June 1, 2012: Red Sox @ Blue Jays

[jung]

Before I forget it, the real flaw in a logic path that says 6 inning performances by your #2 starter can be characterized as either good or great is that it suggests that your #4 starter can just slot right into the #2 spot. Who cares...Hell Felix will give you 6 innings day in and day out...must be a #2 starter.

 

Certainly neither your 1 or your 2 can be satisfied by 6 inning starts. The very notion that either your 1 or your 2 will give you the same number of innings per start as your 4 or your 5 taxes the pen to a point beyond realistic expectation. Calling any start of any magnitude by your #1 or 2 "good" when they can only stay out there for 6 innings is ridiculous as that sort of logic path would doom your pen.

 

The very best you could possibly characterize any start by your 1 or your 2 where he was only able to go 6 innings would be mediocre at best. If you start at mediocre and the number of innings pitched also correlates to an ERA around 3.5 then now you are bordering on the margin between mediocre and bad. If your team eventually lost the game in question, then you are no longer on the border of mediocre and bad, you have had a bad start.

 

Now if in fact we want to consider, Beckett our #1 starter, then you have burdened Beckett with an even greater hurdle from the perspective of expectations for innings pitched, ERA and eventual wins cause your#1 cannot under any circumstances tax the pen. At the end of the day that is why #1 pitchers who are really #1 pitchers stay out on the mound even when they are going badly because the very first order of consideration for a #1 is innings pitched and therefore innings saved from the pen. Frankly expectations for your #2 can be a bit less but not by much and certainly nowhere near what you will accept from a #4. Which brings me back to the top of this post. Under NO circumstances can a start by your #2 starter or your #1 starter ever be categorized as good or great if you they are off the mound after 6 innings.

 

And as for using the easy rationalization that pitch count might drive a starter off the mound early in a start we rightfully blame the pitcher himself if his pitch count is up early in the game. He has failed to either find the strike zone enough or control the opposing hitters enough or both. So you can't use the pitch count as a rationalization for the pitcher leaving early. He is himself responsible for his pitch count!

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Like ride alongs?

 

yeah. I also got the chance to learn some tactics police officers use, learn codes for when I go on ride alongs, I got a uniform, etc. it was a really neat program. Just too much s*** going on right now. I had no choice but to quit.

[evilhand]

No I am measuring him based on what my expectations would be for a #2 starter on a contending team which is what we continue to suggest here. Although as I had indicated earlier' date=' now I don't know what to call Beckett since Lester has pitched so poorly that some now want to anoint Beckett the #1 pitcher on the staff.[/quote']

 

Your expectations are unrealistic. Here's why.

 

The Texas start yielded 3 ER over a 7 inning stretch which is a 4.28 ERA for a game that the Sox eventually lost. Sorry' date=' not a good start. 3 earned runs over a 7 inning stretch in a game they lost???? Calling that a good start is a joke.[/quote']

 

You might want to calculate that ERA again. 3 ER over 7 is 3.86, not 4.28. That they lost has more to do with the offense than Beckett and is a great example of why win/loss records are useless when evaluating a pitcher.

 

Minn' date=' a whopping 6 innings pitched...boy that saved the pen now didn't it. 2 ER and 3 BB for 6 innings against Minn. Lucky to call that mediocre.[/quote']

 

The AL league average for IP/G is 5.9. The league average ERA for starters is 4.39. 6 innings pitched at a 3.00 ERA is, by definition a good start. Your criteria are unrealistic.

 

CWS' date=' Again a real pen saver there. 2 ER, 6 innings pitched, 3 walks given up in an eventual losing effort.[/quote']

 

Same results. 6 IP at 3.00 ERA is significantly better than league average. By definition a good start.

 

As for some of my good starts you call great' date=' how can you possibly call a 7 inning performance by the team's #2 starter a great start...good yes, great...no if you can get through 7 innings with no earned runs I will call that a great start by your #2 pitcher.[/quote']

 

So only 7 IP with a 0.00 ERA is a great start by a number 2? This is ridiculous. Pedro Martinez had what are probably the two greatest seasons in the modern era in 1999 and 2000. In 1999 he accomplished this feat exactly 5 times. In 2000 he did it 9 times. So in the two greatest seasons thrown in the modern era, out of 58 starts, only 14 were great by your criteria.

 

Justin Verlander won the MVP last season and did this only 7 times. Are you really going to argue that he only had 7 great starts last year? Really?

 

Again, you are being beyond unrealistic. I'd hate to see your criteria for a great start by an ace...

 

What the hell is a great start anymore? Handing over the game with a "chance" to win...is that now the measure of a great start? Jesus....Gibson must be laughing his ass off.

