What can Joe Kelly become?

[cp176]

Au contraire mvp...two posters here have already changed their mind and have come out solidly behind what the front office has done with the starting rotation. Yes, most of us think we are still very short at least one good starter, and in some cases, two. The only way we win the AL East next season is if the division is about as weak as it has been in the last 25 years.

 

Anyway, let me end this post and this day with good cheer. I wish you all a very Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukuh or whatever you choose to celebrate. Have a great day tomorrow.

 

Merry XMAS - Santa is on his way!

[BSN07]

iortiz, once again, you have reading comprehension problems. What BSN has said (and who are the other posters?) is that the rotation is flawed but if they can stay afloat they can buy a #1 as a rental before the trade deadline, just like many teams do. I don't agree with him in this regard, but you're absolutely taking what he said out of context.

 

How dare you disagree with me lol

[User Name]

I like Shields because he looks like a goofball. There, i said it.

[vjcsmoke]

I'd be happy if Joe Kelly could become as good as Derek Lowe - a solid #3 on a contending roster. Only time will tell if he can reach that level.

[BSN07]

I like Shields because he looks like a goofball. There, i said it.

 

I knew it was something shady

[wyo-sox]

A lot of you have written the team off, I think that's a mistake. Am I confident they will win the AL east, no. But as the roster sits..... I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they did. The one thing being a baseball fan, specifically a Red Sox fan, should teach us is that you just never know.

[seabeachfred]

A lot of you have written the team off, I think that's a mistake. Am I confident they will win the AL east, no. But as the roster sits..... I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they did. The one thing being a baseball fan, specifically a Red Sox fan, should teach us is that you just never know.

 

Good point Wyo about never knowing. You can't really know how the Red Sox are going to do if you take the last decade into account. There have been pleasant surprises and angering disappointments flying at us from left and right and no one can really say how the 2015 team will fare taking the past into consideration. They could finish between first and fifth as they've done the past three seasons. The AL East is supposed to be down next season. Is it? That's what it looks on paper, but then again, a surprise or two could emerge. Right now I think we are a solid starting pitcher short of being the favorites for the division title. I would hope we could sign either Shields or Scherzer within the next month or so. I still would like to trade for Hamels but if Betts or Swihart are going to be in the trade, forget it.

[wyo-sox]

You know I think Hamels makes us a serious contender, so I'll break ranks and say I would be all for trading Betts, Swihart or any prospect. I remember how recently popular it was to say never trade Iglesias, Middlebrooks, Bradley Jr, Xander etc...... over the past few years. I'd always trade a long shot for a sure thing.

[cp176]

Betts and Swihart would be off the table for me I am just not sure that Hamels is the guy.

[User Name]

You know I think Hamels makes us a serious contender, so I'll break ranks and say I would be all for trading Betts, Swihart or any prospect. I remember how recently popular it was to say never trade Iglesias, Middlebrooks, Bradley Jr, Xander etc...... over the past few years. I'd always trade a long shot for a sure thing.

 

Except that Hamels is far from a sure thing considering his numbers against the AL in an acceptable sample size, and they have the option of getting a likely superior pitcher in either Scherzer or Shields that costs only money.

[BSN07]

You know I think Hamels makes us a serious contender, so I'll break ranks and say I would be all for trading Betts, Swihart or any prospect. I remember how recently popular it was to say never trade Iglesias, Middlebrooks, Bradley Jr, Xander etc...... over the past few years. I'd always trade a long shot for a sure thing.

 

I've cold off a bit on Hamels. His history against the AL is spotty at best and unless he comes without giving up top prospects(unlikely) I'm not interested at this point.

[cp176]

I've cold off a bit on Hamels. His history against the AL is spotty at best and unless he comes without giving up top prospects(unlikely) I'm not interested at this point.

