Is the actual rotation the worst in the last 10 Y?

[iortiz]

Of course there's still time but all the signs say that we are going to go like this.

 

If so AND "on paper", IMO this could be the worst rotation in the last 10 Y with one of the highest payrolls in the majors.

 

What do u think?

[a700hitter]

We have a pair of 4's a pair of 5's and a 3. That is not going to scare anyone. Hitters will be licking their chops. The offense is going to have to bludgeon opposing teams to keep us in games. If the starters stay injury free and take all of their starts, the team could be competitive. If we get some injuries (i.e., Buch misses a lot of time), we could have a very rough road.

[Palodios]

No.

 

That title goes to 2011, and I seriously doubt it will even be close. You guys complain about all the #4s and 5s... that year half the rotation was #8s and 9s.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Palodios

[a700hitter]

No.

 

That title goes to 2011, and I seriously doubt it will even be close.

At the end of the 2011 season, they couldn't find anyone to give us a good start. I thought iortiz was asking whether this was the worst staff going into a season. 2011 had a ton of injuries. That staff had Josh Beckett who put up 2.89 ERA and they had Lester too. They also had John Lackey. I'm not seeing that kind of quality going into 2015.

[mvp 78]

The 2006 rotation is the worst since before Pedro showed up.

[iortiz]

A

At the end of the 2011 season, they couldn't find anyone to give us a good start. I thought iortiz was asking whether this was the worst staff going into a season. 2011 had a ton of injuries. That staff had Josh Beckett who put up 2.89 ERA and they had Lester too. They also had John Lackey. I'm not seeing that kind of quality going into 2015.

Exactly!

 

Even 2006 rotation as MVP says had more "potential"

[iortiz]

Even 2013 rotation had a lot question marks too considering how they ended up 2012, but this version is way far the worst IMO.

[mvp 78]

A

Exactly!

 

Even 2006 rotation as MVP says had more "potential"

Schilling was done. Beckett needed to learn to pitch in the AL. Tim Wakefield, David Wells and a post head injury Clement rounded out that s*** show. This rotation is better today.

 

The rest of this exercise is silly as we don't know if this is the final rotation. Some people on here have the clairvoyance to know exactly how this will all shake out. Kuddos to them I guess.

[iortiz]

Schilling was done. Beckett needed to learn to pitch in the AL. Tim Wakefield, David Wells and a post head injury Clement rounded out that s*** show. This rotation is better today.

 

The rest of this exercise is silly as we don't know if this is the final rotation. Some people on here have the clairvoyance to know exactly how this will all shake out. Kuddos to them I guess.

Haha come on man! Beckett had more potential than anyone here. Wakefield too.

 

Hopefully you are right and we do not end up like this.

[Palodios]

At the end of the 2011 season, they couldn't find anyone to give us a good start. I thought iortiz was asking whether this was the worst staff going into a season. 2011 had a ton of injuries. That staff had Josh Beckett who put up 2.89 ERA and they had Lester too. They also had John Lackey. I'm not seeing that kind of quality going into 2015.

 

The whole point of this topic is that what is "on paper" isn't as good as what the result will be.

 

The argument I keep seeing is that 3's and 4's are not going to win a championship. in 2011, the Red Sox's rotation was filled with guys that would be #8/9/10 on the depth of championship teams. Bedard averaged 3 IP per start. Weiland had a 7.66 ERA, Miller 5.54, Lackey 6.44, Wakefield 5.12. The #3-5 starters could be pulled in the 3rd with 6-8 runs on any given night. As much as you dislike the current rotation, this group is not even remotely that terrible.

[iortiz]

I

The whole point of this topic is that what is "on paper" isn't as good as what the result will be.

 

The argument I keep seeing is that 3's and 4's are not going to win a championship. in 2011, the Red Sox's rotation was filled with guys that would be #8/9/10 on the depth of championship teams. Bedard averaged 3 IP per start. Weiland had a 7.66 ERA, Miller 5.54, Lackey 6.44, Wakefield 5.12. The #3-5 starters could be pulled in the 3rd with 6-8 runs on any given night. As much as you dislike the current rotation, this group is not even remotely that terrible.

 

No one in this world at the beginning of 2011 thought that the 2011 rotation would collapse as they did. Great part of that year we were the best team in the majors.

 

On the other hand no matter how bad I see this rotation, I do not see that epic failure since I do not have high hopes in the first place as I did in 2011.

 

I think that the expectations are very very low at our rotation this year.