 

It's not 1968 anymore. The game is very different than it was then. Guys throw harder, lineups are tougher meaning less opportunities to ease up during a game. Pitchers just don't go 9 innings regularly anymore. You may not like it, but that's the reality of mlb baseball today, and greatness is measured against contemporaries, not against eras bygone.

 

And by my count you totaled 7 good or great starts' date=' not eight. You count 1 mediocre and 2 horrible starts even in your extremely forgiving characterizations.[/quote']

 

I'm not the one who claimed he had 8 good or great starts. Either way, your criteria for a great start is so ridiculous I'm having a hard time believing that you're being serious here.

 

Edit: SoxFanForsyth beat me to it.

[BornToRun]

yeah. I also got the chance to learn some tactics police officers use' date=' learn codes for when I go on ride alongs, I got a uniform, etc. it was a really neat program. Just too much s*** going on right now. I had no choice but to quit.[/quote']

 

Thats understandable. Well good luck. Maybe one day I'll take a vacation down south and you'll pull me over.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Thats understandable. Well good luck. Maybe l day I'll take a vacation down south and you'll pull me over.

 

I don't know if I want to live in Miami so you might have to take a vacation somewhere else. I'll talk to you later brother. I'm exhausted from work man I need some rest. I have a long ass shift tomorrow too. Work never stops.

[evilhand]

The very best you could possibly characterize any start by your 1 or your 2 where he was only able to go 6 innings would be mediocre at best. If you start at mediocre and the number of innings pitched also correlates to an ERA around 3.5 then now you are bordering on the margin between mediocre and bad. If your team eventually lost the game in question' date=' then you are no longer on the border of mediocre and bad, you have had a bad start.[/quote']

 

You're going off the rails here. A league average amount of innings at a run better than league average for ERA is borderline mediocre? And if your team's offense doesn't show up that day (average runs per game in the AL is about 4.41) that performance is magically transformed from mediocre to bad? How is it the pitcher's fault that the offense laid an egg?

[jung]

Actually 3 runs over 7 innings is a 3.875 ERA. I should not have tried to do that short hand. However, if you are not going to consider the Twins ineptitude as relevant then you can't consider the Rangers and their aptitude as relevant either.

[evilhand]

Actually 3 runs over 7 innings is a 3.875 ERA. I should not have tried to do that short hand. However' date=' if you are not going to consider the Twins ineptitude as relevant then you can't consider the Rangers and their aptitude as relevant either.[/quote']

 

Try again. It's 3.857 which is rounded to 3.86. And I didn't say it was irrelevant, I said a start allowing 1.39 less runs than league average over a league average amount of innings is a good start, regardless of the opponent. The Twins, for all their ineptitude average 3.92 runs per game. That's still well better than their average.

 

As for Texas, all I argued is that 3 runs in 7 innings is a good start. Of course it's more impressive against a tougher line up, but this idea that because they played the Twins the results shouldn't count as good is silly. I just think you're placing far too much value on the fact that they're a below average offense in your effort to dismiss the results.

 

Are you going to even try to address the specific points I've brought up or are you just going to keep moving forward as if I hadn't posted them?

[jung]

Where we seem to be differing here is that you want to discuss league averages and my point all along has been that your #1 and #2 pitchers have to exceed league averages and that they particularly have to exceed them for innings per start.

 

As for wins and losses, wins and losses are the least accurate means to measure a pitcher. However when it comes to your #1 and #2 pitchers, they are supposed to be good enough to out-dual the competition. If your team has a weak offense the guys at the top of your rotation have to overcome that deficit. That is why they are there. They are not there to build up stats! The whole thing of stats has gotten completely out of control. Nobody goes to the WS because their pitcher has the best ERA and their clean up hitter has the best OPS.

 

The expectation for the guys at the top of your rotation is that they will do what it takes to gain a win. A #1 or #2 pitcher can overcome that if his ERA and SO/BB and other orders of measure are extraordinarily good but I mean off the charts good. However if those stats are not truly extraordinary, then losses will matter. That is why ultimately wins and losses still matter in Cy Young voting. May not be fair but it is an issue. The reason is simple. Cy Young voting exclusively involves top pitchers and like it or not the expectation is that they measure themselves by being able to overcome the other team's strengths AND their own team's weaknesses. That is clearly not something you expect of your 4 and your 5, nor your 3 for that matter. However it is still the expectation for your 1 and 2 and if you asked them, that is exactly what they would tell you.

[jung]

What specific points do you want me to address...I saw a lot of rhetoric but not much in the way of specific points but the posts have gotten long and have strayed so maybe just point me to a post number.