 

Regardless of what the Sox do, looks to me like they are passing along the expenses to their fans. Our nice little grandstand season's tickets went up in price by just about 50%. Seats aren't that comfortable, passing them up. Going to spend my time in front of the tv. One day at Fenway - grandstand - parking - 4 seats - a few tasty treats - somewhere between $500 and $1000. Maybe it does mean a more significant free agent signing.

[a700hitter]

Regardless of what the Sox do, looks to me like they are passing along the expenses to their fans. Our nice little grandstand season's tickets went up in price by just about 50%. Seats aren't that comfortable, passing them up. Going to spend my time in front of the tv. One day at Fenway - grandstand - parking - 4 seats - a few tasty treats - somewhere between $500 and $1000. Maybe it does mean a more significant free agent signing.

The cost of the game pax (4 games) is just a little higher, but they went to dynamic pricing for individual game tickets. Most Weekday grandstands are cheaper than lasy year at $38, but those same seats for a Yankee weekend game are $78 close to 50% more than last season.

[Bellhorn04]

The cost of the game pax (4 games) is just a little higher, but they went to dynamic pricing for individual game tickets. Most Weekday grandstands are cheaper than lasy year at $38, but those same seats for a Yankee weekend game are $78 close to 50% more than last season.

 

Wow - crafty little f***ers, aren't they?

 

The Sox beancounters are obviously convinced that The Rivalry is alive and well even when the two teams miss the playoffs.

[cp176]

Wow - crafty little f***ers, aren't they?

 

The Sox beancounters are obviously convinced that The Rivalry is alive and well even when the two teams miss the playoffs.

 

I would have to go back and check but I am close. Never paid too much attention before. Grandstand season's tickets under the roof. Approximate cost per game - last year $55 - this year $78.

[seabeachfred]

I would have to go back and check but I am close. Never paid too much attention before. Grandstand season's tickets under the roof. Approximate cost per game - last year $55 - this year $78.

 

I guess ownership figured they could raise ticket prices because of that great season we just had.

[Spudboy]

I guess ownership figured they could raise ticket prices because of that great season we just had.

 

Maybe if they had not been complicit in raising the average MLB player salary close to 13% to about $3.8 mil/yr they would not have done this?

 

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

[St. Louis Carter]

After watching Kelly's starts for years with the Cards I noted that he was rarely used properly. He would very often dominate for the first 4 innings and then get touched up in the 5th, indicating that the third time through the lineup was a charm for the opposition.

 

Functional idiot, Mike Matheny repeatedly left him in the game time after time until it was too late. Even when the pen had not pitched for days he was still scared shitless to bring in middle relief. Of course, JK once every 5 or so starts would go deep into a game looking great. I don't know if MM was gambling on Joe repeating this, or as a "players manager" wanted Kelly to get the W, but it doesn't matter.

 

My point is that used properly Kelly could be a huge asset. He's an effective 5 inning guy....after that, you're gambling.

[BSN07]

Kelly needs to take that next step and if he can he could be an mid to top of the rotation starter. If he doesn't he will end up being a flame throwing late inning reliever imo.

[Palodios]

My point is that used properly Kelly could be a huge asset. He's an effective 5 inning guy....after that, you're gambling.

 

Interesting. I am looking at his numbers based on pitch counts, and they seem to give me the impression of the opposite. Later in the game, he's a bit better than career average. This includes both starting and relieving stats, which theoretically should make pitches 1-30 look better.

 

Pitches 76-90 --> .646 OPS against

Pitches 91-105 --> .612 OPS against

Pitches 106-120 --> .417 OPS against

Career --> .635 OPS against.

 

 

Edit: On a closer look, it appears you're right. In 2012/2013, he was much better in early pitch counts. In 2014, he improved his results at the ends of games, which seems to bode well here.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Palodios

[GomesBeard]

I like Kelly, I think he has some upside and he seems to be a battler, unlike Buchholz, who tends to cave in if he doesn't have his best stuff.

[cp176]

I like Kelly, I think he has some upside and he seems to be a battler, unlike Buchholz, who tends to cave in if he doesn't have his best stuff.

