Phillies sign Papelbon

[User Name]

If you go to BB-Reference.com, they list Niemann for the Rays (135 IP) and Garcia for the Yanks, (146 IP) as their #5 starters, because that's the rotation spot they held.

[FredLynn]

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.

 

The manager uses his best pitcher as his #1 SP. Who did Maddon pitch in game 2 vs the Rangers in the playoffs, Shields or Price? What criteria do you think a manager would use to determine his order of SP? Did you really think that Lackey, the worst SP in baseball, was our #4 SP this year in terms of performance? Hint: he wasn't.

[User Name]

The manager uses his best pitcher as his #1 SP. Who did Maddon pitch in game 2 vs the Rangers in the playoffs' date=' Shields or Price? What criteria do you think a manager would use to determine his order of SP? Did you really think that Lackey, the worst SP in baseball, was our #4 SP this year in terms of performance? Hint: he wasn't.[/quote']

 

They may flip-flop pitchers in certain situations, as i mentioned earlier, but if you go to BB-Reference.com, then you will find that the #5 pitcher listed in their rotations (Hint: They use the correct criteria) consistently pitches the least innings of the rotation.

[FredLynn]

If you go to BB-Reference.com' date=' they list Niemann for the Rays (135 IP) and Garcia for the Yanks, (146 IP) as their #5 starters, because that's the rotation spot they held.[/quote']

 

I see: you think that the slot a pitcher holds at the beginning of the season will be correlated with their statistical performance at the end of the season, perhaps.

You can call Lackey our #4 SP , for example, but he was the worst SP in baseball. He performed, in reality, like a #8 SP. You are still dealing in theory, not reality.

[User Name]

What in the heavens are you talking about? It's not about their performance, but the spot they hold in the rotation. And as much as he sucked, by position, Lackey was the #4 or #3 pitcher in the rotation most of last year. He was never #5.Blame Francona for that.

[FredLynn]

I guess the difference of opinion here is that I view our BEST pitcher as our #1 SP and our statistically WORST pitcher (with a decent number of innings pitched) as our #5 SP. That is calling it the way it really is. You can call Lackey our #4 SP, or our #3 SP, but he didn't perform that way. As they say, you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig. The point is that the worst SP on the team, the #5 SP in ACTUAL PERFORMANCE, may have more starts and innings pitched than anyone else on the team.

[User Name]

That's because of Francona. Usually managers will move a struggling pitcher down to a rotation spot where they will pitch less innings, but Francona refused to do that with Lackey, and that's why he pitched so many innings.

[FredLynn]

What in the heavens are you talking about? It's not about their performance' date=' but the spot they hold in the rotation. And as much as he sucked, by position, Lackey [b']was[/b] the #4 or #3 pitcher in the rotation most of last year. He was never #5.Blame Francona for that.

 

Let me put it to you this way to help you out: you are the manager right now: how do you rank our SPers? Who is #1, #2 and so forth?

Just because you CALL someone our #3 or 4 does not make him better than the #5. Thats reality.

[User Name]

Let me put it to you this way to help you out: you are the manager right now: how do you rank our SPers? Who is #1, #2 and so forth?

Just because you CALL someone our #3 or 4 does not make him better than the #5. Thats reality.

 

But he is pitching out of the #4 spot in the rotation. That's reality. I don't appreciate your condescending attitude by the way. Let's just agree to disagree here.

[jung]

Even innings pitched does not get to the point. GS or Games Started is the only stat for Starting Pitchers that gets to the issue of a manager maintaining his rotation based on who he thinks gives his team the best chance to win with the #5 whoever he is getting the least number of starts of a five man rotation.

 

The Manager will make that decision based on a number of elements including stats like ERA but a single stat like ERA will not by any means be critical enough to be the arbiter.

[FredLynn]

That's because of Francona. Usually managers will move a struggling pitcher down to a rotation spot where they will pitch less innings' date=' but Francona refused to do that with Lackey, and that's why he pitched so many innings.[/quote']

 

Well, what about the A's manager, where his worst SP pitched more innings than anyone else? Its rampant, and its mostly because the top pitchers get injured.

[FredLynn]

Even innings pitched does not get to the point. GS or Games Started is the only stat for Starting Pitchers that gets to the issue of a manager maintaining his rotation based on who he thinks gives his team the best chance to win with the #5 whoever he is getting the least number of starts of a five man rotation.

 

The Manager will make that decision based on a number of elements including stats like ERA but a single stat like ERA will not by any means be critical enough to be the arbiter.

 

OK; you don't like ERA as a criteria.

Do the analysis with another stat.

[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.

 

This is where all of this began. Just because you call Aceves the #5 guy does NOT mean that he will get fewer innings than the #4 guy...or the #2 guy..or anyone else. His innings will be determined by many factors, the most important being health and effectiveness. THIS is what I disagreed with initially. We are losing sight of the reason for the discussion IMO.

