2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[Elktonnick]

I don't care how we get rid of Lackey or who we get for him. I agree with Schilling that he should never wear a Red Sox uniform again. If we get someone of value' date=' great. If we get a prospect, great. If we have to release him outright, thats fine by me too. Remember: he was the WORST SP IN BASEBALL last year.[/quote']

 

No argument there. Although my fantasy is having him rehab in the Siberian winter league as I have posted before. I can just hear the announcer, "Now pitching for Vladivostok":harhar:

[example1]

You must have been in a cave since mid-season. It was frequently talked about on NESN' date=' in the Boston papers and even on the National Network games. Lackey has the worst ERA of any Sox starting pitcher in history with more that 130 innings or so. He is the worst starter that I have seen in 45 years by a long shot.[/quote']

 

Just because all those people say it doesn't make it true. 20 years ago they would have told you that, hands down, AVG/HR/RBI is the best way to determine how good a hitter is... now ESPN regularly shows a player's WAR and most broadcasts list OBP.

 

I'm just saying, I've seen it mentioned everywhere, but aside from ERA I haven't seen it stated factually. Again, (as I mentioned) he was horrible, but was he really the WORST?

 

FWIW, John Lackey's 2011 was only the 3rd worst ERA since 2004 for pitchers over 160 IP. Josa Lima and Eric Milton (Royals/Reds 2005 respectively).

 

That's not a very impressive accomplishment, actually.

[a700hitter]

Just because all those people say it doesn't make it true. 20 years ago they would have told you that, hands down, AVG/HR/RBI is the best way to determine how good a hitter is... now ESPN regularly shows a player's WAR and most broadcasts list OBP.

 

I'm just saying, I've seen it mentioned everywhere, but aside from ERA I haven't seen it stated factually. Again, (as I mentioned) he was horrible, but was he really the WORST?

 

FWIW, John Lackey's 2011 was only the 3rd worst ERA since 2004 for pitchers over 160 IP. Josa Lima and Eric Milton (Royals/Reds 2005 respectively).

 

That's not a very impressive accomplishment, actually.

Slice it however you like it, but under every method it is a loaf of crap. He's the worst starter that I can remember on the Sox in 45 years.

[zenjak]

Slice it however you like it' date=' but under every method it is a loaf of crap. He's the worst starter that I can remember on the Sox in 45 years.[/quote']

 

I prefer to go by how valuable a player is to his team, not just stats. Is he clutch? Does he provide key defense where the team desperately needs it even if his hitting isn't so great? Is he an innings eater.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot come up with any worth for Lackey.

 

Wait, he is biodegradeable, right? Ah, now there's a positive.

[Elktonnick]

I prefer to go by how valuable a player is to his team, not just stats. Is he clutch? Does he provide key defense where the team desperately needs it even if his hitting isn't so great? Is he an innings eater.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot come up with any worth for Lackey.

 

Wait, he is biodegradeable, right? Ah, now there's a positive.

 

So is horse s***!

[Palodios]

Be honest... you expected that number to be much' date=' much worse, right? 2/3 of his value, for guy who has been THAT bad? I mean, not a good investment by any stretch, but that's far from as bad as I assumed it would be.[/quote']

 

Well, I don't know how the numbers are calculated, but I do believe Lackey was worth 16 million last year. 6 million this year is a joke, I can only assume that the algorithm significantly overvalues the win statistic.

[jacksonianmarch]

The statistic is flawed if Lackey was worth $6 million last yr. Completely flawed. Then CC was worth $50 million.

[FredLynn]

What am i missing that makes Lackey the worst pitcher in baseball? What stat or set of stats back that claim?

 

I just feel like I need to be on hyperbole alert around here lately. If he really was the worst in baseball, then let's use that label; but the worst in all of baseball is a really strong claim... I'd like to know its origins.

