Schilling: Sign Beckett -- Now

[jacksonianmarch]

Translation: I hope Theo gets carried away again' date=' I'd love to see Becks in pinstripes.[/quote']

 

Actually, the contrary. I want NY to sign Cliff Lee, even if Beckett is on the open market. I will put this to you. Lets post a theoretical question. Theo is going to sign one pitcher to a 5 yr $20 mil contract at seasons end. Its between Cliff Lee and Josh Beckett. Which one do you sign?

 

I'd go with Lee because Lee is more durable and should last longer into his career due to his stuff. He's more of a pitcher. Just my opinion. Beckett has been your ace at midseason for 3 yrs running, the problem is, he has come up lame when you've needed him the most

[Imperial59]

Actually, the contrary. I want NY to sign Cliff Lee, even if Beckett is on the open market. I will put this to you. Lets post a theoretical question. Theo is going to sign one pitcher to a 5 yr $20 mil contract at seasons end. Its between Cliff Lee and Josh Beckett. Which one do you sign?

 

I'd go with Lee because Lee is more durable and should last longer into his career due to his stuff. He's more of a pitcher. Just my opinion. Beckett has been your ace at midseason for 3 yrs running, the problem is, he has come up lame when you've needed him the most

 

I agree with you Jacko. I'd rather sign Lee for all the reasons you've stated in this thread. He's the better pitcher now and I think he'll be the better pitcher over the long haul.

[Dipre]

Once the 96 MPH heat is gone, Beckett will not be an upper echelon pitcher anymore, and the velocity is lost eventually.

[Spudboy]

Amazing unainaminity!

[Dojji]

Check Lester's 2008 performance. Then get back to me.

No, I see that, the thing is, Lester's h/9 is still substantially lower than Lee's even in 2008. Missing bats is about more than just avoiding contact. It's also about awkward contact -- popups, easy flyballs, soft grounders, etc. When they're catching up with Lee, they're catching him quite a bit harder than they do with Lester and more of it turns into baserunners.

 

Park factors also fluctuate due to the quality of the pitching staff. You know this. Try HR tracker.

 

See the thing is, you're still tracking park factors based entirely on home runs. That is NOT all there is to park factors. And you know this. Fenway is in fact a terrible park to hit HR's in. Look at the park dimensions, this is not rocket science. Centerfield is hell too deep, straightaway right is very deep, and the one wall that isn't exceedingly deep is very high.

 

The strength of Fenway as an offensive park is its propensity for doubles, not homers. This is the easiest park in all of baseball in which to double -- it's in the bottom half fairly consistently as a home run ballpark despite some excellent lineups. You ignore this because you're not looking at the information required to process it.

[Dipre]

No' date=' I see that, the thing is, Lester's h/9 is still substantially lower than Lee's even in 2008. Missing bats is about more than just avoiding contact. It's also about awkward contact -- popups, easy flyballs, soft grounders, etc. When they're catching up with Lee, they're catching him quite a bit harder than they do with Lester and more of it turns into baserunners. [/quote']

 

If you had checked it, you'd know what i mean. But you didn't, which is to be expected.

 

 

 

See the thing is, you're still tracking park factors based entirely on home runs. That is NOT all there is to park factors. And you know this. Fenway is in fact a terrible park to hit HR's in. Look at the park dimensions, this is not rocket science. Centerfield is hell too deep, straightaway right is very deep, and the one wall that isn't exceedingly deep is very high.

 

The strength of Fenway as an offensive park is its propensity for doubles, not homers. This is the easiest park in all of baseball in which to double -- it's in the bottom half fairly consistently as a home run ballpark despite some excellent lineups. You ignore this because you're not looking at the information required to process it.

 

Fenway is not a terrible park to hit homers in. Only for lefties. Repeating it over and over won't make it true.

 

See, the thing is, you used the point that park factors fluctuate year to year because of a number of issues in another argument, but now that it suits your idea, the point is moot. You can't have it both ways, it either is or isn't. Citizens Bank is notorious for inflating power numbers for both lefties and righties. This is fact in the real world.

 

Also, i use HR's to track park factors because it's least likely to fluctuate year-in/year-out due to park dimensions. It's simple logic.

[Dojji]

If you had checked it, you'd know what i mean. But you didn't, which is to be expected.

 

 

Dude, I know what your point is. If you want to point out that Lester's k/9 in 2008 wasn't exactly stellar, just say so.

 

My point is a legitimate response to yours, so get off your high horse.

 

 

 

Fenway is not a terrible park to hit homers in. Only for lefties. Repeating it over and over won't make it true.

 

Fenway is a terrible park to hit homers in. It is slightly less terrible for righties, but the part you're ignoring that I've pointed out repeatedly is that it's a bigger piece of a MUCH smaller pie. There just aren't a lot of long ones hit here compared to the league average, especially considering both the quality of our own lineup and the fact that we face the Yankees so often.

