The Official Dead Horse Topics Thread

[Northern Star]

For me, the thing is that Kimmi says this guy had a bad year, that guy had a bad year. Awful coincidence that most of Ben's signings all had a bad year...

[Kimmi]

Your argument is based in fantasy land and not real life. The fact of the matter is Porcello didn't have a long track record of being a top pitcher. He was good for one year. The extension was done too early, plain and simple.

 

No, it's not. Porcello was nearly a 3 WAR pitcher for the 3 years prior to coming to Boston. He was worth $18.3, $21.3, and $21.0 million in those 3 years. He was 26 when he signed, with upside. Very reasonable move to sign him, especially since the contract was for 4 years, instead of the 5-6 years most people were predicting.

[Kimmi]

The question is: if they didn't extend him, would you have signed him for the contract this offseason after his 2015 performance?

 

That's far more relevant than saying "what if he pitched well."

 

That question is unreasonable and unrealistic. No one has the benefit of hindsight when signing contracts.

 

But to answer your question, probably not, but that's not a slam dunk no. He showed very good promise at the end of the season last year. And, as bad as he was, he was still worth $12.6 million.

[Kimmi]

He has no track record of being anything more than a #4/5 starter in 7 full major league seasons. To expect him to turn into a top of the rotation guy at this juncture is laughable.

 

I'm not posting the numbers again, but he was better than a #4/5 in his 3 years prior to signing with Boston. I certainly hope you're not basing your statement off of ERA alone.

[Kimmi]

I think Kim still owns me her sig in that regard LOL

 

Statute of limitations is up on that one.

 

You never responded to me with what you wanted my sig to be.

[Kimmi]

For me, the thing is that Kimmi says this guy had a bad year, that guy had a bad year. Awful coincidence that most of Ben's signings all had a bad year...

 

I know you're being sarcastic, but the fact that every signing that "Ben made" turned out to be so bad last year is a fluke.

[Dojji]

Awful lot of flukes.

 

I think it's a reasonable time to, without pointing fingers, admit that for whatever reason, the big league plan was not good in 14-15. They had the money and resources to accomplish more than they did, that's the final analysis.

[a700hitter]

Statute of limitations is up on that one.

 

You never responded to me with what you wanted my sig to be.

Punking out on a sig bet. Bad form.

[mvp 78]

That question is unreasonable and unrealistic. No one has the benefit of hindsight when signing contracts.

 

But to answer your question, probably not, but that's not a slam dunk no. He showed very good promise at the end of the season last year. And, as bad as he was, he was still worth $12.6 million.

It's less unreasonable and less unrealistic than the question you posed.

[a700hitter]

That question is unreasonable and unrealistic. No one has the benefit of hindsight when signing contracts.

 

But to answer your question, probably not, but that's not a slam dunk no. He showed very good promise at the end of the season last year. And, as bad as he was, he was still worth $12.6 million.

But they had the benefit to see him pitch for an entire season before signing him. There was no rush to sign him. They had no competition for his services for a year.

[iortiz]

Statute of limitations is up on that one.

 

You never responded to me with what you wanted my sig to be.

I forgot it Kim, but it is ok.

[a700hitter]

I'm not posting the numbers again, but he was better than a #4/5 in his 3 years prior to signing with Boston. I certainly hope you're not basing your statement off of ERA alone.

The guy's biggest asset is that he does eat innings, but he just doesn't have the stuff to be a top of the rotation pitcher. He is not a #1 or 2, except on a last place team. Oh... wait.. LOL!!

[Spudboy]

It's okay guys. Porcello's WAR indicates that he is worth more than The Sox paid for him.

 

A Bargain!!!!!!!1!1!

[mvp 78]

No, it's not. Porcello was nearly a 3 WAR pitcher for the 3 years prior to coming to Boston. He was worth $18.3, $21.3, and $21.0 million in those 3 years. He was 26 when he signed, with upside. Very reasonable move to sign him, especially since the contract was for 4 years, instead of the 5-6 years most people were predicting.

 

2012 1.5 WAR

2013 2.4 WAR

2014 4.0 WAR

 

Nearly?

[mvp 78]

It's okay guys. Porcello's WAR indicates that he is worth more than The Sox paid for him.

 

A Bargain!!!!!!!1!1!

 

If he pitched like 2014, he'd be worth it. He just hasn't done so in Boston. Maybe this year?

[Bellhorn04]

2012 1.5 WAR

2013 2.4 WAR

2014 4.0 WAR

 

Nearly?

 

Kimmi is referring to the FanGraphs numbers:

 

2012 2.8 WAR

2013 2.9 WAR

2014 2.8 WAR

 

Which does highlight the very large (to the point of absurd) discrepancies between the Baseball Prospectus and FanGraphs formulas for calculating pitcher WAR.