 

Look at this link. Its available at the ESPN MLB STAT site. It shows that of 145 major league starting pitchers with over 100 innings pitched this year, Lackey finished at #145. Furthermore, he was last by a mile-nearly 3/4 run per game.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching/_/seasontype/2/count/106/qualified/false/order/false/minip/100

[FredLynn]

I prefer to go by how valuable a player is to his team, not just stats. Is he clutch? Does he provide key defense where the team desperately needs it even if his hitting isn't so great? Is he an innings eater.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot come up with any worth for Lackey.

 

Wait, he is biodegradeable, right? Ah, now there's a positive.

 

Not biodegradable Zenjak..that takes too long. He is, however, recyclable.

And welcome aboard over here!

[seabeachfred]

Slice it however you like it' date=' but under every method it is a loaf of crap. He's the worst starter that I can remember on the Sox in 45 years.[/quote']

 

And here I was cheering when we signed Lackey because of his competitive fire and success with the Angels. In fact 700 the last game he pitched for the Angels was the 5th game of the 2009 ALCS and he was throttling the Yankees for seven innings before Mike Scioscia pulled him with a big lead which quickly evaporated even though the Halos finally won that game. I was there and impressed. How the hell could a guy lose it so fast as he did, and more importantly, what gives with his attitude? He acts like he has lost all semblance of self-control.

 

Problem is, how to you get rid of him? No way John Prune Face Henry is going to eat that contract. Do we exchange it for another bad contract, do we send him to the bullpen, and does that solve the problem in the clubhouse? Boy, does 2007 now seem like a century ago.:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:

[example1]

Look at this link. Its available at the ESPN MLB STAT site. It shows that of 145 major league starting pitchers with over 100 innings pitched this year, Lackey finished at #145. Furthermore, he was last by a mile-nearly 3/4 run per game.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching/_/seasontype/2/count/106/qualified/false/order/false/minip/100

 

That's ERA. I noted that not only was his ERA the worst in the league this year, it was the 3rd worst for a minimum of 160 IP since 2004. That wasn't my question.

 

Metrics that actually take other things into account don't list him as the worst in the league.

 

ERA is akin to AVG: they have invented other stats because it doesn't tell the whole story. FIP and xFIP for instance. According to those numbers Lackey was pretty unlucky this year. They don't say he was good, because he wasn't.

 

FIP and WAR both list him near the bottom of the league, but not at the bottom.

 

I guess it is safe to say that people list him as worst in the league because of ERA and ERA alone. No other numbers back that up.

 

Regardless, what a loser he is.

[example1]

The statistic is flawed if Lackey was worth $6 million last yr. Completely flawed. Then CC was worth $50 million.

 

$28.6m.

 

Almost 5 times as valuable to his team as Lackey was every time he took the mound. That sounds about right.

[Cairns_Sox]

Well' date=' I don't know how the numbers are calculated, but I do believe Lackey was worth 16 million last year. 6 million this year is a joke, I can only assume that the algorithm significantly overvalues the win statistic.[/quote']

 

He wasnt worth the toilet paper I wipe my @$$ with.

[FredLynn]

That's ERA. I noted that not only was his ERA the worst in the league this year, it was the 3rd worst for a minimum of 160 IP since 2004. That wasn't my question.

 

Metrics that actually take other things into account don't list him as the worst in the league.

 

ERA is akin to AVG: they have invented other stats because it doesn't tell the whole story. FIP and xFIP for instance. According to those numbers Lackey was pretty unlucky this year. They don't say he was good, because he wasn't.

 

FIP and WAR both list him near the bottom of the league, but not at the bottom.

 

I guess it is safe to say that people list him as worst in the league because of ERA and ERA alone. No other numbers back that up.

 

Regardless, what a loser he is.

 

I think that ERA is the single best way to evaluate the performance of a pitcher. Others may disagree, but this is really basic: how many runs per nine innings did the pitcher surrender. The other metrics are needlessly complicated in this regard, IMO. The function of a pitcher is to prevent runs from scoring; that is 99.9% of his function. Other metrics can measure how he earned his ERA (WHIP is also valuable, as are metrics that tell you how far into games a pitcher got, thereby saving the pen), but the SINGLE best measure of a pitcher's worth-IMO-is ERA. Thats why I said that Lackey is THE worst SP in baseball.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Worst SP with a certain number of min innings pitched. He's definitely not the absolute worst pitcher to take the mound in 2011. Most teams wouldn't let a pitcher that bad pitch that many innings but given his massive contract and the fact that he wasn't injured, we didn't really have much of a choice.

