Phillies sign Papelbon

[example1]

I read somewhere on a sports blog that the Pirates closer Hanrahan might be available in a trade. Whether that rumor has any legs I have no idea but I do not completely trust Bard in that role. He has been a very good set-up man in the 8th inning and I would prefer to keep him there for the time being. Of course we need two or three more relievers so we don't find ourselves short in that area, and this time we have to get it right and get some firemen who can be effective and not like some of the duds Epstein foisted on us. To me that would mean Aceves would be No. 5 in the rotation and we'd still need a No. 4 through free agency or another trade.

 

Too bad some of Epstein's "prize" prospects like Bowden, Anderson and others have turned out to be duds and won't bring much in the way in any trade.

 

It seems like I'm always the one setting the record straight with this stuff...

 

The irony of you calling Bowden and Anderson prize prospects is really classic. Prized prospects?

 

Have you looked at the drafts those guys came out of? Bowden was drafted in 2005 after Ellsbury, Hansen, Buchholz and Lowrie. First of all I hope you see how stupid it is to pretend that somehow Bowden was more highly prized. Secondly, do you know the success rate for drafted players becoming effective MLB regulars? Let alone all stars or MVP candidates? Two in one draft and you are mocking the guy who merely has promise as a middle reliever? This has nothing to do with my usual defense of Theo. This is a defense of reasonableness.

 

And as for Anderson the same kind of delicious irony prevails. How many future championships and prized free agents did theo give up to move up in the draft for Anderson? Obviously none, he was an &th round pick. He was selected after Daniel bard (the guy you are saying needs more support despite his great skillset), Justin masterson (one of the better young pitchers in the game) Ryan Kalish (a prospect with 5 legitimate tools) and Josh reddick, who many are floating as either trade bait or a plus OF with pop.

 

Given that so few draftees find success I find it absurd that you would criticize players from either of those drafts or call those guys prizes. They may have been the best remaining draftees after Ellsbury, Lowrie, Buchholz, Masterson, Bard, Reddick, and Kalish, but prized ad just silly.

 

They were icing on the icing on the cake.

 

 

As for A700s comment I actually find it balanced and true (shockingly) it would have been better to sell them when their stock was decent. Might be a bit late for that now. Bowden looked okay at AAA last year and in spurts in Boston. It would be great if he cod play the Wheeler or Albers or Miller role next tear. Cost savings galore.

[ipot]

Gammons and Merloni were joining the growing chorus that Bard should be a starter...i don't know where i stand on this...it could be grand experiment that fails, and then will he ever be able to at least be a set up guy again?

[ipot]

I would bring a couple of SPs (4' date='5) and I would make Aceves one of our a lot mentioned and needed pitching depth arms.[/quote']

 

Agreed. We don't have to break the bank to find adequate 4 and 5 SPs and have Aceves right there to step in if one goes bust. He was huge out of the pen this year.

 

The glass half full says you can only go up from Lackey/Dice-K as your 4/5. (unless SF hands you Zito for free; that's still down)

[Sox Fan on Cape]

Nice avatar.

[iortiz]

Beyond E1's example (sounds weird ) ... We can affirm this:

 

When you:

 

I) Plan (real world) -> Good Result (real world) => Good Plan (real world) Ideal/Accurate

II) Plan (real world) -> Bad Result (real world) => Good Plan (fantasy world) Wish/Hope/Frustration

III) Plan (real world) -> Bad Result (real world) => Bad Plan (real world) Cruel/Cold

 

Sounds obvious, but sometimes we forget. You take accountability in both Scenarios I and III.

 

Sometimes we discuss in different worlds, that's for sure

[yeszir]

Nice avatar.

 

I got confused

[a700hitter]

As for A700s comment I actually find it balanced and true (shockingly) it would have been better to sell them when their stock was decent. Might be a bit late for that now. Bowden looked okay at AAA last year and in spurts in Boston. It would be great if he cod play the Wheeler or Albers or Miller role next tear. Cost savings galore.

