2013 Red Sox predictions.

[Bellhorn04]

When you ignore his most recent year, it's dumb and arbitrary.

 

But this all started with jung's contention that Lester has NEVER been a #1.

[mvp 78]

But this all started with jung's contention that Lester has NEVER been a #1.

 

The years used by Pal are just meaningless. You can't ignore Lester's bad 2012 and the other pitchers' good 2012's.

 

I only posted in here because Pal referred me here from another thread. I'm not posting to backup Jung's contentions.

[Orange Juiced]

Late to the prediction party, but here's my look into the crystal ball....

 

- I think this team will be better than many (most?) people are suspecting. I expect Lester, Buchholz, and yes, Lackey, to pitch pretty well, and I think Doubront is ready to take the next step forward. Throw in a guy like Dempster who I wasn't thrilled they signed, but who is a consistent innings-eater, and it's the makings of a pretty decent rotation. A lot can go wrong, obviously, but I think they'll be ok there.

 

- I think the bullpen will be terrific. Lots of live arms, and plenty of ammo there. Maybe if they're out of it by July they'll deal some away, but right now, they appear to have one of the most dynamic bullpens in baseball. That should be a huge help.

 

- I think the offense is intriguing, and there's the *potential* for them to score a lot of runs, but I think the Sox will fall into the second tier in terms of runs scored. I see Papi struggling this year, I don't have high expectations that the catchers will hit, and I'm worried about Napoli. The OF situation is not one that makes me jump for joy. This team will score a lot more runs if we see the Ellsbury of a couple of years ago, but I think that was a one-shot deal there. I hope he proves me wrong. I see them being ranked around 5-7 in runs scored, which isn't bad, but it isn't what we're used to seeing.

 

- So the decrease in runs scored, but a big improvement in runs allowed, coupled with what we all hope are a lot fewer injuries, and I think this team can win in the upper 80's or, if things go right, lower 90's. As I said, lots can go wrong, but I think they have a chance to be right in the playoff mix.

[Palodios]

Why not include Lester's 2012 stats. Did last year not count? So you include other pitcher's bad years, but not Lester's? Horrible analysis.

 

And wins are a stupid measure.

 

I responded to your assertion that "At best Lester is not a #1". 2008-2011, Lester was at his best, and was a #1. 2012, he was not at his best. You're blind if you cannot see that.

[mvp 78]

I responded to your assertion that "At best Lester is not a #1". 2008-2011, Lester was at his best, and was a #1. 2012, he was not at his best. You're blind if you cannot see that.

 

Your argument is horrible. Lester at his best is worse than Price/Verlander/Weaver at their bests. That's why you left out 2012!

[Palodios]

Your argument is horrible. Lester at his best is worse than Price/Verlander/Weaver at their bests. That's why you left out 2012!

 

I left out last season because the discussion is about whether or not Lester can be an ace. He wasn't an ace in a 2012, so it isn't relevant to the discussion of if he can be an ace.

 

If you compare Lester's best season to any pitcher's CY Young season, the other pitcher will always be better, but he doesn't need CY Young numbers to be an ace.

 

The other factor you're ignoring is the ERA+ numbers. Price's numbers look good, but he has a career home/away split that is a full point better at home. Weaver too.

[mvp 78]

So he doesn't need ace-like seasons to be an ace?

[mvp 78]

And for Price, you included his rookie season of 2009. May as well run the #'s back to 06 for Lester...

[Palodios]

So he doesn't need ace-like seasons to be an ace?

 

So you don't think that a 3.20 ERA, with 200+ innings, and 200+ strikeouts in one of the top hitters parks qualifies as an ace-like season? I suppose its a matter of semantics then.

[Dojji]

It's a matter of drawing a conclusion, then crafting definitions to match the conclusion.

 

In a way it's understandable. People remember Pedro a little too well -- and to a somewhat lesser extent they remember Clemens' heyday. What they don't realize is that those were not aces. They were generational pitchers the line of which you'll see maybe a couple of active at any given time. It's just a different plane of reality compared to a textbook ace, which all an ace is is a guy who would be the best starter on most playoff caliber teams and is the leader of the rotation. If you want an example of a talent that was an ace without being a generational pitcher? Look at Jack Morris or Curt Schilling.

[Palodios]

It's a matter of drawing a conclusion, then crafting definitions to match the conclusion.

 

In a way it's understandable. People remember Pedro a little too well -- and to a somewhat lesser extent they remember Clemens' heyday. What they don't realize is that those were not aces. They were generational pitchers the line of which you'll see maybe a couple of active at any given time. It's just a different plane of reality compared to a textbook ace, which all an ace is is a guy who would be the best starter on most playoff caliber teams.

