Yankees sign Nick Johnson to 1 yr deal

[Imperial59]

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.

 

Again, you're just comparing Buchholz last year to Chamberlain last year. Both pitchers have much larger sample sizes as MLB starters.

 

Even if you eliminate Buch's stats last year because of his changed arm slot, that doesn't give you a reason to eliminate Chamberlain's very strong stats last year as a starter.

[Dipre]

Again' date=' you're just comparing Buchholz last year to Chamberlain last year. Both pitchers have much larger sample sizes as MLB starters.[/quote']

 

Which are completely unreliable given the recent fluctuations of their performances.

 

As i said in my earlier post, "sure" does not mean "good" it means most likely to actually work.

[Imperial59]

3) Then we've going around in circles' date=' 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..[/quote']

 

I think this is the heart of the issue. You admit that both of them have ugly peripherals, yet you're refusing to admit that one of them isn't more of a "sure thing" than the other. How can they have ugly peripherals AND be a sure thing to put up decent numbers next year?

[Imperial59]

Which are completely unreliable given the recent fluctuations of their performances.

 

As i said in my earlier post, "sure" does not mean "good" it means most likely to actually work.

 

To me, and probably most others, "sure thing" means something completely different. But going by your definition how would you define "likely to actually work"?

[Dipre]

Even if you eliminate Buch's stats last year because of his changed arm slot' date=' that doesn't give you a reason to eliminate Chamberlain's very strong stats last year as a starter.[/quote']

 

I'm not looking to "eliminate" Bucholz' stats last in 2008. You said this, not me. But i'm not willing to overlook the obvious statistical regression from Chamberlain either.

[bsox0407]

To me' date=' and probably most others, "sure thing" means something completely different. But going by your definition how would you define "likely to actually work"?[/quote']

 

Please don't make sweeping generalizations because i am along side of Dipre.

[Dipre]

To me' date=' and probably most others, "sure thing" means something completely different. But going by your definition how would you define "likely to actually work"?[/quote']

 

I don't think so.

 

The only two people to take it out of context were you and Tyler Durden. diony simply jumped in to defend the Yankee pride.

 

And more likely to actually work means being able to pitch without constant fluctuation in stuff and velocity, a BB/9 under 4, and H/9 under 9.

 

If you choose to believe that's Chamberlain, that's your prerogative, but in the analysis on who, based on recent trend and performance is more likely to provide league average innings (I.E: 4.50 ERA) i'd go with Bucholz.

 

I'm not saying in the end, he'll be the superior pitcher, because that would be stupid, but in the discussion on who i would choose between the two of them for my rotation next year, i'd choose Bucholz without thinking about it twice.

[ORS]

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']

None of those, other than the LOB are pretty, but neither are they "bad". What's encouraging is the relationship between H/9 and defense, his trend in BB/9, and what that should do to his WHIP. H/9 is very dependent on defense, and the Sox D was pretty bad last year. With improved D, which they should experience, and continued improvement with his command, his WHIP is going to come down, and it will be coming down from a level that isn't really "bad" to begin with. It's averagish, and should move down into very good levels.

 

The K/9 needs to improve, without a doubt, and there's significant track record to suggest it will.

 

The LOB was good, but it was also something he's done in the past, and it's not at an unsustainable level.

 

Where you see "ugly", I see reason for optimism.

[ORS]

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.

Yet you keep making bringing up his "career average" when it suits your point.

[Imperial59]

Yet you keep making bringing up his "career average" when it suits your point.

 

I brought up their career ERA and the fact that BABIP is more accurate when compared to career averages than the baseline .300. But basically my point is that neither starter is a sure thing because neither one has proven anything at the major league level yet.

 

Career ERA isn't the most accurate assessment of a pitcher, but it's more accurate than using a 99 IP sample size to assess a pitcher's ability.