 

I have liked what I have seen in Kelly as well. We still have a ways to go but it is starting to look like he will be fighting it out for the 1-2-3-4 or 5 spot in that rotation. Got to start getting used to that line of thinking.

[St. Louis Carter]

Interesting. I am looking at his numbers based on pitch counts, and they seem to give me the impression of the opposite. Later in the game, he's a bit better than career average. This includes both starting and relieving stats, which theoretically should make pitches 1-30 look better.

 

Pitches 76-90 --> .646 OPS against

Pitches 91-105 --> .612 OPS against

Pitches 106-120 --> .417 OPS against

Career --> .635 OPS against.

 

 

Edit: On a closer look, it appears you're right. In 2012/2013, he was much better in early pitch counts. In 2014, he improved his results at the ends of games, which seems to bode well here.

Let me be more specific about his early innings: he would VERY often get 2 or 3 men on base and then shut down the threat with K's. It was maddening...like he didn't use his best stuff 'till he had to. Consequently he would be nearing 80 to 90 in the 5th inning!

 

However, in the games where the pitch count was low he would sail through the 5th inning on, looking fantastic. I have to wonder if he and Molina couldn't get on the same page. There were many visits to the mound. The guy has STUFF, but something seems to be keeping him from breaking out. But even as he is, he's a tip-top 4th starter, and a decent 3rd.

[Kimmi]

On the other hand, Posters like BSN feel ok going like this if we do not sign a No1, and still it is respectable. It's nothing wrong to think that we are already ok. Call me greedy or whatever but again, speaking for myself, I still feel that we need not 1 but 2 solid arms since I do not think that someone will emerge as No2, I've been saying this since last season ended.

 

 

I will go on record as saying that I am okay with the current rotation going into the season. Would I love to add a top of the rotation pitcher? Of course. Do I think we need to add one during the offseason to contend this season? No, I don't.

 

Obviously, the FO would be banking on a lot of potential that may or may not be reached with the current rotation, but with Vazquez/Hanigan behind the plate and some pretty good infield defense, I think this rotation will be solid.

 

While I would prefer adding another starter now, there is something to be said for waiting until midseason to better guage what the team's needs will be.

[Kimmi]

The issue is that if we do make the playoffs, we have no one in our rotation that's the guy who will carry us all the way. No team in that situation has won it all in a long time.

 

 

There is no statistically significant correlation between having an "ace" in the rotation and postseason success. Teams without a pitcher who is deemed an ace have been just as successful in the postseason as those who have one. Besides, that guy who can carry us all the way often does not show himself until the season is underway. We may very well have that ace and just don't realize it.

[Youk Of The Nation]

There is no statistically significant correlation between having an "ace" in the rotation and postseason success. Teams without a pitcher who is deemed an ace have been just as successful in the postseason as those who have one. Besides, that guy who can carry us all the way often does not show himself until the season is underway. We may very well have that ace and just don't realize it.

 

Exactly. Look at Uehara. Going into 2013, he was not expected to dominate the closer spot and significantly impact the Sox's postseason success. But he did. You don't need 5 Pedro Martinezes (Martinezi?) in a rotation to compete in October.

[cp176]

There is no statistically significant correlation between having an "ace" in the rotation and postseason success. Teams without a pitcher who is deemed an ace have been just as successful in the postseason as those who have one. Besides, that guy who can carry us all the way often does not show himself until the season is underway. We may very well have that ace and just don't realize it.

 

You might be right. With respect to the Red Sox of 67, 75, 86, 04, and 07, I would argue that they had a pitcher at the top of the rotation that served them well. I don't like the term ace particularly but I prefer to see money spent on big arms as opposed to big bats. I guess I am prepared to be stunned if they don't make a significant trade before the start of play. Too many players and not enough positions for them all.

[User Name]

There is no statistically significant correlation between having an "ace" in the rotation and postseason success. Teams without a pitcher who is deemed an ace have been just as successful in the postseason as those who have one. Besides, that guy who can carry us all the way often does not show himself until the season is underway. We may very well have that ace and just don't realize it.

