Lester's Future

[Orange Juiced]

Buchholz has ace ability, but he can't stay healthy. Lester has ace stuff but for some reason sucks. Lackey has pitched like an ace this season but I think we should be a little wary given that he's coming off TJ surgery.

 

So no, this team doesn't have a true "ace" right now. When they're all healthy and right, the Sox do have one of the better 1-2-3 punches in baseball though. Who knows if we'll ever see all three "healthy and right" again, however.

[jung]

Lester is officially totally lost especially given his post game presser. Has no idea what is going on. Hence likely has no idea how to work his way out of this.

 

Very common in baseball for Management to allow established major league players to resolve their own problems. Jon is going to need way more help than that especially from Nieves since he is the pitching coach and also from Farrell based on their past relationship.

 

Lester did a much better job attacking the strike zone for two games. He enjoyed some success doing it but inexplicably falls right back into the same familiar hole in the very next game and now appears to not even understand what that hole looks like.

 

Last night he pecked and poked at little midget Mariner hitters and then left the ball out over the plate to Ibanez, about the only threat the M's have. Hell of a time for him to sink even deeper into one of his blue funks but he surely has.

[SoxSport]

They've lost Morales, Hanrahan and Miller so far this year--for the year. Bailey imploded and is struggling to come back. The BP has thinned out, and they don't really have good replacements in AAA. So logic says deal for some relief pitchers, or at least move some of your best AAA pitchers into a relief role. So far they've done none of that.

Webster and Delarosa should be viewed as candidates for the BP right now. It's about winning now, and you worry about future roles in the future.

[Behindenemylines]

They just brought Workman up to be an arm in the pen. I could see De La Rosa doing the same thing at some point this season. The loss of arms in the bullpen is concerning.

[User Name]

De La Rosa is post-op and needs to be completely stretched out this season. I just don´t see the reason to bring him up as a reliever rest of season with so many healthy arms in the system.

[mvp 78]

De La Rosa is post-op and needs to be completely stretched out this season. I just don´t see the reason to bring him up as a reliever rest of season with so many healthy arms in the system.

 

If he has a few innings to spare in September, I'd use him. Otherwise, it's not worth the risk.

[Orange Juiced]

De La Rosa is post-op and needs to be completely stretched out this season. I just don´t see the reason to bring him up as a reliever rest of season with so many healthy arms in the system.

 

If he stays as a starter, he'll reach his innings limit long before the season is completed. Then he'll have to sit and not pitch at all. This way he'll accumulate his innings in smaller chunks, but over the entire rest of the season, which means he'll still get all his work in, but he'll be helping the major league club in the process.

[User Name]

If he stays as a starter, he'll reach his innings limit long before the season is completed. Then he'll have to sit and not pitch at all. This way he'll accumulate his innings in smaller chunks, but over the entire rest of the season, which means he'll still get all his work in, but he'll be helping the major league club in the process.

 

There is an inherent difference between starting and relieving. It's not just about the innings cap.If it was merely about the cap, he'd have been with the big club as a long reliever for a while now. There's just no reason to bring him up as a reliever for an extended period.

[Orange Juiced]

There is an inherent difference between starting and relieving. It's not just about the innings cap.If it was merely about the cap, he'd have been with the big club as a long reliever for a while now. There's just no reason to bring him up as a reliever for an extended period.

 

Yes there is. If they think he can help the team win a World Series this year.

[User Name]

Yes there is. If they think he can help the team win a World Series this year.

 

Yeah, let's set back (and possibly hinder) the kid's future for 30 innings of relief pitching. That's exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking that brought about 2012. It's not all about "win now".

 

The worst part about this line of thinking is that you can't even be sure he'd be an effective reliever right now.

[Behindenemylines]

Yeah, let's set back (and possibly hinder) the kid's future for 30 innings of relief pitching. That's exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking that brought about 2012. It's not all about "win now".

 

The worst part about this line of thinking is that you can't even be sure he'd be an effective reliever right now.

 

The year the Rays went to the World Series they used David Price out of the pen and he was quite effective. Not saying the De La Rosa is Price, but could see him in a similar role that Price filled for the Rays when they went to the WS. There has been talk that De La Rosa could be a future closer so there is some belief that he could be effective out of the pen.

[User Name]

Price was not post-op, and he was fully stretched out. You're comparing apples to elephants here.

[iortiz]

By definition, a #1 is an ace. What you're trying to say is that the Red Sox don't actually have a #1, or ace. If a pitcher is not an ace, then he's not a #1.

 

Lackey may be an actual ace, and he sure is pitching like one, while being very durable ever since his biceps debacle. We'll see.

 

No, they are not the same by definition. No even close.

 

Year after year somehow emerge #1s. Several. ERAs around 3 and WHIPs around 1. Plenty of examples. Lackey is one of them. Norris. Liriano. Colon. Etc. You have several examples year after year. But they are certainly not aces. Aces are a handful.

 

As I said, Aces show consistency and durability through long periods of time.