[jung]

Let me put it to you this way to help you out: you are the manager right now: how do you rank our SPers? Who is #1, #2 and so forth?

Just because you CALL someone our #3 or 4 does not make him better than the #5. Thats reality.

 

Jesus, you really want to go with this pumps? Although maybe this does get to the heart of the issue.

 

There is a difference between which SP the manager believes gives him the best chance to win which does relate to the pitchers spot in the rotation and the eventual performance based stats that are produced. The manager does not have the convenience of predetermining outcomes such as ERA. Those performance based measures are produced in real time and the manager can't simply move guys around in the rotation willy nilly based on what those stats are during the course of the season. He may move a guy up to the 1 from the 2 and so on at the start of a season based on a number of influences including performance based stats and who he thinks is his best big game pitcher etc.

[FredLynn]

Jesus, you really want to go with this pumps? Although maybe this does get to the heart of the issue.

 

There is a difference between which SP the manager believes gives him the best chance to win which does relate to the pitchers spot in the rotation and the eventual performance based stats that are produced. The manager does not have the convenience of predetermining outcomes such as ERA. Those performance based measures are produced in real time and the manager can't simply move guys around in the rotation willy nilly based on what those stats are during the course of the season. He may move a guy up to the 1 from the 2 and so on at the start of a season based on a number of influences including performance based stats and who he thinks is his best big game pitcher etc.

 

Again, the post below is the one I initially commented on as being inaccurate. No, I don't want to go on with this, really. Its a difference in how we view ranking our SP. I do not view Lackey as our #4 SP last year, for example. He was the worst SP in MLB:

 

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.

[jung]

This is where all of this began. Just because you call Aceves the #5 guy does NOT mean that he will get fewer innings than the #4 guy...or the #2 guy..or anyone else. His innings will be determined by many factors, the most important being health and effectiveness. THIS is what I disagreed with initially. We are losing sight of the reason for the discussion IMO

.

 

pumps this can't be the gist of your argument. You are suggesting that there is no difference in the number of starts and that they do not correlate to a pitchers position in the rotation. Further your argument is that because you cannot account for injury, you cannot guarantee that the #5 will pitch fewer innings than the #4. But to extend your argument further, managers should not assign pitchers any spot in the rotation because injury is going to negate the number of starts for each and that is simply not true. Sure you can find cases where the #4 got fewer starts than the #5 due to some whacky extenuating circumstance but it is absolutely critical to a manager that he establish this hierarchy in his rotation regardless of what might happen due to injury and your argument flies in the face of that necessity. The Manager has no choice but to establish the hierarchy based on recognizing that he will avoid using his 5 as much as possible with the ultimate result that the 5 will end up with fewer starts than the 4.

[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.

 

One other thing i did not see in your argument until you selected it as a quote....I think you are confusing what a Manager "assigns" for a starting pitcher with the result. I did not say that the #4 will automatically pitch more innings than the #5. I said that his manager will automatically be assigning the #4 more innings than the #5 by virtue of their positions in the rotation and the number of starts that the #4 will get as opposed to the #5. We quickly went on to discuss results and the discussion became focused on results. It was not until I saw this quote that I thought to comment on it.

 

This is also why I focused later in the discussion on number of starts as opposed to just innings because there the relationship between number of starts and position in the rotation is easier to see. However now I think you used "assigning him more innings" to mean that the pitcher would in all cases pitch more innings.

[FredLynn]

.

 

pumps this can't be the gist of your argument. You are suggesting that there is no difference in the number of starts and that they do not correlate to a pitchers position in the rotation. Further your argument is that because you cannot account for injury, you cannot guarantee that the #5 will pitch fewer innings than the #4. But to extend your argument further, managers should not assign pitchers any spot in the rotation because injury is going to negate the number of starts for each and that is simply not true. Sure you can find cases where the #4 got fewer starts than the #5 due to some whacky extenuating circumstance but it is absolutely critical to a manager that he establish this hierarchy in his rotation regardless of what might happen due to injury and your argument flies in the face of that necessity. The Manager has no choice but to establish the hierarchy based on recognizing that he will avoid using his 5 as much as possible with the ultimate result that the 5 will end up with fewer starts than the 4.

 

There is no need for you to tell me what my arguement is. I already know what it is.

I don't recall any point this year that Francona told a single media person that "You know what, Lackey will be our #4 starter this year". Thats simply a charade.

Your initial statement is simply not true. Penciling in Aceves as our #4 SP (whatever that means to you) in no way guarantees that he will get more starts and innings than our number 5. What if he gets injured or fails to perform? Isn't it possible (likely, I would say) that if he were the #5 and the so-called #2 got injured he would get more innings than the #2 SP? I showed you that already, if you believe that the order of the SP is performance based.

The initial statement you made about Aceves is inherently illogical. Its hard for me to believe that you cannot see that this is true.

[jung]

Look at my last point and I think you will see where we are missing each other.

[Elktonnick]

There is no need for you to tell me what my arguement is. I already know what it is.

