2012 Catch-All Trade Deadline Thread

[Spitball]

By Zach Links [June 16 at 1:51pm CST]

 

•If the Red Sox are waffling about whether to get involved in talks for Ryan Dempster, then the right-hander must have opened their eyes with his strong outing Friday. However, it remains to be seen if the Cubs and BoSox can move past the Theo Epstein compensation drama to make a deal.

[jung]

Dempster has auditioned successfully....I doubt he will be as buy low as he once would have been.

[jung]

It will be difficult to pull off s deal that brings the Sox pitching mid-season this year. I always thought it was easier to say that is what we will do in the off-season and spring but much harder to actually do that when push comes to shove.

 

However they have to pull the trigger and get Youk out of here or sit him down. His value is not going up in the next three weeks....that is a pipe dream....it is not happening. Just thinking about how many more games the Sox could lose in the next three weeks scares the s*** out of me. If nothing else, put him on the bench PLEASE.

 

This team needs to come out of June at least within range. If they are not careful, they are going to be out of range of both WC. Every team they need to compete with has for the most part got the bit between their teeth maybe with the exception of the O's but even they are not exactly falling off the edge of a cliff now are they.

[FredLynn]

It really is the missing link of the rotation.

 

You go out and get a guy like Hamels next offseason, and slide everyone else down? Now all of a sudden you've got maybe the best pitching staff in the AL East. I would put Hamels Lester Beckett Buchholz Doubront up against the Rays staff everyday.

 

Hamels vs Shields - Hamels

Lester vs Price - Toss Up

Beckett vs Hellickson - Beckett, but close

 

Then Buchholz/Doubront over Moore/Niemman all day, those aren't close.

 

Thats a little off.

 

Hamels vs Shields: Hamels, but not by much. His ERA is lower, but he also pitches in the NL.

 

Lester vs Price: Price. Not even close. Price career ERA is 3.33; Lester at 3.61-and he is five years older than Price. Price any day.

 

Beckett vs Hellickson: Hellickson. Not really that close either. Beckett has a career ERA of 3.85, but 4.05 (very very mediocre) with the Red Sox; Hellickson has a career ERA of 3.14 in the ALE-and he is 7 years younger.

 

Moore will be very good very soon; he and Buchholz right now: CB. Soon it will likely be a tossup. Doubront is an unknown quantity still, and has an ERA in his first 2 1/2 months as a SP of 4.39; Niemann: 4.11. Lower ERA, more experience. I take Niemann.

 

In summary, if you look at the actual statistics, the Sox have a better top pitcher, are losers at the #2, 3, and 5 spots even if we get Hamels. Thats looking at it objectively rather than overestimating the value of a player simply because he plays for the Red Sox. That has been done too much and has lead to the current level of expectations of this team over the past few years. They simply are not as talented as many people think; thats why they are a last place club.

[Bellhorn04]

Thats a little off.

 

Hamels vs Shields: Hamels, but not by much. His ERA is lower, but he also pitches in the NL.

 

Lester vs Price: Price. Not even close. Price career ERA is 3.33; Lester at 3.61-and he is five years older than Price. Price any day.

Beckett vs Hellickson: Hellickson. Not really that close either. Beckett has a career ERA of 3.85, but 4.05 (very very mediocre) with the Red Sox; Hellickson has a career ERA of 3.14 in the ALE-and he is 7 years younger.

 

Moore will be very good very soon; he and Buchholz right now: CB. Soon it will likely be a tossup. Doubront is an unknown quantity still, and has an ERA in his first 2 1/2 months as a SP of 4.39; Niemann: 4.11. Lower ERA, more experience. I take Niemann.

 

In summary, if you look at the actual statistics, the Sox have a better top pitcher, are losers at the #2, 3, and 5 spots even if we get Hamels. Thats looking at it objectively rather than overestimating the value of a player simply because he plays for the Red Sox. That has been done too much and has lead to the current level of expectations of this team over the past few years. They simply are not as talented as many people think; thats why they are a last place club.

 

Pumpsie, you need to add ERA+ to your repertoire of stats. It's not a complicated stat at all. It takes good old ERA, adjusts it for the team's ballpark, and then compares it to league average.

 

Hamels ERA+ 125

Shields 105

Lester 124

Price 117

[FredLynn]

Pumpsie, you need to add ERA+ to your repertoire of stats. It's not a complicated stat at all. It takes good old ERA, adjusts it for the team's ballpark, and then compares it to league average.

