Official Red Sox offseason thread

[Cocos Disciples]

If the goal is 95 wins again' date=' they're just about there already. So we can take the year off and tune into the ALDS next October to see if they can beat the Angels. Go Beckett. Go Lester.[/quote']

That's the philosophy that gets you 86 wins and 3rd place.

[a700hitter]

I think it is enough for 95 wins.

 

They will have Buchholz and Dice-K (hopefully) healthy, an immediate improvement over the pitching they had this year.

 

They will also have Victor Martinez for a full season instead of Varitek. That's an offensive boost.

 

I agree that they will not have closed the gap on the Yankees.

Buchholz had 1 victory against a team with a .500 record. I'm not sold on him yet.

[a700hitter]

... Boston GM Theo Epstein indicated that' date=' assuming all goes well, Boston will likely exercise the $4MM team option they hold on Wakefield.[/quote']Isn't $5 million Boston's going rate for post surgical broken down pitchers? Wakefield is getting screwed!

[Dipre]

Buchholz had 1 victory against a team with a .500 record. I'm not sold on him yet.

 

He did pitch pretty decent against the Angels though.

 

That's a game he should've won.

 

Besides, we're using wins, Clint, really?

[example1]

Buchholz had 1 victory against a team with a .500 record. I'm not sold on him yet.

 

Really? You're not sold that he'll be an improvement over Brad Penny or John Smoltz or crappy Dice-K? I think he will.

[a700hitter]

He did pitch pretty decent against the Angels though.

 

That's a game he should've won.

 

Besides, we're using wins, Clint, really?

This is a good team with a good offense and sound defense. If he pitches well, he should get victories-- even against the good teams. 16 Starts with a 4.21 ERA is not very convincing to me.

[a700hitter]

Really? You're not sold that he'll be an improvement over Brad Penny or John Smoltz or crappy Dice-K? I think he will.

Penny and Smoltz? How low do you want to set the bar. How about Jason Johnson?

[Cocos Disciples]

In his five starts against .500+ teams:

 

5 GS, 30 IP, 28 H, 10 ER, 11 BB, 17 K; 3.00 ERA, 1.30 WHIP

 

That's actually better than against below .500 teams:

 

11 GS, 62 IP, 63 H, 33 ER, 25 BB, 51 K; 4.79 ERA, 1.42 WHIP

[Dipre]

In his five starts against .500+ teams:

 

5 GS, 30 IP, 28 H, 10 ER, 11 BB, 17 K; 3.00 ERA, 1.30 WHIP

 

That's actually better than against below .500 teams:

 

11 GS, 62 IP, 63 H, 33 ER, 25 BB, 51 K; 4.79 ERA, 1.42 WHIP

 

Excellent post, CD.

[Dojji]

Not to mention that it brings out the very salient and important fact that he's averaging almost 6 innings a start. Last year he wasn't averaging five.

[a700hitter]

In his five starts against .500+ teams:

 

5 GS, 30 IP, 28 H, 10 ER, 11 BB, 17 K; 3.00 ERA, 1.30 WHIP

 

That's actually better than against below .500 teams:

 

11 GS, 62 IP, 63 H, 33 ER, 25 BB, 51 K; 4.79 ERA, 1.42 WHIP

Am I supposed to be encouraged by the fact that he can't beat the .500 teams and he pitches worse against sub-.500 teams?

[Cocos Disciples]

Am I supposed to be encouraged by the fact that he can't beat the .500 teams and he pitches worse against sub-.500 teams?

 

Come on, I didn't say that. You used his 1 win against .500+ teams as a negative, when in reality he's much better against good teams. That's all.

[Dojji]

Am I supposed to be encouraged by the fact that our offense can't beat the .500 teams and he pitches worse against sub-.500 teams?

 

Fixed.

[Cocos Disciples]

For the record, in the four games he didn't win against .500+ teams, the Sox scored 4 runs. Three of those runs came in one game, a game the Sox won and Buch pitched very well.

[Dipre]

Am I supposed to be encouraged by the fact that he can't beat the .500 teams and he pitches worse against sub-.500 teams?

 

You're supposed to stop using something as dumb a wins and look at the bottom line of his pitching stats.

[ORS]

For the record' date=' in the four games he didn't win against .500+ teams, the Sox scored [b']4[/b] runs. Three of those runs came in one game, a game the Sox won and Buch pitched very well.

Furthermore, if you look at the total body of work for the season, he had 11 good starts compared to 5 bad ones. Against .500 (+/-) teams, those starts break down to 11:4 and 4:1. When he's on, he's good against anyone, and vice versa when he's bad. That's inconsistency, something you expect from a young pitcher. It says nothing about being able to beat good teams.

 

That said, we are wasting our time. 700 will bitch about him not being good enough until he is, and then he'll want to brush it under the rug once we've moved on and he's bitching about the next young player getting his chance.

