Yankees sign Nick Johnson to 1 yr deal

[Dipre]

Chamberlain has had more MLB success. He showed he can be a dominant reliever and flashes of being a #1 starter. He's one full year younger than Clay, still has a lot of work to do.

 

But Buchholz who aside of a no hitter in '07 and 16 "good" starts last year (including a monster September against teams playing for nothing) posting a 4.21 ERA (FIP and tRA were higher) with UGLY peripherals, is more of a sure thing.

 

Uncool.

 

At least he's not smug.

[Imperial59]

Unfortunately, when attacking a subject with a confounder as severe as Bucholz' mechanics issue, you cannot go by sample size alone.

 

It's not subjective to allocate part (or most) of the blame of his subpar 2008 season to the alteration of his mechanics by the FO, but according to every peripheral available, Bucholz was a much better pitcher than Joba Chamberlain last year, regardless of total sample size and coming off two straight seasons where his overall numbers declined significantly, i believe any neutral source would rather fill out its rotation with the pitcher who's trending up rather than the one who's trending down.

 

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But like I've said, I don't think the small sample sizes that we have from both pitchers are enough to judge their overall ability. And Chamberlain had a 2.76 ERA last year as a starter. I don't see how that's a downward trend for 2 years unless you thought it was realistic for him to reproduce a sub 0.50 ERA in any kind of extended sample size.

 

I'm a Red Sox fan, so if anything I'm biased towards them. But I don't believe there's any objective reason to claim that either Buchholz or Chamberlain are significantly more likely to be more reliable than the other next year.

 

In my opinion, both have great stuff, both have great potential and both have control problems (Buchholz had a 1.38 WHIP last year, a low BABIP and an ugly FIP). I also agree with Spud, that both of them seem to have mental... limitations.

[Imperial59]

Chamberlain has had more MLB success. He showed he can be a dominant reliever and flashes of being a #1 starter. He's one full year younger than Clay, still has a lot of work to do.

 

But Buchholz who aside of a no hitter in '07 and 16 "good" starts last year (including a monster September against teams playing for nothing) posting a 4.21 ERA (FIP and tRA were higher) with UGLY peripherals, is more of a sure thing.

 

Uncool.

 

I agree and I'm a Sox fan. Objectively, it's very difficult to make a case that either one of them are much of a sure thing for next year.

[Dipre]

Baiting attempt denied. I said absolutely nothing that can be taken as offensive. If there's an ass here, it's obviously not me.

 

Choosing one over the other, at least for next year is not as hard as you'd think, given Chamberlain's decreasing performance over his two seasons as a starter. He's simply better equipped to be a bullpen pitcher.

 

So when two pitchers are trending in the wrong direction, i believe it's not so hard to pick one over the other, not to mention you took my words out of context. I never said Bucholz was "better" than Chamberlain, i said Bucholz was "more of a sure thing" than Chamberlain right now.

 

And for all the talk about Bucholz' HR/9, Joba's overall peripherals including HR/9 all got significantly worse:

 

HR/9: 0.45/1.20

 

BB/9: 3.50/4.35

 

K/9:10.58/7.61

 

WHIP: 1.26/1.54

 

After 2008, i would have easily chosen Joba over Clay given the opposing trends, not that being said:

 

Going into next year, taking my statement into the proper context, which one would you choose for your rotation more readily?

 

Even though all of Chamberlain's peripherals declined to the point of absurdity, his mechanics are inconsistent, his fastball velocity variates wildly, and he was just as homer prone as Bucholz.

 

All of Bucholz' negatives, none of his positives.

 

Also xFIP (which is superior to FIP btw) lists the following:

 

Clay: 4.09

 

Chamberlain:4.56

 

Yeah, i'll say he's more of a sure thing.

[Imperial59]

At least he's not smug.

 

So when are we going to stop making personal, snarky remarks and just discuss baseball again? I thought we were past this.

[Dipre]

I agree and I'm a Sox fan. Objectively' date=' it's very difficult to make a case that either one of them are much of a sure thing for next year.[/quote']

 

It's not about who's "the" sure thing.

