2017 Rotation

[Slasher9]

But in that big second inning, the only really hard hit ball was that home run by Chisenhall that would have been a loud foul in 29 other ballparks. ...

 

postseason games are usually won or lost by scraping together some hard earned runs. i am not giving any pitcher a "pass" based on exit velocity of hits....

an Ace finds a way to get the K or roll over a ground ball. i once saw a guy with a bloody foot throw 7 innings of 1 run ball vs a lineup that would take a piss on the 2016 Guardians lineup that Mr. Price faced....

[notin]

postseason games are usually won or lost by scraping together some hard earned runs. i am not giving any pitcher a "pass" based on exit velocity of hits....

an Ace finds a way to get the K or roll over a ground ball. i once saw a guy with a bloody foot throw 7 innings of 1 run ball vs a lineup that would take a piss on the 2016 Guardians lineup that Mr. Price faced....

 

And we all saw that same pitcher give up 6 earned runs in 3 IP in game one of that same series. You don't get to pick snd choose your outings when trying to define an ace if you believe he has the ability to induce ground balls or strikeouts at will.

 

If you like highlighting post-season success to define an ace, fine. But Price only pitchedone such game for Boston. And his pprevious games with other teams wind up being a small sample spread out over too much time to really draw any actual conclusions....

[Slasher9]

And we all saw that same pitcher give up 6 earned runs in 3 IP in game one of that same series. You don't get to pick snd choose your outings when trying to define an ace if you believe he has the ability to induce ground balls or strikeouts at will.

 

If you like highlighting post-season success to define an ace, fine. But Price only pitchedone such game for Boston. And his pprevious games with other teams wind up being a small sample spread out over too much time to really draw any actual conclusions....

IMO David Price had 4 big games last season. and he wilted in 3 of the 4. not what i expect from my $31MM x 7 Ace.

season opener, home opener, 1st NYY start as RS player, playoff game.

but if you believe he had a "very good season" then that is what you believe. i wont tell you you're wrong.

[S5Dewey]

And we all saw that same pitcher give up 6 earned runs in 3 IP in game one of that same series. You don't get to pick snd choose your outings when trying to define an ace if you believe he has the ability to induce ground balls or strikeouts at will.

 

If you like highlighting post-season success to define an ace, fine. But Price only pitchedone such game for Boston. And his pprevious games with other teams wind up being a small sample spread out over too much time to really draw any actual conclusions....

 

We tend to use the Small Sample Size argument when we don't want to see something the way it is.

[notin]

IMO David Price had 4 big games last season. and he wilted in 3 of the 4. not what i expect from my $31MM x 7 Ace.

season opener, home opener, 1st NYY start as RS player, playoff game.

but if you believe he had a "very good season" then that is what you believe. i wont tell you you're wrong.

 

So his season needed to be judged on 3 arbitrarily chosen regular season games that were no more significant t hann any other game plus one post-season appearance?

 

Was Pedro judged this way after the 2003 ALCS?

[moonslav59]

We tend to use the Small Sample Size argument when we don't want to see something the way it is.

 

I disagree.

 

We all saw the horrible results from Price's 3 inning outing. It is what it is. It sucked. He sucked.

 

My problem is that some judge his total season based on that 3 inning sample size. Others may included his previous scattered small sample size playoff opportunities and judge based on that. That's a little better than just 3 IP.

 

When I say "judge" I mean, I'm okay with people saying he sucked in that game, or he has sucked in almost all of his playoff games. My issue is when blanket statements are made like "He was an absolute failure". Or, "He's a 5th starter now" Or, comparing him to Buch. Those are more definitive proclamations that imply that this is who he is. His whole body of work is taken down a few notches based on one or a collection of scattered tiny sample sizes.

 

Now, we have Slasher arbitrarily placing extra importance on opening day and home opening day.

 

I could arbitrarily say the most important Price games last year were his last 14 starts, where he pitched poorly just twice.

 

 

[moonslav59]

So his season needed to be judged on 3 arbitrarily chosen regular season games that were no more significant t hann any other game plus one post-season appearance?

 

Was Pedro judged this way after the 2003 ALCS?