 

:lol:I have to set the record straight. My comments are always balanced. It is your reading of them that is often unbalanced. I'm glad to see you are having a better day.

[a700hitter]

Agreed. We don't have to break the bank to find adequate 4 and 5 SPs and have Aceves right there to step in if one goes bust. He was huge out of the pen this year.

 

The glass half full says you can only go up from Lackey/Dice-K as your 4/5. (unless SF hands you Zito for free; that's still down)

If theydon't sign a big bullpen arm, I think Aceves will probably be slated for the 8th inning role, in which case he will be unavailable to start or spot start. This is the problem with Paps leaving. We talk about moving guys to different roles only to find that it creates another hole.

[FredLynn]

If theydon't sign a big bullpen arm' date=' I think Aceves will probably be slated for the 8th inning role, in which case he will be unavailable to start or spot start. This is the problem with Paps leaving. We talk about moving guys to different roles only to find that it creates another hole.[/quote']

 

First you fill in the SPs. Aceves will be given a chance to start next year and will be our #4 SP. We will still need one more ML caliber SP as a #5. I read that Matsusaka is way ahead of schedule and could adequately fill in as a #6 giving us some depth. Doubront is out of options and could provide additional depth. With Bard as closer the pen will need to be remade, but relief pitchers are always a crapshoot anyway.

While this arrangement should not inspire confidence in anyone that we can compete for a ring next year, it avoids obtaining further albatrosses like Lackey and Matsusaka, among others. It fills the roster to an extent in preparation for unloading some of Epstein's blunders in the next few years with an eye to becoming a legitimate contender in 2013 or 2014. Won't happen next year; no way, no how.

[a700hitter]

First you fill in the SPs. Aceves will be given a chance to start next year and will be our #4 SP. We will still need one more ML caliber SP as a #5. I read that Matsusaka is way ahead of schedule and could adequately fill in as a #6 giving us some depth. Doubront is out of options and could provide additional depth. With Bard as closer the pen will need to be remade, but relief pitchers are always a crapshoot anyway.

While this arrangement should not inspire confidence in anyone that we can compete for a ring next year, it avoids obtaining further albatrosses like Lackey and Matsusaka, among others. It fills the roster to an extent in preparation for unloading some of Epstein's blunders in the next few years with an eye to becoming a legitimate contender in 2013 or 2014. Won't happen next year; no way, no how.

I don't disagree. As far as Dice K being ahead of schedule, if I had a dollar for every time I heard that line in 45 years, I'd have at least 45 dollars. I don't let that give me any hope. The last time they almost sucked me in with that was with John Smoltz. He was ahead of schedule, then he was on schedule, then he had a setback, but he did come back in time to humiliate himself and to help the Yankees solidify their grip on the division.

[FredLynn]

I don't disagree. As far as Dice K being ahead of schedule' date=' if I had a dollar for every time I heard that line in 45 years, I'd have at least 45 dollars. I don't let that give me any hope. The last time they almost sucked me in with that was with John Smoltz. He was ahead of schedule, then he was on schedule, then he had a setback, but he did come back in time to humiliate himself and to help the Yankees solidify their grip on the division.[/quote']

 

Frankly, it would not disappoint me at all to have already seen DiceK's last pitch in a Sox uniform. I don't like his style as a Mound Rodent, nibbling around the strike zone all the time but never trusting his stuff and challenging hitters. Time to upgrade soon (2013) and to give Doubront a chance. Its swim or sink for him now that he is out of options.

[jung]

I don't think you could pencil Aceves in as your #4 because you will automatically be assigning him more innings than he would pitch from the #5 hole. As good as he has pitched, I don't think he looks like a 200 innings per year guy at this point.

