DiceK to the DL

[ORS]

So' date=' you believe in no accountability. Then it could be argued that the Yankees made the right call with Carl Pavano and Jose Contreras (after all we wanted both of them). I guess the Mets made te right call with Pedro and the Giants with Zito. Dice K did not stink because of a freak injury or a mishap. He stunk, because he is not that good. His performance in Japan did not translate to the US. Whether it would translate is the call they had to make, and they got it wrong. Period.[/quote']

Before he overworked his arm in the WBC, he pitched 367 IP, going 33-15 with a 3.72 ERA. While you may not like how he got to those stats, that's not stinking.

 

Critique the move however you want, but at least be accurate in your assessment of what he did his first two seasons here.

[a700hitter]

Before he overworked his arm in the WBC, he pitched 367 IP, going 33-15 with a 3.72 ERA. While you may not like how he got to those stats, that's not stinking.

 

Critique the move however you want, but at least be accurate in your assessment of what he did his first two seasons here.

He was a 5 inning pitcher who overtaxed the bullpen and benefited from a strong pen in 2008 and good run support in 2007. He was far from the dominant horse of a pitcher that they thought they were getting. He managed 1 complete game in those two years. That's accurate.

[ORS]

He was a 5 inning pitcher who overtaxed the bullpen and benefited from a strong pen in 2008 and good run support in 2007. He was far from the dominant pitcher that they thought they were getting. That's accurate.

Good, I glad you agree you were wrong at first. Carry on.

[a700hitter]

Good' date=' I glad you agree you were wrong at first. Carry on.[/quote']I was just providing more specificity so you would understood where I was coming from. He still stinks and the Sox still made a bad call. That being said, when they acquired him, I was very happy, but that doesn't convert a bad decision into a good decision.

[ORS]

Again, you may not like his pitching style, but prior to getting hurt he didn't stink. Not awesome does not equal stink. He was a serviceable pitcher, which was a let down given the expectations, but he didn't stink. Tell you what, right now, I'd gladly sign up for him returning to that level of performance at the back end of the rotation. It might not be what I thought they'd get when they signed him, but it's more reliable and consistent than dealing with the growing pains of a prospect (at least, I'd gladly take it for this season with the current rotation).

[a700hitter]

Again' date=' you may not like his pitching style, but prior to getting hurt he didn't stink. Not awesome does not equal stink. He was a serviceable pitcher, which was a let down given the expectations, but he didn't stink. Tell you what, right now, I'd gladly sign up for him returning to that level of performance at the back end of the rotation. It might not be what I thought they'd get when they signed him, but it's more reliable and consistent than dealing with the growing pains of a prospect (at least, I'd gladly take it for this season with the current rotation).[/quote']I would sign him up for what he did in 2008, but I don't think there is a chance of that. When I used the term "stinks" with regard to Dice K it was relative to the investment and expectations. I'd rather use the word stinks instead of typing that "his performance has fallen well below the expectations of the FO and that it has not justified the massive investment made in him by the team." I'd rather just say that he just stinks and that the FO made a mistake. Unless, he comes storming back (and I don't think he will), I think it is obvious that he didn't work out like they had hoped.

[THE ARS]

37 - 21 in the regular season.

 

3 - 1 in the post season.

 

A starting pitcher's job is to win games, you can't call him a bust when he does that.

 

 

Tom

[a700hitter]

Wins as the measure of effectiveness...really? I don't think you will get much support on that one.

 

This guy is not a $100 million pitcher under any measure. He has fallen far short of the FO expectations and investment. It's pretty obvious. The miscalculation regarding his performance is the responsibility of the FO.

[Palodios]

Everyone anti-Dice doesn't put into account that they're judging how the game is played, not how he pitches. We're no longer in an era where pitchers go complete games every time out.

 

There is a reason why there are seven pitchers in the bullpen. Everyone is saying he only pitches 5 innings, but in 2008, it was well closer to 6 than 5 (5.78). If your worst pitcher goes to 5.2 innings every game, it means roughly that those seven pitchers will pitch every other game. If you have a pile of aces in front of him, why is this a big deal?

 

Hell, in 2007, he did pitch 200 innings. Once again, I'm not arguing he's worth the money, or he's going to be a cy young candidate, but come on, as a #5 starter he's exceptional.

[a700hitter]

Hell, in 2007, he did pitch 200 innings. Once again, I'm not arguing he's worth the money, or he's going to be a cy young candidate, but come on, as a #5 starter he's exceptional.

Teams don't pay $100 million for 5th starters.

[Dipre]

Dice-K hasn't been worth the money, but hasn't stunk. Problem solved.

