talent that millions of salary dollars could have bought.

[a700hitter]

2006

 

Dominated the Carolina League for two months, then moved up to Portland and continued to pitch well. After allowing just three earned runs in his first five outings in Double-A, he tired in August and was limited to 60 pitches per outing. Armed with a lively 95 mph fastball and a plus curveball, his best pitch is a nasty changeup that he hides well with consistent arm speed. He had ligament surgery on his pitching arm in 2003, but has completely recovered. Although Hanley Ramirez was the big-name prospect in the Beckett deal, Sanchez was the guy the team hated to give up. He would likely have gotten to Boston in 2006.

I saw him pitch on more than one occasion in 2006, and I never saw him hitting 95 mph. Sometimes scouting reports are a bit exaggerated.

 

The only way I can see anybody supporting Boston's having won the trade is that the Red Sox won the 2007 World Championship' date=' a far from trivial feat. But the fact that Boston did it with Lowell and Beckett doesn't mean that it could not have been done with Sanchez, Ramirez, and the talent that millions of salary dollars could have bought.[/quote']You are right. There are probably dozens of different player combinations that could have won a championship in 2007, however, it is not easy to find one of those combinations. They won a world championship with Beckett and Lowell. It was the second Red Sox championship in 89 years. Could they have won it with another combination of players? The answer is yes, but whether they would have is merely conjecture. The banner is real. In the long run, maybe HanRam goes onto be the greatest SS of all-time or a HOFer, or maybe he doesn't. Maybe Beckett goes to the Hall. Right now, it is a pretty good trade for both teams. Is there a clear winner? Maybe according to some mathematical formula, but most baseball fans aren't very good at math.

[ACL BoSox]

I'm sorry, I don't care how good Hanley Ramirez is, without Lowell and Beckett the Red Sox probably lose the division and definitely don't win the World Series.

 

World Series Ring >>>>>>> any statistics you could throw at me

 

If Hanley leads the Marlins to a world series I may reconsider.

[Gom]

I think value wise, the Marlins made out better in the deal. Hanley Ramirez is quite possibly the best player in the game and definitely in the top 5, and looks to stay there for at least the next five years or so.

 

However, I think the Red Sox were a better team with Beckett and Lowell because....Beckett led them to a World Series and Lowell was instrumental in getting there.

 

I'd call it a wash. However, if Florida ends up winning a World Series and Hanley is a big part, I'd swing it back the other way.

 

One of the few deals that worked out for both teams. In the long run, it points to the Marlins, but you got a championship out of. Can't see how you can complain if you are either team.

[Mr Crunchy]

theres no value higher than the ring.

beckett is young and lowell continues to play well

ramirez is a future mvp for florida and ani sanchez is still out with another surgery.

i think theo has a f***ed up obsession with shortstops and i also heard they kept hanley down to keep him away from manny when he was much younger.

after josh beckett crushed all opponents last fall i cant argue with the deal

there isnt anyone like beckett in october and god willing we get back there to do it again.

[ksushi]

I think value wise, the Marlins made out better in the deal. Hanley Ramirez is quite possibly the best player in the game and definitely in the top 5, and looks to stay there for at least the next five years or so.

 

However, I think the Red Sox were a better team with Beckett and Lowell because....Beckett led them to a World Series and Lowell was instrumental in getting there.

 

I'd call it a wash. However, if Florida ends up winning a World Series and Hanley is a big part, I'd swing it back the other way.

 

One of the few deals that worked out for both teams. In the long run, it points to the Marlins, but you got a championship out of. Can't see how you can complain if you are either team.

 

 

To me, if Hanley is a major part of a world series win in florida, that makes this just about the most even possible. If hanley is the cornerstone of a dynasty-esque run, then yeah, they win big time.

 

We gave up a young stud who went on to develop into one of the best players in the bigs. But we got the corner infielder we need and he became a great fit here, and we got our staff leading 20 game winning ace that helped us hoist the world series trophy last year. I honestly don't think things could have worked out any better, no matter what numbers you can spin to say otherwise. Even if the marlins do go on a tear and destroy the MLB for the next five years, I'll still be ok with it. In 2000 if you had asked any one of us if we would trade our best prospect away for a guaranteed world series win, even if the other team would assuredly go on to win at least two or three, every one of us would take that hands down. I think its fine.