 

On the other hand, once again, Fenway is quite a good ballpark for overall righthanded power and average -- because of the short, and also very high, wall. But not because of home runs.

 

The fact is that the short wall in left is also a very high wall in left. There's plentty of righthanded power bonus, but no, it is not that easy for a righthander to homer in Fenway. Maybe easier than for a lefthander at the same park, but not easy compared to the rest of the league.

[Dipre]

1) Repeating something over and over again does not make it true. More HR's were hit by RHH at Fenway park in 2009 than Citizens Bank or Arlington in either '08 or '09. The fact that the wall is high has no bearing on the actual result, and that result is RHH hitting tons of Homeruns at Fenway Park. I don't really know how else to explain this. :dunno:

 

2) You don't know what my point about Lester is yet.

 

3) Your thought process in this matter is not only incorrect, but inconsistent. I suggest you stop the Park Factors argument since you're contradicting several points you've made on other arguments by exposing the flaws within the system.

[Dojji]

OK, so let's go back and concede that park factor argument. The fact is that park factors makes Cliff Lee a poorer idea to bring in as a FA than an equivalent righthander -- this is indisputable, as righthanders, which get enough help as it is from the park itself, have advantages against LHP's. Combine that with the fact that Lee's a bit home run prone, and throw in the fact that Lee surrenders his fair share of hits, and what you have is a pretty decent regression candidate if Lee pitches in Fenway on a regular basis.

 

Replacing Beckett, our best RHP, with even a very good LHP is a pretty fair bid for a step backwards.

[Dipre]

OK, so let's go back and concede that park factor argument. The fact is that park factors makes Cliff Lee a poorer idea to bring in as a FA than an equivalent righthander -- this is indisputable, as righthanders, which get enough help as it is from the park itself, have advantages against LHP's. Combine that with the fact that Lee's a bit home run prone, and throw in the fact that Lee surrenders his fair share of hits, and what you have is a pretty decent regression candidate if Lee pitches in Fenway on a regular basis.

 

Replacing Beckett, our best RHP, with even a very good LHP is a pretty fair bid for a step backwards.

 

But there's also the fact that Lee is healthier, would neutralize lefties even further at Fenway, and is not FB-dependent, which bodes better for the future.

 

My only gripe with Lee is age.

[TheKilo]

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you can put Lee and Beckett in the same sentence. If we're looking at the next three or four years, I'll make the wager that Beckett exceeds what Lee does hand over fist.

[Keeper]

I'm sorry' date=' but I really don't think you can put Lee and Beckett in the same sentence. If we're looking at the next three or four years, I'll make the wager that Beckett exceeds what Lee does hand over fist.[/quote']

 

I'd take that bet. Lee is a lot better than you give him credit for.

[TheKilo]

Depends on how you look at it. Lee was very good last season coming off a ridiculous 2008, but he had the benefit of pitching against some VERY mediocre offenses in the AL Central and then moving to the National League. Beckett has to do his work in the ALE year in and year out.

 

Beckett's 2007 was on par with Lee's 2008, IMO, he just didn't have the gaudy win totals to match Lee. Lee will continue to benefit from facing mediocre offenses and will now pitch in an insanely friendly pitching environment (when you factor pitching & defense). Hell, this is the team and ballpark that made Jarrod Washburn look like a passable starter last season. No small feat.

 

I think people in this thread are really undervaluing Beckett. For about three months last season, he was one of the top two or three pitchers in all of baseball. He got hurt, and got derailed a bit before recovering in September. He had a good playoff start against the Angels. Obviously not on Lee's level, but Beckett definitely wasn't some scrub last season.

 

I'll bet dollars to donuts that Beckett is better than Lee in all of the fielding independent pitching statistics this season.

[Dipre]

Josh Beckett FIP: 3.63

 

Cliff Lee FIP: 3.11

 

In fairness, xFIP (Better IMO) grades Beckett better 3.35-3.69. That is likely to continue.

[YAZMAN]

Actually, the contrary. I want NY to sign Cliff Lee, even if Beckett is on the open market. I will put this to you. Lets post a theoretical question. Theo is going to sign one pitcher to a 5 yr $20 mil contract at seasons end. Its between Cliff Lee and Josh Beckett. Which one do you sign?

 

I'd go with Lee because Lee is more durable and should last longer into his career due to his stuff. He's more of a pitcher. Just my opinion. Beckett has been your ace at midseason for 3 yrs running, the problem is, he has come up lame when you've needed him the most

 

JMO, I'd stick with Beckett. He is learning to be a pitcher and not just throw heat, he's just been too young and thickheaded to get it. He's ultra competitive - he will learn to mix better and throw more pitches as he gets older and begins to lose some zip for that same reason he has challenged fastball so much in the past.

 

Aside from Bruce Hurst and Bill Lee, who do you remember being a dominant lefty starter at Fenway before Lester came into his own? (Actually, you are too young to have seen Lee and were probably like 8 or 10 when Hurst retired, correct?)