 

At this point we have a #1 in Lackey but he certainly is not an ace by any means.

[Behindenemylines]

No, they are not the same by definition. No even close.

 

Year after year somehow emerge #1s. Several. ERAs around 3 and WHIPs around 1. Plenty of examples. Lackey is one of them. Norris. Liriano. Colon. Etc. You have several examples year after year. But they are certainly not aces. Aces are a handful.

 

As I said, Aces show consistency and durability through long periods of time.

 

 

 

At this point we have a #1 in Lackey but he certainly is not an ace by any means.

 

I agree. Lackey is probably the Sox number 1 right now, but he is not an ace. Aces do it for a long period of time.

[Orange Juiced]

Yeah, let's set back (and possibly hinder) the kid's future for 30 innings of relief pitching. That's exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking that brought about 2012. It's not all about "win now".

 

The worst part about this line of thinking is that you can't even be sure he'd be an effective reliever right now.

 

First of all, there really is no evidence to suggest that him pitching in relief the rest of this year would "set back the kid's future". Second, you said there was no reason to pitch him out of the pen this year in Boston, and I gave you one. If he can help the MLB club win a world series this year, that's a really good reason to have him do it.

 

As for your last sentence, I agree. We do not know if he'd be an effective reliever at this point. I would think, given his stuff, that he probably would be. But we don't know.

 

So here's how I'd handle him. I'd start him for another two starts in the minors and then have him pitch in relief a few times. It's not going to retard his long-term development to do that for a couple of weeks. And if, by the end of July, he shows he can do this well (he warms up quickly, he gets outs right away, etc.), then it's worth him coming up to Boston to pitch out of the bullpen the rest of the season. Then next year he goes back to being a starter and ramps up his innings. And if he shows he can't be an effective reliever, then they keep him in the minors and put him back in the rotation to finish out his innings limit. Yes, maybe for the first few starts back in the rotation he'd only go 5 innings due to coming out of the pen, but who cares.

[User Name]

First of all, there really is no evidence to suggest that him pitching in relief the rest of this year would "set back the kid's future". Second, you said there was no reason to pitch him out of the pen this year in Boston, and I gave you one. If he can help the MLB club win a world series this year, that's a really good reason to have him do it.

 

As for your last sentence, I agree. We do not know if he'd be an effective reliever at this point. I would think, given his stuff, that he probably would be. But we don't know.

 

So here's how I'd handle him. I'd start him for another two starts in the minors and then have him pitch in relief a few times. It's not going to retard his long-term development to do that for a couple of weeks. And if, by the end of July, he shows he can do this well (he warms up quickly, he gets outs right away, etc.), then it's worth him coming up to Boston to pitch out of the bullpen the rest of the season. Then next year he goes back to being a starter and ramps up his innings. And if he shows he can't be an effective reliever, then they keep him in the minors and put him back in the rotation to finish out his innings limit. Yes, maybe for the first few starts back in the rotation he'd only go 5 innings due to coming out of the pen, but who cares.

 

Dude, he's being stretched after losing time with major surgery. You keep ignoring that fact like it never happened. That's more than enough reason to conclude that he needs to finish being stretched out and maintain a consistent pace. The idea that taking him out of his schedule to have him pitch out of the BP at least medium term is counter-productive at best and idiotic at worst.

 

Maybe by September, but right now just look at the command meltdowns he has intermittently, and tell me he should be taken out of his regular pitching schedule

Edited July 11, 2013 by User Name?

[User Name]

No, they are not the same by definition. No even close.

 

Year after year somehow emerge #1s. Several. ERAs around 3 and WHIPs around 1. Plenty of examples. Lackey is one of them. Norris. Liriano. Colon. Etc. You have several examples year after year. But they are certainly not aces. Aces are a handful.

 

As I said, Aces show consistency and durability through long periods of time.

 

At this point we have a #1 in Lackey but he certainly is not an ace by any means.

 

Find me a reputable source that separates the definition between #1 and ace like you do above. I'll wait.

 

As you have been told several times by other posters, your opinion is not fact.

Edited July 11, 2013 by User Name?

[User Name]

I agree. Lackey is probably the Sox number 1 right now, but he is not an ace. Aces do it for a long period of time.

 

Give me a universally accepted definition of ace. I'll wait.

[Standing Room]

These terms are both subjective, there's no use in arguing over them.

[Orange Juiced]

Dude, he's being stretched after losing time with major surgery. You keep ignoring that fact like it never happened. That's more than enough reason to conclude that he needs to finish being stretched out and maintain a consistent pace. The idea that taking him out of his schedule to have him pitch out of the BP at least medium term is counter-productive at best and idiotic at worst.

 

Maybe by September, but right now just look at the command meltdowns he has intermittently, and tell me he should be taken out of his regular pitching schedule

 

Neither you nor I really know what is best for him. So we're both speculating. What I understand he needs is to pitch a certain number of innings, ideally in the rotation. But if he can get his innings in partially pitching out of the pen for the Red Sox, and that helps the Sox deep into the playoffs, then that's a win all the way around. That won't retard his development.

