Lackey to the Padres?

[Cask N Flagon 76]

Fangraphs also has him listed as the 26th best SP in 2010, ahead of Clay Buchholz, Tim Hudson, David Price, Mat Latos, Chris Carpenter, Trevor Cahill, Cole Hamels, and Matt Cain.

 

Do you honestly agree with that?

 

 

 

They also have Lackey with a WAR of 1.5 over Aceves who has a 1.0 go figure lol.

[iortiz]

They also have Lackey with a WAR of 1.5 over Aceves who has a 1.0 go figure lol.

 

Really? Hahahaha

[Cask N Flagon 76]

Really? Hahahaha

 

 

 

Yes they do for 2011 can you believe that lol. I thought to myself wow that can't be right and what's funny is that i'm still learning all this sabermetrics lol.

[a700hitter]

Fangraphs also has him listed as the 26th best SP in 2010, ahead of Clay Buchholz, Tim Hudson, David Price, Mat Latos, Chris Carpenter, Trevor Cahill, Cole Hamels, and Matt Cain.

 

Do you honestly agree with that?

So much for the reliability of Fangraphs.:thumbdown

[seabeachfred]

Lackey's not going anywhere unless John Henry is willing to eat a big portion of the that contract and I doubt the mousy owner has the will to do that. The only thing I know for certain is if Lackey is still with us next season the fans are going to let him have it with all the artillery it can muster. If he stays with the Red Sox he better somehow try and find his stuff that he lost since he left the Angels.

[FredLynn]

They also have Lackey with a WAR of 1.5 over Aceves who has a 1.0 go figure lol.

 

Is this a joke? The WAR for Lackey is higher than that for Aceves? If thats true, and I am sure it is, then I can eliminate one additional alphabet soup metric from my vocabulary.

[Laser Show]

Is this a joke? The WAR for Lackey is higher than that for Aceves? If thats true' date=' and I am sure it is, then I can eliminate one additional alphabet soup metric from my vocabulary.[/quote']

 

Or just Fangraphs as a whole.

[italstallianion]

I'm a bit torn on getting rid of Tito, but I can accept it.

 

I'm not happy to see Theo go, but if we can get rid of Lackey in the process (saving some money and a lot of runs) then by all means I can get on board with the deal. I had no idea that we could trade front office people for players. If we can either dump Lackey and save a lot of money, or dump Lackey and save a little money and pick up a player/prospect, then I think that's worth a new GM.

 

Not to mention if Lackey is the true cancer that has been reported, we'd be without a lot of those "troublemakers" next season. Think of a Red Sox team without Lackey, Drew, Varitek, and Wakefield. That's what I call addition by subtraction.

[iortiz]

I'm a bit torn on getting rid of Tito, but I can accept it.

 

I'm not happy to see Theo go, but if we can get rid of Lackey in the process (saving some money and a lot of runs) then by all means I can get on board with the deal. I had no idea that we could trade front office people for players. If we can either dump Lackey and save a lot of money, or dump Lackey and save a little money and pick up a player/prospect, then I think that's worth a new GM.

 

Not to mention if Lackey is the true cancer that has been reported, we'd be without a lot of those "troublemakers" next season. Think of a Red Sox team without Lackey, Drew, Varitek, and Wakefield. That's what I call addition by subtraction.

 

Ecole cua!

[italstallianion]

Ecole cua!

 

 

Can someone hit the SAP feature?

[La Munson]

Is this a joke? The WAR for Lackey is higher than that for Aceves? If thats true' date=' and I am sure it is, then I can eliminate one additional alphabet soup metric from my vocabulary.[/quote']

 

Not surprising at all, WAR on Fangraphs is significantly flawed when it comes to pitchers (and hitters to a lesser extent) by using FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) stats, giving a big advantage to high strikeout guys. Not reflective at all of how good a pitcher is.

 

Yet another reason why all stats on Baseball Reference are far far superior, they show Lackey at a -1.2 WAR for 2011, which believe it or not isn't the worst in the MLB (top five I believe), and Aceves has one of 2.9, which was the third best on the team overall (behind who you probably expect).

[iortiz]

Can someone hit the SAP feature?

 

Ecole cua = Exactly!

[SoxSport]

I read the holdup with Epstein is something about players' medical reports.