[Dojji]

Josh Beckett FIP: 3.63

 

Cliff Lee FIP: 3.11

 

In fairness, xFIP (Better IMO) grades Beckett better 3.35-3.69. That is likely to continue.

 

 

So what you're saying is that there's not really a ton to choose from between them.

 

 

Innnnnn that case why not stay with the one who we know is effective pitching fulltime in the toughest division in baseball?

[Dojji]

Lee and Hurst are pretty danged overrated themselves in retrospect. They were more "flashes of greatness" than really sustainable ace types. Hurst in particular never strung two good years together in Boston.

 

I might not be behaving quite fairly to spaceman saying that, Lee was great until he got hurt, but he only really had the one true ace-type year in '73. Also, I know that different eras have different standards, but when I'm evaluating Lee as an ace I have a really hard time looking past that 3.3 career k/9. He's an ace if Mark Buehrle's an ace (which you could make a case for over the last 3 years, actually)

 

There's whole decades of Red Sox eras I have no knowledge of, but I think Lefty Grove might have been our last pre-Lester true lefthanded ace. We certainly haven't ever had too many of them.

[Dipre]

So what you're saying is that there's not really a ton to choose from between them.

 

 

Innnnnn that case why not stay with the one who we know is effective pitching fulltime in the toughest division in baseball?

 

Hey Mr. Smug. Fielding-independent statistics are not necessarily an indication of succes. Javier Vasquez is the poster boy for it.

 

Soooooooooooooo seeing as Lee has been both healthier and more effective, maaaaaaaaaaaybe that's the reason some people maaaaaaaaaaaaay like him more. Juuuuuuuust sayin'.

[Dojji]

you post something like that and dare to call ME smug.

 

OK.

[Dipre]

you post something like that and dare to call ME smug.

 

OK.

 

Read it again. Slowly. Then read your initial post. Slowly. You'll get it eventually.

[Dojji]

Kinda establishes my point there. You don't have the right to call anyone else "smug" when you pull tactics like this.

[BoSox21]

*sigh*

[Imperial59]

We could post these sabermetrics until we're blue in the face but Lee has had the better FIP, tRA+ and WAR over the last two years by a rather safe margin and I believe his pitching style ages better. I'd much rather sign him than sign Beckett to a long-term deal.

[Dipre]

I give up. Old dogs won't learn new tricks.

 

And yes, Imperial, Lee has been on a whole other level in terms of both durability and performance the last two years, and that is a significant sample size.

[Imperial59]

I give up. Old dogs won't learn new tricks.

 

And yes, Imperial, Lee has been on a whole other level in terms of both durability and performance the last two years, and that is a significant sample size.

 

I wouldn't give anything much more than two years ago much relevance when considering the ability of a starting pitcher, especially when they just entered their prime 2-3 years ago.

[Dipre]

I wouldn't give anything much more than two years ago much relevance when considering the ability of a starting pitcher' date=' especially when they just entered their prime 2-3 years ago.[/quote']

 

Specially when the "two years-back" sample size consists of more than 400 IP.

[Imperial59]

Specially when the "two years-back" sample size consists of more than 400 IP.

 

I'd feel differently if we were talking about Javier Vazquez who had a 4.67 ERA in 2008 and then a 2.87 ERA last year because a larger sample size would probably be needed to determine which year is more representative of their career abilities. But Lee and Beckett have been pretty consistent the last two years.

[Dipre]

I'd feel differently if we were talking about Javier Vazquez who had a 4.67 ERA in 2008 and then a 2.87 ERA last year because a larger sample size would probably be needed to determine which year is more representative of their career abilities. But Lee and Beckett have been pretty consistent the last two years.

 

I still think Lee's age should be a red flag though. If he's going to command around five years, i'd rather re-sign Beckett.

[Spudboy]

I still think Lee's age should be a red flag though. If he's going to command around five years' date=' i'd rather re-sign Beckett.[/quote']

 

Bingo.

 

Not to say I wouldn't want Lee on my team. But he is, what, 4 years older than Beckett?

Given that it will take a major commitment (4-5 years/16-18 mil. per) it only makes sense to sign Beckett. What's disturbing though, is that the Boston Media has been saying that the Sox are leery of Beckett's shoulder. Is there any reason to believe that there is anything to this?

 

All things being equal, I'm in the "bird in the hand" camp. Sign Beckett.

 

But make him shave that God awful beard!

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Bingo.

 

Not to say I wouldn't want Lee on my team. But he is, what, 4 years older than Beckett?

Given that it will take a major commitment (4-5 years/16-18 mil. per) it only makes sense to sign Beckett. What's disturbing though, is that the Boston Media has been saying that the Sox are leery of Beckett's shoulder. Is there any reason to believe that there is anything to this?

 

All things being equal, I'm in the "bird in the hand" camp. Sign Beckett.

 

But make him shave that God awful beard!

 

Only 2 years older.

 

 

I'd say sign either one, I'd be happy with either.