[jung]

So only 7 IP with a 0.00 ERA is a great start by a number 2? This is ridiculous. Pedro Martinez had what are probably the two greatest seasons in the modern era in 1999 and 2000. In 1999 he accomplished this feat exactly 5 times. In 2000 he did it 9 times. So in the two greatest seasons thrown in the modern era, out of 58 starts, only 14 were great by your criteria.

 

If this is one of your specific points to be honest this is just silly. The number of great starts a starting pitcher might have and a great season are mutually exclusive. In fact would you not say that if a pitcher had 30 starts and all 30 were "good" starts he would have had a "great" season? Does that clear that one up?

[evilhand]

Where we seem to be differing here is that you want to discuss league averages and my point all along has been that your #1 and #2 pitchers have to exceed league averages and that they particularly have to exceed them for innings per start.

 

No, where we're differing is that you keep ignoring that I'm posting evidence that they *are* exceeding league averages. Even in the merely good starts, the IP totals are at league average with the ER/9 being below.

 

These specific starts are well better than average and that is the definition of good.

 

As for wins and losses' date=' wins and losses are the least accurate means to measure a pitcher. However when it comes to your #1 and #2 pitchers, they are supposed to be good enough to out-dual the competition. If your team has a weak offense the guys at the top of your rotation have to overcome that deficit. That is why they are there. They are not there to build up stats! The whole thing of stats has gotten completely out of control. Nobody goes to the WS because their pitcher has the best ERA and their clean up hitter has the best OPS.[/quote']

 

Actually, having pitchers and hitters with the best rate stats is a great way to get to the World Series. Rate stats measure the effectiveness of your roster. The best teams have the best stats. That's exactly how it works.

 

And you're contradicting yourself here. You say wins and losses are the least accurate way to measure a picture, then argue that in the case of front of the rotation starter we should use them anyway? Why? Because that's the way it used to be done? We have better tools to use. Tradition is a terrible reason not to use them.

 

The expectation for the guys at the top of your rotation is that they will do what it takes to gain a win. A #1 or #2 pitcher can overcome that if his ERA and SO/BB and other orders of measure are extraordinarily good but I mean off the charts good. However if those stats are not truly extraordinary' date=' then losses will matter. That is why ultimately wins and losses still matter in Cy Young voting. May not be fair but it is an issue. The reason is simple. Cy Young voting exclusively involves top pitchers and like it or not the expectation is that they measure themselves by being able to overcome the other team's strengths AND their own team's weaknesses. That is clearly not something you expect of your 4 and your 5, nor your 3 for that matter. However it is still the expectation for your 1 and 2 and if you asked them, that is exactly what they would tell you.[/quote']

 

No, the expectation for the guys at the top of our rotation is that they will go out and pitch well. As I said in a previous post, it's not 1968 anymore. Using wins to measure a pitcher's success or worth is archaic.

 

The only reason wins and losses play any part in Cy Young voting is that there are still a bunch of older writers who refuse to accept that better tools exist who get to vote.

 

Even then, wins have almost been worked out of that process. Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young in 2010 with 13 wins. Zack Greinke did it with 16 in 2009. Even award voters as out of touch as mlb's yearly awards realize how useless wins are for the most part.

[Cocos Disciples]

Didn't get to watch the game but I saw highlights and read the GT. And as is customary, the most incorrect statement of the night:

 

I think its not so much that everyone is good' date=' its that everyone is not very good. Bad year to have a mediocre team for us.[/quote']

 

Every team in the division is at least 2 games over .500 and has a positive run differential. Red Sox have the highest differential. But okay!

[jung]

It's not 1968 anymore. The game is very different than it was then. Guys throw harder, lineups are tougher meaning less opportunities to ease up during a game. Pitchers just don't go 9 innings regularly anymore. You may not like it, but that's the reality of mlb baseball today, and greatness is measured against contemporaries, not against eras bygone.

 

Pitchers don't often go nine innings anymore. The point is that your 1 and 2 CAN'T be going 6 innings because you already know your 4 and 5 are going to be lucky to go 6 and that may be true of your #3 as well. So I already answered this one but I will say again that your 1 and 2 cannot consider leaving the mound after 6 innings a good or great start because they will not have fulfilled their primary responsibilities or even in that case their secondary responsibilities.

 

Their primary responsibility by the way is still considered by starters themselves, maybe not by me and certainly not by you but by starters themselves to go 9 innings and win the game. Failing the ability to fulfill their primary responsibilities their secondary responsibilities at the top of the rotation are to limit exposure to the pen and leave the team in a position to win. 6 innings does not meet the standard for top of the rotation pitchers. Does that clear up that one for you?