[a700hitter]

Dice-K hasn't been worth the money' date=' but hasn't stunk. Problem solved.[/quote']Okay, but I think that for $100 million he stinks. If you spent $115,000 thinking you are getting a Mercedes, but got a functioning Chevy Malibu, you would think that would stink.

[Dipre]

Okay' date=' but I think that for $100 million he stinks. If you spent $115,000 thinking you are getting a Mercedes, but got a functioning Chevy Malibu, you would think that would stink.[/quote']

 

Damned old-timer. Stop stretching the argument.

[ORS]

If you need to bring performance relative to an arbitrary expection into your justification of saying he "stinks", then, quite frankly, so does your argument. Is it so hard to say, "I overstated how bad he was", and move on?

[a700hitter]

If you need to bring performance relative to an arbitrary expection into your justification of saying he "stinks"' date=' then, quite frankly, so does your argument. Is it so hard to say, "I overstated how bad he was", and move on?[/quote']Everything is relative, and I was not comparing his performance to "some arbitrary expectation." I was comparing his perfomance to the amount invested, which was clearly ace-type money. Relative to that very non-arbitrary fact, I think he stinks. I do not think I have overstated anything. Unless he turns it around, he will be considered to be a "bust."

 

If you pay for a utility Infielder and get Nick Green, that would be a good acquisition. If you paid to get an ace and called him Japan's national treasure a you get Dice K, that's a bad acquisition. That was the focus of my remarks about Dice K. It was a bad acquisition by the FO. You seized on the term "stinks" and chose to debate that. I still think that as an ace, he stinks. As a 5th starter, he's fine. Regardless of how you want to interpret the term "stinks", the Red Sox have not gotten what they paid for. As for the meaning of "stinks", it's amusing that you will debate it as if there are some irrefutable and immutable metrics by which to measure whether someone stinks. Anyway, I am comfortable being on the other side of this argument from you and Doji, who I guess think it was good acquisition.

[Keeper]

I don't think a700 is off the mark, in the context of what the expectations were for Dice-K and how much he is getting paid. Carlos Zambrano is one of the highest paid pitchers in all of baseball (he made $18.7 mill last year), and yet he hasn't pitched like an ace since 2006. At best now, he is a #2. Barry Zito has been about league average since joining the Giants. Given how much he makes, it would also be fair to say he stinks.

[ORS]

Everything is relative, and I was not comparing his performance to "some arbitrary expectation." I was comparing his perfomance to the amount invested, which was clearly ace-type money. Relative to that very non-arbitrary fact, I think he stinks. I do not think I have overstated anything. Unless he turns it around, he will be considered to be a "bust."

 

If you pay for a utility Infielder and get Nick Green, that would be a good acquisition. If you paid to get an ace and called him Japan's national treasure a you get Dice K, that's a bad acquisition. That was the focus of my remarks about Dice K. It was a bad acquisition by the FO. You seized on the term "stinks" and chose to debate that. I still think that as an ace, he stinks. As a 5th starter, he's fine. Regardless of how you want to interpret the term "stinks", the Red Sox have not gotten what they paid for. As for the meaning of "stinks", it's amusing that you will debate it as if there are some irrefutable and immutable metrics by which to measure whether someone stinks. Anyway, I am comfortable being on the other side of this argument from you and Doji, who I guess think it was good acquisition.

I'm debating you on that term because you are such a chameleon on how salary can be used in creditting/discreditting the FO. In the past, and I haven't the patience to dig this up, you've said that you didn't care if one player was a better value than another when the lesser valued player was superior in overall performance, using this superiority to call the FO cheap. It's a common meme from you. One that is completely contradictory to the tack you are taking now. Apparently, any inclusion of salary in the discussion is OK as long as it's used against the FO.

 

It totally unsurprising that you are comfortable in your own reality, even if it doesn't match the worldview that most have. Almost everyone I know thinks superlatives, grades, ratings, etc should eminate from the same ground zero, ie everyone is graded on the same scale. Sure, you can qualify, but for clarity the qualification needs to be stated. Otherwise, there will be disagreement over the superlative assigned (sound familiar).

 

As far as me thinking it was a good acquisition for the money, consider this. Are you happy with the Beckett extension? If so, in four years he's pitched to a 4.05 ERA averaging 195 IP per year. Dice K's two healthy year average was 3.72 / 180. Beckett is getting $17M per for that performance. Dice K getting $16M per isn't too far off.

 

Anyway, continue to be stubborn about this if you want. You've given me a well of quips in the future if your definition of stink is going to be relative to expectation. Just think how many times I'll be able to correct you when a fill in takes the field and you gripe about how much they stink.

[a700hitter]

ORS, please provide me with the appropriate metrics for a player that "stinks" so I can use that term more precisely in the future. . Until then, I will continue to think that Dice K stinks for the amount invested in him.