 

Putting Aceves into the #5 spot immediately sets at least a reasonable expectation for the SP that you would bring in to be your 4. If Aceves crashes and burns as a #4 and your 5 is a step below Aceves, you are going to go from a shot at the post season year to a disaster year that quick. I would pencil in Aceves as the 4 if I could not come to terms with a 4 out in the marketplace and was left taking a 5. However don't fool yourself into thinking there is no difference between a 4 and a 5.

[FredLynn]

I don't think you could pencil Aceves in as your #4 because you will automatically be assigning him more innings than he would pitch from the #5 hole. As good as he has pitched, I don't think he looks like a 200 innings per year guy at this point.

 

Putting Aceves into the #5 spot immediately sets at least a reasonable expectation for the SP that you would bring in to be your 4. If Aceves crashes and burns as a #4 and your 5 is a step below Aceves, you are going to go from a shot at the post season year to a disaster year that quick. I would pencil in Aceves as the 4 if I could not come to terms with a 4 out in the marketplace and was left taking a 5. However don't fool yourself into thinking there is no difference between a 4 and a 5.

 

Not sure I really understand that reasoning. Assuming a rotation is five men deep then the fifth SP will get 99.9% of the starts the fourth SP gets. In any event, I was referring more to the quality aspect. I don't think this is the year to be bringing in a pitcher of high quality, even a #4 SP, because its a REBUILDING year. Its a year to wait until some of the many blunders our former GM come off the books. For example, Matsusaka will be off the books after next season. That is the time to look for real quality in SP.

[jung]

Next year we might be looking for somebody closer to the top of the rotation particularly if Lester does not push his way past Beckett this coming season.

 

Assuming reasonable health (which did not happen for the Sox rotation with the lose of dice for the whole season, Bucknoltz for part of the season, Lackey's decline to surgery and the conditioning issues) your first four should get more work than your 5. The work will not be evenly distributed between the 5 if they remain reasonably healthy.

 

There are two practical elements that drive your 5 to fewer innings:

1. You will always be more likely to give your 5 less rope and pull him earlier in games where he struggles.

 

2. Your 1,2,3 and 4 will likely be given as many starts as possible without risking injury. A typical example might be coming off a 4 game series and headed to play a team that is throwing their 1 in the next game. Depending on the number of days between starts you may in fact throw your 1 in that game. In fact he will likely be pitching on the 5th day, right where you want him to be in that scenario. At any rate the starts will not be evenly split between the 5 guys in the rotation assuming reasonable health. In fact for evidence of the difference between the 4 and the 5 all you need do is look at last season when Lackey became our 4. Lackey was pitched every time his number came up while the Sox were looking for the right spots to pitch there 5 who was Wake. That is the way the 5 is used. By the end of the year he will still get a number of starts from the 5 spot but not as many as the 1-4 will get.

[SoxSport]

I think the 5th starter after Aceves is fluid. There is Wakefield lurking, and you hope they can break that cord. Bard is in the picture as 5th starter, but they would have to sign a closer. My guess is Bard as closer has been in the cards for a long time. They were not going to pay big bucks to Pap with Bard the cheap closer in waiting.

[FredLynn]

Next year we might be looking for somebody closer to the top of the rotation particularly if Lester does not push his way past Beckett this coming season.

 

Assuming reasonable health (which did not happen for the Sox rotation with the lose of dice for the whole season, Bucknoltz for part of the season, Lackey's decline to surgery and the conditioning issues) your first four should get more work than your 5. The work will not be evenly distributed between the 5 if they remain reasonably healthy.

 

There are two practical elements that drive your 5 to fewer innings:

1. You will always be more likely to give your 5 less rope and pull him earlier in games where he struggles.

 

2. Your 1,2,3 and 4 will likely be given as many starts as possible without risking injury. A typical example might be coming off a 4 game series and headed to play a team that is throwing their 1 in the next game. Depending on the number of days between starts you may in fact throw your 1 in that game. In fact he will likely be pitching on the 5th day, right where you want him to be in that scenario. At any rate the starts will not be evenly split between the 5 guys in the rotation assuming reasonable health. In fact for evidence of the difference between the 4 and the 5 all you need do is look at last season when Lackey became our 4. Lackey was pitched every time his number came up while the Sox were looking for the right spots to pitch there 5 who was Wake. That is the way the 5 is used. By the end of the year he will still get a number of starts from the 5 spot but not as many as the 1-4 will get.

