Sox Pitching Staff Discussion

[moonslav59]

Elias pitched a complete game for the Pawsox last night, and in his last 4 outings, he has pitched fairly well.

 

It looks like he is trying to claim that 5th spot.

 

Can't be much worse than what we've had so far.

[Bellhorn04]

And he's a guy who's had a measure of success at the MLB level before.

 

"A measure of success" - what a great phrase.

[User Name]

Thanks, it's my favorite cop-out phrase.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

It's expected , you are a Sawx fan.

 

☺

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

We play in a hitter's park.

 

I'm not trying to say our pitching is fine as is, because I think it needs a serious upgrade, but it's not as bad as ERA shows it is:

 

17th ERA- at 101

15th WHIP at 1.31

14th in SIERA at 4.07

 

Now, if we breakdown our SP'er numbers:

18th ERA- at 108

15th in WHIP at 1.34

19th in SIERA at 4.38

 

Bad, but still not bottom third in MLB.

 

I went through the rosters of all the teams that look like they may be serious sellers this July, and I couldn't find anyone I felt would be the type of guy we need AND who could realistically get without giving up too much of our future.

 

I hope we don't settle on a band-aid pitcher for a very good prospect or two.

 

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

[Youk Of The Nation]

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

 

That doesn't even make sense. Nothing he said makes that a valid response, even as a snarky response. What he said boils down to "The pitching isn't great, but it could be worse, and I hope they don't trade good prospects for a guy who isn't any better than what we have now."

 

There are so many other posts that your response would have been perfect for. Don't waste snark, use it wisely.

[moonslav59]

That doesn't even make sense. Nothing he said makes that a valid response, even as a snarky response. What he said boils down to "The pitching isn't great, but it could be worse, and I hope they don't trade good prospects for a guy who isn't any better than what we have now."

 

There are so many other posts that your response would have been perfect for. Don't waste snark, use it wisely.

 

These are probably our deadline options:

 

1) stand pat and pray one our our many mediocre or worse starters catches on fire

2) trade (overpay) for a 4th/5th starter type that may or may not end up being better than option A

3) trade (way overpay) for a good pitcher who is clearly better than our #4/5 starter, but who is only under team control for 2+ months.

4) trade the farm for a controllable SP'er that is a solid #1 or #2 or top #3 type.

 

I'm always for upgrading the rotation near the top, but I'm just not sure any of the above options appeals to me.

[Emp9]

I believe this as well. He is not stupid enough to try to temporarily plug the leak by giving up future players for possibly future has beens. I'm guessing that when he deals, he will deal big. Moving Swihart to left was an experiment they could afford to try because they had plenty of hitting in general. Maybe it would have worked long term maybe not. Maybe it still will. Young was and still is the better option in left field at present. It is still possible that the feeling was that Swihart was never going to be the catcher that he was projected to be long term. Whatever, i don't think he is going anywhere now. Hope he heals and develops.

 

I don't think it matters what the Sox use Swihart as, it's what another team sees him as and what that team will use him as. Considering no catcher on the planet can catch Wright all that effectively, i think Swihart has been judged way too harshly from his 2 passed balls on April 10th. Both Hanigan and Vazquez have looked just as bad or worse trying to catch Wright.

[bosoxmal]

Last night (Monday, 6/6), I watched a guy who is 2-6 (ERA 6.51) pitch a gem while beating KC. I don't think one pitch exceeded 90, and no more than 3 piches were in the middle of the plate. Emulating a lousy commercial that's now on about every 2o minutes, "It's not how hard you throw, it's where you throw no matter how hard, as long as it's not the same speed as the previous pitch. Buchholz had a one inning stint several days ago, where he did just that and got three quick outs incl 2 pop-ups. I think the Red Sox need somebody to come in and teach these guys how to pitch. (Instead of sitting in the dugout with a f----g clip board)

[illinoisredsox]

I don't think it matters what the Sox use Swihart as, it's what another team sees him as and what that team will use him as. Considering no catcher on the planet can catch Wright all that effectively, i think Swihart has been judged way too harshly from his 2 passed balls on April 10th. Both Hanigan and Vazquez have looked just as bad or worse trying to catch Wright.