 

Well said.

[jung]

Pedey was refreshing this morning. The talking heads trying to draw him down the road of the "great bullpen" and he did not take the bait. Pedey immediately responded with a very Ya' but tone to his voice....."it starts with the starting pitching....you have to have good starting pitching"

 

Thank you Pedey.

[Orange Juiced]

It's a matter of drawing a conclusion, then crafting definitions to match the conclusion.

 

In a way it's understandable. People remember Pedro a little too well -- and to a somewhat lesser extent they remember Clemens' heyday. What they don't realize is that those were not aces. They were generational pitchers the line of which you'll see maybe a couple of active at any given time. It's just a different plane of reality compared to a textbook ace, which all an ace is is the guy who would be the best starter on most playoff caliber teams.

 

I haven't followed this thread so I don't really know precisely the context for this conversation. But if the question is whether Jon Lester has been, or has the ability to be, an "ace", the answer is unequivocally yes. Look at his 2010 pitching line:

 

208.0 ip, 19-9, 3.25 era, 134 era+, 1.20 whip, 225 k, 9.7 k/9

 

I looked up all the stats from 2010 across the major leagues. I wondered how many starting pitchers met all of the following criteria:

 

200+ ip

15+ w

3.25 era or better

1.20 whip or better

200+ k

7.5 k/9 or better

 

Do you know how many starting pitchers met all those criteria - which account for durability (i.e., "workhorse"), ability to keep the opponent from scoring, dominance (k's), and both counting and rate metrics? Here's the answer: Just four guys:

 

Lester - 208.0 ip, 19 w, 3.25 era, 1.20 whip, 225 k, 9.7 k/9

Wainwright - 230.1 ip, 20 w, 2.42 era, 1.05 whip, 213 k, 8.3 k/9

Halladay - 250.2 ip, 20 w, 2.44 era, 1.04 whip, 219 k, 7.9 k/9

Jimenez - 221.2 ip, 19 w, 2.88 era, 1.15 whip, 214 k, 8.7 k/9

 

That's it. It leaves out some pretty damned good pitchers, like the guy who won the AL CYA (Felix Hernandez), who fell short in wins, but obviously we'd still consider him an ace. And Verlander, who fell short in era, but obviously we'd still consider him an ace. So there are some excellent guys that did not make this list, but by any measure, Lester's 2010 season qualifies as an "ace" season.

[a700hitter]

This is the part of the off season after all of the moves have been made where we try to convince each other that we have a good team.

[Palodios]

This is the part of the off season after all of the moves have been made where we try to convince each other that we have a good team.

 

At no point did I say Lester is going to be an ace. I'm arguing all these people who are saying that Lester has never been an ace, or that at best, he is not an ace.

[Dojji]

Most of those people have a standard for acedom that resembles Pedro. Especially because we actually got Pedro so soon after we lost Clemens. The interregnum between Clemens and Pedro was pretty much 1 year (97).

 

Beyond that one year, we pretty much had a generatonal caliber starter playing ace for us between 1984 and 2004 -- a 20 year run. That's going to set people up for unreasonable expectations simply because they know no better

 

It might be decades before we see that guy in Boston again.

[Bellhorn04]

So you don't think that a 3.20 ERA, with 200+ innings, and 200+ strikeouts in one of the top hitters parks qualifies as an ace-like season? I suppose its a matter of semantics then.

 

Ace is always a matter of semantics, that's why arguments about who is an ace always go off the rails.

 

I find that a lot of people are only comfortable using the term ace to describe someone like Pedro, Verlander or Sabathia who are probable Hall of Famers. So let's throw out the term ace and just talk about Hall of Famers.

 

Anyway, I'm in 100% agreement with your points about Lester.

[a700hitter]

At no point did I say Lester is going to be an ace. I'm arguing all these people who are saying that Lester has never been an ace, or that at best, he is not an ace.

I wasn't pointing at you or anyone in particular. I was just noting the sentiment that takes over the board right before Spring Training starts. Afterall, we all need hope.

[Orange Juiced]

This is the part of the off season after all of the moves have been made where we try to convince each other that we have a good team.

 

Well, except for you of course.

[mvp 78]

Ace is always a matter of semantics, that's why arguments about who is an ace always go off the rails.

 

I find that a lot of people are only comfortable using the term ace to describe someone like Pedro, Verlander or Sabathia who are probable Hall of Famers. So let's throw out the term ace and just talk about Hall of Famers.

 

Anyway, I'm in 100% agreement with your points about Lester.

 

What are you talking about? Pal clearly showed all of us that Lester is just as good as Verlander!