[evilhand]

What specific points do you want me to address...I saw a lot of rhetoric but not much in the way of specific points but the posts have gotten long and have strayed so maybe just point me to a post number.

 

Rhetoric? I've responded to each of your points with statistical data. You keep throwing platitudes and random numbers that you're making up on the spot around as if they mean something. I'm using relevant data to disprove your statements.

 

If this is one of your specific points to be honest this is just silly. The number of great starts a starting pitcher might have and a great season are mutually exclusive. In fact would you not say that if a pitcher had 30 starts and all 30 were "good" starts he would have had a "great" season? Does that clear that one up?

 

I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. You said if a pitcher doesn't go at least 7 innings while giving up 0 ER, it isn't a great start. By your criteria, Pedro Martinez only had 14 great games during the two greatest seasons in the modern era.

 

It sounds like your definitions of good and great are the problem. The definition of good varies depending on usage, but since you're using it as a step down from "great" the best fit is "worthy" or "satisfactory in quality."

 

Great, then, would be "wonderful, first rate, very good."

 

Your definition of great is well beyond this. Your definition of good falls into the definition for "great."

 

Either way, your position is untenable.

[jung]

You have your opinion and I have mine. I assume we both sleep well nights with our varied opinions?

[evilhand]

Pitchers don't often go nine innings anymore. The point is that your 1 and 2 CAN'T be going 6 innings because you already know your 4 and 5 are going to be lucky to go 6 and that may be true of your #3 as well. So I already answered this one but I will say again that your 1 and 2 cannot consider leaving the mound after 6 innings a good or great start because they will not have fulfilled their primary responsibilities or even in that case their secondary responsibilities.

 

And I'll say again that league average is 5.9 innings. If a pitcher is averaging 6 IP per start at an ERA lower than the league average of 4.36, they are by definition good. Your top of the rotation pitchers should be better than that on average, but that doesn't mean that any start off less than 7 IP is mediocre or bad. 6 IP at an ERA significantly lower than league average is the definition of good. You keep ignoring this point just repeating that 6 innings can't be good because... well, because you say so.

 

Josh Beckett has been better than 6 IP for four straight games (better than 6.2 even!). He has a 2.20 ERA in those games. That's not mediocre, that's not good, that's great. Arguing otherwise is lunacy.

 

Their primary responsibility by the way is still considered by starters themselves' date=' maybe not by me and certainly not by you but by starters themselves to go 9 innings and win the game. Failing the ability to fulfill their primary responsibilities their secondary responsibilities at the top of the rotation are to limit exposure to the pen and leave the team in a position to win. 6 innings does not meet the standard for top of the rotation pitchers. Does that clear up that one for you?[/quote']

 

Repeating that a pitcher's job is to win game does not make it any more true. Repeating that 6 inning starts do not mean the criteria for a good game for starting pitchers does not make it any more true.

 

I'm asking you to support your claim with something. You're just repeating yourself. Saying the same thing over and over is not debating. It's talking at people. I've provided actual data to support my position. There really isn't any data to support yours, so I'm not surprised you're not posting any. But insisting you are right no matter what is said to you does not make it so.

[jung]

I realized I did not answer this question and maybe still will not answer it to your satisfaction here. but:

 

No I am not using the terms great or good in the way you think I am...I am using them in relation to expectation for the spot in the rotation for that pitcher. I am not using them in relation to league average anything in the first place.

 

For example I have said several times that in my view the Stars (not the aces) but the stars of our rotation have been Doubront and Bard because they have performed above expectation. In that sense they have done a great job for us. They have gone through the entire season to this point having between them only had one start that I thought was below expectation. Are those great starts relative to league averages? Not likely.

 

That said, this discussion of the number of great games and a great season is just a specious and meaningless argument. I used the example of a season of 30 "good" performances to define a great season simply as a means to answer your insistence on mating some number of great pitching performances and equating them to a great season. The two things are mutually exclusive in that you don't have to pitch some specified number of great games to have a great season. Your trying to force a order of merit into the discussion that has no bearing on the discussion. I don't give a damn if my definition of a great start by a guy holding down the #1 spot in the rotation mates up to how many times Pedro accomplished that particular feat in a given year or not. It does not diminish nor enhance what Pedro did one iota.

[jung]

Why is 6 inning a number that matters? Mainly because of the number of innings left for the pen to pitch if your starter exits after 6 innings.