[example1]

I think that ERA is the single best way to evaluate the performance of a pitcher. Others may disagree' date=' but this is really basic: how many runs per nine innings did the pitcher surrender. The other metrics are needlessly complicated in this regard, IMO. The function of a pitcher is to prevent runs from scoring; that is 99.9% of his function. Other metrics can measure how he earned his ERA (WHIP is also valuable, as are metrics that tell you how far into games a pitcher got, thereby saving the pen), but the SINGLE best measure of a pitcher's worth-IMO-is ERA. Thats why I said that Lackey is THE worst SP in baseball.[/quote']

 

ERA doesn't take into accounts the opponents they faced (was it the Yankees 8 times or the Royals 8 times) or the parks the pitcher played in. It doesn't take into account whether the pitcher had a good defense behind them or a s***** one (except for errors, which I hope you will agree are a shoddy statistic). I think there's plenty of reasons to look beyond ERA when evaluating a pitcher.

 

That said, Lackey is a jerk and had a horrible season. He had the worst average gamescore in baseball for 160+ innings, and was among the worst in WHIP and FIP and DIPS among all pitchers too. He was absolutely horrible. I just think there are actually other pitchers who gave him a run for his "worst pitcher" money.

[FredLynn]

ERA doesn't take into accounts the opponents they faced (was it the Yankees 8 times or the Royals 8 times) or the parks the pitcher played in. It doesn't take into account whether the pitcher had a good defense behind them or a s***** one (except for errors, which I hope you will agree are a shoddy statistic). I think there's plenty of reasons to look beyond ERA when evaluating a pitcher.

 

That said, Lackey is a jerk and had a horrible season. He had the worst average gamescore in baseball for 160+ innings, and was among the worst in WHIP and FIP and DIPS among all pitchers too. He was absolutely horrible. I just think there are actually other pitchers who gave him a run for his "worst pitcher" money.

 

What statistic do you think is the SINGLE best stat to evaluate the competency of a pitcher?

[ipot]

What statistic do you think is the SINGLE best stat to evaluate the competency of a pitcher?

 

They should get some statisticians to take everything Lackey did this season and find a way to aggregate into a SINGLE evaluative stat.

 

Call it the "JLR" for "John Lackey Rating"

[FredLynn]

They should get some statisticians to take everything Lackey did this season and find a way to aggregate into a SINGLE evaluative stat.

 

Call it the "JLR" for "John Lackey Rating"

 

Can we grade Lackey in the "Kelvin" rating?

[example1]

What statistic do you think is the SINGLE best stat to evaluate the competency of a pitcher?

 

Not to nit pick but I don't see much need for reducing it to a single stat. Seems simplistic. ERA+ tells one thing, WHIP another, Dips or FIP another, and k/bb and BABIP another. By looking at a combination one can get a clear picture of what that player did.

[FredLynn]

Not to nit pick but I don't see much need for reducing it to a single stat. Seems simplistic. ERA+ tells one thing' date=' WHIP another, Dips or FIP another, and k/bb and BABIP another. By looking at a combination one can get a clear picture of what that player did.[/quote']

 

Still, if I had to pick one, its ERA. Yes other stats give you more information, but runs allowed per nine innings is a pretty good indicator of a pitcher's effectiveness. For hitters, I prefer OPS as the SINGLE best measure.

[iortiz]

What statistic do you think is the SINGLE best stat to evaluate the competency of a pitcher?

 

ERA... You bet! ,

 

... and then WHIP.

 

For Hitters, BA. Maybe it is the most primitive stat in baseball, but it tells you if a player can really HIT; with power or not but HIT. Sure, OBP and OPS show you more abilities combined (discipline AB and power), but BA is pure!, that's why I rate it in a first tier.

