A Realistic View at 2021: Part II

[Bellhorn04]

LOL it doesn’t work that way in ERA and run prevention estimators charts, bell.

 

This is my chart:

 

Under 3 — No. 1 (Ecxellent)

3-3.5 — No.2 (Very Good)

3.5-4 No. 3 (Good)

4-4.5 No. 4 (Average/Mediocre)

Above 4.5 (Bums)

 

Based on the above, Porcello was an Average/Mediocre pitcher.

 

Fangraphs’ chart is something similar

 

3.2 Excellent

3.5 Great

3.8 Above Average

4.2 Average

4.4 Below Average

4.7 Poor

5.00 Awful

 

Based on the above, Fangraphs sees Porcello as a Below Average pitcher.

 

Nope. He averaged 2.6 fWAR per season. That is not below average.

[iortiz]

Nope. He averaged 2.6 fWAR per season. That is not below average.

 

Well fWAR has a different chart. The later applies for ERA and RPE.

 

At the fWAR chart, fanfraphs calls Porcello a Solid Player which is the 5th level out of seven —kind of average I would say.

[moonslav59]

So next question - which of our hitters are getting burned by the shift.

 

Verdugo is the guy who seems best going to all fields, and of our top hitters, he's been struggling more than anyone by far.

 

It’s hard to say who is the most hurt. I think players on other teams are worse.

[moonslav59]

Sure.

 

A pitcher probably could have a bad month or even a year in terms of HR/FB, but not an awful career rate like Porcello.

 

i.e. In large samples if your HR/FB is awful, then it is not a fluke, you simply suck.

 

You didn’t answer why HR% is a fluke. Why is his career HR% mostly a fluke?

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

I would go to my local bar to watch Sox games. I'd usually spend $25-30, not a lot but can add up. If I did this say 30 times a year, it's approaching $1000. I got smarter and subscribed to MLB.tv. for $125. I did not use to watch other teams but I seem to have more spare time. Best money I've spent.

 

I'm retired and drive rideshare in the evenings. So I record the games, then watch when I get home after the wife is in bed. I rarely watch any game live, I prefer to FF the commercials. So this set up is great for me.

 

l love Eckersley, I think he's great. Remy keeps calling Kike Kiki, so annoying.

[dgalehouse]

I think what happens is that we form an opinion about players , either pro or con. And we stick with it. Objectivity is a lost art.

[iortiz]

You didn’t answer why HR% is a fluke. Why is his career HR% mostly a fluke?

 

A HR is a fluke outcome in short samples, BUT in large samples it is not.

 

HR/FB works and can be used as LOB and BABIP in order to determine whether your rate is luck or not moving forward.

 

In Porcello’s case, in his eleven career years of service his HR/FB is really awful hence not a fluke.

Edited July 25, 2021 by iortiz

[moonslav59]

A HR is fluke outcome in short samples, BUT in large samples it is not.

 

HR/FB works and can be used as LOB and BABIP in order to determine whether your rate is luck or not moving forward.

 

In Porcello’s case, in his eleven career years of service his HR/FB is really awful hence not a fluke.

 

You responded to someone saying Porcello's 1.1% career HR % with a statement about HR% being mostly a fluke.

 

His career number is not a fluke and is actually very decent. It counters your point about his high HR/FB rate argument, as well as the point I raised about his very nice 47.2% GB %.

 

I still don't get your point and how small sample size HR rates have to do with the Porcello debate.

[iortiz]

You responded to someone saying Porcello's 1.1% career HR % with a statement about HR% being mostly a fluke.

 

His career number is not a fluke and is actually very decent. It counters your point about his high HR/FB rate argument, as well as the point I raised about his very nice 47.2% GB %.

 

I still don't get your point and how small sample size HR rates have to do with the Porcello debate.

Nope, I didn’t say that moon.

 

His career HR/FB% is not a fluke and is very awful.

 

I think you haven’t followed me well. I suggest you to reread my posts.

[moonslav59]

Nope, I didn’t say that moon.

 

His career HR/FB% is not a fluke and is very awful.

 

I think you haven’t followed me well. I suggest you to reread my posts.

 

Here it is...(including the post you responded to)

 

Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post

HR/FB does rely on FB%. If a pitcher simply isn’t giving up fly balls, the percentage that go yard takes on less meaning. Also, ballpark is a factor…

 

You responed:

HR% most of the times are fluke outcomes, but HR/FB tries to predict —as BABIP and LOB do— whether it was a fluke or not.

 

As I said, in Porcello’s case, when you watch his FB/HR rate through 11 years, you can assume with 100%% certainty, that he’s been a prone HR pitcher due his poor command of his sinker.

 

What did I misread?

 

He pitched o long career and his HR/FB rate did not "predict" a high HR%.

 

He had a very decent HR% and a high GB%.

 

What am I missing?