That could mean Lackey. It also could mean McNutt, who is coming off an injury-plagued year.

or some other players.

[Cask N Flagon 76]

I read the holdup with Epstein is something about players' medical reports.

That could mean Lackey. It also could mean McNutt, who is coming off an injury-plagued year.

or some other players.

 

 

They already said Mcnutt is not a possibility along with Jackson.

[SoxSport]

Cafardo has an interesting tidbit today about maybe Bud Black for manager.

He's a pitching coach, too, and God knows, they need a pitching coach.

And he's worked with Lackey before.

 

Personally, I'd rather see Bud Black work with Lackey in San Diego.

Lackey is a PR disaster in Boston at this point. He's gone.

[SoxSport]

They already said Mcnutt is not a possibility along with Jackson.

 

Ha. Who's 'they'? There are so many conflicting reports out there, you don't know what the score is. That Kaplan guy in Chicago says he is hearing McNutt.

 

None of these "top" Cubs prospects are worth anywhere close to the attention they are receiving. It almost doesn't make any difference.

 

My guess is Ricketts doesn't get Epstein unless he gives Lucchino somebody who looks good for PR in Boston--which is at a low point right now. That's something Ricketts didn't figure on.

[Cask N Flagon 76]

Exactly i believe Ricketts won't get Theo at all unless they give someone of considerable value".

[example1]

So much for the reliability of Fangraphs.:thumbdown

 

I wouldn't just dismiss a stat out of hand like that. Aceves was undoubtedly more valuable than Lackey last year... not every stat gets it right every time.

 

Fangraphs weighs pitchers using FIP, which is a metric designed to eliminate luck from pitchers' performances. The past two seasons it has really emphasized the amount of "bad luck" that Lackey has had and has improved his value because of it.

 

Of course, by " bad luck" it really is capturing things similar to BABIP, which is a very useful stat but anyone who watched Lackey this year knows that his BABIP would probably be higher because there were many hard hit balls off of him.

 

In any case, Fangraphs is consistently saying that Lackey's results are worse than his performance/abilities should dictate. I would say the stat should be used depending on how much weight you give to this type of analysis. Fangraphs still said that Lackey was really bad according to FIP and WAR, it just seems that he had a better combination of other stats than the guys whose FIP was worse (K rates, walk rates, HR rates). He also pitched many more innings than Aceves, so he may have contributed more actual wins to his team because of that difference.

 

I think ORS laid out nicely why these types of metrics are useful. When they match your percieved list of player value--even if that list is mostly based on traditional stats--then you come to trust its validity. Then, when it spits out something unexpected, it can help you check your biases.

 

For instance, both sites do not list Lackey as the worst pitcher in the league.

 

With fangraphs I looked at FIP at a certain number of innings and (as discussed earlier) there were a few worse pitchers.

 

With B-R there are 3 pitchers over 100 IP who were worse/the same (Joel Pineiro, Fausto Carmona and Tim Wakefield). That more or less confirms my suspicion... especially having watched Wakefield. He was terrible for most of the year and his 'intangables' really hurt too.

[example1]

Not surprising at all, WAR on Fangraphs is significantly flawed when it comes to pitchers (and hitters to a lesser extent) by using FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) stats, giving a big advantage to high strikeout guys. Not reflective at all of how good a pitcher is.

 

Yet another reason why all stats on Baseball Reference are far far superior, they show Lackey at a -1.2 WAR for 2011, which believe it or not isn't the worst in the MLB (top five I believe), and Aceves has one of 2.9, which was the third best on the team overall (behind who you probably expect).

 

This is a solid analysis... should have read it before I posted my long-winded version.

 

You compare Aceves to the list of best pitchers in a few ways to see if it compares to what you would think. When it does it gives you confidence in the metric.

 

That list seems intuitively correct to me. :thumbsup:

[a700hitter]

I wouldn't just dismiss a stat out of hand like that. Aceves was undoubtedly more valuable than Lackey last year... not every stat gets it right every time.

 

Fangraphs weighs pitchers using FIP, which is a metric designed to eliminate luck from pitchers' performances. The past two seasons it has really emphasized the amount of "bad luck" that Lackey has had and has improved his value because of it.