[iortiz]

Also I have to say that some of us in August, on the other hand, predicted that collapse.

[Bellhorn04]

The 2012 starters had the worst ERA in franchise history, at 5.19.

[iortiz]

The 2012 starters had the worst ERA in franchise history, at 5.19.

 

In all fairness, did 2012 rotation have this expectations at the beginning of that year?

[mvp 78]

Haha come on man! Beckett had more potential than anyone here. Wakefield too.

 

Hopefully you are right and we do not end up like this.

 

Buchholz can pitch like a #1 if you're into that potential gimmick.

[example1]

I think this thread might be the worst in 10 years. It's early January. They have a bunch of pitchers who (admit it) you don't know well but who are well-respected by many in the game (not as #1s but as good young arms). We don't know if they are done. Not a single pitch has been thrown.

 

This strikes me as another thread intended to just vent rather than provide anything substantive that can't be provided in one of the other gazillion threads on this board. But that's just me...

[a700hitter]

The whole point of this topic is that what is "on paper" isn't as good as what the result will be.

 

The argument I keep seeing is that 3's and 4's are not going to win a championship. in 2011, the Red Sox's rotation was filled with guys that would be #8/9/10 on the depth of championship teams. Bedard averaged 3 IP per start. Weiland had a 7.66 ERA, Miller 5.54, Lackey 6.44, Wakefield 5.12. The #3-5 starters could be pulled in the 3rd with 6-8 runs on any given night. As much as you dislike the current rotation, this group is not even remotely that terrible.

but going into the season Lester, Beckett and Buchholz were legitimately considered to be a 1,2,3.

[a700hitter]

I think this thread might be the worst in 10 years. It's early January. They have a bunch of pitchers who (admit it) you don't know well but who are well-respected by many in the game (not as #1s but as good young arms). We don't know if they are done. Not a single pitch has been thrown.

 

This strikes me as another thread intended to just vent rather than provide anything substantive that can't be provided in one of the other gazillion threads on this board. But that's just me...

 

I don't want to speak for iortiz, but I thought the purpose of this thread was to compare this year's rotation to the rotations of past seasons at the beginning of those seasons, not to compare the results. There hasn't been a staff that I can remember in recent years that didn't have a # 1 and 2 going into the season. Some years the staff blew up, but they looked better on paper going into the start of the season.

Edited January 4, 2015 by a700hitter

[example1]

I don't want to speak for iortiz, but I thought this thread was looking at rotations prospectively comparing this year's rotation to rotation at the beginning of past seasons. There hasn't been a staff that I can remember in recent years that didn't have a # 1 and 2 going into the season. Some years the staff blew up, but they looked better on paper going into the start of the season.

 

Who was the #1 going into 2013?

 

Lester? He had a 4.82 ERA in 2012. Buchholz? 4.52. Lackey was coming off an injury, and you're certainly not going to say Doubront.

 

If we are looking to base #1-ness off of last year's performances then I'm going to go with Porcello (3.43 with 200+ IP) and say they have a better #1 than the 2013 Sox did.

[a700hitter]

Who was the #1 going into 2013?

 

Lester? He had a 4.82 ERA in 2012. Buchholz? 4.52. Lackey was coming off an injury, and you're certainly not going to say Doubront.

 

If we are looking to base #1-ness off of last year's performances then I'm going to go with Porcello (3.43 with 200+ IP) and say they have a better #1 than the 2013 Sox did.

 

True. The 2013 staff looked atrocious going into the season which is why they were picked by many to finish 4 the that year. But you would have to take Lester even at that juncture over anyone currently on the roster.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

In all fairness, did 2012 rotation have this expectations at the beginning of that year?

 

So when people mention the 2011 debacle, you dismiss that by saying it was a collapse, then when the 2012 rotation is brought your rebuttal is "yeah but they had no expectations". And you have no answer at all for the 2006 rotation even thought that falls within the 10 year time span you set in the OP.

 

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Are you really that hellbent on demonizing Cherington and the rest of this team's management? Still?

[a700hitter]

Demonize? Yes, they are all godless jackals! They must be stopped! I will start looking for wooden spikes etc. On eBay. Edited January 4, 2015 by a700hitter

[example1]

True. The 2013 staff looked atrocious going into the season which is why they were picked by many to finish 4 the that year. But you would have to take Lester even at that juncture over anyone currently on the roster.