Edited July 25, 2021 by moonslav59

[iortiz]

Here it is...(including the post you responded to)

 

Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post

HR/FB does rely on FB%. If a pitcher simply isn’t giving up fly balls, the percentage that go yard takes on less meaning. Also, ballpark is a factor…

You responed:

HR% most of the times are fluke outcomes, but HR/FB tries to predict —as BABIP and LOB do— whether it was a fluke or not.

 

As I said, in Porcello’s case, when you watch his FB/HR rate through 11 years, you can assume with 100%% certainty, that he’s been a prone HR pitcher due his poor command of his sinker.

 

What did I misread?

As I said, you haven’t followed the discussion.

 

The first paragraph refers to the fact that HRs in short samples are fluke outcomes.

 

The seconds refers to large samples.

[moonslav59]

As I said, you haven’t followed the discussion.

 

The first paragraph refers to the fact that HRs in short samples are fluke outcomes.

 

The seconds refers to large samples.

 

I followed the discussion from the start. You responded to a post with a statement about HR% being mostly a fluke. You did not say in small sample sizes nor does that relate to the debate, even if you had said it.

 

I'm still waiting to know how that statement relates to Porcello, a guy with a good HR% over a super long sample size.

 

Why did you say it, if it doesn't relate to Porcello?

 

If it does relate, tell us how it relates.

[iortiz]

I followed the discussion from the start. You responded to a post with a statement about HR% being mostly a fluke. You did not say in small sample sizes nor does that relate to the debate, even if you had said it.

 

I'm still waiting to know how that statement relates to Porcello, a guy with a good HR% over a super long sample size.

 

Why did you say it, if it doesn't relate to Porcello?

 

If it does relate, tell us how it relates.

 

LOL do you even know what the discussion is about?

[dgalehouse]

Over the long haul , ERA ,while not perfect, is still the definitive stat for a pitcher. The object for them is to not give up runs. You can play around with the multitude of other stats , analytics , etc. all you want , but ERA is still the bottom line. Show me a pitcher with a good career ERA and I will show you a good pitcher. This applies to Porcello or anyone else.

[iortiz]

You are asking this because you are clueless of what we are talking about.

 

And no, his HR/FB% is really awful hence his HR%.

[iortiz]

Over the long haul , ERA ,while not perfect, is still the definitive stat for a pitcher. The object for them is to not give up runs. You can play around with the multitude of other stats , analytics , etc. all you want , but ERA is still the bottom line. Show me a pitcher with a good career ERA and I will show you a good pitcher. This applies to Porcello or anyone else.

 

Yup.

 

As I said, ERA carries luck and whatever you want in short samples but in large samples it tells what kind of pitcher are you. Porcello is a 4.4 ERA pitcher though 11 years. Something between average or below average.

 

You can’t be unlucky through 11 years. You simply are what you are.

[oldtimer]

I followed the discussion from the start. You responded to a post with a statement about HR% being mostly a fluke. You did not say in small sample sizes nor does that relate to the debate, even if you had said it.

 

I'm still waiting to know how that statement relates to Porcello, a guy with a good HR% over a super long sample size.

 

Why did you say it, if it doesn't relate to Porcello?

 

If it does relate, tell us how it relates.

 

Why is so much hot air being expended about Porcello? We have a pennant to win and current players need to do it.

[moonslav59]

LOL do you even know what the discussion is about?

 

Think what you want, but you can't answer simple and direct questions.

 

I've been in the discussion from the start.

[Nick]

Why is so much hot air being expended about Porcello? We have a pennant to win and current players need to do it.

 

Yeah, it's time to take the fight outside of this bar......

[moonslav59]

Over the long haul , ERA ,while not perfect, is still the definitive stat for a pitcher. The object for them is to not give up runs. You can play around with the multitude of other stats , analytics , etc. all you want , but ERA is still the bottom line. Show me a pitcher with a good career ERA and I will show you a good pitcher. This applies to Porcello or anyone else.

 

I'd say ERA- and ERA+ more so, but basically, yes.

 

The ERA, ERA- and ERA+ show Porcello to be a decent #3 or #4, same with WHIP.

 

Other measures, especially those that place great value on IP show him to be a solid #2 or #3. (fWAR actually shows he could be a lower #1 starter in his era (top 30 SP'er).

 

I think some of this debate is actually semantics. What do I consider "good" or "very good" vs what others do. I'm fine with that.

 

I get the argument that pitching lots of mediocre innings should not add value, but I think he was better than mediocre, and mediocre sure is better than crappy, which is usually what you get when you have a SP'er not give you many innings.

 

To me, Porcello was good to maybe very good- not great, not elite. He was either a low #2 SP'er or a top #3. That's good in my bookand many stats back that up.

