Lester is named opening day starter

[DirtDog]

per ESPN.com.

 

Didn't think he was going to come out so soon with this. Guess this isn't Beckett's team anymore.

[Palodios]

FINALLY! Why does it feel like this has been long deserved for 2 years?

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Idk but we'll see what he can do in his first opening day start.

[Station 13]

Good

[VA Sox Fan]

Red Sox set rotation behind Lester

 

Permalink|Comments (20) Posted by Peter Abraham, Globe Staff March 17, 2011 09:42 AM

 

By Peter Abraham, Globe Staff

 

FORT MYERS, Fla. — The Red Sox have set their rotation behind Jon Lester. Here's how it will line up:

 

April 1 at Texas: Jon Lester

April 2 at Texas: John Lackey

April 3 at Texas: Clay Buchholz

April 5 at Cleveland: Josh Beckett

April 6 at Cleveland: Daisuke Matsuzaka

April 7 at Cleveland: Lester

April 8: New York: Lackey

April 9 New York: Buchholz

April 10 New York: Beckett

 

and so on ...

 

The Red Sox also optioned Jose Iglesias, Yamaico Navarro and Luis Exposito to Triple A Pawtucket.

 

In terms of the rotation, Terry Francona explained his logic. "I think we feel like Lack has a way of matching up with whoever he's pitching against. Whether it's a guy who's a No. 1 or No. 5, you look up in the seventh and you have a chance to win, which we really like. Buch did so good [last year]. I think we feel like having Buch come out third just enhances our chance to win a little bit.

 

"Buch's numbers would say that he can pitch anywhere. Just think Lack's a veteran and he's done it. I just think spacing [buchholz] and Lester out, there's something to be said for that, too. Lack showed up in great shape and looks like he's ready to go. Ultimately, if they pitch like they should, it's not going to matter and if they don't pitch like they should, it's not going to matter."

 

Francona said Beckett missing a few days with a concussion earlier in camp had no effect on where he was slated.

 

"Just watching the way last year unfolded, we want to get him off to a good start. He'll pitch in that game in Cleveland. I think that's a good place for him to start."

 

Francona said the opponent is not a major factor in determining the rotation early in the season.

 

"We certainly notice. But we weren't going to skip Lester in the [Texas] series if it wasn't a good matchup. We'd never do something like that," he said. "You can only put so much into the first couple of weeks anyway."

 

A for the Yankees series, if the Yankees use their five starters in order, the Sox would face Burnett, their No. 4 (Freddy Garcia?) and their No. 5 (Ivan Nova or Bartolo Colon) at Fenway.

 

The rotation is further evidence that the Sox like what they have in Lackey and do not share the misgivings some fans and media had last year.

 

"I know Lack took a little bit of heat for maybe under-performing. I don't think we felt like that," Francona said. "He just seemed like that guy last year where he gave up runs late or somebody gave up his runs late or he made a mistake late. I just think he's going to give you the 200 innings and every time he pitches, you're going to have a chance to in. That's kind of how we feel, regardless of who he matches up against.

 

"I think he's worked hard to get in real good shape and I think it's going to show. I think across the board his numbers will be a little bit lower this year."

 

It's worth noting that Beckett faced Texas twice last year and was rocked. 12 IP, 17 H, 13 ER, 6 BB, 4 HR, 8 K.

 

But the Red Sox do have faith in Lackey's durability.

 

"It's huge," Francona said. "You've got to come up with a certain amount of innings somewhere. There are going to be some bad days, we know that. But if you know you can pencil in those innings, that's huge. If you start hunting for innings in the middle of the summer, that's tough."

 

That Lackey took the ball every five days impressed the Sox, particularly given that he was helping his wife through some health issues.

 

"Regardless of what was going on, and believe me there were some things going on," Francona said. "He's very accountable and he does his job and he doesn't care who he's pitching to, he doesn't care who he's pitching against. He just takes the ball and stays out there until you take it away."

[WhiskeyBreath]

It never bothered me that Beckett got the Opening Day start.

[Palodios]

Good for Lackey. He was easily the most underrated player on this team last year, so its good to see him get the start.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Good for Lackey. He was easily the most underrated player on this team last year' date=' so its good to see him get the start.[/quote']

 

Whattttt? Are we talking in terms of pitching or the whole team? Pitching wise I think it's a safe bet to say Buchholz is the most underrated.

 

Edit:Never mind. You were referring to the whole team. No.

[Palodios]

Buchholz went to the All-star game, got national attention, and came in top 5 for Cy Young. How is he underrated?

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

I'm talking about coming into the season.

[Palodios]

I'm talking about coming into the season.

 

I posted one sentence, and you misread it in two different places:lol:

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Why does it seem like we're only in Cleveland in April or May, and only during the week?

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Okay.

 

You're telling me that the Angels Ace John Lackey is underrated. But Buchholz is not. Coming into the 2010 season you expected Buchholz to perform better?