 

BTW, the OPS stat does not have a simple intrinsic meaning as BA does since the nature of its formula; One fault of OPS is that it weighs on-base average and slugging percentage equally, although on-base average correlates better with scoring runs. Statistics such as wOBA build on this distinction using linear weights, avoiding OPS' flaws. Magnifying this fault is that the numerical parts of OPS are not themselves typically equal (league-average slugging percentages are usually 75-100 points higher than league-average on-base percentages).

[ORS]

ERA... You bet! ,

 

... and then WHIP.

 

For Hitters, BA. Maybe it is the most primitive stat in baseball, but it tells you if a player can really HIT; with power or not but HIT. Sure, OBP and OPS show you more abilities combined (discipline AB and power), but BA is pure!, that's why I rate it in a first tier.

 

BTW, the OPS stat does not have a simple intrinsic meaning as BA does since the nature of its formula; One fault of OPS is that it weighs on-base average and slugging percentage equally, although on-base average correlates better with scoring runs. Statistics such as wOBA build on this distinction using linear weights, avoiding OPS' flaws. Magnifying this fault is that the numerical parts of OPS are not themselves typically equal (league-average slugging percentages are usually 75-100 points higher than league-average on-base percentages).

Actually, SLG has a higher correlation to runs scored. That doesn't account for the scaling issue you described, so .001 of OBP is still more valuable than .001 of SLG, but a higher SLG does correlate better.

 

I don't get how somebody who understands the more advanced measures can still rate BA as highly as you do. You call it "pure", which has a meaning of without flaws. That certainly does not describe BA, which is rife with flaws as it pertains to determining offensive value to the team.

[example1]

iOrtiz it is unbelievable to me that AVG is your choice for offensive measures. It simply dies not correlate with runs as well as OBP or SLG or about a half-dozen other metrics that are undoubtedly used by every front office in all levels of professional baseball. No wonder you don't care for what Theo Epatein had to offer.

 

Oh well, to each their own I suppose. You write a passionate defense of it.

[a700hitter]

iOrtiz it is unbelievable to me that AVG is your choice for offensive measures. It simply dies not correlate with runs as well as OBP or SLG or about a half-dozen other metrics that are undoubtedly used by every front office in all levels of professional baseball. No wonder you don't care for what Theo Epatein had to offer.

 

Oh well, to each their own I suppose. You write a passionate defense of it.

I think IOrtiz has established that stats are not the be all and end all in building a team. The Sox have the Father of Sabremetrics in it's employment, but we don't have a playoff major league team and our farm system isn't the best either.

[a700hitter]

Not to nit pick but I don't see much need for reducing it to a single stat. Seems simplistic. ERA+ tells one thing' date=' WHIP another, Dips or FIP another, and k/bb and BABIP another. By looking at a combination one can get a clear picture of what that player did.[/quote']When your ERA is hovering around 6 or 7, I'm guessing that your other numbers are going to have you near the bottom of the pack also.

 

He's probably the worst starter I have seen on the Sox in 45 years. I can't remember anyone who was worse. I don't need any numbers to prove it.

[Dojji]

I can't remember anyone who was worse.

 

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/02/24/1203886837_5506.jpg

 

I didn't hate Tavarez. He was a riot on the mound, he had a decent first half, and he held the rotation spot down until Lester was healthy. But he was not a good pitcher. Had all the stuff he needed to concievably be one, but it just didn't ever fall together for him in his whole career.

 

I can't help but suspect though, that the 07 version of Tavarez would have been more helpful than Lackey this year. He's a guy who coulda helped keep the team loose, even if he wasn't pitching well. And they needed it. And his antics on the mound would have been fun for the fans.

[Palodios]

I think JT is a free agent this year after his contract as a manager for a divisional team of that Domincan Republic T-Ball League expires this year. I wonder if he'd be willing to accept a position as a #3 starter going into 2012.

[Dojji]

Now now, I made it clear that I was talking about Tavarez as he was then.

[Palodios]

Retired or not, he is still six years younger than Wakefield.