[Jayhawk Bill]

BTW, Eric Gagne closed out the first game and sixth game of the 2007 ALCS with scoreless ninth innings. Boston needed every win against Cleveland, and Gagne allowed no runs in those two outings. Furthermore, he was a significant part of Boston's clubhouse chemistry in August and September, often distracting the media from addressing other players' shortcomings as the Yankees kept closing the gap on the Red Sox.

 

Does that make the Gagne trade a good trade?

 

After all, we've taken to evaluating trades by neither salaries involved nor talent metrics, but just by whether it was part of a Championship Season--and the Gagne trade was indisputably a big part of that 2007 season and postseason.

[ksushi]

I think comparing the gagne and the beckett deal together in that sense is a fairly condescending attempt to de-base an arguement - a pretty valid one at that.

 

To say you don't mind giving up great talent, to acquire very good ready-now talent that fits well into you're teams puzzle for winning a world series is not neccessarily wrong. Maybe you're in favor of keeping the prospect. Obviously, that would not have been a bad course to go. Theo is in your camp too. I, for one, will trade great hitting for great pitching. That is what we got, a great pitcher. Comparing the acquisiton of Josh Beckett to that of Eric Gagne is a total joke. Beckett picked us up off our asses in Cleveland and had one of the best post-seasons on the books for a starting pitcher. Isn't that why we got him? The big game?

 

To compete in october you NEED formidable starting pitching, spinning a young a hitter to get that is one way to acquire an ace. Aces don't come by very often, and I think when one is available you explore every possible avenue for acquiring the guy you need. Sure, at the time, Lester would have easily replaced Hanley in the deal. But also at the time, we thought we had an ace prospect in Lester - as a matter of fact, the jury is still out on that, so we can't really judge that yet either - but I would trade a great position player prospect for a great pitcher any day.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I think comparing the gagne and the beckett deal together in that sense is a fairly condescending attempt to de-base an arguement - a pretty valid one at that.

 

I think that using terms like "spin" when referring to careful objective analysis of players' values--as you did in your 3:52 PM post--is a fairly condescending attempt to de-base an argument--a pretty valid one at that.

 

To say you don't mind giving up great talent, to acquire very good ready-now talent that fits well into you're teams puzzle for winning a world series is not neccessarily wrong.

 

Not at all, especially if a team intends to sacrifice future years' chances for a current victory, or if the talent and value is roughly equal, just timed differently.

 

Last I checked, though, the Red Sox were trying to contend for the next half-decade, and Hanley Ramirez is by far the best player in the deal.

 

You know, Ryne Sandberg was a throw-in on a trade of shortstops, Larry Bowa for Ivan DeJesus. He was sixth in ROY balloting the very next season. Bowa and DeJesus were both still OK for a few years; DeJesus helped the Phillies get to the 1983 World Series. Three years after the trade, though, Sandberg played the first of ten consecutive All Star seasons, and I don't know anybody who says that the 1983 World Series berth was worth the loss of Sandberg for Philadelphia.

 

We may be in that situation. Yes, Beckett + Lowell > DeJesus, but, scarily, thus far Hanley Ramirez > Ryne Sandberg. Sandberg didn't have a season above league average at the plate until age 24; at age 24, Hanley has a career batting line of .310/.371/.515, excellent for a DH/1B and outstanding for a shortstop.

 

Maybe you're in favor of keeping the prospect. Obviously, that would not have been a bad course to go. Theo is in your camp too.

 

Thank you.

 

Perhaps prior posts where that consideration was not offered led me to use absurd extensions of the "Beckett was invaluable" argument. While we all know that Gagne wasn't indispensable, by the logic that Beckett and Lowell were irreplaceable, so was Gagne.

 

Comparing the acquisiton of Josh Beckett to that of Eric Gagne is a total joke.

 

Maybe the logic others--and you--used to support Beckett's trade was faulty.

 

I, for one, will trade great hitting for great pitching. That is what we got, a great pitcher. Beckett picked us up off our asses in Cleveland and had one of the best post-seasons on the books for a starting pitcher. Isn't that why we got him? The big game?

 

1) If you trade hitters as much more valuable as Hanley Ramirez is at his salary for pitchers as valuable as Josh Beckett, you will lose--you will give away talent needlessly.