 

Or, after his 2004 ALCS? (14H and 9 BB in 13 IP vs the Yanks with a 6.23 ERA)

 

Or, his WS with the Phillies in '09? (9H & 4 BB in 10 IP with a 6.30 ERA)

 

His playoff ERA is about 50 points higher than his career ERA. Nobody is tearing him down over 96 scattered playoff innings... rightfully so.

[S5Dewey]

I disagree.

 

We all saw the horrible results from Price's 3 inning outing. It is what it is. It sucked. He sucked.

 

My problem is that some judge his total season based on that 3 inning sample size. Others may included his previous scattered small sample size playoff opportunities and judge based on that. That's a little better than just 3 IP.

 

When I say "judge" I mean, I'm okay with people saying he sucked in that game, or he has sucked in almost all of his playoff games. My issue is when blanket statements are made like "He was an absolute failure". Or, "He's a 5th starter now" Or, comparing him to Buch. Those are more definitive proclamations that imply that this is who he is. His whole body of work is taken down a few notches based on one or a collection of scattered tiny sample sizes.

 

Now, we have Slasher arbitrarily placing extra importance on opening day and home opening day.

 

I could arbitrarily say the most important Price games last year were his last 14 starts, where he pitched poorly just twice.

 

 

 

I don't entirely disagree. In fact, on a global view I agree with everything you said.

 

However, here's my problem with the SSS argument. Every situation in baseball is different and yet we want to lump all of these different situations into one conclusion. For example, I'm now seeing that " 'Batter X' is hitting .283 when the count is 2-2". But Batter X will probably have a different BA when the count is 3-0 but we lump both along with every other count together when we get to the conclusion of his BA. Since hitters have many different counts throughout a season and each count is in itself a Smaller SS why do we conclude that a batter is what his average is? Actually his BA is a compilation of many SSS's but we know that he will hit better in certain situations.

 

Getting back to David Price now, one of the different situations he's come up against is his post-season experiences and he's fared worse in his post-season experiences than he has in the regular season. He's appeared in 15 post-season games over seven years, has an ERA of >5.50 and a WHIP of 1.2xx, both of which are significantly higher than his regular season numbers. Hence, he hasn't pitched as well in the post season as he has in the regular season.

 

If we can acknowledge that "Batter X" hits better in certain counts (each of which are a SSS) why can't we also acknowledge that Price pitches worse in certain situations (like the post-season) - which is also a SSS?

 

Sure, Batter X gets more opportunities to hit with a 2-2 count than Price gets post-season starts, but where is the cutoff point when we say that a sample size is meaningful? IMO we often beat the sample size argument to death and can't see the forest for the trees.

 

I'm of the opinion that not all pitching starts are created equal and that every playoff game is a higher-pressure situation than most regular season games. Price has a history of not faring well in these post-season high-pressure situations. Therefore I have little faith in him as a playoff pitcher. As I said when we picked him up, he's a guy who can get you to the playoffs but doesn't have a history of getting you out the other side of them - at least not in a positive way.

 

I'm not trying to denigrate Price. I'm just trying to be objective and see what's going on. Price is what he is and that's ok with me - well, everything except that he's overpaid is ok with me. I'm glad he's there to get us to the playoffs where "anything can happen" (and just did. UGH) but he's not the guy in the playoffs that we're paying for.

[a700hitter]

Clemens had a lousy post season track record while he was with the Red Sox IIRC, but he did significantly better as Yankee and as an Astro in the post season. I think that Price can still turn things around in the post season.

[S5Dewey]

Clemens had a lousy post season track record while he was with the Red Sox IIRC, but he did significantly better as Yankee and as an Astro in the post season. I think that Price can still turn things around in the post season.

 

I hope Price can turn it around too, but would anyone give more than a 50-50 chance that it will happen?

[moonslav59]

I don't entirely disagree. In fact, on a global view I agree with everything you said.

 

However, here's my problem with the SSS argument. Every situation in baseball is different and yet we want to lump all of these different situations into one conclusion. For example, I'm now seeing that " 'Batter X' is hitting .283 when the count is 2-2". But Batter X will probably have a different BA when the count is 3-0 but we lump both along with every other count together when we get to the conclusion of his BA. Since hitters have many different counts throughout a season and each count is in itself a Smaller SS why do we conclude that a batter is what his average is? Actually his BA is a compilation of many SSS's but we know that he will hit better in certain situations.

