Josh Beckett

[BornToRun]

Beckett is not a good pitcher. Good pitchers don't suck every other season. He's been going down hill since 2007.

 

I can only name 2 seasons where he's sucked for us and one of them was when he missed 56 games to injury.

 

2007 was beastly

2008 was decent

2009 was very good

2011 was great

2012 hasn't been great but by no means awful, he's been a solid middle of the rotation starter for the most part save for 2 or 3 games where he got hammered. There's a lot more to look at in a pitcher's effectiveness than ERA.

[BornToRun]

Okay, I just did a little bit of amateur statistical analysis to look into Beckett's overall 2012 performance.

 

Beckett's numbers are skewed into "meh" territory by 3 awful starts. His opening start in Detroit, the one vs Cleveland, and his start against New York. In those games, Josh allowed 20 earned runs over 11 innings. With all 3 of these starts taken into account, Josh has allowed 56 earned runs over 111 innings.

 

I took those 3 starts and turned them into bare-bones quality starts, 6 innings with 3 earned runs. This changed Josh's totals to 45 earned runs over 118 innings. This equates to a 3.43 ERA, much nicer than the 4.54 we're currently looking at.

 

The starts vs Detroit and Cleveland had one thing in common, they took place after a long layoff in which Josh hadn't pitched in several days. I left the start vs New York in, which took place after a regular rest period and is more in line with what you can normally expect on a bad day ( a lot of runs but battling through to eat 5 or so innings), and his overall numbers this year on normal rest come out to:

 

98 innings/ 40 earned runs which is a 3.67 ERA. That 3.67 ERA is much prettier than the 4.54 and is also just about perfectly in line with the peripherals, like his 3.57 FIP, that he has put up this year.

 

When you adjust for two catastrophic outliers, Josh Beckett has had a very solid season in which he's had 2 bad starts severely skew the overall line that is clearly not indicative of his overall performance this season.

[User Name]

The problem with your analysis BTR, is that you're creating a "best case scenario" analysis. In order for it to be more accurate, you would need to eliminate his three best outings along with his three worst.

[jung]

When you adjust for two catastrophic outliers, Josh Beckett has had a very solid season in which he's had 2 bad starts severely skew the overall line that is clearly not indicative of his overall performance this season.

 

You are apparently completely ignoring the fact that he is now a 91-92 MPH FB pitcher. You cannot simply remove stints for convenience sake especially considering that this is no longer the same pitcher, not by a long shot.

 

He is now a control pitcher relying on location and secondary pitches to get the job done and so far, has not made that transition successfully enough to this point having begun it last year. Until he does, then removing starts from a season is frankly utter nonsense. He is what he is.....if you look at his problem innings, problem stints, problem starts call it what you want....he has blowup innings where he cannot maintain his control which must now be pinpoint because he no longer has the velo to blow hitters away. Until and unless he does that then the only numbers you can look at are season totals which are worse this year than last and which may continue like this until and unless he puts the work effort in required to make a completely successful transition to a pinpoint control pitcher, not to mention making the commitment to conditioning required to stay on the field. He is now going to miss even more time this year and if he comes back at all, will come back after yet another long layoff.

 

75% of back injury can be avoided by maintaining a strong core. Anybody that has had back trouble will tell you that and for a professional athlete making what he makes to be walking around that sloppy around the middle is pretty bad.

[BornToRun]

The problem with your analysis BTR' date=' is that you're creating a "best case scenario" analysis. In order for it to be more accurate, you would need to eliminate his three best outings along with his three worst.[/quote']

 

Fair enough, I'll go and do that in a bit. That last one took long enough. But I feel as though I'm on to something, he looks a lot better when you adjust for what I'd call the outlier starts and I also took out his decent outing against Seattle when he last came off the DL.

[a700hitter]

Fair enough' date=' I'll go and do that in a bit. That last one took long enough. But I feel as though I'm on to something, he looks a lot better when you adjust for what I'd call the outlier starts and I also took out his decent outing against Seattle when he last came off the DL.[/quote']I think some people might think it is cherry picking.

[Bellhorn04]

Assuming Beckett misses at least one start, this will be the fourth time since September/11 that he's had to do so. It's hard not to think that his physical conditioning or lack thereof is contributing to these issues.

[BornToRun]

Okay, I hope I did this correctly. If you take out the best and worst 3 of Josh's starts, you get 31 Earned runs over 77 1/3 innings. That comes out to a 3.60 ERA.

[jung]

More nonsense

[BornToRun]

More nonsense

 

What'd I f*** up this time?

[User Name]

75% of back injury can be avoided by maintaining a strong core. Anybody that has had back trouble will tell you that and for a professional athlete making what he makes to be walking around that sloppy around the middle is pretty bad.

 

Prince Fielder? Lance Berkman? CC Sabathia?

[User Name]

Assuming Beckett misses at least one start' date=' this will be the fourth time since September/11 that he's had to do so. It's hard not to think that his physical conditioning or lack thereof is contributing to these issues.[/quote']

 

It's not Beckett. It's the team. This entire team is a collection of people with conditioning issues. And it's not like this is speculation either. Over the last three years, the Red Sox are the team with the most DL days, collective trips, etc etc etc. And most of the injuries aren't even impact injuries.