 

I actually didn't think the 2013 rotation looked atrocious. I think the problem is that some people feel the need to have just the right combination of elements before they have any faith in the team or in the front office's ability to judge it's own talent. Those elements tend to be something like:

 

1) players produced last year;

2) players have a history of producing;

3) players are widely regarded as 'elite' talents (high draft pick, previous all-star, etc.,)

4) players are known to fans.

 

It is pretty rare when all of those things line up and is even more rare when all line up and the season plays out accordingly. I read people acting as if Rick Porcello and Wade Miley are complete unknown entities who've never faced major league batters before. Licking their chops? I don't think so--these are legitimate MLB pitchers who tend to get a majority of their opponents out. They aren't hall of famers but I wouldn't be shocked if either had a really good year.

 

I understand iortiz's point, I just think it is boring conversation that happens when you've run out of things to say. Yes, it's not the best rotation on paper that the Sox have had the last 10 years. Beyond that statement is there much point in evaluating where this rotation ranks on paper? Hell, it would be more compelling to look at their projections (those exist and are cited frequently on other boards) and previous numbers. That would be a good discussion. It would be great if iortiz would pull out some common set of projections for each of the previous 10 years and make a compelling case that this is the worst rotation by that measure. Without that grounding in actual performance it strikes me as a beauty contest that favors ineffective free agent signings of known entities (see #s 2 and 4 above) over attempts to get guys who might be less known but ascending.

Edited January 4, 2015 by example1

[a700hitter]

I guess that it is just a slow news day, and there isn't much to discuss.

[jacksonianmarch]

Prior to 2013, you definitely had the makings of a bad rotation. That being said, you still had players in their prime coming off bad seasons. Lester was an ace right up until a bad 2012. Buccholz was great when he pitched, until a bad 2012. Lackey was hurt. And the fact that three underachieving guys all out in ridiculous performances makes the likelihood that it happens again really low. Let's take a quick look at how things differ...

 

1. Your 1 is Porcello, a kid on the rise. He's not an ace, mostly because he relies on contact pretty regularly, but with your offense, he's probably a lock to win 15 games. So even though he's not a prototypical shutdown ace, he's not a bad headliner.

 

2. This is where it gets messy. Your 2 is probably Wade Miley. Miley is a guy who gives up a lot of home runs. He's durable, but last yr, pitched like a 4-5. His rookie year was excellent, but he's slowly dropped off since then. He will give you innings, but his upside is pretty limited.

 

3. Masterson- he's had two solid seasons, a few seasons of mediocrity and the worst season of any pitcher in the AL last year. He's has injuries all over his body and his stuff declined. It's harder to return from a bad stretch when your stuff suffers (Ask CC).

 

4. Buccholz- see Masterson

 

5. Kelly- couldn't stay healthy in STL, not likely to stay healthy in Boston. Stuff is there, strikeouts are Dow, walks are up. He has the best shot to take the next step because he has such good stuff, but his mix of poor health and poor control makes me think he's ticketed to the pen in the future

 

So let's just say that your #1 is a contact pitcher. And how many people were saying Chien Ming Wang was an ace for us a few years back? Your number two is a durable flyball pitcher coming to Fenway. Your numbers 3 and 4 have seen injuries derail a promising career AND most importantly, their stuff has fallen back significantly. And your #5 is an injury prone wild pitcher who still has good stuff. This rotation has the upside to be okay and the downside of being the worst in the AL

[jacksonianmarch]

Now by the end of the season, you're gonna have another addition, though. My guess is Henry Owens comes up in June and pitches well.

 

I think this rotation is built for additions. The rotation was built with the guise of contention. Should they all rediscover lost years, then they roll with it. Should they s*** the bed, it can be dismantled quickly without big commitments. Should the sox hit the bottom of the division comes June/July, there are no current starters off limits. Porcello is a prime trade candidate since he isn't signing prior to FA. Miley is still cheap. Buccholz and Masterson are on short term deals.

Edited January 4, 2015 by jacksonianmarch

[mvp 78]

Miley gave up so many homeruns because he was pitching in AZ. His road numbers were fine. Fenway is a doubles park. He'll be good.

[mvp 78]

Also, Miley was 5th in the MLB in ground ball % in 2013. Pretty good for a "fly ball" pitcher.

[User Name]

Miley had one of the higher GB/FB ratios in the Majors last year and had a huge 51.1% groundball rate. Can you please do SOME research before posting Jacko? It's hard to take anything you say seriously.

[User Name]

Also, you were the chief proponent of the "Lester isn't an ace" camp, but now he was an ace up to 2012? Which is it? Be consistent.