 

Getting back to David Price now, one of the different situations he's come up against is his post-season experiences and he's fared worse in his post-season experiences than he has in the regular season. He's appeared in 15 post-season games over seven years, has an ERA of >5.50 and a WHIP of 1.2xx, both of which are significantly higher than his regular season numbers. Hence, he hasn't pitched as well in the post season as he has in the regular season.

 

If we can acknowledge that "Batter X" hits better in certain counts (each of which are a SSS) why can't we also acknowledge that Price pitches worse in certain situations (like the post-season) - which is also a SSS?

 

Sure, Batter X gets more opportunities to hit with a 2-2 count than Price gets post-season starts, but where is the cutoff point when we say that a sample size is meaningful? IMO we often beat the sample size argument to death and can't see the forest for the trees.

 

I'm of the opinion that not all pitching starts are created equal and that every playoff game is a higher-pressure situation than most regular season games. Price has a history of not faring well in these post-season high-pressure situations. Therefore I have little faith in him as a playoff pitcher. As I said when we picked him up, he's a guy who can get you to the playoffs but doesn't have a history of getting you out the other side of them - at least not in a positive way.

 

I'm not trying to denigrate Price. I'm just trying to be objective and see what's going on. Price is what he is and that's ok with me - well, everything except that he's overpaid is ok with me. I'm glad he's there to get us to the playoffs where "anything can happen" (and just did. UGH) but he's not the guy in the playoffs that we're paying for.

 

Let me ask you this, if a pitcher did poorly, every time he pitched on even days in August, would you put much faith in that as a predictor or what will happen when he starts this August 2nd or 4th?

 

Of course not.

 

I get the pressure thing, and you very well could be correct. Price might just plain buckle under pressure. However, couldn't his 15 games in the playoffs (actually just 9 starts) be sort of like even days in August? It could, right? Maybe?

 

Now, if a pitcher eventually ends up with 500 IP on even days in August, my guess is his numbers would be close to his career norm or at least to his other August games. BTW, if they were not, I still wouldn't say he chokes on even days in August.

 

I know you are not trying to denigrate Price, but I get the feeling others are.

 

When posters like me often say "small sample size", it does not mean we don't think it counts. Sucking in the playoffs DOES MATTER. It sucks! I was very disappointed that we lost with Price and Porcello starting for us. To me, what bothers me, is the next step people take...maybe out of frustration of anger over losing an important game, but they sometimes label the player as a failure or a bum based on just a very small sample of that players total portfolio. Even Papi has had bad playoff games and series. What if all of those happened in his first 15 games and he was judged to be a choke or "absolute failure" as Slasher called Price? Nonsense, right?

 

Price signed for 7 years. He did not have one of his better years in 2016, but does this stand out as an absolute failure or a complete void of reaching expectations?

 

ERA- over last 6 years: 90, 66, 86, 87, 66, 60, 90

 

His 90 ERA- might be tied for his worst in 6 years, but it is within 5% of his performances in 3 of the previous 5 seasons.

 

Same with WAR:

 

4.2, 4.4, 5.0, 6.0, 6.4, 4.5

 

I'm far away from labeling Price a choke or a disappointment. I learned my lesson with Lackey.

 

Opponents have a career .655 OPS against Price. In the regular season, he's done better "when it counts" and this scattered sample size is much larger than 15 playoff games:

 

Late & Close: .607 (501 PA)

High Leverage: .648 (1113 PA)

2 outs/RISP: .639 (608 PAs)

 

Playoffs: 281 PAs

[moonslav59]

Clemens had a lousy post season track record while he was with the Red Sox IIRC, but he did significantly better as Yankee and as an Astro in the post season. I think that Price can still turn things around in the post season.

 

Very true, but even if Price does poorly over his next handful of playoff games, can we still judge him as a choke?

 

What if Clemens never made it to the playoffs again? He'd have been judged as a choke by many. Like he had some sort of mental or emotional deficiency.

 

Barry Bonds was labeled a choke after his first 25 playoff games. He now had a career .936 playoff OPS.

 

Beckett started off like he was going to go down in MLB history as one of the greatest postseason pitchers of all time. His first 70+ IP with FLA and BOS in 2007 were mesmerizing. He was Mr. Money.

 

His last 21 IP? 36 H+BB+HBP and 18 ERs for a 7.71 ERA and a whole new memory of how he did "when it counts".