 

Even going by ERA, ERA- and ERA+ and comparing him to the all the starters of his era, he was still good. I can see people calling his ERA mediocre, and I would not say they are wrong, but there are a ton of crappy pitchers out there and not that many batter than Rick.

 

IMO, all terms like mediocre, good and very good are relative terms. You are relating Porcello to the pitchers of his era and determining where he fits in the spectrum.

 

Most stats and metrics show him to be average to good and some even very good. Put them all together, and he was good.

[moonslav59]

Yeah, it's time to take the fight outside of this bar......

 

It certainly has nothing to do with 2021, unless we sign him.

[iortiz]

Think what you want, but you can't answer simple and direct questions.

 

I've been in the discussion from the start.

 

I already answered that question few pages ago moon. I won’t rewrite the whole thing again moon, sorry.

[iortiz]

I'd say ERA- and ERA+ more so, but basically, yes.

 

The ERA, ERA- and ERA+ show Porcello to be a decent #3 or #4, same with WHIP.

 

Other measures, especially those that place great value on IP show him to be a solid #2 or #3. (fWAR actually shows he could be a lower #1 starter in his era (top 30 SP'er).

 

I think some of this debate is actually semantics. What do I consider "good" or "very good" vs what others do. I'm fine with that.

 

I get the argument that pitching lots of mediocre innings should not add value, but I think he was better than mediocre, and mediocre sure is better than crappy, which is usually what you get when you have a SP'er not give you many innings.

 

To me, Porcello was good to maybe very good- not great, not elite. He was either a low #2 SP'er or a top #3. That's good in my bookand many stats back that up.

 

Even going by ERA, ERA- and ERA+ and comparing him to the all the starters of his era, he was still good. I can see people calling his ERA mediocre, and I would not say they are wrong, but there are a ton of crappy pitchers out there and not that many batter than Rick.

 

IMO, all terms like mediocre, good and very good are relative terms. You are relating Porcello to the pitchers of his era and determining where he fits in the spectrum.

 

Most stats and metrics show him to be average to good and some even very good. Put them all together, and he was good.

 

Nope. Most of his metrics are mediocre. Look at the charts.

[Nick]

Red Sox One Hit by GermAn of the Yankees...

[Nick]

Yankees go up in flames for crushing loss to Red Sox New York Post (I like their headlines)

[moonslav59]

I already answered that question few pages ago moon. I won’t rewrite the whole thing again moon, sorry.

 

You answered a question that was not mine.

 

The fact is a 1.1 HR/9 rate is not bad at all. In fact, it's okay, and your whole point about HR/FB being the predictor of HRs and some sort of major indicator of how good a pitcher is is full of holes.

 

Chris freakin' Sale has a 12.0% HR/FB%, and so do a ton of good to great pitchers who have that or worse, like

 

Trevor Bauer

Strasburg

Beckett

Sony Gray

Sabathia

Darvish

Nola

Keuchel 14.6

 

The worst 3 out of 153 are...

 

16.2% Tanaka

15.2% R Ray (a guy people want us to trade for now)

14.6% K Gibson (a guy people want us to trade for, now)

 

[notin]

Over the long haul , ERA ,while not perfect, is still the definitive stat for a pitcher. The object for them is to not give up runs. You can play around with the multitude of other stats , analytics , etc. all you want , but ERA is still the bottom line. Show me a pitcher with a good career ERA and I will show you a good pitcher. This applies to Porcello or anyone else.

 

Julio Teheran. Career ERA of 3.80, a shade behind the 3.79 of Trevor Bauer, who is all of 10 days older.

 

Are they equal?

[Maxbialystock]

Why is so much hot air being expended about Porcello? We have a pennant to win and current players need to do it.

 

A fair point. I'm one of the culprits because I slam-dunked Porcello, which raised a lot of hackles.

 

As for the pennant race, it's definitely a doozy, and I for one don't want Bloom to sign Porcello. Sale should be starting within 2 weeks. ERod may or may not come back, but right now Houck can fill in for him. I don't like Richards or Perez, but the Sox have certainly had worse starters.

 

If Ottavino doesn't bounce back, that's a lot of pressure on the bullpen.

[notin]

Why is so much hot air being expended about Porcello? We have a pennant to win and current players need to do it.

 

Because people clearly want to talk about Porcello. Is that wrong?

[notin]

A fair point. I'm one of the culprits because I slam-dunked Porcello, which raised a lot of hackles.

 

As for the pennant race, it's definitely a doozy, and I for one don't want Bloom to sign Porcello. Sale should be starting within 2 weeks. ERod may or may not come back, but right now Houck can fill in for him. I don't like Richards or Perez, but the Sox have certainly had worse starters.

 

If Ottavino doesn't bounce back, that's a lot of pressure on the bullpen.

 

I hope this doesn’t mean you’re down on Ottavino after yesterday. He literally got “well placed pop up”ped to death…