 

I don't think Swihart was judged by the brass based on the April 10th game. I think the bigger issue was his inability to consistently block balls in the dirt, a lack of confidence by some of the pitchers in him to do that when they bounced a splitter or a curve, and that it had not improved from last season when he allowed 46 wild pitches (plus 16 passed balls, no idea how many PB were Wright related).

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

Yeah, so we had a bad turn through the rotation guys, it happens, and against 2 good offenses no less. It takes more than that to declare a rotation "exposed." tone down the melodrama a bit.

 

Being 12 in AL ERA is hardly one bad turn through the rotation.

[Slasher9]

Being 12 in AL ERA is hardly one bad turn through the rotation.

 

if only we were 3 games under .500. that would really show us a thing or two....

[moonslav59]

Being 12 in AL ERA is hardly one bad turn through the rotation.

 

True, but out of 57 games this year, we've let up 0-3 runs 26 times (including unearned runs).

We've let up 4-5 runs 14 times, so 40 out of 57 games we've let up 0-5 runs.

 

If we took away the bottom 5 games, it would be something like 56 runs.

[User Name]

But then you'd have to take the top five to make it mathematically feasible.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

if only we were 3 games under .500. that would really show us a thing or two....

 

Stick to the thread topic, troll.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

True, but out of 57 games this year, we've let up 0-3 runs 26 times (including unearned runs).

We've let up 4-5 runs 14 times, so 40 out of 57 games we've let up 0-5 runs.

 

If we took away the bottom 5 games, it would be something like 56 runs.

 

And IF you took away all the games where the other team scored more runs than the Sawx they'd be undefeated.

[Slasher9]

Stick to the thread topic, troll.

 

like your aunt and uncle?

27-30

[cp176]

I don't think it matters what the Sox use Swihart as, it's what another team sees him as and what that team will use him as. Considering no catcher on the planet can catch Wright all that effectively, i think Swihart has been judged way too harshly from his 2 passed balls on April 10th. Both Hanigan and Vazquez have looked just as bad or worse trying to catch Wright.

 

Every game that Swihart did not catch made him less attractive as a potential catcher for any team that might have been interested in him.

[Slasher9]

QS%

Red Sox = 51%

NYY = 47%

[moonslav59]

But then you'd have to take the top five to make it mathematically feasible.

 

Actually, I think the more feasible thing to do would be to take away the worst 5 games from every team and then compare team ERAs.

[moonslav59]

Our worst 4 games in runs allowed total 47 runs. The next 3 worst games were 9 runs each.'

 

My guess would be the 56 runs allowed in our worst 5 games is more than with teams ahead of us in ERA, but that's not really true. The more defining sample is probably the next 5 starts.

 

Here's a look at the other AL teams and their worst 5 games combined run totals allowed and then the next 5 worst combined totals:

 

Worst 5/ Worst 6-10 byTeam (Total worst 10)

 

56/42 Red Sox (98)

 

56/ 36 Astros (92)

65/ 45 A's (110)

57/ 36 Blue Jays (93)

42/ 34 CLE (76)

54/ 36 Mariners (90)

48/ 38 Orioles (86)

53/ 43 Rangers (96)

46/ 33 Rays (79)

48/ 35 Royals (83)

52/ 41 Tigers (93)

56/ 42 Twins (98)

48/ 35 White Sox (83)

47/ 37 Yankees (84)

 

As you can see, taking away the worst 5 or worst 10 games from all AL teams would not change the ERA differentials too much

 

The biggest run differentials with the Sox are:

 

worst 5: Cleveland 14 less runs

next worst 5: Rays 9 runs less

 

Over 50 some odd games, it's not going to change the ERA differences very much.

[User Name]

Actually, I think the more feasible thing to do would be to take away the worst 5 games from every team and then compare team ERAs.

 

That's not viable statistically. You'd have to take away both the five best and five worst of every team then compare ERAs to have a viable sample size, since what you're doing is eliminating outliers. You can't eliminate the bad but keep the good.

[moonslav59]

That's not viable statistically. You'd have to take away both the five best and five worst of every team then compare ERAs to have a viable sample size, since what you're doing is eliminating outliers. You can't eliminate the bad but keep the good.

 

If the idea is to determine how good each team's pitching staff is when you take away their worst 5 games (a complete rotation), then my methodology is sound, and that was what I was responding to- the guy who said our staff was pretty good beyond a once around our rotation. My point was that, if you were going to take our worst 5 games away, then you need to do it to all teams and then re-compare the ERAs.