[Kimmi]

Awful lot of flukes.

 

I think it's a reasonable time to, without pointing fingers, admit that for whatever reason, the big league plan was not good in 14-15. They had the money and resources to accomplish more than they did, that's the final analysis.

 

Good plan, didn't work out.

 

Did you expect, or even reasonably think that Pablo and Hanley would both be -2 WAR players, AND that Porcello would stink, AND that Castillo would stink?

[cp176]

Because of his age, Porcello still has a chance. It really is pretty doubtful that he ever will be worth what the Red Sox gave him in terms of dollars and years. Paying him this amount of money based on the way he has pitched, is at least slightly better than the Pablo signing. Wish that I could have had their agents working for me. good thing the Sox got the loot.

[Kimmi]

It's okay guys. Porcello's WAR indicates that he is worth more than The Sox paid for him.

 

A Bargain!!!!!!!1!1!

 

If you're going to make a sarcastic comment, the least you can do is quote me correctly.

[Kimmi]

2012 1.5 WAR

2013 2.4 WAR

2014 4.0 WAR

 

Nearly?

 

I keep forgetting that you guys don't do Fangraphs. FTR, when I quote WAR, it's going to be fWAR.

 

2012 2.8 WAR

2013 2.9 WAR

2014 2.8 WAR

 

Yes. Nearly.

[mvp 78]

Kimmi is referring to the FanGraphs numbers:

 

2012 2.8 WAR

2013 2.9 WAR

2014 2.8 WAR

 

Which does highlight the very large (to the point of absurd) discrepancies between the Baseball Prospectus and FanGraphs formulas for calculating pitcher WAR.

 

Fangraphs is to Baseball Prospectus as GoBots are to Transformers.

[mvp 78]

I keep forgetting that you guys don't do Fangraphs. FTR, when I quote WAR, it's going to be fWAR.

 

2012 2.8 WAR

2013 2.9 WAR

2014 2.8 WAR

 

Yes. Nearly.

 

Janky stats from a janky site, honestly. I don't typically quote articles from the Sun or Weekly World News, so I'd never quote Fangraphs ideas about WAR.

[Kimmi]

Fangraphs is to Baseball Prospectus as GoBots are to Transformers.

 

I don't get your analogy at all, but I'm assuming you mean Baseball Reference and not Baseball Prospectus?

 

Fangraphs, Baseball Prospectus, and The Hardball Times are my three go to sites for information. Baseball Reference is excellent for some stats, and I use it quite often as well.

 

Anyone who blows off Fangraphs is doing themselves a disservice.

[Kimmi]

Janky stats from a janky site, honestly. I don't typically quote articles from the Sun or Weekly World News, so I'd never quote Fangraphs ideas about WAR.

 

I would trust information that I found at Fangraphs over information that I find at most other baseball sites.

 

Those guys are brilliant.

[mvp 78]

I don't get your analogy at all, but I'm assuming you mean Baseball Reference and not Baseball Prospectus?

 

Fangraphs, Baseball Prospectus, and The Hardball Times are my three go to sites for information. Baseball Reference is excellent for some stats, and I use it quite often as well.

 

Anyone who blows off Fangraphs is doing themselves a disservice.

 

I'll do myself that disservice since they are a garbage site.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't get your analogy at all, but I'm assuming you mean Baseball Reference and not Baseball Prospectus?

 

Fangraphs, Baseball Prospectus, and The Hardball Times are my three go to sites for information. Baseball Reference is excellent for some stats, and I use it quite often as well.

 

Anyone who blows off Fangraphs is doing themselves a disservice.

 

That was my mistake. But Baseball Prospectus's WAR's for Porcello seem to be the lowest of all. They have him at a total of only 9.7 for his career, compared to 15.3 for FanGraphs.

[mvp 78]

I would trust information that I found at Fangraphs over information that I find at most other baseball sites.

 

Those guys are brilliant.

"Most"

[Kimmi]

That was my mistake. But Baseball Prospectus's WAR's for Porcello seem to be the lowest of all. They have him at a total of only 9.7 for his career, compared to 15.3 for FanGraphs.

 

There are some discrepancies, to be sure. Which is why the best assessment still comes from looking at as much information as possible.

 

I will have to look more closely into how BR and BP calculate their WAR for pitchers.

[Kimmi]

"Most"

 

"Most" meaning I also trust Baseball Prospectus, The Hardball Times, SABR, and certain blogs by people like Joe Posnanski and Mitchell Lichtman as well. There are a few others, all of which are "saber" oriented.

 

Baseball Reference has not been as saber oriented (though they are making great progress), but they are a great site for stats.

[Kimmi]

I'll do myself that disservice since they are a garbage site.

 

Haha. Now that's a funny joke!