[Palodios]

You're taking me out of context. I'm not talking about pre-2010.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Okay. Then explain how Lackey was underrated in 2010. I wasn't talking pre 2009 either I was asking who you would expect more coming into the 2010 season. Which you wpuld have said Lackey and therefore that doesn't make him underrated.

[Palodios]

Some people think Lackey's 2010 season was a real disappointment. But they overlooked the fact that he ended up with 200+ IP, 20+ QS, 4 WAR, having a pretty solid season.

[yeszir]

Beckett as the fourth starter? Maybe that'll motivate him.

[Youk Of The Nation]

This is not surprising.

[WhiskeyBreath]

Some people think Lackey's 2010 season was a real disappointment. But they overlooked the fact that he ended up with 200+ IP' date=' 20+ QS, 4 WAR, having a pretty solid season.[/quote']

 

I know it was a disappointment. I really can't see how anyone could be satisfied with the type of year he put up after signing him to that deal.

 

I'm so f***ing tired of hearing about QS. It's a flawed statistic.

[Palodios]

I know it was a disappointment. I really can't see how anyone could be satisfied with the type of year he put up after signing him to that deal.

 

I'm so f***ing tired of hearing about QS. It's a flawed statistic.

 

You might debate where the line on "quality" is, but he kept them in every game, and saved the bullpen innings. His WAR was 31st among pitchers... which makes him an ace somewhere:lol:

 

He'll have a good 2011, for certain.

[Dojji]

Lackey's 2010 can be best described as a "mixed success." My personal opinion is that the most important aspects of starting pitching are the ones he was successful at. Sure the ERA was high, but 14 wins and 215 IP isn't to be laughed at. ERA isn't that important if the extra runs aren't turning into losses and the extra durability he showed that I wasn't expecting helps to make up for that. I honestly didn't expect to get that many innings out of him last year..

 

Regardless of ERA, that's a pretty decent season and one that I wouldn't mind out of any one of our pitchers, with the way we can put up runs. Especially if you bear in mind that John Lakcey was by no means brought in to be the best pitcher on the staff. Lackey was brought in to be the #3 starter, behind Beckett and Lester... and it turns out he was the #3 starter, behind Lester and Buchholz. A little overpaid for the role, sure, but this is the Red Sox, we sometimes pay a premium to bring in the right player.

[ORS]

They went 16-17 in games he pitched. Not what I expected.

[Dojji]

I'm sorry, I don't think you can judge a starter that way. W-L might be a flawed statistic, but what happens when a starter comes out of the game is not his responsibility, and that's when a lot of those games were lost. It's no secret that the bullpen sucked last year.

 

I'm not saying it's totally useless to evaluate how many of a starter's starts result in wins, but in terms of realibility, it doesn't beat out the already low standards of Win-Loss percentage because it doesn't tell us some very critical facts, like how much of the team's losing when he's in there was even his fault, and how much went to the bullpen, or to the defense, or to the offense. It's just not useful. At least Win Loss percentage covers some of that by default.

[redsoxrules]

John Lackey was horrible last season , QS is overated .

his WHIP was 1.41 witch if f***ing horrible compaired to his 1.2 in the previous 4 years .

he got lucky his ERA wasent worse than it was with all the base runners he was putting on

[Palodios]

Is WAR overrated too then? Its not like his left on base numbers were extremely high.

[mvp 78]

My only concern is taxing the bullpen on back to back days with Becks and DiceK. The saving grace is that the starts are bookended by Lester and Buch, who are the two best pitchers on the staff. Putting Lackey 2nd is fine as he eats up innings and has avoided the injury bug.

[DirtDog]

Beckett as the fourth starter? Maybe that'll motivate him.

I don't think it really matters. I think Tito just would like him face Cleveland rather than Texas to start the season to gain some confidence.

 

Speaking of Cleveland: http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/video/suffering-cleveland-bans-all-professional-sports,19701/

[ORS]

I'm sorry, I don't think you can judge a starter that way. W-L might be a flawed statistic, but what happens when a starter comes out of the game is not his responsibility, and that's when a lot of those games were lost. It's no secret that the bullpen sucked last year.

 

I'm not saying it's totally useless to evaluate how many of a starter's starts result in wins, but in terms of realibility, it doesn't beat out the already low standards of Win-Loss percentage because it doesn't tell us some very critical facts, like how much of the team's losing when he's in there was even his fault, and how much went to the bullpen, or to the defense, or to the offense. It's just not useful. At least Win Loss percentage covers some of that by default.

Both are useless. You brought up how many wins he had, and you said specifically...

 

ERA isn't that important if the extra runs aren't turning into losses....

 

Well, they were. If you wish to restate your position, please do so, but I'm only showing the fault of your reasoning.

[SoxSport]

You know Lester will be good. Buchholz will probably be good. So Lackey or Beckett has to be good.

If one is good, they'll be OK. If both are good, they'll be more than OK. If neither are good, they'll be in trouble. Dice-K? Strictly a wild card.

[YAZMAN]

Lester deserves it, hands down.