 

I like you already, welcome aboard!

 

While i agree with your overall assessment of team needs and potential to reach the playoffs, i disagree with the idea that there's no correlation between a proven "ace" and recent postseason success.

 

Last 10 WS winners:

 

Red Sox: Schilling

White Sox: No "true" ace.

Cardinals: Carpenter.

Red Sox: Beckett

Phillies: Hamels

Yankees: CC

Giants: Lincecum

Cardinals: Carpenter/Wainwright

Giants: Bumgarner

Red Sox: No true ace

Giants: Bumgarner

 

 

*To qualify, "ace" is a pitcher in the top 20% statistically in the league.

 

You can't prove causation, but the correlation is there. The point is, it's certainly easier to win in the postseason with a top-echelon pitcher "getting hot" right around playoff time, although it's clearly not impossible to win the WS without one.

[Youk Of The Nation]

I like you already, welcome aboard!

 

While i agree with your overall assessment of team needs and potential to reach the playoffs, i disagree with the idea that there's no correlation between a proven "ace" and recent postseason success.

 

Last 10 WS winners:

 

Red Sox: Schilling

White Sox: No "true" ace.

Cardinals: Carpenter.

Red Sox: Beckett

Phillies: Hamels

Yankees: CC

Giants: Lincecum

Cardinals: Carpenter/Wainwright

Giants: Bumgarner

Red Sox: No true ace

Giants: Bumgarner

 

 

*To qualify, "ace" is a pitcher in the top 20% statistically in the league.

 

You can't prove causation, but the correlation is there. The point is, it's certainly easier to win in the postseason with a top-echelon pitcher "getting hot" right around playoff time, although it's clearly not impossible to win the WS without one.

 

World Series winners is kind of a misleading category, though. When you expand it to "Postseason winning teams" including the winners of each LDS and LCS, it becomes much murkier in regards to "ace" pitching. I don't think you can only hold up WS wins as the qualifier for postseason success. In a league with 30 teams where each team plays 162 games, just making it into the postseason is pretty successful. And since there are not that many aces in baseball, when you step back and look at the league in it's entirety, it definitely seems less important to me. An ace obviously can't hold up a team with no bullpen or no power or no speed. You can have a Pedro or a Randy Johnson on the mound every day, but if he is backed up by eight Alex Coras, you're still going to end up losing 100 games. Balance is what is important, in sports, in life, in diet, and especially when having sex in a tree. (FYI, I recommend only doing this in trees with trampolines underneath them.)

 

As long as a team's rotation consists of at least 3 or 4 guys who could qualify as #1-#3 starters, they should have a healthy chance at winning the World Series every year. Unless it's the Cubs, because hahaha the Cubs.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Youk Of The Nation

[User Name]

World Series winners is kind of a misleading category, though. When you expand it to "Postseason winning teams" including the winners of each LDS and LCS, it becomes much murkier in regards to "ace" pitching. I don't think you can only hold up WS wins as the qualifier for postseason success. In a league with 30 teams where each team plays 162 games, just making it into the postseason is pretty successful. And since there are not that many aces in baseball, when you step back and look at the league in it's entirety, it definitely seems less important to me. An ace obviously can't hold up a team with no bullpen or no power or no speed. You can have a Pedro or a Randy Johnson on the mound every day, but if he is backed up by eight Alex Coras, you're still going to end up losing 100 games. Balance is what is important, in sports, in life, in diet, and especially when having sex in a tree. (FYI, I recommend only doing this in trees with trampolines underneath them.)

 

As long as a team's rotation consists of at least 3 or 4 guys who could qualify as #1-#3 starters, they should have a healthy chance at winning the World Series every year. Unless it's the Cubs, because hahaha the Cubs.

 

Actually if you apply the same standard to overall postseason success, you'll probably get the same result. If you give me some time, i can probably do the analysis.