 

Being "stretched out" is more about the number of innings than it is how deep into a game he can go as a starter. Next year is when his innings limit will go up considerably, and he'll have to be stretched out again during spring training anyway for that. There will really be no lost time this year if he manages to get his innings in.

[User Name]

Not at all. Pitching out of the bullpen and starting games are entirely different beasts in both preparation and approach. And while we're both speculating, the fact that the Red Sox, who clearly have a better grasp than we do on what's better for the kid, have resisted the temptation to convert him to relief, should count for something.

[Orange Juiced]

Not at all. Pitching out of the bullpen and starting games are entirely different beasts in both preparation and approach. And while we're both speculating, the fact that the Red Sox, who clearly have a better grasp than we do on what's better for the kid, have resisted the temptation to convert him to relief, should count for something.

 

Well nobody has suggested that they convert him to relief yet. I suggested he gets a couple more starts before they make a shift. So that doesn't prove anything, really. I guess we'll wait and see. I agree they have a better handle on this than we do, so it'll be interesting to see what they do.

[iortiz]

I agree. Lackey is probably the Sox number 1 right now, but he is not an ace. Aces do it for a long period of time.

 

Exactly. As I said, Aces are a handful. Lackey, Colon, Sale, Norris, Liriano, etc, etc, etc are No 1, good pitchers...but certainly ain't aces at all. In other words, Aces have HOF profile since again... have shown durability and consistency through long periods of time.

[iortiz]

Find me a reputable source that separates the definition between #1 and ace like you do above. I'll wait.

 

As you have been told several times by other posters, your opinion is not fact.

 

Do not twist the things. You were who said that #1 are aces by definition, not me. You turn your opinion into facts.

 

Do Aces are #1s by definition? Yes. Otherwise? No. Doubront has pitched a couple of game like an ace but he is not an ace. Buch has pitched a dozen of games this season like an ace, but he certainly is not an ace. Lester has pitched like an ace in the past but since he is not consistent, he is not an ace. Lackey has pitched like an ace this season but it doesn't make him an ace. Etcetera.

 

Again, aces are a handful.

Edited July 11, 2013 by iortiz

[User Name]

I'm not twisting anything. By definition, an ace and a #1 are the same thing, subjective as the definitions may be. When people refer to a #1, they are talking about an ace-type pitcher.

 

Ace: Pitcher capable of headlining a rotation and facing off in equal ground against any other team's best pitcher, while providing a significant amount of IP per season.

 

#1: Pitcher capable of headlining a rotation and facing off on equal ground against any other team's best pitcher, while providing a significant amount of IP per season.

 

In other words, Lackey is neither a #1 nor an ace. However, if he keeps this up, he could end up having a #1 or ace type season. There's really no need to further complicate the definition of a pitcher's production.

 

To further clarify my position, although every team has a #1 spot in their rotation, not all of those pitchers are #1's, or aces. Take the San Diego Padres for instance, who started the season with Edinson Volquez in the #1 spot in their rotation. However, Volquez is not a #1 or an ace.

Edited July 11, 2013 by User Name?

[User Name]

Exactly. As I said, Aces are a handful. Lackey, Colon, Sale, Norris, Liriano, etc, etc, etc are No 1, good pitchers...but certainly ain't aces at all. In other words, Aces have HOF profile since again... have shown durability and consistency through long periods of time.

 

All of these guys, except Sale, are #2 and #3 pitchers occupying top slots in a rotation devoid of a clear #1. Colon was once an ace, or #1, and Sale is on the verge of becoming a bona fide ace. Saying Bud Norris is a #1 pitcher is a travesty

[italstallianion]

For me both terms (ace and #1 starter) can be used interchangeably, however I find that they both can have two meanings. A literal meaning as in this guy is the opening day starter of the draft, an ace that goes against the other team's best pitcher, and then the subjective meaning that even though he pitches in the #2 slot, this guy is a bona fide ace for any other team.

 

For example, I would say that Bud Norris is the "ace" of the Houston Astros staff, but he is definitely not a #1 pitcher or an ace quality pitcher. It's a confusing term with an unwritten definition imo. It's hard to say anyone is wrong in this.

[User Name]

I remember reading somewhere (Fangraphs i believe, i'll see if i can dig it up) that you could pretty much define an "ace" or "#1" type pitcher as a guy who could provide consistent 200 IP seasons with a WAR above four (why specifically that cut-off was explained, i just can't remember why).

 

If you use that criteria, you only have around 14 pitchers in the league who can be considered true 1's, or aces.

[jung]

If you use that criteria, you only have around 14 pitchers in the league who can be considered true 1's, or aces.

 

Maybe that says it is a pretty good standard.

[Behindenemylines]

I still feel that the Sox need Lester to be better for long term success this season. Based on some of his outings this season I feel he has the ability to right the ship and be the old Lester. He is still young, homegrown and a lefty so the Sox are going to stick with him long term as well.