 

Also, "stinks" is a very versatile term. While it can be used to describe a player's performance relative to his compensation, it can also be used to describe a players performance relative to other players at his position, so I think I can still use that term when a kid from the farm is thrown into the starting line up. However, I usually think that the farmhand is just unprepared or not ready. If I have used the term stinks with regard to a kid from the farm, I must have been very pissed during a losing game. In those cases, let me clarify that I am not mad at the unseasoned,unprepared kid, but rather I am mad at the FO.

 

I am glad that you and Doji think that Dice K was a good acquisition. You are entitled to your opinion even though I disagree with it. I would not waste my time trying to prove your opinion to be wrong as you are trying so hard to do with my opinion. After all, we are talking about opinions here aren't we? Not only do I think that he was a stinky acquisition (is that better than saying he "stinks"), but I hate watching games that he pitches. Am I wrong about that too? Do I really like watching him pitch? ORS, I can't believe that you are being so ornery one game into the season after an opening day comeback victory against the Yankees. That is your prerogative, and I will not tell you how you should feel.

[ORS]

I'm not being ornery, merely expressing my opinion, just as you. In my opinion, you overstated how bad he was, particularly when you said his bust status was established in your mind prior to his injuries. It was a bad case of revisionist history.

 

Do I like watching him pitch? No he's frustrating as hell, so is Wakefield, but both, when healthy are effective, and in the end, no matter how ugly their path, I appreciate it when players are effective for the team. I say this realizing that advanced pitching statistics suggest Dice K is unlikely to find continued success if he pitches similarly upon his return. I agree with those stats, he needs to get better in his areas of deficiency. All that being said, the predictive value of those stats, and the frustration anyone feels while watching him, does not unmake what he did for this team in the past. He was a decent pitcher for this team one year, and a good one the next. Will that come back? Don't know, but it was what it was.

[Palodios]

700, the problem I'm having with your argument is that while I've been explicitly saying "I don't like him, I don't think he's worth the money, but he can help the team" and you just keep blasting him from the money angle anyway.

 

The problem with considering Dice-K from that angle is that in a span of 6 years, he may earn a chunk of that back in international revenue, and there aren't a lot of great reports on that kind of thing. I remember atleast two Japanese pitchers(Tazawa being one of them) who reportedly signed with the Sox for less because he was such a big presence.

[a700hitter]

I'm not being ornery, merely expressing my opinion, just as you. In my opinion, you overstated how bad he was, particularly when you said his bust status was established in your mind prior to his injuries. It was a bad case of revisionist history.

 

Do I like watching him pitch? No he's frustrating as hell, so is Wakefield, but both, when healthy are effective, and in the end, no matter how ugly their path, I appreciate it when players are effective for the team. I say this realizing that advanced pitching statistics suggest Dice K is unlikely to find continued success if he pitches similarly upon his return. I agree with those stats, he needs to get better in his areas of deficiency. All that being said, the predictive value of those stats, and the frustration anyone feels while watching him, does not unmake what he did for this team in the past. He was a decent pitcher for this team one year, and a good one the next. Will that come back? Don't know, but it was what it was.

I don't disagree. As I said before, I would sign up in a minute for his 2008 performance. I think you seized on the "stinks" description, and we had a difference of opinion regarding that term. My main point is that this is not an acquisition that would go on the plus side of the ledger for the FO. I think it would be difficult to find anyone in the FO who thinks he has lived up to expectations. They have been unhappy with many aspects of his game, including his preparation, prior to his WBC injury. I think the Red Sox misjudged how his talent and stuff would translate to the majors in the U.S.

[SCM33]

He was a 5 inning pitcher who overtaxed the bullpen and benefited from a strong pen in 2008 and good run support in 2007. He was far from the dominant horse of a pitcher that they thought they were getting. He managed 1 complete game in those two years. That's accurate.

 

Dont understand anyone defending Dice-K. He isnt even a shadow of what we thought he would be. His contract at this point, given his current situation, the fact he chose his country over his employer in the WBC, the piss poor conditioning last year....the stints on the DL, the fact he was supposed to be a top of the rotation starter.....the fact he is another five inning Frank (Castillo), leads me to believe that the front office regards his contract a bust.

 

He is not what was advertised, at the very least....he is disappointing.

[Palodios]

I feel like I'm talking to a wall at this point. He's not worth the money. He's a disappointment. He's a pain in the ass. But I would still prefer him on the roster than Scott Atchinson, and after the numbers he put up in 2008, he still deserves a chance.