 

I've said it before and i'll say it again, the main problem with the 2012 Red Sox is not talent, it's coaching and conditioning.

[jung]

Prince Fielder? Lance Berkman? CC Sabathia?

 

And if they develop back problems which Beckett developed in 2010, two years ago, they better damn well firm up their cores too! This is the second time for Beckett....firm up your core you lazy, defocused, sack.

[iortiz]

and... discipline and bad moves. Charge these to FO. Put the name you want, it doesn't matter.

[User Name]

And if they develop back problems which Beckett developed in 2010' date=' two years ago, they better damn well firm up their cores too! This is the second time for Beckett....firm up your core you lazy, defocused, sack.[/quote']

 

What i'm implying here is the question of how do you know that's the problem? His lack of conditioning is obvious but trying to "pinpoint" the problem seems like a fool's errand to me.

[jung]

What'd I f*** up this time?

 

Only everything...it is nonsense. you cannot eliminate stints and arrive at any meaningful conclusion what-so-ever especially given the changes he is going through from his glory years now in his rear view and where he is today.

 

You get the benefit of being able to watch the man pitch. You don't have to rely entirely on stats and manipulating stats is the worst sort of nonsense.

 

Does he throw at 95-96-97 or 98 any longer......No

- Was that the kind of pitcher he was for the bulk of his career and would we define that type of pitcher as power pitcher.....yes

- When you watch him pitch do the bulk of his issues arise because at this lower velo his must maintain pinpoint control and location in order to be effective and he is unable to do that as yet....yes

- Can he "blow people away" with a 91-92 FB.....No, not when the difference between his FB and his secondary pitches is as small as it is

- Do the bulk of his runs against come now in bunches virtually defined by the of period time for which he losses his control and is unable to get it back.....yes

 

That is it....that is the entire story with a footnote that relates to his commitment to the game at present and his conditioning both lacking. He appears not to be putting in the work effort to make this transition to a different kind of pitcher successfully as he has been at it for two years at least now....call it a Greg Maddux transition if you want to and he is spending more and more time on the shelf.

 

The only difference between Beckett last year and this is that his blowup innings are coming earlier and more frequently in games this year as opposed to last year and this year he is being kept in these games after having the blowup inning which has blown up his ERA.

[BornToRun]

EDIT: deleted

[jung]

What i'm implying here is the question of how do you know that's the problem? His lack of conditioning is obvious but trying to "pinpoint" the problem seems like a fool's errand to me.

He is getting spasms in his lower back....there is not a world of possibilities for how that happens. If the point you are trying to make is that the other 25% of back problems are not mitigated by having a strong core....good for you....bravo....I still think it is criminal that he does not maintain a strong core....all I need is eyes to know he is not doing that!

[User Name]

Being fat and having a strong core are not mutually exclusive. And lower back spasms can happen for a variety of reasons, not just core problems.

[SoxSport]

So now Abraham reverses himself and says Beckett didn't deserve boos.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2012/08/on_beckett_and.html

 

 

Anybody ever had a back spasm? You have to fall to the floor, and can't move.

Of course, he didn't deserve boos--if he wasn't faking.

[BornToRun]

Why would he fake it?

[jung]

Core problems do not create nor cure back problems, however they go a long way to mitigating their consequences.

 

Muscle spams occur in the lower back and in the cervical area for that matter for very much the same reasons. The spasm is a reaction to the actual injury. Looking at the areas they were paying attention to probably somewhere around L4 or L5, maybe both. The spasming muscle is literally trying to pull your vertebrae off the damaged disc or other functioning spinal component that is injured and inflamed. A back muscle spasm does not occur in isolation. It occurs as a protective measure, an effort on the part of your own body to try to heal itself much like white blood cells in their sphere of influence.

 

He will likely be on the shelf for at least two weeks if not longer. If there is any video of him walking today he will likely look like he has a board stuffed in his pants running from his butt up his lower back. They will likely prescribe muscle relaxers to induce the spasming muscle to stop, anti-insflammatories to take the inflammation out of the damaged spinal component, some devices will likely be attached to his back that promote additional blood circulation to the area and he will eventually end up in some therapy with a doctor telling him that he must eventually strengthen his core if he wants to avoid/mitigate these occurrences in the future. That is a best case scenario. Worst case, he eventually does enough damage back there that he is living in pain for the rest of his life or he gets surgery.

[a700hitter]

So now Abraham reverses himself and says Beckett didn't deserve boos.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2012/08/on_beckett_and.html

 

 

Anybody ever had a back spasm? You have to fall to the floor, and can't move.

Of course, he didn't deserve boos--if he wasn't faking.

He should not have been booed. I never boo our guys. I'll boo the umps and the manager, but very infrequently.

[jung]

I should have added that while a strong core and extra fat around the middle are and can be exclusive of each other, any neurosurgeon worth his salt will recommend that Beckett and anybody else with that sort of back issue both strengthen his core AND lose any weight around the middle. What do you think all of that weight for a guy with weight around the middle is pulling against...his tits? It is pulling against his lower back and is being supported by his spine generally.