 

Sorry, but with all due respect Jung, this is nonsense. There are simply too many factors for your statement to be true, that a #4 SP will get more innings than a #5, injuries being a major factor. Here is an analysis of the Sox, Yankees, and Rays SP with their number of innings pitched and ERA followed by games started:

 

Sox:

 

Lackey: 160/6.41/28

Lester: 191/3.47/31

Beckett: 193/2.89/30

Wakefield: 154/5.12/23

(no one else had more than 14 starts)

 

Yankees:

 

CC: 237/3.00/33

Garcia: 146/3.62/25

Colon: 164/4.00/26

Nova: 165/3.70/27

Burnett: 190/5.15/32

 

Rays:

 

Niemann: 135/4.06/23

Davis: 184/4.45/29

Shields: 249/2.82/33

Hellickson: 189/2.95/29

Price: 224/3.49/34

 

If your #5 SP is your fifth best pitcher (and I use ERA to measure that-if you want to use another statistic go ahead and do the analysis with that stat), then our worst pitcher was Lackey, for the Yankees it was Burnett, and for the Rays it was Davis. In EACH CASE the #5 SP pitched more innings than one of the higher ranked pitchers on the team. I suspect that if you analyze most teams this will be the case. In addition, the statistical #5 SP in EACH CASE had more starts than a higher ranked SP. Burnett had more starts for the Yankees than anyone but Sabathia.

What you have stated is simply not true.

[jung]

And the starts for those 5 starters were:

 

 

Lackey: 28

Lester: 31

Beckett: 30

Wakefield: 23

Buckholtz: 14 (mainly due to injury)

 

dice got 8 and Miller got 12.

 

You would have to analyze it across baseball in order to get past the injury issue, which I pointed out as being a major wild card, but an easy place to start would be with teams #1 and #2 pitchers.

 

I think it you look across baseball you will rarely find the SP past the #1 and #2 guys on MLB staffs with over 30 starts. However in most cases the #1 and #2 guys will have at least 30 starts and it tiers off from there. If a team 1 and 2 are the only guys that are going to get over 30 starts it stands to reason that 3, 4 and 5 are getting less with your least capable SP getting the fewest starts.

 

Of the three teams you used in your example only one really had a high degree of balance in starts, that being the Yankees and everybody knew that their SP was CC and pray for rain so pitchers 2-5 were a toss up. However even their only two pitchers had over 30 starts....CC clearly the ace and Burnett, the guy they had such high hopes for, dashed once again.

 

Of the 3 teams you choose the Rays provide the best example with their 1 and 2 getting 33 and 34 starts respectively and the only 2 with over 200 innings. Their #5 only got 23 starts and 135 innings. Their 3 and 4 both started 29 and finished with 180+ innings.

 

I should also point out that the number of starts and to an extent the number of innings pitched are the only stats indicative of which pitchers a team believes gives them the best chance to win, game in and game out which is how the SP are ranked through the season. The other stats give you the results of those decisions.

[User Name]

Barring several injuries, the #5 starter in a team will start less games and pitch less innings than the rest of the rotation, because they will skip him on off-days, and generally avoid him as much as possible, since he is supposed to be the weak link of the rotation. This is common knowledge.