 

Hamels ERA+ 125

Shields 105

Lester 124

Price 117

 

I know exactly what ERA+ is. I do not think it is as useful as simple ERA because I think that good pitchers get hitters out no matter where they pitch.

[Bellhorn04]

I know exactly what ERA+ is. I do not think it is as useful as simple ERA because I think that good pitchers get hitters out no matter where they pitch.

 

So who was it that suggested that Hamels' ERA was lower because he pitches in the NL?

 

Ah yes, it was you-Mr. Consistency.

[Palodios]

So who was it that suggested that Hamels' ERA was lower because he pitches in the NL?

 

Ah yes, it was you-Mr. Consistency.

 

Pwned.

[VA Sox Fan]

So who was it that suggested that Hamels' ERA was lower because he pitches in the NL?

 

Ah yes, it was you-Mr. Consistency.

 

[FredLynn]

So who was it that suggested that Hamels' ERA was lower because he pitches in the NL?

 

Ah yes, it was you-Mr. Consistency.

 

Look at it this way. If ERA+ measures runs scored in your home ballpark, does it also account for the fact that in Boston we have had one of the top offenses both at home and on the road for several years, along with one of the worst pitching staffs both at home and on the road? We do play half our games on the road, do we not? ERA+ is only minimally useful in measuring a pitcher's real value. Roy Halladay's OPSa at Fenway Park, for his career, is .684. A good pitcher is a good pitcher wherever he pitches.

[SCM33]

Look at it this way. If ERA+ measures runs scored in your home ballpark' date=' does it also account for the fact that in Boston we have had one of the top offenses both at home and on the road for several years, along with one of the worst pitching staffs both at home and on the road? We do play half our games on the road, do we not? ERA+ is only minimally useful in measuring a pitcher's real value. Roy Halladay's OPSa at Fenway Park, for his career, is .684. A good pitcher is a good pitcher wherever he pitches.[/quote']

 

Pumpsie.....use this website to get an updated series of statistics:

 

http://www.statcorner.com/index.php

 

ERA or ERA+ are not bad ways of evaluating a pitcher, but they are still dependent on factors other than individual pitching performace. ERA is better used when evaluating a career rather than a season or series.

[jacksonianmarch]

Lester vs Price isnt even close right now since Lester has been a mediocre pussbag for a full season now. Ever since the ASB last yr he has had an ERA near 4.50 and the peripherals to warrant it

[jacksonianmarch]

Also, the sox asked for Parra from the DBacks for Youkilis. The DBacks kindly hung up the phone

[example1]

Look at it this way. If ERA+ measures runs scored in your home ballpark' date=' does it also account for the fact that in Boston we have had one of the top offenses both at home and on the road for several years, along with one of the worst pitching staffs both at home and on the road? We do play half our games on the road, do we not? ERA+ is only minimally useful in measuring a pitcher's real value. Roy Halladay's OPSa at Fenway Park, for his career, is .684. A good pitcher is a good pitcher wherever he pitches.[/quote']

 

Halliday has a career 4.09 ERA in Fenway. I wouldn't say that makes the case that a good pitcher is always good.

 

The point is that playing against better teams in a hitters ballpark hurts stats like ERA and should be adjusted for if possible. Hence a stat like ERA+.

[Bellhorn04]

Look at it this way. If ERA+ measures runs scored in your home ballpark' date=' does it also account for the fact that in Boston we have had one of the top offenses both at home and on the road for several years, along with one of the worst pitching staffs both at home and on the road? We do play half our games on the road, do we not? ERA+ is only minimally useful in measuring a pitcher's real value. Roy Halladay's OPSa at Fenway Park, for his career, is .684. A good pitcher is a good pitcher wherever he pitches.[/quote']

 

Jered Weaver has a career ERA of 7.16 at Fenway (32.2 IP). So he's a bad pitcher?

[SoxSport]

The guy they want is Garza, not Dempster. Garza has pitched well in the AL East. Track record there.

 

It will cost one of their prime prospects--to be sure. Lav or Kalish or Middlebrooks.

[FredLynn]

Pumpsie.....use this website to get an updated series of statistics:

 

http://www.statcorner.com/index.php

 

ERA or ERA+ are not bad ways of evaluating a pitcher, but they are still dependent on factors other than individual pitching performace. ERA is better used when evaluating a career rather than a season or series.

 

Thanks. I will look at that in more detail later on.