[Imperial59]

And more likely to actually work means being able to pitch without constant fluctuation in stuff and velocity' date=' a BB/9 under 4, and H/9 under 9.[/quote']

 

That's a pretty ludicrous definition. And it seems like you came up with it simply because it fits your argument that Buchholz is more of a "sure thing" based on his 99 innings as a starter last year.

 

But even if we use your selective definition, Chamberlain has the better career H/9 as a starter and the two pitchers have the exact same career BB/9 as a starter. Like I said, seems like they're both pretty equal as being unsure things as this point in their career.

 

I don't like standing up for Yankees players. But I don't think you can make any objective case that Buchholz is more of a sure thing, unless you selectively pick the stats (like using only 99 innings of Buchholz career and acting like that demonstrates his ability).

[Imperial59]

Please don't make sweeping generalizations because i am along side of Dipre.

 

Your definition of a "sure thing" for a starter is a starter with a H/9 under 9 and a BB/9 under 4 as well? lol

[Imperial59]

I'm not looking to "eliminate" Bucholz' stats last in 2008. You said this' date=' not me. But i'm not willing to overlook the obvious statistical regression from Chamberlain either.[/quote']

 

Pitcher's fluctuate from year to year. You need more than 150 innings from a pitcher to accurately assess whether they're demonstrating a trend of regression or not.

[Dipre]

I brought up their career ERA and the fact that BABIP is more accurate when compared to career averages than the baseline .300. But basically my point is that neither starter is a sure thing because neither one has proven anything at the major league level yet.

 

Not over 183 IP.

 

Career ERA isn't the most accurate assessment of a pitcher, but it's more accurate than using a 99 IP sample size to assess a pitcher's ability.

 

You've been the one focusing on ERA all this time.

 

That's a pretty ludicrous definition. And it seems like you came up with it simply because it fits your argument that Buchholz is more of a "sure thing" based on his 99 innings as a starter last year.

 

This is pretty ridiculous. It was a well-documented fact last year that he had velocity issues. He would be throwing 88-90 in one inning, then 95-96 the next. This goes to show you that you're really not very well versed when it comes to Chamberlain's situation. He had serious mechanical issues last year. The stats proved this, yet you try to discount it as a fabrication when there's extensive documentation backing up this fact.

 

Pertinent links:

 

Lost: The Velocity and command of Joba Chamberlain.

 

Joba's struggles.

 

You can try to discredit the validity of this if you want, but the fact is that even Yankee fans on this board extensively discussed his mechanical issues and difficulty to maintain fastball velocity.

 

But even if we use your selective definition, Chamberlain has the better career H/9 as a starter and the two pitchers have the exact same career BB/9 as a starter. Like I said, seems like they're both pretty equal as being unsure things as this point in their career.

 

I don't like standing up for Yankees players. But I don't think you can make any objective case that Buchholz is more of a sure thing, unless you selectively pick the stats (like using only 99 innings of Buchholz career and acting like that demonstrates his ability).

 

You keep using "career averages" when it suits your argument, Chamberlain's peripherals all went south, and they went south very deep last year, so in the context of "who would you choose for the rotation next year" most people would go with the guy who didn't face a massive regression.

 

Your definition of a "sure thing" for a starter is a starter with a H/9 under 9 and a BB/9 under 4 as well? lol

 

Snarky and sarcastic remark. Didn't you want sound baseball discussion? Grow up.

 

I find it pretty humorous for you to make this statement, since it's clearly a massive cop-out. You're taking the discussion completely out of context again. Stay focused. Who has a better chance of providing at least league average production?

 

Pitcher's fluctuate from year to year. You need more than 150 innings from a pitcher to accurately assess whether they're demonstrating a trend of regression or not.

 

But when they "fluctuate" downwards two years in a row, and in one of those years the downwards trend is massive, there is reason for concern. This argument holds no water in the context of the discussion.

[jacksonianmarch]

Johnson had another setback with his wrist and is done for the yr.

[VA Sox Fan]

Johnson had another setback with his wrist and is done for the yr.

 

What a shocker