 

It's about who has the better chance of giving you consistency.

 

I ask you again:

 

If you needed a 5th starter right now, who would you choose from the two?

[Dipre]

So when are we going to stop making personal' date=' snarky remarks and just discuss baseball again? I thought we were past this.[/quote']

 

Baiting attempt denied.

 

He was obviously being sarcastic.

 

Keep this up, and i'll report you to the authorities. Just saying.

[Imperial59]

Even though all of Chamberlain's peripherals declined to the point of absurdity, his mechanics are inconsistent, his fastball velocity variates wildly, and he was just as homer prone as Bucholz.

 

All of Bucholz' negatives, none of his positives.

 

Also xFIP (which is superior to FIP btw) lists the following:

 

Clay: 4.09

 

Chamberlain:4.56

 

Yeah, i'll say he's more of a sure thing.

 

You can't use just 1 stat to make an accurate assessment of pitchers. And you certainly can't use half a year as a sample size and claim it's reliable to judge the ability of pitchers. Even the best pitchers have rough half years (Lackey had a 4.93 ERA in the first half of last year) and even bad pitchers can have great half years (Pineiro had a 3.20 ERA in the first half of last year).

[Imperial59]

It's not about who's "the" sure thing.

 

It's about who has the better chance of giving you consistency.

 

I ask you again:

 

If you needed a 5th starter right now, who would you choose from the two?

 

I'm a Sox fan, and I'd say it's a toss up. It's very difficult to make a convincing argument for either one using reliable sample sizes, objective statistics or scouting reports.

[Imperial59]

Baiting attempt denied.

 

He was obviously being sarcastic.

 

Keep this up, and i'll report you to the authorities. Just saying.

 

I just want to have a discussion without snarkiness or personal attacks. If that makes me a troll, then so be it.

[Dipre]

You can't use just 1 stat to make an accurate assessment of pitchers. And you certainly can't use half a year as a sample size and claim it's reliable to judge the ability of pitchers. Even the best pitchers have rough half years (Lackey had a 4.93 ERA in the first half of last year) and even bad pitchers can have great half years (Pineiro had a 3.20 ERA in the first half of last year).

 

But you can always find a flukey, unsustainable statistic that allows for such strange happenings.

 

Where is this fluey, unsustainable statistic in Bucholz' case?

[Imperial59]

But you can always find a flukey, unsustainable statistic that allows for such strange happenings.

 

Where is this fluey, unsustainable statistic in Bucholz' case?

 

I've already named his BABIP, WHIP and LOB% as unsustainable stats.

[Dipre]

I'm a Sox fan' date=' and I'd say it's a toss up. It's very difficult to make a convincing argument for either one using reliable sample sizes, objective statistics or scouting reports.[/quote']

 

You keep using the "I'm a Sox fan" argument as a basis of your objectivity. I say the basis of your objectivity needs to be what the statistics tell you.

 

They tell you that Chamberlain lost all semblance of consistency last year, and even some Yankee fans would prefer to have Hughes in the rotation and Chamberlain in the bullpen. I would echo this sentiment.

 

I just want to have a discussion without snarkiness or personal attacks. If that makes me a troll' date=' then so be it.[/quote']

 

You're the one that started the personal attacks in the first place. Stop being a hypocrite, and stop being a troll.

[Imperial59]

You keep using the "I'm a Sox fan" argument as a basis of your objectivity. I say the basis of your objectivity needs to be what the statistics tell you.

 

They tell you that Chamberlain lost all semblance of consistency last year, and even some Yankee fans would prefer to have Hughes in the rotation and Chamberlain in the bullpen. I would echo this sentiment.

 

I agree that Chamberlain was inconsistent last year, but so was Buccholz and his peripherals were rather ugly.

 

I've used stats plenty of times now, whether or not you've ignored them is up to you. But me being a Sox fan isn't the basis of my objectivity lol

[Dipre]

I've already named his BABIP' date=' WHIP and LOB% as unsustainable stats.[/quote']

 

A .289 BABIP is not unsustainable by any means.As such, neither is his 1.38 WHIP, and his LOB% may be unsustainable, but neither is Chamberlain's for that matter.