Baseball is a relatively simple game. Its runs scored/runs prevented. I think you can get bogged down too much in overanalyzing the game with countless ways to look at data. In the end, a good pitcher is one who prevents the other guys from scoring runs, be it in Boston or in Tampa Bay or anywhere else, so I think that the single (but not the only) best indicator of that is ERA. If others want to use ERA+ to support their positions, thats fine. And for hitting its OPS because I want a guy who can hit for both average and power on my team.

There are lots and lots of statistics, and which ones you feel best give you a true picture is a matter of personal preference. I would rather not have to dig up 20 different ways to look at performance; a couple of data points are sufficient for me to form an opinion, and until hard proof is presented that a different approach is better, I'll stick with what I believe. Others are free to do the same.

[FredLynn]

Jered Weaver has a career ERA of 7.16 at Fenway (32.2 IP). So he's a bad pitcher?

 

He is someone I probably would not sign to a long term deal because of that statistic. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The Lackey deal should be a learning experience for our FO.

[Bellhorn04]

Thanks. I will look at that in more detail later on.

Baseball is a relatively simple game. Its runs scored/runs prevented. I think you can get bogged down too much in overanalyzing the game with countless ways to look at data. In the end, a good pitcher is one who prevents the other guys from scoring runs, be it in Boston or in Tampa Bay or anywhere else, so I think that the single (but not the only) best indicator of that is ERA. If others want to use ERA+ to support their positions, thats fine. And for hitting its OPS because I want a guy who can hit for both average and power on my team.

There are lots and lots of statistics, and which ones you feel best give you a true picture is a matter of personal preference. I would rather not have to dig up 20 different ways to look at performance; a couple of data points are sufficient for me to form an opinion, and until hard proof is presented that a different approach is better, I'll stick with what I believe. Others are free to do the same.

 

Just remember, you were the one who said this:

 

Hamels vs. Shields: Hamels, but not by much. His ERA is lower, but he pitches in the NL.

 

Hamels' career ERA is 3.39, Shields' is 3.94. That's a difference of .55 runs per game. Yet you are saying Hamels but not by much. So in effect you are saying that ERA, in itself, is not totally reliable and needs to be adjusted for other factors. You may not realize it but you're contradicting yourself.

[FredLynn]

Just remember, you were the one who said this:

 

Hamels vs. Shields: Hamels, but not by much. His ERA is lower, but he pitches in the NL.

 

Hamels' career ERA is 3.39, Shields' is 3.94. That's a difference of .55 runs per game. Yet you are saying Hamels but not by much. So in effect you are saying that ERA, in itself, is not totally reliable and needs to be adjusted for other factors. You may not realize it but you're contradicting yourself.

 

I guess I am not understanding you. If Hamels pitched in a league where there is a DH, his ERA would be higher, right? The use of the DH does make a difference. Right now the AL is scoring about a quarter of a run per game more than the NL. So if you add that .25 to Hamels' ERA its up to 3.64. He is still better than Shields, but not by much, as I said.

[Bellhorn04]

I guess I am not understanding you. If Hamels pitched in a league where there is a DH' date=' his ERA would be higher, right? The use of the DH does make a difference. Right now the AL is scoring about a quarter of a run per game more than the NL. So if you add that .25 to Hamels' ERA its up to 3.64. He is still better than Shields, but not by much, as I said.[/quote']

 

And if a pitcher pitches in a hitters' park where more runs are scored on average, his ERA would be higher too. Doesn't that follow the same logic? It all leads to ERA+ being obviously a better stat than ERA.

[FredLynn]

And if a pitcher pitches in a hitters' park where more runs are scored on average' date=' his ERA would be higher too. Doesn't that follow the same logic? It all leads to ERA+ being obviously a better stat than ERA.[/quote']

 

Does ERA+ correct for some offenses simply being more talented than others? In other words, if the Red Sox offense (or the Yankees offense, or the Rangers' offense), which has been very potent for years, played half their games at the Trop, wouldn't that make it appear as though the Trop was more of a hitters park than it is now, when the impotent Rays offense is playing there? Does ERA+ correct for the innate talent level present in a team's lineup? Thats the problem I have with ERA+. It looks only are runs scored in a ballpark and not at who is scoring them. Its an OK stat, but not as good as ERA IMO. Its of secondary value.

[example1]

ERA does none of the things you listed.

 

Have you heard the saying "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?". That is what is happening here. I can't answer your questions about whether ERA+ does this or that. But you merely asking implies that taking other factors into account would produce a superior measure in your view. We know ERA+ takes ballpark and relative strength of opponents/league into account. Not worth damning it in favor of a less sophisticated stat just because it doesnt immediately assuage your concerns in every possible way.