[notin]

I don't entirely disagree. In fact, on a global view I agree with everything you said.

 

However, here's my problem with the SSS argument. Every situation in baseball is different and yet we want to lump all of these different situations into one conclusion. For example, I'm now seeing that " 'Batter X' is hitting .283 when the count is 2-2". But Batter X will probably have a different BA when the count is 3-0 but we lump both along with every other count together when we get to the conclusion of his BA. Since hitters have many different counts throughout a season and each count is in itself a Smaller SS why do we conclude that a batter is what his average is? Actually his BA is a compilation of many SSS's but we know that he will hit better in certain situations.

 

Getting back to David Price now, one of the different situations he's come up against is his post-season experiences and he's fared worse in his post-season experiences than he has in the regular season. He's appeared in 15 post-season games over seven years, has an ERA of >5.50 and a WHIP of 1.2xx, both of which are significantly higher than his regular season numbers. Hence, he hasn't pitched as well in the post season as he has in the regular season.

 

If we can acknowledge that "Batter X" hits better in certain counts (each of which are a SSS) why can't we also acknowledge that Price pitches worse in certain situations (like the post-season) - which is also a SSS?

 

Sure, Batter X gets more opportunities to hit with a 2-2 count than Price gets post-season starts, but where is the cutoff point when we say that a sample size is meaningful? IMO we often beat the sample size argument to death and can't see the forest for the trees.

 

I'm of the opinion that not all pitching starts are created equal and that every playoff game is a higher-pressure situation than most regular season games. Price has a history of not faring well in these post-season high-pressure situations. Therefore I have little faith in him as a playoff pitcher. As I said when we picked him up, he's a guy who can get you to the playoffs but doesn't have a history of getting you out the other side of them - at least not in a positive way.

 

I'm not trying to denigrate Price. I'm just trying to be objective and see what's going on. Price is what he is and that's ok with me - well, everything except that he's overpaid is ok with me. I'm glad he's there to get us to the playoffs where "anything can happen" (and just did. UGH) but he's not the guy in the playoffs that we're paying for.

 

In the case of Batter X, you are talking anout one season worth of data broken down into small sample sizes. With post-season data, many look at it as one collective sample size of a few games spread out over many years.In Price's case, that means lumping in 2008 and 2009 in with 2016 as if they are all equally relevant. That's a long time ago, and not much is the same about Price is the same now as it was then. He's more experienced now, but also probably less fit. But typically the conclusion is "can't handle the pressure", which is sn insanely premature jump.

 

Of course Slasher's initial postulate was that Price was equal to Buchholz, which is laughable. Even if we ignore actual performance, Price gave the Sox over 200 IP last year, which has many positive effects. Buchholz didn't do that for Boston once in 10 seasons. And it's not like they were bad innings. Price was also excellent after a rough June. Sure he didn't deliver on some expectations that might have been unreasonable to begin with. But he was still very, very good with some room to grow.

 

And why the label of Price as a failure due to one post-season start and the subsequent coronation of Sale as the savior Price needed to be? Exactly what is it about Sale and his zero post-season starts that makes someone think he will fill this void?

[moonslav59]

In the case of Batter X, you are talking anout one season worth of data broken down into small sample sizes. With post-season data, many look at it as one collective sample size of a few games spread out over many years.In Price's case, that means lumping in 2008 and 2009 in with 2016 as if they are all equally relevant. That's a long time ago, and not much is the same about Price is the same now as it was then. He's more experienced now, but also probably less fit. But typically the conclusion is "can't handle the pressure", which is sn insanely premature jump.

 

Of course Slasher's initial postulate was that Price was equal to Buchholz, which is laughable. Even if we ignore actual performance, Price gave the Sox over 200 IP last year, which has many positive effects. Buchholz didn't do that for Boston once in 10 seasons. And it's not like they were bad innings. Price was also excellent after a rough June. Sure he didn't deliver on some expectations that might have been unreasonable to begin with. But he was still very, very good with some room to grow.

 

And why the label of Price as a failure due to one post-season start and the subsequent coronation of Sale as the savior Price needed to be? Exactly what is it about Sale and his zero post-season starts that makes someone think he will fill this void?