[jacksonianmarch]

I would caution anyone to put Aceves into the rotation long term. I watched Aceves from when the Yankees signed him out of Mexico around the same time they signed Banuelos. He's always had marginal big league stuff, with great command and has been a nightmare the second time through a lineup. His deception is that he can throw 1-2 innings of shutdown relief because he comes at you with 4 pitches and shows all of them from the getgo. As a starter, you have to show 2 the first time through, mix in a 3rd the second time through, and then your 4th pitch the third time through. He cannot operate that way as his fastball and curve arent really plus pitches. I loved Ace when he was here and thought he was the glue that held together a championship team. But I would highly caution anyone who thinks he's the answer as the #5 starter

[jung]

Neither Aceves or Bard are great choices for #5 starter but I think it less likely that they will sign enough SP either via trade or FA to avoid trying Aceves in the #5 spot for 2012. I don't think it is a question of the Sox not trying to get enough starting pitching within the constraints of the 2012 luxury tax limits. I think that within those limits they will try to get enough starting pitching to make Bard the closer and leave Aceves as a reliever. However I think it more likely that they will fail by at least 1 SP forcing Aceves into that role.

[FredLynn]

Barring several injuries' date=' the #5 starter in a team will start less games and pitch less innings than the rest of the rotation, because they will skip him on off-days, and generally avoid him as much as possible, since he is supposed to be the weak link of the rotation. This is common knowledge.[/quote']

 

Thats a pretty good theory, but in fact it doesn't work out that way from a practical point of view, mostly due to injuries. Barring injury I would agree that teams would start their best pitchers most often. I showed you the facts earlier: in reality, sometimes the team's worst pitcher gets an inordinate number of starts and innings because, perhaps, he stays healthy. Look at Burnett, the Yankee's statistical #5 SP as an example. I prefer to deal in reality rather than theory. We live in a real world, not a theoretical one.

[User Name]

You showed the facts from one team with an inordinate amount of injuries. That is the exception, not the rule. And even in those cases, the #5 starter effectively moves up a rung, becoming the #4 while his replacement becomes the #5. This, of course, all in a "realistic, non theoretical" setting.

[FredLynn]

And the starts for those 5 starters were:

 

 

Lackey: 28

Lester: 31

Beckett: 30

Wakefield: 23

Buckholtz: 14 (mainly due to injury)

 

dice got 8 and Miller got 12.

 

You would have to analyze it across baseball in order to get past the injury issue, which I pointed out as being a major wild card, but an easy place to start would be with teams #1 and #2 pitchers.

 

I think it you look across baseball you will rarely find the SP past the #1 and #2 guys on MLB staffs with over 30 starts. However in most cases the #1 and #2 guys will have at least 30 starts and it tiers off from there. If a team 1 and 2 are the only guys that are going to get over 30 starts it stands to reason that 3, 4 and 5 are getting less with your least capable SP getting the fewest starts.

 

Of the three teams you used in your example only one really had a high degree of balance in starts, that being the Yankees and everybody knew that their SP was CC and pray for rain so pitchers 2-5 were a toss up. However even their only two pitchers had over 30 starts....CC clearly the ace and Burnett, the guy they had such high hopes for, dashed once again.

 

Of the 3 teams you choose the Rays provide the best example with their 1 and 2 getting 33 and 34 starts respectively and the only 2 with over 200 innings. Their #5 only got 23 starts and 135 innings. Their 3 and 4 both started 29 and finished with 180+ innings.

 

I should also point out that the number of starts and to an extent the number of innings pitched are the only stats indicative of which pitchers a team believes gives them the best chance to win, game in and game out which is how the SP are ranked through the season. The other stats give you the results of those decisions.

 

Looking back at what you wrote:

 

Assuming reasonable health (which did not happen for the Sox rotation with the lose of dice for the whole season, Bucknoltz for part of the season, Lackey's decline to surgery and the conditioning issues) your first four should get more work than your 5,

 

its the "assuming reasonable health" part that I disagree with. I don't think you can make assumptions about the health of any player. Thats why teams are 7 or 8 SP deep to begin the season, and thats why, in reality, the inferior pitchers on teams may get more innings and starts than the better ones. Of course, in an ideal world, you would see the innings and starts decline as you go from #1 to #5. Practically speaking, it doesn't work out that way very often, if ever.