 

That one has an answer but the data is harder to get to and I have never tried to compile it as a league average. However if for example all starters went 6 innings, you are going to leave 486 innings for your pen to pitch. I have done this for a separate team before and I think there was even a thread with this topic or where this was discussed but on average most AL teams that get to the post season leave about 400-420 innings or so for their pens to pitch. The Sox of 2011 left just over 500 I think and they did not get there. The Rays left about 400 innings for their pen. The Rangers left 440 and the Yankees left 469. The Phillies left 408 and Cardinals left even fewer. The point being that even in the DH AL if you leave as many as 486 innings for your pen to pitch you are not as likely to make it to the post season.

 

All by way of saying that I would not be to keen on averaging 6 innings from my starters if I wanted to get to the post season.

[Bellhorn04]

Why is 6 inning a number that matters? Mainly because of the number of innings left for the pen to pitch if your starter exits after 6 innings.

 

That one has an answer but the data is harder to get to and I have never tried to compile it as a league average. However if for example all starters went 6 innings, you are going to leave 486 innings for your pen to pitch. I have done this for a separate team before and I think there was even a thread with this topic or where this was discussed but on average most AL teams that get to the post season leave about 400-420 innings or so for their pens to pitch. The Sox of 2011 left just over 500 I think and they did not get there. The Rays left about 400 innings for their pen. The Rangers left 440 and the Yankees left 469. The Phillies left 408 and Cardinals left even fewer. The point being that even in the DH AL if you leave as many as 486 innings for your pen to pitch you are not as likely to make it to the post season.

 

All by way of saying that I would not be to keen on averaging 6 innings from my starters if I wanted to get to the post season.

 

Some interesting posts here on pitching and innings-per-start stats. Maybe we should have a separate thread on pitching.

 

I always go to the stats of my 2 favorite teams in history-the 2004 and 2007 Red Sox. The 2004 team had 443 innings pitched by the bullpen and the 2007 team had 447 innings.

 

I think the 'gold standard' for innings per start now is 7. Anybody who can consistently do that like Verlander and Sabathia is a certified horse.

 

To get to 200 innings in 32 starts you only have to average a little over 6 innings per start.

 

I think any starter that can get you 6.5 innings per start or more is doing exceptionally well.

 

As another poster said it's a different game now and it's more difficult for starters to be effective deep into games for various reasons.

[jung]

Correct Bellhorn, a correct answer partly because it has nothing to do with this league average nonsense. 447 and 443 are still not 486 and if your rotation is going to average 6.5, then somebody better be averaging better than 6 to make up for the 2-3 guys at the back end that are not going to average better than 6. I said that about six different ways but it did not stick for some reason. It was not a specific enough address to the question apparently.

 

Who are those mystery guests supposed to be? Are they supposed to be some #6 or #7 scrub that gets to the rotation via injury to 1 through 5? Are they going to give you those innings? When and if those replacement stiffs, maybe either #'s 6 or 7 or 8 do pitch, do we think the chances are good that those guys are going to give you better than 6.5 innings or even give you more than a passing fancy chance at at win?

 

You are lucky to get 150 innings out of #5 and maybe 175 out of #4 maybe. #3 is a likely candidate for something between 190-200. For argument sake lets make it 200. Frankly it does not much matter wither you give #3 200 innings or #5 160 innings you are not likely to get more than 525 innings out of those three guys or from those three positions in the rotation if you want to disassociate the total innings pitched from the actual pitcher which is also a sensible way to look at the question. That leaves 483 for #1 and #2. and the occasional stiff that you do not really want to start under anything but the most dire circumstances. If there are any injuries in #3, 4 or 5 then said stiffs are going to be logging some part of the 525 innings i just allocated to those three guys. 483 divided between #1 and #2 is 240 innings for 31 starts, a very common number and is 7.74 innings per start. 240 at 32 starts a season is 7.5 innings per start. 30 starts is less common but not completely unheard of....30 starts and you are now at about 8 innings per start.

 

You can slice this up anyway you want to. The guys at the top of the rotation have got to pitch more than 6.5 innings per start or you are very likely screwed and they better not miss starts either...something Mr Beckett has already done cause then....here comes Mr Stiff to take his place and likely toss a stinker that your team losses while putting even more stress on your pen.

 

Excuse me for thinking at least at this board, I did not have to go into a full mathematical justification for why #1 and #2 in the rotation HAD to be pitching more than 6 innings per start and in fact HAD to be pitching more than 6.5 innings per start just to meet the requirement for their spots in the rotation. If they have to pitch more than 6.5 innings per start it is a little bit hard to tolerate the notion that a start for either of those two guys that does not even get to the the 7 mark is a "good" start. I said that about zillion different ways as well. The nebulous and irrelevant comment from last night was the following:

 

And I'll say again that league average is 5.9 innings. If a pitcher is averaging 6 IP per start at an ERA lower than the league average of 4.36, they are by definition good.