 

I totally agree, but June was actually his "middle" performance month last year:

 

ERA/WHIP Month

5.76/ 1.281 April

4.62/ 1.179 May

4.08/ 1.261 June

4.08/ 1.122 SEPT

2.80/ 1.330 July

2.93/ 1.100 AUG

 

His ERA on June 1st was 5.11. It was 4.74 by the end of June, 4.26 by the end of July and 3.97 by AUG 31st.

 

I'd say his first 7 starts were what hurt his numbers, and even that sample size included a couple good games. His ERA was 6.75 after 7 games.

 

His ERA in the 28 starts after May 7th?

 

3.39 ERA

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by moonslav59

[Emp9]

Good thing we got Chris Sale now...

 

[moonslav59]

Good thing we got Chris Sale now...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]458[/ATTACH]

 

The guy does not have a single K in the playoffs!

 

He's an absolute failure!

Edited January 14, 2017 by moonslav59

[Emp9]

The does not have a single K in the playoffs!

 

He's an absolute failure!

 

LOL. I'll go out on a limb here and predict he'll have a few. you heard it here first:rolleyes:

[Slasher9]

Sale hasn't proven he's a chock in the postseason. So he is my ace savior. Price has proven he wilts under the spotlight. Again, and again, and again. What is the definition of insanity? Exactly

[Slasher9]

I would take clay on a 1 year contract year over price with $31 x 6 remaining years. In a heartbeat and twice on Friday...

[moonslav59]

I would take clay on a 1 year contract year over price with $31 x 6 remaining years. In a heartbeat and twice on Friday...

 

That's not the debate.

 

It's totally different than Price = Clay

[moonslav59]

Sale hasn't proven he's a chock in the postseason. So he is my ace savior. Price has proven he wilts under the spotlight. Again, and again, and again. What is the definition of insanity? Exactly

 

Look up the definition of "proven".

[moonslav59]

Sale hasn't proven he's a chock in the postseason. So he is my ace savior. Price has proven he wilts under the spotlight. Again, and again, and again. What is the definition of insanity? Exactly

 

I assume chock is choke, but maybe you are thinking of a jock and a choke combined.

[notin]

I assume chock is choke, but maybe you are thinking of a jock and a choke combined.

 

"Chock" was a one-time typo for "choke" that became a running joke at BDC, which is a welcome carryover. Well done in that regard, slash.

[S5Dewey]

Exactly what is it about Sale and his zero post-season starts that makes someone think he will fill this void?

Unbridled optimism, and not having a history of failing in the post-season. Ok, no history of success either but that's where the optimism comes in.

[moonslav59]

"Chock" was a one-time typo for "choke" that became a running joke at BDC, which is a welcome carryover. Well done in that regard, slash.

 

Was it slash back at BDC?

 

Was it really a typo?

 

Inquiring minds want to know!

[moonslav59]

Unbridled optimism, and not having a history of failing in the post-season. Ok, no history of success either but that's where the optimism comes in.

 

I'm optimistic Price does well in his next playoff start.

 

Where does that come from?

 

(I'm just as optimistic about that start as any other Price start after 200 IP.)

[S5Dewey]

Was it slash back at BDC?

 

Was it really a typo?

 

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

Naw. It wasn't Slash who started it. I don't think it was a typo - I had the impression that whomever posted it wanted to call someone a "choker" and misspelled it as "chocker". Someone else (emp?) picked up on it and from then on whenever anyone wanted to say "choke" they used "chock" instead. It became somewhat of an inside joke on BDC.

 

Ok.. you had to be there! LOL

Edited January 14, 2017 by S5Dewey

[S5Dewey]

I'm optimistic Price does well in his next playoff start.

 

Where does that come from?

 

(I'm just as optimistic about that start as any other Price start after 200 IP.)

 

Is there a difference between optimism and hopefulness? Because I'm hopeful but not unduly optimistic.

[moonslav59]

Is there a difference between optimism and hopefulness? Because I'm hopeful but not unduly optimistic.

 

I'm not "unduly" either for expecting him to the pitcher he normally is most of the time.

[cp176]

Price is going to be just fine. He is tough and he is committed. He pitches on the days that he is scheduled to pitch. the amount of money some of these guys get paid rarely seems to have much to do with their performances. it's like play money. Saying he isn't worth what he is being paid is like suggesting that some of them actually are. Nope - their not! good for him for getting what the market dictated.