[Dojji]

You're supposed to stop using something as dumb a wins and look at the bottom line of his pitching stats.

 

pretty much. Wins aren't a completely ignorable stat but they're an awful thing to try to use to judge the actual value of a player. Even stats like Games Started tells you more than Wins when it comes to predicting the kind of year a player will have next season.

[Cocos Disciples]

pretty much. Wins aren't a completely ignorable stat but they're an awful thing to try to use to judge the actual value of a player. Even stats like Games Started tells you more than Wins when it comes to predicting the kind of year a player will have next season.

 

If you were to ask me what one statistic tells you less than Individual Wins, I'd probably say Games Started. At least Wins give you a general idea, albeit a flawed one, of how good a pitcher is. Games Started might just mean you play for a team with a s***** pitching staff that needs you to pitch 30+ games. For example, who had a better 2002: Pedro Martinez or Tanyon Sturtze? Sturtze had three more starts.

 

If you were being sarcastic, then disregard the above wall of text.

[example1]

That said' date=' we are wasting our time. 700 will bitch about him not being good enough until he is, and then he'll want to brush it under the rug once we've moved on and he's bitching about the next young player getting his chance.[/quote']

 

Wait, wait, wait. Have you seen this movie before ORS? Did you read the last chapter first? What makes you so sure?

 

Oh yeah, things like:

 

6/9/2006: WIllis is young pitching, and he is a #1 major league starter with star credentials.He'll cost more than Lester, but if Lester shows alot of promise, maybe the Marlins would settle for Lester and only one other prospect like Pedroia.

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/red-sox-minor-leagues/507-jon-lester-8.html#post162559

[Cocos Disciples]

And then there's Pedroia:

 

Hanley was a 5 tool prospect. I don't see any major tools from Pedroia. He has average speed' date=' an average arm and below average power. He's a midget with a big swing. That just can't work out well, unless he really alters his swing.[/quote']

 

and Youkilis:

 

ORS' date=' I think a sick and injured Helton is far superior to a prime and healthy Youklis. If Helton is healthy, it's not even close. Helton is only 33 years old. I see no reason why that couldn't hold true barring injury.[/quote']

 

If the trend persists, we can chalk up Buchholz for the 2011 CYA.

 

(No hard feelings, just pointing out amusing posts in retrospect)

[Dojji]

I was comparing Wins to Starts because both are incredibly limited in what they can tell you.

 

Wins is more about the value of the team and all Starts is really useful for is injury patterns.

[example1]

And then there's Pedroia:

 

 

 

and Youkilis:

 

 

 

If the trend persists, we can chalk up Buchholz for the 2011 CYA.

 

(No hard feelings, just pointing out amusing posts in retrospect)

 

Ditto. a700 knows hes one of my favorite posters, I hope!

[Dojji]

If we really wanted to get wacky we could all go back to July of '07 and see what people were saying about trade for Eric "Game Over" Gagne.

[Cocos Disciples]

If we really wanted to get wacky we could all go back to July of '07 and see what people were saying about trade for Eric "Game Over" Gagne.

 

That would be no fun, everyone was wrong about that.

[Dojji]

Everyone but me. I was over at SoSH using all the same arguments you guys love today about diminishing returns how we didn't need him and it was a waste of talent.

 

Of course, I was wrong too, since none of the pieces the Rangers got proved to be anything useful except for Murphy, who is a kind of player Boston doesn't want or need.

[jacksonianmarch]

Murphy wouldnt be wanted or needed for the sox? You mean the perfect 4th OFer for a team with a fragile RFer?

[Dipre]

Murphy wouldnt be wanted or needed for the sox? You mean the perfect 4th OFer for a team with a fragile RFer?

 

Now Murphy's awesome right?

 

Because the Sox traded him away?

 

If we're talking about patterns, i think this is the most recognizable one on the forum.

[jacksonianmarch]

Nope, it could be the fact that in 128 games this yr, he hit 17 homers and had a .785OPS while also stealing 9 bases and playing solid D. But if you want to think it is just because of his ties to Boston, then go ahead.

[example1]

I have to admit, the .336 OBP he's had since 2007 makes me think he's a hitter who might have cracked this lineup consistently in the past few years.

 

Granted, Gagne was a horrible acquisition, but they traded guys they weren't going to use much most likely. Murphy was the best of the bunch.

[Dipre]

Nope' date=' it could be the fact that in 128 games this yr, he hit 17 homers and had a .785OPS while also stealing 9 bases and playing solid D. But if you want to think it is just because of his ties to Boston, then go ahead.[/quote']

 

You're right.

 

He would've been perfect platooning with JD Drew except for the fact.............wait for it.......that he's a lefty hitter with platoon issues!

 

Murphy had a sterling .627 OPS vs. lefties this year, and has a .687 career OPS against them.

 

I beg you, please think before you type some of this stuff, Jesus Christ.