 

Lester should get his HOF speech ready!

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Ace is always a matter of semantics, that's why arguments about who is an ace always go off the rails.

 

I find that a lot of people are only comfortable using the term ace to describe someone like Pedro, Verlander or Sabathia who are probable Hall of Famers. So let's throw out the term ace and just talk about Hall of Famers.

 

Anyway, I'm in 100% agreement with your points about Lester.

 

Exactly.

[Lucienbel]

As for the pitching, whether or not Lester can meet some people's standards at this point is kind of null to me. While we do need a guy that can pitch to a high standard, we need four other guys without so many question marks who can perform as well. If Lester fills out nicely it's a bonus, if not that's just another person we need at this point.

[seabeachfred]

Late to the prediction party, but here's my look into the crystal ball....

 

- I think this team will be better than many (most?) people are suspecting. I expect Lester, Buchholz, and yes, Lackey, to pitch pretty well, and I think Doubront is ready to take the next step forward. Throw in a guy like Dempster who I wasn't thrilled they signed, but who is a consistent innings-eater, and it's the makings of a pretty decent rotation. A lot can go wrong, obviously, but I think they'll be ok there.

 

- I think the bullpen will be terrific. Lots of live arms, and plenty of ammo there. Maybe if they're out of it by July they'll deal some away, but right now, they appear to have one of the most dynamic bullpens in baseball. That should be a huge help.

 

- I think the offense is intriguing, and there's the *potential* for them to score a lot of runs, but I think the Sox will fall into the second tier in terms of runs scored. I see Papi struggling this year, I don't have high expectations that the catchers will hit, and I'm worried about Napoli. The OF situation is not one that makes me jump for joy. This team will score a lot more runs if we see the Ellsbury of a couple of years ago, but I think that was a one-shot deal there. I hope he proves me wrong. I see them being ranked around 5-7 in runs scored, which isn't bad, but it isn't what we're used to seeing.

 

- So the decrease in runs scored, but a big improvement in runs allowed, coupled with what we all hope are a lot fewer injuries, and I think this team can win in the upper 80's or, if things go right, lower 90's. As I said, lots can go wrong, but I think they have a chance to be right in the playoff mix.

 

I think a lot of things would have to go right to make your pearls from your crystal ball make us all happy. First and foremost, Lester, Buchholz and Lackey must come back strong and the first two must have banner years. The bullpen must be as solid as it potentially is. Ellsbury, Pedroia, Middlebrooks, Ortiz and Napoli must stay healthy and hit, with the last three provided some long ball and run producing power. We need solid defense, especially at catcher (a problem) and up the middle. These are doable and perhaps a more positive outlook in the clubhouse this Spring Training will translate into an upbeat team on the field when it all counts. My God, I only hope it can be so.

[reYoukilis]

Saltalamacchia is going to have a darn good season (offensively of course) and make everyone feel embarrased.

[Dojji]

Disagree. Oh, he'll have a good season. I agree with that, but the serial offenders will still find a way to say he sucks, no matter what inconvenient fact has to be downplayed to do it.

[mvp 78]

.230 25 HR's and s*** defense? Is that a good season now?

[Dojji]

Is it not?

[mvp 78]

Is it not?

 

Maybe for your fantasy team. The piss poor defense negates his HR total.

[reYoukilis]

Disagree. Oh, he'll have a good season. I agree with that, but the serial offenders will still find a way to say he sucks, no matter what inconvenient fact has to be downplayed to do it.

 

Well, leading the club in HR's is definitely a good thing but with the position he fields, he needs to contribute more, be it with offense, defense or both. The problem with Salty last year, other than his D and maybe his pitch calling, is that he did most of his damage in the first half. Thats the wrong half.

 

I think he has it in him to up that average and keep the power numbers, and of course do it consistently throughout the year. His defense sucks but if it can suck less, thats that much better.

 

Also I dont think you can count the second half of last season as a barometer for anyone. Its hard to compete when you know everything is going to s***.

[a700hitter]

Well, leading the club in HR's is definitely a good thing but with the position he fields, he needs to contribute more, be it with offense, defense or both. The problem with Salty last year, other than his D and maybe his pitch calling, is that he did most of his damage in the first half. Thats the wrong half.

 

I think he has it in him to up that average and keep the power numbers, and of course do it consistently throughout the year. His defense sucks but if it can suck less, thats that much better.

 

Also I dont think you can count the second half of last season as a barometer for anyone. Its hard to compete when you know everything is going to s***.

He's adequate at best, but he goes through long stretches of sucking. Defensively, he mainly sucks. They should move him. Theo probably still has the hots for him