 

2) Beckett DID NOT pick Boston up off of its ass in Cleveland. Boston hitters scored seven runs in Game Five. Average MLB pitching--heck, replacement-level pitching--would have sufficed for that win.

 

3) Boston wants a good team for the "Big Game," and no players are acquired strictly for past postseason performances. Furthermore, it's nice that Beckett is 6-2 in postseason series now, but he was just 2-2 in postseason with the Marlins--I don't think that the 2-2 record was the determining factor in the trade, as you suggest.

 

To compete in october you NEED formidable starting pitching, spinning a young a hitter to get that is one way to acquire an ace. Aces don't come by very often, and I think when one is available you explore every possible avenue for acquiring the guy you need. Sure, at the time, Lester would have easily replaced Hanley in the deal. But also at the time, we thought we had an ace prospect in Lester - as a matter of fact, the jury is still out on that, so we can't really judge that yet either - but I would trade a great position player prospect for a great pitcher any day.

 

You would trade away Hanley Ramirez every time for Josh Beckett when AJ Burnett was easily available at roughly the same salary that it took to extend Beckett? Even knowing that Burnett would post roughly the same ERA, you'd give away the future Rookie of the Year and All Star shortstop, accepting Julio Lugo instead? Tonight you posted, regarding Julio Lugo:

 

I know this is reactionary' date=' but this is a reaction to almost a year and a half of god awful play in the field and at bat... Can we just dump lugo? When I'm 5-5 on GIDP calls against a particular player, thats just atrocious. He is terrible.[/quote']

 

We threw away probably the best value at shortstop in MLB to get Josh Beckett. Beckett was very good in 2007, but he had an ERA over 5.00 in 2006 and his ERA is 4.30 this year. We could've had Burnett at roughly the same salary at roughly the same ERA. But the FO gave away our future All Star shortstop to get Beckett instead of Burnett.

 

You support that move strongly.

 

And you criticize the FO for not ditching Lugo, too. :dunno:

 

***

 

Don't get me wrong: I like Beckett. I like Lowell. It's just that they weren't indispensable: if we could've had greater talent without making the trade, it probably would've worked, too. Without the trade we would almost certainly have had greater talent.

 

C'mon, ksushi...it's a reasonable position. Even you acknowledge that Theo agrees with me...why so adamant?

[rician blast]

Last I checked, though, the Red Sox were trying to contend for the next half-decade, and Hanley Ramirez is by far the best player in the deal.

 

 

IIRC, and I apologize for not trying to dig up any support, there was a point prior to that trade where some members of the Red Sox FO and scouting corps were dissapointed with Hanley Ramirez's development and that this played into him being moved.

 

If one believe's that this sentiment existed, than perhaps the trade was less of a case of accepting less long-term value for Ramirez than it was an error in judgement regarding just how good Hanley would become.

[ksushi]

 

1) If you trade hitters as much more valuable as Hanley Ramirez is at his salary for pitchers as valuable as Josh Beckett, you will lose--you will give away talent needlessly.

 

2) Beckett DID NOT pick Boston up off of its ass in Cleveland. Boston hitters scored seven runs in Game Five. Average MLB pitching--heck, replacement-level pitching--would have sufficed for that win.

 

3) Boston wants a good team for the "Big Game," and no players are acquired strictly for past postseason performances. Furthermore, it's nice that Beckett is 6-2 in postseason series now, but he was just 2-2 in postseason with the Marlins--I don't think that the 2-2 record was the determining factor in the trade, as you suggest.

 

 

For point number two, I would contend that confidence plays a big role in baseball on both sides of the diamond, if you've played you would probably agree - I think I remember you saying you played for kind of a while, no? When is a team more confident as a whole than when they're ace is going? To undermine Beckett's performance in that game, or say the outcome would have been the same with say Bronson Arroyo going that night, isn't fair, IMO. I don't think just because the sticks came alive it should be a knock on Beck, thats all.

 

I think Beckett's big game track record was part of the reason they Lucchino jumped on him, whether or not big game track record is the right criteria to go on is another thread entirely. Does it mean anything? Is it luck? Who knows, but of the 2 losses he suffered in the '03 post season he gave up a combined 2 ER in 14 innings and struck out 18. You can verify those numbers if you want, but I'm pretty confident in them even though they are from memory. Beckett has been my favorite player since he debuted. Which might taint my argument with a little bias, not gonna lie.