 

Your method would also be very telling methodology and probably is a better gauge at determining how good a staff is after removing their outlier games, but that would answer a different question.

 

[Slasher9]

there are probably a handful of games each team has had where the Manager has thrown in the towel and is letting the pitcher(s) take a beating which will drive up the ER. whether it be to save the other arms/pen or to teach a lesson or to see how he responds. i think it would be valid to toss out the bottom 5 games for every team and then compare.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/49506/five-thoughts-from-frisco-red-sox-take-hit-in-hunt-for-starting-pitching

[mvp 78]

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/49506/five-thoughts-from-frisco-red-sox-take-hit-in-hunt-for-starting-pitching

 

By switching positions, Swihart increased his value, not only on the Sox's roster but also as a possible centerpiece in a trade.

 

Madness!

[illinoisredsox]

That's not viable statistically. You'd have to take away both the five best and five worst of every team then compare ERAs to have a viable sample size, since what you're doing is eliminating outliers. You can't eliminate the bad but keep the good.

 

So what is considered an outlier?

 

Consider the following. Last year's staff allowed 753 runs, which equates to an average of 4.65 runs per game; the standard deviation for this data was 3.43. So a shutout would be within about 1.33 standard deviations. The 5 high games were 18, 14, 14, 13 and 13. or between 2.5 and nearly 4 standard deviations.

 

Going back to the 2013 Sox. That team allowed 4.04 runs per game with a standard deviation of 2.84. A shutout was about 1.4 standard deviations. The 5 high games were 15, 13, 12, 12 and 11, again between about 2.5 and 4 standard deviations.

 

I'm no statistician (the above is about as far as I care to go in that realm), but it seems to me that the true outliers in this case are are the upper end, where the distance from the average is 3 deviations or more. Under 1.5 just doesn't seem that far out to me.

 

(Note, the above uses runs per game because that data was easy to enter into a spreadsheet; I was not going to examine the box scores of each game to determine earned runs, and I doubt it would have changed the overall picture anyway)

 

I now leave it to you and moonslav to discuss.

Edited June 8, 2016 by illinoisredsox

[Emp9]

I still don't see how Swihart playing some OF makes him not a catcher. He just turned 24 and has been rushed twice now and his bat seems to play whatever position he's playing. I believe teams still recognize him as a catcher first.

[User Name]

So what is considered an outlier?

 

Consider the following. Last year's staff allowed 753 runs, which equates to an average of 4.65 runs per game; the standard deviation for this data was 3.43. So a shutout would be within about 1.33 standard deviations. The 5 high games were 18, 14, 14, 13 and 13. or between 2.5 and nearly 4 standard deviations.

 

Going back to the 2013 Sox. That team allowed 4.04 runs per game with a standard deviation of 2.84. A shutout was about 1.4 standard deviations. The 5 high games were 15, 13, 12, 12 and 11, again between about 2.5 and 4 standard deviations.

 

I'm no statistician (the above is about as far as I care to go in that realm), but it seems to me that the true outliers in this case are are the upper end, where the distance from the average is 3 deviations or more. Under 1.5 just doesn't seem that far out to me.

 

(Note, the above uses runs per game because that data was easy to enter into a spreadsheet; I was not going to examine the box scores of each game to determine earned runs, and I doubt it would have changed the overall picture anyway)

 

I now leave it to you and moonslav to discuss.

 

I'm not actually interested enough to go check box score by box score either, but it's an issue of sample normalization more than mean deviation. The problem with the lower end is that there is of course a limited number you can obtain in that instance (0) as opposed to the upper end (INF), so there needs to be some accounting for that factor when referring to "outliers". Baseball stats are not a zero-sum game.

[illinoisredsox]

I'm not actually interested enough to go check box score by box score either, but it's an issue of sample normalization more than mean deviation. The problem with the lower end is that there is of course a limited number you can obtain in that instance (0) as opposed to the upper end (INF), so there needs to be some accounting for that factor when referring to "outliers". Baseball stats are not a zero-sum game.

 

Like I said, I'm no statistician. I don't even know what sample normalization means (and don't care to).

 

I was going to put in something like your second sentence, but couldn't figure out a way to say it clearly; you phrased the upper and lower boundary issues perfectly.