 

It supposes that you can let #1 and #2 off the hook because as long as they are averaging 6 IP per start at any ERA they are by definition good.

 

They are not even doing their jobs!

[FredLynn]

What makes me worry, even just a little, about possible chronic back issues is the report from NESN last year about Dr. Gill's findings.

 

 

 

 

 

That defect is what concerns me. But again, it's a minor concern at this point.

 

Got it. I don't think minor fractures in and of themselves become chronic problems, but congenital defects can be an issue. Gill didn't name his condition, conveniently, so its impossible to research it.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Jung. Since you've qualified the innings based on a contending team, let's take a look at the 4 American League PS teams that were in play last season, and how their #2 pitchers fared.

 

1. Rangers - Derek Holland: 6.18 IP per Start, 3.95 ERA

 

2. Rays - David Price: 6.59 IP per Start, 3.49 ERA

 

3. Yankees - Ivan Nova: 6.09 IP per Start, 3.66 ERA

 

4. Tigers - Doug Fister: 6.76 IP per Start, 2.83 ERA

 

5. Red Sox - Josh Beckett - 6.43 IP per Start, 2.89 ERA

 

So, none of the "contending teams" #2 starters last season averaged 7 IP per outing. In fact, half of them didn't even average 6.1 IP per start. And yet you want to dog on Beckett for averaging 6.31 IP per start this season???

 

Come on man. You either need to understand that baseball today is different than it was in 1969, or stop complaining about it because this isn't the old days where starting pitchers threw 300+ innings.

[FredLynn]

Didn't get to watch the game but I saw highlights and read the GT. And as is customary, the most incorrect statement of the night:

 

 

 

Every team in the division is at least 2 games over .500 and has a positive run differential. Red Sox have the highest differential. But okay!

 

If every team has, essentially, the same record, then every team is average by definition. Think college grades; if every student gets a 70% score on a test, which one or ones are above average or superior on that test. Answer: none. Also, none of them are inferior. You incorrectly use run differential as a prime determinant to measure how good a team is. That is fallacious reasoning. A team is exactly as good as its W-L record says it is. In the ALE none of the teams is far from the median number of wins and is therefore mediocre by definition, for that set of teams. I stand by that statement because none of the teams in the ALE has proven to be clearly the class of the division nor the doormats of the division. If you think otherwise perhaps you would enlighten me as to which team or teams are clearly superior or inferior to the others. To help you, here is the definition of mediocre:

 

Definition of MEDIOCRE

 

: of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance : ordinary, so-so

 

I would say that all of the ALE teams are obviously of MODERATE quality; none stand out. The antonym of mediocre is defined as follows:

 

Antonyms: excellent, fine, first-class, first-rate, good, high-grade, superior, top-notch

 

So again, which ALE teams have clearly defined themselves as "excellent" or "superior"? How is my post "the most incorrect statement of the night"? Perhaps its the most disliked statement of the night for you, but it is factually correct.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Correct Bellhorn, a correct answer partly because it has nothing to do with this league average nonsense. 447 and 443 are still not 486 and if your rotation is going to average 6.5, then somebody better be averaging better than 6 to make up for the 2-3 guys at the back end that are not going to average better than 6. I said that about six different ways but it did not stick for some reason. It was not a specific enough address to the question apparently.

 

Who are those mystery guests supposed to be? Are they supposed to be some #6 or #7 scrub that gets to the rotation via injury to 1 through 5? Are they going to give you those innings? When and if those replacement stiffs, maybe either #'s 6 or 7 or 8 do pitch, do we think the chances are good that those guys are going to give you better than 6.5 innings or even give you more than a passing fancy chance at at win?

 

You are lucky to get 150 innings out of #5 and maybe 175 out of #4 maybe. #3 is a likely candidate for something between 190-200. For argument sake lets make it 200. Frankly it does not much matter wither you give #3 200 innings or #5 160 innings you are not likely to get more than 525 innings out of those three guys or from those three positions in the rotation if you want to disassociate the total innings pitched from the actual pitcher which is also a sensible way to look at the question. That leaves 483 for #1 and #2. and the occasional stiff that you do not really want to start under anything but the most dire circumstances. If there are any injuries in #3, 4 or 5 then said stiffs are going to be logging some part of the 525 innings i just allocated to those three guys. 483 divided between #1 and #2 is 240 innings for 31 starts, a very common number and is 7.74 innings per start. 240 at 32 starts a season is 7.5 innings per start. 30 starts is less common but not completely unheard of....30 starts and you are now at about 8 innings per start.