 

Of course, by " bad luck" it really is capturing things similar to BABIP, which is a very useful stat but anyone who watched Lackey this year knows that his BABIP would probably be higher because there were many hard hit balls off of him.

 

In any case, Fangraphs is consistently saying that Lackey's results are worse than his performance/abilities should dictate. I would say the stat should be used depending on how much weight you give to this type of analysis. Fangraphs still said that Lackey was really bad according to FIP and WAR, it just seems that he had a better combination of other stats than the guys whose FIP was worse (K rates, walk rates, HR rates). He also pitched many more innings than Aceves, so he may have contributed more actual wins to his team because of that difference.

 

I think ORS laid out nicely why these types of metrics are useful. When they match your percieved list of player value--even if that list is mostly based on traditional stats--then you come to trust its validity. Then, when it spits out something unexpected, it can help you check your biases.

 

For instance, both sites do not list Lackey as the worst pitcher in the league.

 

With fangraphs I looked at FIP at a certain number of innings and (as discussed earlier) there were a few worse pitchers.

 

With B-R there are 3 pitchers over 100 IP who were worse/the same (Joel Pineiro, Fausto Carmona and Tim Wakefield). That more or less confirms my suspicion... especially having watched Wakefield. He was terrible for most of the year and his 'intangables' really hurt too.

There is no way that he was better in 2010 than Clay Buchholz, Tim Hudson, David Price, Mat Latos, Chris Carpenter, Trevor Cahill, Cole Hamels, and Matt Cain.

[example1]

There is no way that he was better in 2010 than Clay Buchholz' date=' Tim Hudson, David Price, Mat Latos, Chris Carpenter, Trevor Cahill, Cole Hamels, and Matt Cain.[/quote']

 

I agree. Clearly there's an anomoly there.

[ORS]

I wouldn't just dismiss a stat out of hand like that. Aceves was undoubtedly more valuable than Lackey last year... not every stat gets it right every time.

 

Fangraphs weighs pitchers using FIP, which is a metric designed to eliminate luck from pitchers' performances. The past two seasons it has really emphasized the amount of "bad luck" that Lackey has had and has improved his value because of it.

 

Of course, by " bad luck" it really is capturing things similar to BABIP, which is a very useful stat but anyone who watched Lackey this year knows that his BABIP would probably be higher because there were many hard hit balls off of him.

 

In any case, Fangraphs is consistently saying that Lackey's results are worse than his performance/abilities should dictate. I would say the stat should be used depending on how much weight you give to this type of analysis. Fangraphs still said that Lackey was really bad according to FIP and WAR, it just seems that he had a better combination of other stats than the guys whose FIP was worse (K rates, walk rates, HR rates). He also pitched many more innings than Aceves, so he may have contributed more actual wins to his team because of that difference.

 

I think ORS laid out nicely why these types of metrics are useful. When they match your percieved list of player value--even if that list is mostly based on traditional stats--then you come to trust its validity. Then, when it spits out something unexpected, it can help you check your biases.

 

For instance, both sites do not list Lackey as the worst pitcher in the league.

 

With fangraphs I looked at FIP at a certain number of innings and (as discussed earlier) there were a few worse pitchers.

 

With B-R there are 3 pitchers over 100 IP who were worse/the same (Joel Pineiro, Fausto Carmona and Tim Wakefield). That more or less confirms my suspicion... especially having watched Wakefield. He was terrible for most of the year and his 'intangables' really hurt too.

Lackey is exactly the type of pitcher that FIP misses the boat on. His BABIP the last two seasons has been deserved. He's been a rope machine for the other team. I think FIP would be a lot better if they included the H/9 in the calculation, but then adjusted it to account for expected BABIP (based on batted ball type).

[example1]

Lackey is exactly the type of pitcher that FIP misses the boat on. His BABIP the last two seasons has been deserved. He's been a rope machine for the other team. I think FIP would be a lot better if they included the H/9 in the calculation' date=' but then adjusted it to account for expected BABIP (based on batted ball type).[/quote']

 

Right. Just like there is BABIP as a reasonable stat for guys who hit the ball with some consistent force bs for guys who just hit taps back to the pitcher and catcher. Overall ot is a worthy measure but there are some players that adjusted measures like that just miss. I suspect that in time that anomaly will be corrected.