I don't recall any point this year that Francona told a single media person that "You know what, Lackey will be our #4 starter this year". Thats simply a charade.

Your initial statement is simply not true. Penciling in Aceves as our #4 SP (whatever that means to you) in no way guarantees that he will get more starts and innings than our number 5. What if he gets injured or fails to perform? Isn't it possible (likely, I would say) that if he were the #5 and the so-called #2 got injured he would get more innings than the #2 SP? I showed you that already, if you believe that the order of the SP is performance based.

The initial statement you made about Aceves is inherently illogical. Its hard for me to believe that you cannot see that this is true.

 

Schilling made the point that the team whose openning day rotation makes the most starts during the course of the year tends to win the division. The point is it is all about injuries. Assuming that all five starters magically go the year without missing a turn it's two games or less than one per starter. Injuries are the overriding factor.

[FredLynn]

This is also why I focused later in the discussion on number of starts as opposed to just innings because there the relationship between number of starts and position in the rotation is easier to see.

 

Sure. Lets use number of starts. Burnett got more starts than anyone but Sabathia last year; was he their #2 pitcher? Not in my book. Lewis got more starts for the Rangers than anyone but CJ Wilson, yet he was their #5 SP statistically.

I think there are two differences of opinion here: first, your statement that if Aceves is named the #4 SP he will certainly get more starts than the #5 SP (and you further assumed good health, which simply almost never happens in the course of the season) and second, you guys are calling the #4 SP the guy who starts the fourth game of the year and I am calling the #4 SP (especially at the end of the season) the guy who performs fourth best.

[jung]

Your initial statement is simply not true. Penciling in Aceves as our #4 SP (whatever that means to you) in no way guarantees that he will get more starts and innings than our number 5.

.

 

your statement that if Aceves is named the #4 SP he will certainly get more starts than the #5

 

Do you see what I mean? I think you are confusing what is being assigned with the number of innings ultimately pitched.

[FredLynn]

.

 

 

 

Do you see what I mean. I think you are confusing what is being assigned with the number of innings ultimately pitched.

 

I don't recall any manager "assigning" any pitcher a number of innings at the beginning of the year except for young pitchers on an innings count. "Assigning" him innings has no meaning because it has no correlation with actual number of innings pitched. In a perfect world if Aceves is the #5 SP and everyone stays healthy all year long you are right: he would toss fewer innings than the #4.

[SoxSport]

Schilling made the point that the team whose openning day rotation makes the most starts during the course of the year tends to win the division. The point is it is all about injuries. Assuming that all five starters magically go the year without missing a turn it's two games or less than one per starter. Injuries are the overriding factor.

 

If the Sox had had Buchholz the whole season, it would have been an entirely different season. That's what killed them. They had nobody to replace him.

[iortiz]

If the Sox had had Buchholz the whole season' date=' it would have been an entirely different season. That's what killed them. They had nobody to replace him.[/quote']

 

We need pitching depth. We need BP arms. We need SPs.

 

Pitching, Pitching, Pitching.

 

Solid and healthy.

[Bellhorn04]

If the Sox could pull off a trade for the A's Bailey that could really work. His numbers were off a bit last year but his first two seasons were Papelbon-esque. Overall he's converted 75 of 84 save opportunities. Plus he'll be relatively cheap. Will take something significant to get him. Rangers are reportedly very involved.

[Station 13]

If the Sox could pull off a trade for the A's Bailey that could really work. His numbers were off a bit last year but his first two seasons were Papelbon-esque. Overall he's converted 75 of 84 save opportunities. Plus he'll be relatively cheap. Will take something significant to get him. Rangers are reportedly very involved.

 

I don't think we can lose any top prospects, not at this point. Not for a reliever anyway.

[WhiskeyBreath]

Bailey can be pretty dominant but I hate his injury issues.

[a700hitter]

Bailey can be pretty dominant but I hate his injury issues.

Dominating stuff but his elbow is hanging by a thread.

[seabeachfred]

I don't think we can lose any top prospects' date=' not at this point. Not for a reliever anyway.[/quote']

 

OK, so let's say I agree with you Station and say we cannot lose any top prospects. Then the only other recourse is for Henry to once again open his checkbook and start spending money on FA. Right now we have only two really top notch prospects in the high minors.....Middlebrooks and Lavarnway, two right handed power hitting youngsters with some real upsides. I do not want to part with either one so we agree on that, even though with the Sox about to do a dumb thing and resign Ortiz, Ryan will be blocked for at least a year, a stupid thing to do to a top prospect. Brentz, Vitek, Renaudo and Jacobs are at least three years away and we might have to use them, but please do not include Lars Anderson, Kyle Weiland, Bowden or Doubrant in that high esteem category of prospects because they have very little value, if at all. Once again Epstein was a poor judge of talent and over-rated these guys to the detriment of our team. When their stock was high Theo played hard to get so now we're hard up to get rid of these guys for whatever we can get.