[FredLynn]

You showed the facts from one team with an inordinate amount of injuries. That is the exception' date=' not the rule. And even in those cases, the #5 starter effectively moves up a rung, becoming the #4 while his replacement becomes the #5. This, of course, all in a "realistic, non theoretical" setting.[/quote']

 

I showed you stats from THREE teams. If you want more, randomly select some teams and see if the starts and innings decrease as you go down from the best pitcher to the worst using any relevant measure of performance you like.

[User Name]

You're using ERA to determine their standing as a starter. That is disingenuous. Just look at the Rays and Yankees, where Price and Burnett were actually their ace and #4 respectively. In "real life" the rotation spot a pitcher starts the year with is usually the one he holds throughout the season, with specific exceptions.

[FredLynn]

You're using ERA to determine their standing as a starter. That is disingenuous. Just look at the Rays and Yankees' date=' where Price and Burnett were actually their ace and #4 respectively. In "real life" the rotation spot a pitcher starts the year with is usually the one he holds throughout the season, with specific exceptions.[/quote']

 

Thats right: I am using ERA to determine who the #1, 2, 3 etc are. What performance measure would you like to use? Subjective judgement? Winner of a game of musical chairs?

[FredLynn]

Incidentally, I looked at a few more teams. The Rangers: Colby Lewis, their statistical #5 SP (ie lowest ERA among SP) pitched the second most innings for his team this year, and the A's: Trevor Cahill, the worst SP in terms of ERA pitched more innings than anyone!

Its absurd to assume that guys will stay healthy enough so that the number of innings pitched decreases as you go down 1-5. Thats not reality; thats theoretical and isn't particularly relevant to the real world.

[User Name]

Thats right: I am using ERA to determine who the #1' date=' 2, 3 etc are. What performance measure would you like to use? Subjective judgement? Winner of a game of musical chairs?[/quote']

 

ERA is not how it works. Rotation spots are set by the manager, not by their ERA. This is not an issue that can be measured by your personal judgement, but rather how it actually works in MLB.

 

David Price is a clear example. He was the Ray's #1 pitcher all year long (even if Shields was better) yet you don't have him listed as #1.

[User Name]

Incidentally, I looked at a few more teams. The Rangers: Colby Lewis, their statistical #5 SP (ie lowest ERA among SP) pitched the second most innings for his team this year, and the A's: Trevor Cahill, the worst SP in terms of ERA pitched more innings than anyone!

Its absurd to assume that guys will stay healthy enough so that the number of innings pitched decreases as you go down 1-5. Thats not reality; thats theoretical and isn't particularly relevant to the real world.

 

It's not about ERA, it's about the rotation spots set by the manager. Where did you come up with this?

[jung]

Injury MAY become such a factor, particularly at the top of the rotation, that your rotation becomes a complete mess and the team loses the relationship between which SP gives the team the best chance to win and his place in the rotation but as User indicated injury that deep is the rarity. the SPs' whoever they are will still be maintained in some order based on who the team thinks gives them the best chance to win each moving up in turn. That would be the difference between "reasonable health" and uncommon degrees of injury.

 

Reasonable health would still allow a team to maintain a rotation based on the the pitchers they think give them the best chance to win getting the ball more than other pitchers. It is "uncommon" for the SP rotation to be so decimated by injury that an order based on that philosophical approach cannot be maintained and the result of that approach by seasons end will be that pitchers in the 1,2,3 and 4 spots will have more starts than the guy in the 5 spot.

 

I will grant that a pitcher can be elevated to the 4 spot from the 5 and conversely demoted to the 5 from the 4 regardless of injury. But the very fact that such movement can happen supports the contention that an order does exist and if maintained through the season will produce a #4 with more starts than a #5.