 

Even if you just have a paunch, the neurosurgeon will recommend that you lose it because he is trying to recommend the least invasive methods of keeping you out of pain and off the operating table. You may choose to ignore that recommendation but he will make it.

 

And yes you will generally be in significant pain after a back spasm but usually the real knock your dick in the dirt pain from that sort of injury occurs the next day. Today, Josh will be sitting down on the thrown carefully just to take a crap.

[BornToRun]

Only everything...it is nonsense. you cannot eliminate stints and arrive at any meaningful conclusion what-so-ever especially given the changes he is going through from his glory years now in his rear view and where he is today.

 

You get the benefit of being able to watch the man pitch. You don't have to rely entirely on stats and manipulating stats is the worst sort of nonsense.

 

Does he throw at 95-96-97 or 98 any longer......No

- Was that the kind of pitcher he was for the bulk of his career and would we define that type of pitcher as power pitcher.....yes

- When you watch him pitch do the bulk of his issues arise because at this lower velo his must maintain pinpoint control and location in order to be effective and he is unable to do that as yet....yes

- Can he "blow people away" with a 91-92 FB.....No, not when the difference between his FB and his secondary pitches is as small as it is

- Do the bulk of his runs against come now in bunches virtually defined by the of period time for which he losses his control and is unable to get it back.....yes

 

That is it....that is the entire story with a footnote that relates to his commitment to the game at present and his conditioning both lacking. He appears not to be putting in the work effort to make this transition to a different kind of pitcher successfully as he has been at it for two years at least now....call it a Greg Maddux transition if you want to and he is spending more and more time on the shelf.

 

The only difference between Beckett last year and this is that his blowup innings are coming earlier and more frequently in games this year as opposed to last year and this year he is being kept in these games after having the blowup inning which has blown up his ERA.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I feel like, while he is no longer an ace and has durability issues that he's pitched better than a 4.54 ERA that's been inflated due to a couple of outings that I feel are the exception to the rule.

[a700hitter]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I feel like' date=' while he is no longer an ace and has durability issues that he's pitched better than a 4.54 ERA that's been inflated due to a couple of outings that I feel are the exception to the rule.[/quote']The problem is that it all counts. It goes on the back of his baseball card, and generations after us will look at it and correctly conclude that he sucked in 2012.

[jung]

Well I guess I will let you know when I figure out the relevance of "pitched better than a 4.54 ERA that has been inflated due to a couple of outings.

 

You ask the Red Sox if they would have preferred to win the games that he has started that were lost instead of losing them.

 

This whole selectively eliminate stats thing is frankly a discussion without a point. What are we supposed to do....go to Bud Selig at the end of the season and tell him we should be in the playoffs because those games should not count?

 

I would guess the selective stats argument would get nowhere with a GM worth his salt the Sox were shopping Beckett to as the obvious response would be..."he did throw those pitches that resulted in that outcome correct? That wasn't a double or some twin out there we don't know about that was throwing....correct"?

 

And that would be the end of that.

[BornToRun]

The problem is that it all counts. It goes on the back of his baseball card' date=' and generations after us will look at it and correctly conclude that he sucked in 2012.[/quote']

 

I view it as sort of like if a guy has, let's say 30 starts, and pitches to a 3.00 ERA. Let's say he has three starts where he gives up 10 earned and doesn't get out of the 3rd. That would make the bottom line a lot less pretty but would it mean that he had a bad year or just a few really bad outings that made him look a lot worse than he actually was? I'm not saying Josh is an ace or anywhere close to that at this point but looking back at the starts game by game and looking a bit deeper into the numbers, is it that crazy to suggest that he's been a decent 3 caliber starter this season?

[a700hitter]

I view it as sort of like if a guy has' date=' let's say 30 starts, and pitches to a 3.00 ERA. Let's say he has three starts where he gives up 10 earned and doesn't get out of the 3rd. That would make the bottom line a lot less pretty but would it mean that he had a bad year or just a few really bad outings that made him look a lot worse than he actually was? I'm not saying Josh is an ace or anywhere close to that at this point but looking back at the starts game by game and looking a bit deeper into the numbers, is it that crazy to suggest that he's been a decent 3 caliber starter this season?[/quote']Here's a riddle for you. Do you know what you call a starting pitcher that pitcher that pitches 7 innings every game but always has one inning where he gives up 5 runs? A bad pitcher is what you call him. Unemployed too probably. It all counts.

[BornToRun]

In most cases I would agree with you on that but look at him start by start. You have two outings in there where he got hammered and there is some evidence to suggest that there is an outlier to explain it. He was pitching on about a 10 day lay off in those cases and he got lit up. I'm leaving the NY start in there because he flat out got his ass kicked and had a s***** day. Most of the time, he's gone out there and given us a chance to win. Has it been Sub 3 ERA 2011 Josh? Not by a long shot but has it been Holy s*** Why This Jackass Still On The Team Josh? I don't think so.

 

I think we've gotten somewhere in the middle from him which would I think would be a 3 starter or something close to that. Not amazing but not a useless piece of trash that we should just dump to another team for scraps.