 

I suspect that if that statistic existed with everything you discussed or could ever ask for, you would dislike it anyway.

[FredLynn]

ERA does none of the things you listed.

 

Have you heard the saying "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?". That is what is happening here. I can't answer your questions about whether ERA+ does this or that. But you merely asking implies that taking other factors into account would produce a superior measure in your view. We know ERA+ takes ballpark and relative strength of opponents/league into account. Not worth damning it in favor of a less sophisticated stat just because it doesnt immediately assuage your concerns in every possible way.

 

I suspect that if that statistic existed with everything you discussed or could ever ask for, you would dislike it anyway.

 

You remind me of the kid who has to get the newest toy just because its new. Guess what: sometimes the older toys work better.

Until such time as you offer me objective proof, not personal opinion, of which statistics absolutely are the best, I will keep using my collection of stats and you can use yours. Deal?

[Bellhorn04]

It's too late, Pumps, you're already using adjusted ERA, as you showed in your comparison of Hamels and Shields.

[FredLynn]

It's too late' date=' Pumps, you're already using adjusted ERA, as you showed in your comparison of Hamels and Shields.[/quote']

 

I never said that ERA is the ONLY useful way to assess a pitcher's performance. I said that I think it is the single most useful way to do it. Obviously there are lots of other meaningful statistics that have value, including ERA+. Including WHIP, K/BB, OPSa etc etc etc. Imagine how long and boring posts here would be if the analysis of every pitcher by posters had to include at least 10 metrics. So you choose one or two and leave it at that. Often I quote WHIP along with ERA.

If I had to pick just one statistic rather listing a litany of them, I would choose ERA. Maybe thats the misunderstanding.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Cafardo in his Sunday article wrote the following:

 

Some baseball people wouldn't be shocked to see the Red Sox move Daniel Bard if he gets himself straightened out. Theo Epstein has always been a big fan and Cafardo wonders out loud if something could be worked out with the Cubs for Matt Garza. Garza, he opines, would be a perfect fit for an AL East team.

 

Hm. Very interesting thought. I'd definitely need a deal worked out (5/82.5) for Garza before pulling the trigger. But if they were able to get Garza for Bard + Lars, I think I would be good with that.

[a700hitter]

Cafardo in his Sunday article wrote the following:

 

 

 

Hm. Very interesting thought. I'd definitely need a deal worked out (5/82.5) for Garza before pulling the trigger. But if they were able to get Garza for Bard + Lars, I think I would be good with that.

What would they do with Lars when they have Rizzo?

[SoxFanForsyth]

I guess I am not understanding you. If Hamels pitched in a league where there is a DH' date=' his ERA would be higher, right? The use of the DH does make a difference. Right now the AL is scoring about a quarter of a run per game more than the NL. So if you add that .25 to Hamels' ERA its up to 3.64. He is still better than Shields, but not by much, as I said.[/quote']

 

Hamels, over the past 3 years (2010 - 2012), has thrown 500 IP to a 3.00 ERA.

 

Shields, over the past 3 years (2010-2012), has thrown 544 IP to a 3.85 ERA.

 

Do you really think that Hamels ERA is going to baloon by around 30% by switching leagues?!? I think that's crazy.

 

Hamels is clearly the better pitcher. That's not even close.

[example1]

You remind me of the kid who has to get the newest toy just because its new. Guess what: sometimes the older toys work better.

Until such time as you offer me objective proof, not personal opinion, of which statistics absolutely are the best, I will keep using my collection of stats and you can use yours. Deal?

 

Nobody will stop you from using what you choose. It's just that nobody with a lick of intelligence will buy into what you are saying if your biases are both so rigid and transparent. If you acknowledge that ERA is a problematic because it doesn't adjust for anything, and then criticize another stat that does adjust for things, but maybe not all of them, and then say that you're just sticking with ERA because the other ones aren't perfect, it's like saying that the Model T was the best car to choose from because it gets you where you are going and the other cars don't yet partake of flying or space travel. Yes, the ultimate car might be able to fly or go to space, but it doesn't mean that improvements like air conditioning, power windows, better brakes, etc., aren't ACTUAL IMPROVEMENTS.

 

A 9 year old could say "But, dad, doesn't it matter that Hammels plays in a different league?" or "It seems strange to me that the best way to measure one player vs another would be based on a counting stat like earned runs, when the ballparks and competition one pitcher faces is so different from another. There must be a better way."