[ORS]

This latest bit is TL/DR. What peripherals are ugly?

[diony]

 

Also xFIP (which is superior to FIP btw) lists the following:

 

Clay: 4.09

 

Chamberlain:4.56

 

 

Cherry picking stats.

[Dipre]

I agree that Chamberlain was inconsistent last year, but so was Buccholz and his peripherals were rather ugly.

 

I've used stats plenty of times now, whether or not you've ignored them is up to you. But me being a Sox fan isn't the basis of my objectivity lol

 

If it isn't, you don't need to mention it.

[Dipre]

Cherry picking stats.

 

Have you read the thread?

[Spudboy]

Chamberlain has had more MLB success. He showed he can be a dominant reliever and flashes of being a #1 starter. He's one full year younger than Clay, still has a lot of work to do.

 

But Buchholz who aside of a no hitter in '07 and 16 "good" starts last year (including a monster September against teams playing for nothing) posting a 4.21 ERA (FIP and tRA were higher) with UGLY peripherals, is more of a sure thing.

 

Uncool.

 

Absolutely no bias in this post.

 

Kudos, my parolee friend.

[Imperial59]

A .289 BABIP is not unsustainable by any means.As such' date=' neither is his 1.38 WHIP, and his LOB% may be unsustainable, but neither is Chamberlain's for that matter.[/quote']

 

Objectively, if we ignore the fact that we're Red Sox fans, a BABIP that's 0.28 points below a pitcher's career average is likely unsustainable, a 1.38 WHIP with any kind of decent ERA is likely unsustainable and we both seem to agree that his LOB% is sustainable.

 

I'm not saying that Chamberlain was any better last year. They were both very inconsistent and they both had ugly peripherals.

[Imperial59]

This latest bit is TL/DR. What peripherals are ugly?

 

What peripherals were ugly for Buch last year? His 8.9 H/9, 3.52 BB/9, his 1.89 K/BB, his 1.38 WHIP, his 76.7 LOB%, etc.

[Dipre]

Objectively, if we ignore the fact that we're Red Sox fans, a BABIP that's 0.28 points below a pitcher's career average is likely unsustainable, a 1.38 WHIP with any kind of decent ERA is likely unsustainable and we both seem to agree that his LOB% is sustainable.

 

I'm not saying that Chamberlain was any better last year. They were both very inconsistent and they both had ugly peripherals.

 

Let's analyze this point by point:

 

1)You're using career average for BABIP, when most of that sample size was created by the .366 BABIP he had in 2008 which is absolutely unsustainable. This is incorrect.

 

2) Sustaining a league average ERA is possible while maintaining a 1.3 WHIP, however, it's not possible while maintaining a 1.5 WHIP.

 

3) Even if the LOB% were to correct themselves, the fact remains that Chamberlain's peripherals would lead us to the conclusion that he wouldn't be able to provide league average pitching.

[Spudboy]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But like I've said, I don't think the small sample sizes that we have from both pitchers are enough to judge their overall ability. And Chamberlain had a 2.76 ERA last year as a starter. I don't see how that's a downward trend for 2 years unless you thought it was realistic for him to reproduce a sub 0.50 ERA in any kind of extended sample size.

 

I'm a Red Sox fan, so if anything I'm biased towards them. But I don't believe there's any objective reason to claim that either Buchholz or Chamberlain are significantly more likely to be more reliable than the other next year.

 

In my opinion, both have great stuff, both have great potential and both have control problems (Buchholz had a 1.38 WHIP last year, a low BABIP and an ugly FIP). I also agree with Spud, that both of them seem to have mental... limitations.

 

 

 

Also, you're trying to use ERA as the overall justification of why Chamberlain is "better" this is incorrect, taking this into account, allow me to ask the following question:

 

Cole Hamels has a much better lifetime ERA than Matt Garza, but after last season, who would you take to fill out your rotation for one year?