 

I think it is a win win either way. We keep him, we have the best shortstop in the game and the revenue to fix any weaknesses we addressed in the Beckett trade. I also am of the opinion that our WS victory was more the product of organization-wide success rather than the success of one trade in particular. Without Papelbon, Pedroia, Ellsbury, and Lester, things would certainly be different. I think over the next ten years we will see more organizational victories like '07, and attempting to trace them all back to one trade would be an exercise in futility.

 

Agree? Maybe we could have made out better with the value we had in Hanley. I don't think it was a catastrophic failure by any means, I think it was a moderate success. I do see Hanley do pretty beastly things and kind of wish and wonder... but hey, thats baseball.

 

 

 

 

You would trade away Hanley Ramirez every time for Josh Beckett when AJ Burnett was easily available at roughly the same salary that it took to extend Beckett? Even knowing that Burnett would post roughly the same ERA, you'd give away the future Rookie of the Year and All Star shortstop, accepting Julio Lugo instead?

 

 

I was a big fan of the idea of acquiring Burnett at the '06 deadline, just like I was a big fan of trading Damon in '05. We shoulda done it. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. If I knew all of those things, and I could put my Larry Lucchino pants on and take a walk through the FO that winter, I probably wouldn't make that particular deal even with my massive man-crush on Beckett. But, at the time, Hanley was coming off a less than inspiring AA season, his attitude was being called into question and his desire to become the player he had the potential to become wasn't exactly a sure thing. All of those things went into trading him. Sure, there were better possible moves. I don't doubt it. But we made out ok. We didn't get burned like we did in the Gagne trade. We don't even know how burned we were yet, wait until we start hearing about Engel Beltre.

 

 

We threw away probably the best value at shortstop in MLB to get Josh Beckett. Beckett was very good in 2007, but he had an ERA over 5.00 in 2006 and his ERA is 4.30 this year. We could've had Burnett at roughly the same salary at roughly the same ERA. But the FO gave away our future All Star shortstop to get Beckett instead of Burnett.

 

You support that move strongly.

 

And you criticize the FO for not ditching Lugo, too. :dunno:

 

 

I don't think Theo knows what he wants in a SS and I think it is really becoming a concern. One year he wants defense(O-cab), one year he wants offense (Renteria - who came here with a sparking Def. rep), then defense again(Gonzo

 

 

Don't get me wrong: I like Beckett. I like Lowell. It's just that they weren't indispensable: if we could've had greater talent without making the trade, it probably would've worked, too. Without the trade we would almost certainly have had greater talent.

 

C'mon, ksushi...it's a reasonable position. Even you acknowledge that Theo agrees with me...why so adamant?

 

Only adamant that it wasn't a horrible thing. I don't think it is the end of the world because we came out with value. I do think Josh Beckett was a huge part of why we won, but I don't think got fair value when you just look at their players alone. That said, I like trading hitting for pitching. Especially prospective hitters for established pitchers. I think pitching, in large part, is much harder to come by so it doesn't really rub me wrong at all.

 

Jesus Hanley is good though.

 

 

This is the first post I've spent more than two minutes on in like a year. I love summer.

[soxfan17881]

I'm a novice, but I still think this is a no-brainer. Sox got the better end of the deal. Not by a ton, but by enough.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I'm a novice' date=' but I still think this is a no-brainer. Sox got the better end of the deal. Not by a ton, but by enough.[/quote']

 

Why? We've written pages on both sides of this issue--do you have a reason for your position?

 

What did Beckett and Lowell offer that Sanchez, Ramirez, Burnett and Pena couldn't possibly have offered?

 

***

 

ksushi, good thoughts.

 

I'll have to research the impact of having an ace pitcher on the mound on a team's run scoring. I agree that it's important for young amateurs, but my belief is that the effect diminishes as one goes from Little League through NCAA up through the minors to MLB. MLB players aren't affected much by managers' leadership--I've read that research somewhere--and that's a big difference from amateur baseball, where inspiring managers can improve a team's performance. It kinda makes sense--if several million dollars' worth of salary were on the line, I'd try hard, too.