[a700hitter]

Right. Just like there is BABIP as a reasonable stat for guys who hit the ball with some consistent force bs for guys who just hit taps back to the pitcher and catcher. Overall ot is a worthy measure but there are some players that adjusted measures like that just miss. I suspect that in time that anomaly will be corrected.

But I already knew that all those guys were better than Lackey. If someone wanted to know, all they had to do was ask me.

[User Name]

The differences in WAR calculations between FanGraphs stem not only from the use of a different formula, but from the use of a different "scale" to measure both replacement level and the average amount of WAR per team.

 

But in this particular instance, i believe that the problems with comparing Lackey to Aceves is both WAR's overvaluing the amount of IP, whilst undervaluing what we could call effectiveness. In other words, WAR for pitchers is likely to value the amount of innings pitched over how effective the pitcher was while on the mound to account for both sample issues and realistic impact on the game by number of innings, but that leaves us with the inability to realistically compare a really crappy starter to a really good middle reliever without feeling unsatisfied with the result to a certain extent.

 

WAR is a flawed statistic in several aspects, although i will admit it is very useful in most circumstances.

 

In the case of Aceves specifically, his peripherals would suggest he pitched way over his head even without the use of advanced statistics, which may also be a factor in why the WAR statistic points him out as having been an inferior value to Lackey even if the results argue otherwise.

[Cask N Flagon 76]

The differences in WAR calculations between FanGraphs stem not only from the use of a different formula, but from the use of a different "scale" to measure both replacement level and the average amount of WAR per team.

 

But in this particular instance, i believe that the problems with comparing Lackey to Aceves is both WAR's overvaluing the amount of IP, whilst undervaluing what we could call effectiveness. In other words, WAR for pitchers is likely to value the amount of innings pitched over how effective the pitcher was while on the mound to account for both sample issues and realistic impact on the game by number of innings, but that leaves us with the inability to realistically compare a really crappy starter to a really good middle reliever without feeling unsatisfied with the result to a certain extent.

 

WAR is a flawed statistic in several aspects, although i will admit it is very useful in most circumstances.

 

In the case of Aceves specifically, his peripherals would suggest he pitched way over his head even without the use of advanced statistics, which may also be a factor in why the WAR statistic points him out as having been an inferior value to Lackey even if the results argue otherwise.

 

 

Clearly though we could make a clear cut case that Aceves was a better pitcher this year.

We all saw how bad Lackey was no doubt about that.

[User Name]

That's why the statistic is flawed. It overvalues IP regardless of actual results for the pitcher, specially since it uses defense-ignoring stats that make performances from a guy like Lackey (who was a line drive generator for the other team) look much better than they actual are since he had decent FIP-related peripherals (K/9, BB/9).

[SoxSport]

There is no way that he was better in 2010 than Clay Buchholz' date=' Tim Hudson, David Price, Mat Latos, Chris Carpenter, Trevor Cahill, Cole Hamels, and Matt Cain.[/quote']

 

There's an uncertainty in all this statistical anaysis. There are fluctuations season to season.

Price, Latos and Carpenter, for example, underachieved this year (Carpenter suddenly found himself in September), while Hudson overachieved. And then there's the injury factor.

 

It's hard to predict a player's future performance on past statistics. Thought the more data you have (no.seasons), the better your chance.

 

Statistical analysis depends on sample size. You have to have a large sample size to get anything meaningful. That's often gets overlooked with many fans who look at statistics.

[SoxSport]

Lackey is exactly the type of pitcher that FIP misses the boat on. His BABIP the last two seasons has been deserved. He's been a rope machine for the other team. I think FIP would be a lot better if they included the H/9 in the calculation' date=' but then adjusted it to account for expected BABIP (based on batted ball type).[/quote']

 

 

You can get a lot of this just watching a guy pitch a few times. The guys who get hit are the ones that throw it right down the middle --in the heart of the plate. Lackey is one of those guys. Beckett gets himself in trouble that way, too, though less frequently.

[User Name]

You keep mentioning the fact that Carpenter "sucked" and "underachieved", which is not true.

 

He had a 3.45 season ERA, pitched 237.1 innings and really only had one bad month, which was May.

 

He had ERA's of: 3.89, 3.00, 2.68, 4.08, 2.15 in the other months.

 

Although September was his best month, he was really good in April and August, and excellent in June and July.