 

I realize Chamberlain's and Bucholz' sample sizes are not quite as comparable, but it helps illustrate my overall point.

 

Hey Imp. This post is a little screwed up. No insult meant. But there is text in the bottom that sort of looks like Dipre's language. I think, anyways.

[Imperial59]

Let's analyze this point by point:

 

1)You're using career average for BABIP, when most of that sample size was created by the .366 BABIP he had in 2008 which is absolutely unsustainable. This is incorrect.

 

2) Sustaining a league average ERA is possible while maintaining a 1.3 WHIP, however, it's not possible while maintaining a 1.5 WHIP.

 

3) Even if the LOB% were to correct themselves, the fact remains that Chamberlain's peripherals would lead us to the conclusion that he wouldn't be able to provide league average pitching.

 

1) Career averages for BABIP are much more reliable than putting everyone on the same .300 scale because pitcher and hitters consistently maintain a higher than normal or lower than normal BABIP over their career.

 

2) How many starters can you name that have maintained a 1.38 WHIP while posting a good ERA over a few years?

 

3) I'm making the case that neither one of reliable, so you're just proving my point.

 

4) Buchholz high BB/9 in addition to his high H/9 are also not sustainable if he is to be a quality pitcher.

[ORS]

Objectively' date=' if we ignore the fact that we're Red Sox fans, a BABIP that's 0.28 points below a pitcher's career average is likely unsustainable, a 1.38 WHIP with any kind of decent ERA is likely unsustainable and we both seem to agree that his LOB% is sustainable.[/quote']

I'd suggest his "career average" hasn't been established yet. BABIP varies quite a bit from year to year. With only one season's worth of ball (183 total IP) under his belt, we don't know what his actual career average is going to look like. It might be that you are right, but his baseline is far from established.

[Imperial59]

I'd suggest his "career average" hasn't been established yet. BABIP varies quite a bit from year to year. With only one season's worth of ball (183 total IP) under his belt' date=' we don't know what his actual career average is going to look like. It might be that you are right, but his baseline is far from established.[/quote']

 

I'd agree that his sample size as a starter to this point is unreliable and his ability hasn't been established. I've been trying to make that point this entire time.

[Dipre]

What peripherals were ugly for Buch last year? His 8.9 H/9' date=' 3.52 BB/9, his 1.89 K/BB, his 1.38 WHIP, his 76.7 LOB%, etc.[/quote']

 

H/9: Anything less than 9.0 is good. If i remember correctly the common perception is that pitchers who give up less than a hit per inning are above the league average.

 

Buch: 8.9

 

Chamberlain: 9.6

 

BB/9: A 0.9 difference is very significant in this aspect.

 

Chamberlain: 4.6

 

Bucholz:. 3.5

 

Bucholz allowed a full runner less per 9. This is significant.

 

LOB%: Both instances are unsustainable.

[Imperial59]

 

Hey Imp. This post is a little screwed up. No insult meant. But there is text in the bottom that sort of looks like Dipre's language. I think, anyways.

 

Thanks man. I think I fixed it.

[Dipre]

1) Career averages for BABIP are much more reliable than putting everyone on the same .300 scale because pitcher and hitters consistently maintain a higher than normal or lower than normal BABIP over their career.

 

2) How many starters can you name that have maintained a 1.38 WHIP while posting a good ERA over a few years?

 

3) I'm making the case that neither one of reliable, so you're just proving my point.

 

4) Buchholz high BB/9 in addition to his high H/9 are also not sustainable if he is to be a quality pitcher.

 

1) Not over 183 IP.

 

2) League average ERA =/= good ERA.

 

3) Then we've going around in circles, because my point isn't either of them being "reliable" but who's the better bet to not completely implode next year. That's what i meant by more of a "sure" thing, we're talking about four and five starters, not rotation headliners.

 

4) Again, you refer to quality, if you look at the discussion in the first place, you're talking about "quality" i'm talking about "serviceable". I've been telling you since the beginning you took the discussion out of context.