 

You can slice this up anyway you want to. The guys at the top of the rotation have got to pitch more than 6.5 innings per start or you are very likely screwed and they better not miss starts either...something Mr Beckett has already done cause then....here comes Mr Stiff to take his place and likely toss a stinker that your team losses while putting even more stress on your pen.

 

Excuse me for thinking at least at this board, I did not have to go into a full mathematical justification for why #1 and #2 in the rotation HAD to be pitching more than 6 innings per start and in fact HAD to be pitching more than 6.5 innings per start just to meet the requirement for their spots in the rotation. If they have to pitch more than 6.5 innings per start it is a little bit hard to tolerate the notion that a start for either of those two guys that does not even get to the the 7 mark is a "good" start. I said that about zillion different ways as well. The nebulous and irrelevant comment from last night was the following:

 

 

 

It supposes that you can let #1 and #2 off the hook because as long as they are averaging 6 IP per start at any ERA they are by definition good.

 

They are not even doing their jobs!

 

This is a joke, right??? Hahaha. You're kidding, correct???

 

There were TWO pitchers in all of baseball last year that threw over 240 innings, and one of them won the MVP. They started 33 and 34 starts. Not 31.

 

The year before that? Two again. Couple guys named Roy Halladay and Felix Hernandez. Maybe you've heard of them? They both won some award called the Cy Young that year. Maybe your expectations for the top 2 pitchers on the Red Sox is a bit high, no?

 

Ok, maybe not. So lets go back to 2009, 3 years ago. That would be 1 pitcher who threw 240 IP. 2008? 2 pitchers.

 

So you're trying to say you want our top 2 pitchers to do what only 7 SP have done in the past 4 years??

 

You really need to reevaluate your expectations because they are way, way, way too high. Like, out of this world too high.

[jung]

1. Rangers - Derek Holland: 6.18 IP per Start, 3.95 ERA

 

2. Rays - David Price: 6.59 IP per Start, 3.49 ERA

 

3. Yankees - Ivan Nova: 6.09 IP per Start, 3.66 ERA

 

4. Tigers - Doug Fister: 6.76 IP per Start, 2.83 ERA

 

5. Red Sox - Josh Beckett - 6.43 IP per Start, 2.89 ERA

 

Then they either taxed their pens or their 1's made up the difference or some other starters took up the slack. To some extent you have to look at the ERA's which suggest that at least in the cases of Fister and Beckett, their managers removed them, and did not allow them to go 7 innings when they likely could have. In fact I read comments here last year suggesting that Beckett's excellent ERA for the year was in part a consequence of being removed a bit early in games.

 

Fister also recorded an excellent ERA and got closer to 7 innings on average and I would suggest that his ERA combined with that average in innings being over 6.5 and just short of 7 means Fister did his job and justified his role in the rotation.

 

Nobody thought Holland and Price had Hollandish and Priceish kinds of years last year meaning they did not meet expectation for their assigned roles on their staffs. Are the better than league average...sure....are they what was expected of those pitchers in their assignments...no they were not which is what makes the league average argument somewhat irrelevant.

 

Nova?????? how many times has the Yankees staff been discussed in terms of CC and pray for rain. They had a very disjointed rotation last year, got really good performances from pieces of the puzzle that were question marks at the start of the year and had an outstanding pen anchored by a once in a lifetime closer.

 

So I am not sure but I think you might have gotten closer to proving my point than proving the opposite.

 

More importantly, the last few years have seen the pendulum swing entirely over to the far end of the spectrum which has prompted Nolan Ryan's effort in Texas and I think a more general effort around the league to have starters in general and you most highly paid, top of the rotation starters pitch more innings. I think it will be interesting to see where these numbers fall out in the next five years when we will likely see a shift back to more innings especially at the top of rotations.

[SoxFanForsyth]

1. Rangers - Derek Holland: 6.18 IP per Start, 3.95 ERA

 

2. Rays - David Price: 6.59 IP per Start, 3.49 ERA

 

3. Yankees - Ivan Nova: 6.09 IP per Start, 3.66 ERA

 

4. Tigers - Doug Fister: 6.76 IP per Start, 2.83 ERA

 

5. Red Sox - Josh Beckett - 6.43 IP per Start, 2.89 ERA

 

Then they either taxed their pens or their 1's made up the difference or some other starters took up the slack. To some extent you have to look at the ERA's which suggest that at least in the cases of Fister and Beckett, their managers removed them, and did not allow them to go 7 innings when they likely could have. In fact I read comments here last year suggesting that Beckett's excellent ERA for the year was in part a consequence of being removed a bit early in games.

 

Fister also recorded an excellent ERA and got closer to 7 innings on average and I would suggest that his ERA combined with that average in innings being over 6.5 and just short of 7 means Fister did his job and justified his role in the rotation.