 

I can concur that the trade wasn't a horrible thing, but only from the perspective that Boston had a World Championship within the two years of talent acquired through the trade. It seems exceptionally clear that Boston lost talent over the span of contracts involved, and it's not even clear that Boston got more talent in the 2006-2007 timeframe than they would have had without making the trade. Still, the World Championship is nice, and as much as I can show that Boston's team would've probably been better without the trade, I can't prove that there still would've been a Championship without the trade...just as I can't prove that somehow Eric Gagne wasn't the final piece of the puzzle for Boston. :dunno:

[ksushi]

Why? We've written pages on both sides of this issue--do you have a reason for your position?

 

What did Beckett and Lowell offer that Sanchez, Ramirez, Burnett and Pena couldn't possibly have offered?

 

***

 

ksushi, good thoughts.

 

I'll have to research the impact of having an ace pitcher on the mound on a team's run scoring. I agree that it's important for young amateurs, but my belief is that the effect diminishes as one goes from Little League through NCAA up through the minors to MLB. MLB players aren't affected much by managers' leadership--I've read that research somewhere--and that's a big difference from amateur baseball, where inspiring managers can improve a team's performance. It kinda makes sense--if several million dollars' worth of salary were on the line, I'd try hard, too.

 

 

Yeah, I'd be interested to see a teams avg. runs per game vs. their avg runs per game when a certain pitcher is on the hill. I definitely think it boosts morale no matter what level you are playing at.

[Gom]

You know what? Who's to say you wouldn't have won with Hanley? Truth is, talent-wise, Red Sox lose on the deal. Hanley is going to the Hall of Fame, barring injury. Lowell isn't, and Beckett might. Hanley is as sure a bet as there is for a player under 25 in the game today.

[a700hitter]

You know what? Who's to say you wouldn't have won with Hanley?

But we don't have to wonder if we could win a Championship without him.

[CrespoBlows]

Yeah' date=' I'd be interested to see a teams avg. runs per game vs. their avg runs per game when a certain pitcher is on the hill. I definitely think it boosts morale no matter what level you are playing at.[/quote']

 

That's called 'run support.'

 

All that morale and good feeling when seeing 2005 Roger Clemens on the mound for Houston managed to conjure up 3.40 runs a game for him.

 

The Astros offense was bad that year, but they scored 4.49 R/G, a full run higher in non-Clemens starts.

 

Nolan Ryan would disagree with that theory, as well. He managed to go 8-16 with an ERA under 3.00

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=ryanno01&t=p&year=1987

 

He got 3.28 runs of support a game, while the Astros offense scored over 4.00 runs in starts not made by Ryan.

 

Pedro probably doesn't agree with it, either. In his historic 2000 season, the Red Sox scored 4.51 R/G for him, but almost 5.00 in starts not made by him.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_2000.shtml

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=martipe02&t=p&year=2000

 

This theory is bunk.

[Gom]

But we don't have to wonder if we could win a Championship without him.

Touche.

[Jayhawk Bill]

This theory is bunk.

 

Bunk is such a strong word...

 

What you're doing here is cherry-picking examples. A better approach might be looking at both good and bad pitchers. I ran a few numbers and communicated offline with ksushi that I really didn't see any strong correlation supporting his premise.

 

I'll tell you, though, that Josh Beckett in 2007 DID get some hefty run support--it's easy to see where he got his perception.

[CrespoBlows]

Bunk is such a strong word...

 

What you're doing here is cherry-picking examples. A better approach might be looking at both good and bad pitchers. I ran a few numbers and communicated offline with ksushi that I really didn't see any strong correlation supporting his premise.

 

I went straight off of his theory. Ace pitchers raise morale, so more runs should have been scored. Looks like the Red Sox weren't even pumped up enough to score runs for the most dominant pitcher of all time.

 

I used these examples, because I expected to find a steady correlation, between runs scored and the quality of the starter. Needless to say, I wasn't surprised to see that it was weak.

 

BTW, have you heard any broadcasters bring up the opposite theory? Aces pitchers get lower runs support, because batters think that they don't need to score as much for their ace.

[Jayhawk Bill]

BTW' date=' have you heard any broadcasters bring up the opposite theory? Aces pitchers get lower runs support, because batters think that they don't need to score as much for their ace.[/quote']

 

Nope. Haven't heard that one.