[SCM33]

I feel like I'm talking to a wall at this point. He's not worth the money. He's a disappointment. He's a pain in the ass. But I would still prefer him on the roster than Scott Atchinson' date=' and after the numbers he put up in 2008, he still deserves a chance.[/quote']

 

Apples and Oranges. Dice-K will never throw out of the bullpen, and walks far too many to EVER be considered with an important role in the bullpen. Wakefield will eventually go to the bullpen, but is running on fumes. They are going to give Clay every opportunity to show the FO what he truly is, whether that be a contributing member of the rotation, or a fringe starter who will never quite do what is projected.

 

What is the point you are trying to make? Daisuke is a starter (I guess, since he barely qualifies for a win at about 5 IP per start), Atchieson is a reliever and will not be on the roster 20 days from now, Wakefield is likely done after this year.

[Palodios]

What is the point you are trying to make? Daisuke is a starter (I guess' date=' since he barely qualifies for a win at about 5 IP per start), Atchieson is a reliever and will not be on the roster 20 days from now, Wakefield is likely done after this year.[/quote']

 

My point is I'd rather have a pitcher who can pitch five innings with 1 earned run than a pitcher who can pitch two innings with 1 earned run. There is a bias against him because he's a douche, but I simply want to defend what he can contribute, not his contract, or his personality.

 

Career stats, 431 IP/72 starts =5.91 Innings per start, at 4.0 ERA. That's pretty f***ing close to 6. Toss out 2009's s*** show, and you have 6.1 per start. Looking at the ERA of his first two seasons, he matches the career line of Beckett/Lackey, who are getting paid close to the same amount per year he is.

 

I know its a small sample size, but after he came back from his injury last year, he was 3-1 in 4 starts, averaging 6 innings per start with a 2.22 ERA.

 

His style is to sacrifice WHIP and other "advanced" statistics for ERA and wins, and all the sabermetric lovers hate him for that. Personally, wins and ERA are the only things I care about.

[SCM33]

His style is to sacrifice WHIP and other "advanced" statistics for ERA and wins' date=' and all the sabermetric lovers hate him for that. Personally, wins and ERA are the only things I care about.[/quote']

 

So your emphasis is on two stats that a pitcher might not have any control of?

 

If Dice-K were on the Nationals, think he would of won 18 games, or had a 2.90 ERA after putting all those baserunners on base? No, and No.

 

Dice-K has been a bust, and we didnt blow the whole league out of the water with the outrageous bidding fee for a guy who averages "pretty f***ing close to 6" IP per start.

[Palodios]

Since when did a pitcher not have control over ERA? Does he also not have any control over BAA? Do you have no respect for a pitcher who performs at his best in pressure situations with RISP? 4 to 5 IP is a liability, 6 is not.

 

His first year in the majors, he pitched respectably considering the adjustment, during a world series run, and in his second he came in 4th for Cy Young. Like it or not, he then was World Baseball Classic MVP in 2009, and when he was healthy at the end of the year he pitched great.

 

Until those advanced statistics catch up to them--which he has escaped from with pure "luck" so far-- what is the argument against his stats?

[jacksonianmarch]

You are apparently missing the entire point. He cannot continue to have a BABIP of .250 throughout his career. And he cannot continue to be completely unhittable when his back is against the wall. Those catch up to you. Which is why his pace and his potential for walks will catch up to him.

[Palodios]

Until that happens, I like his odds.

[VA Sox Fan]

Good days for Dice-K and Embree

 

Posted by Peter Abraham, Globe Staff April 10, 2010 03:07 PM

 

Daisuke Matsuzaka had a strong outing for Pawtucket today against Rochester:

 

5 innings

2 hits

0 runs

1 walk

3 strikeouts

 

73 pitches / 43 strikes.

 

Counting exhibition games, minor-league games and today's rehab start, Matsuzaka has thrown 15 innings. Based on what the Sox did with their other starters, he needs 10 more — or two starts.

 

So he should be ready for the majors somewhere around April 25 or 26.

 

Alan Embree followed Matsuzaka to the mound and threw a scoreless inning, striking out two and allowing a hit. Embree can opt out of his deal on April 15 if he is not in the majors, so the Sox can get a look at him at least two more times.

 

Embree clearly plans to exercise that option if the Sox do not call him up. Here is what he told PawSox broadcaster Dan Hoard:

 

"Hopefully, if things so well and I get enough appearances, that on the 15th that won't be the issue. The issue will be that I'm going to Boston, which is ultimately what the goal was. But, that being said, baseball is a business and if for whatever reason they didn't feel I was fit, I have to move on from there. It's one of those things I'll evaluate on that day."

 

Asked whether he would extend the deadline, Embree said, "I'd have to explore the other options before I would consider that. That being said, I'm very grateful the Red Sox gave me the opportunity that they did. ... But usually around the 10th appearance, I'm usually ready. That's kind of what I'm gauging it on and the next few outings will tell."