 

Nobody thought Holland and Price had Hollandish and Priceish kinds of years last year meaning they did not meet expectation for their assigned roles on their staffs. Are the better than league average...sure....are they what was expected of those pitchers in their assignments...no they were not which is what makes the league average argument somewhat irrelevant.

 

Nova?????? how many times has the Yankees staff been discussed in terms of CC and pray for rain. They had a very disjointed rotation last year, got really good performances from pieces of the puzzle that were question marks at the start of the year and had an outstanding pen anchored by a once in a lifetime closer.

 

So I am not sure but I think you might have gotten closer to proving my point than proving the opposite.

 

More importantly, the last few years have seen the pendulum swing entirely over to the far end of the spectrum which has prompted Nolan Ryan's effort in Texas and I think a more general effort around the league to have starters in general and you most highly paid, top of the rotation starters pitch more innings. I think it will be interesting to see where these numbers fall out in the next five years when we will likely see a shift back to more innings especially at the top of rotations.

 

You are clueless. Plain and simple. You're clueless.

 

NO TEAM IN THE PAST 5 YEARS HAS HAD 2 PITCHERS THROW 240+ IP!!!!!

 

And yeah. Nobody thought Holland had a "Holland-ish" year?? REALLY?!?! HE THREW A BLEEPING COMBINED 195 INNINGS IN 2009 AND 2010!!!!

 

You're just spewing ******** out of your ass!!!!

[SoxFanForsyth]

It's actually ridiculous. I proved your point because the 4 PS teams had no #2 starter who threw over 6.75 IP per start?? Really? That's proving your point??

 

So the Yankees don't have to adhere to the "Top 2 have to throw 480+ innings" because they have a disjointed rotation, but they still went to the PS last year.

 

Dude. You're just CLUELESS. It's laughable.

[Cocos Disciples]

If every team has' date=' essentially, the same record, then every team is average by definition. Think college grades; if every student gets a 70% score on a test, which one or ones are above average or superior on that test. Answer: none. Also, none of them are inferior. You incorrectly use run differential as a prime determinant to measure how good a team is. That is fallacious reasoning. A team is exactly as good as its W-L record says it is. In the ALE none of the teams is far from the median number of wins and is therefore mediocre by definition, for that set of teams. I stand by that statement because [b']none of the teams in the ALE has proven to be clearly the class of the division nor the doormats of the division[/b]. If you think otherwise perhaps you would enlighten me as to which team or teams are clearly superior or inferior to the others. To help you, here is the definition of mediocre:

 

Definition of MEDIOCRE

 

: of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance : ordinary, so-so

 

I would say that all of the ALE teams are obviously of MODERATE quality; none stand out. The antonym of mediocre is defined as follows:

 

Antonyms: excellent, fine, first-class, first-rate, good, high-grade, superior, top-notch

 

So again, which ALE teams have clearly defined themselves as "excellent" or "superior"? How is my post "the most incorrect statement of the night"? Perhaps its the most disliked statement of the night for you, but it is factually correct.

 

The AL East being a good division does not hinge on some teams being superior and some teams being inferior. The point is that all 5 teams are over .500 and very competitive. My point is what you said in the bold.

 

The problem is that you're judging the teams in the AL East by comparing them to the average of the teams in the AL East, and nothing else. If you use the rest of the AL, you'll see that there's 9 teams in the AL with a .500+ record, and 5 of them are in the East. And it's not like they're all hovering around .500. The Rays have the 2nd best record in the league. The Orioles have the best Wild Card record, and the Yankees are tied for 2nd in the WC. And all of this is with a huge amount of injuries in the division. It's clearly the best division in the AL.

[SoxFanForsyth]

The AL East being a good division does not hinge on some teams being superior and some teams being inferior. The point is that all 5 teams are over .500 and very competitive. My point is what you said in the bold.

 

The problem is that you're judging the teams in the AL East by comparing them to the average of the teams in the AL East, and nothing else. If you use the rest of the AL, you'll see that there's 9 teams in the AL with a .500+ record, and 5 of them are in the East. And it's not like they're all hovering around .500. The Rays have the 2nd best record in the league. The Orioles have the best Wild Card record, and the Yankees are tied for 2nd in the WC. And all of this is with a huge amount of injuries in the division. It's clearly the best division in the AL.

 

Not to mention an even more telling statistic:

 

Every team in the AL East has a positive Run Differential. That's incredible. No other division can make that claim. In fact, only the NL East is even close, and they have 1 negative differential, and 1 team who has no differential.

 

The AL Central has 4 of the 5 teams with a negative differential. The AL West has 2 of the 4 with a negative differential.