Fire Bloom .

[moonslav59]

An ERA lower than the league average by definition is good. If something is better than average then by definition it can't be bad. 2019 was a pretty good season too.

 

Yes, "good," and I'm getting grief for calling him Okay.

[Hugh2]

Yes, "good," and I'm getting grief for calling him Okay.

 

Well it’s Boston, if you’re not a CY young, or hitting 30 HRs you’re garbage here.

[iortiz]

ERA for a starting pitcher alone is a horrible gauge. Also the average ERA is about 4.50 so calling a 4.65 "horrible" is a pretty big stretch. Even his 2016 season isn't that bad. 2020/2021 was pretty bad.

 

Nahhh you say so to sound cocky. It is not a horrible metric if you know how to use it. In long samples as I’m presenting, it actually reflects very close what you are.

 

But if you don’t like ERA, Porcello averaged a 2.5 fWAR throughout 12 Y of service — and he had four years below 2. That is a mediocre figure. Good WAR figures are above 3 based on fangraphs’ charts.

 

Regarding ERA, your bar is too low.

 

Here’s my ERA chart

 

No. 1 pitchers =

No 2 pitchers between 3—3.5

No 3 pitchers between 3.5—4

No 4 pitchers between 4—4.5

No 5 pitchers 4.5—4.9

Bum pitchers >=5

 

Based on this chart is fair to say that Porcello was horrible most of the times in Boston uniform.

[Hugh2]

Nahhh you say so to sound cocky. It is not a horrible metric if you know how to use it. In long samples as I’m presenting, it actually reflects very close what you are.

 

But if you don’t like ERA, Porcello averaged a 2.5 fWAR throughout 12 Y of service — and he had four years below 2. That is a mediocre figure. Good WAR figures are above 3 based on fangraphs’ charts.

 

Regarding ERA, your bar is too low.

 

Here’s my ERA chart

 

No. 1 pitchers =

No 2 pitchers between 3—3.5

No 3 pitchers between 3.5—4

No 4 pitchers between 4—4.5

No 5 pitchers 4.5—4.9

Bum pitchers >=5

 

Based on this chart is fair to say that Porcello was horrible most of the times in Boston uniform.

 

 

If you know how to use it? how many different way can you use it if you're ONLY using just that. And as I clearly stated even by that metric you're off. In a season where he had an above-average ERA you called him bad. Please explain to me how you can have an above average ERA and be bad. Cocky or not, doesn't change the fact that that's senseless.

[Hugh2]

So the average ERA is 4.5 and to you that's a #5 starter. That's just not a realistic position. Edited September 1, 2022 by A Red Sox fan named Hugh

[Hugh2]

Porcello had one great season, two seasons that were borderline good, and two bad seasons. It's what it's.

[iortiz]

If you know how to use it? how many different way can you use it if you're ONLY using just that. And as I clearly stated even by that metric you're off. In a season where he had an above-average ERA you called him bad. Please explain to me how you can have an above average ERA and be bad. Cocky or not, doesn't change the fact that that's senseless.

 

Nope, you are the one off. You don't like my chart, fine. Here's fangraph's chart.

 

Excellent 3.20

Great 3.50

Above Average 3.80

Average 4.20

Below Average 4.40

Poor 4.70

Awful 5.00

 

It is close to may chart.

 

Based on this chart Porcello had 2 awful years, 1 poor year, 1 average year and one excellent year. In my book, that is a bad tenure.

[Hugh2]

Nope, you are the one off. You don't like my chart, fine. Here's fangraph's chart.

 

Excellent 3.20

Great 3.50

Above Average 3.80

Average 4.20

Below Average 4.40

Poor 4.70

Awful 5.00

 

It is close to may chart.

 

Based on this chart Porcello had 2 awful years, 1 poor year, 1 average year and one excellent year. In my book, that is a bad tenure.

 

Can you post a link to that please, I'll concede if wrong.

[Hugh2]

don't bother, found it. Porcello sucks.

[Hugh2]

I guess ERA varys wildly from year to year by about a whole RUN when you look at it year to year. 4.50 could be above average one year, and below average the next year.

[Hugh2]

I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. I withdraw my argument and formally apologize to iortiz.

[iortiz]

Can you post a link to that please, I'll concede if wrong.

 

It is the one that is used in all ERA estimators (FIP, xFIP, SIERA, etc) and you can find it in the glossary at fangraphs web page.

[iortiz]

I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. I withdraw my argument and formally apologize to iortiz.

 

No problem mate, all good!

[moonslav59]

don't bother, found it. Porcello sucks.

 

No adjustment for pitching in Fenway or vs some of the best offenses in the league?

[moonslav59]

It is the one that is used in all ERA estimators (FIP, xFIP, SIERA, etc) and you can find it in the glossary at fangraphs web page.

 

His SIERA places him 70th out of 150. That's not bad or horrible: it's Okay.

[Bellhorn04]

Nahhh you say so to sound cocky. It is not a horrible metric if you know how to use it. In long samples as I’m presenting, it actually reflects very close what you are.

 

But if you don’t like ERA, Porcello averaged a 2.5 fWAR throughout 12 Y of service — and he had four years below 2. That is a mediocre figure. Good WAR figures are above 3 based on fangraphs’ charts.

 

Regarding ERA, your bar is too low.

 

Here’s my ERA chart

 

No. 1 pitchers =

No 2 pitchers between 3—3.5

No 3 pitchers between 3.5—4

No 4 pitchers between 4—4.5

No 5 pitchers 4.5—4.9

Bum pitchers >=5

 

Based on this chart is fair to say that Porcello was horrible most of the times in Boston uniform.

 

Based on fWAR Porcello was not horrible.

 

2015 1.7

2016 5.1

2017 2.0

2018 2.4

2019 1.8

Edited September 1, 2022 by Bellhorn04

[Hugh2]

No adjustment for pitching in Fenway or vs some of the best offenses in the league?

 

Without looking it up, how much does that change? maybe that makes an awful season a bad season, or a bad season borderline average to below average. Porcello had two seasons were he was servicable and I wouldn't call bad but I wouldn't call great either, and one as an ACE. In the end he won a cy young here and helped the Sox win a world series in 2018, not going to complain about him but I think I remember expecting more out of him. He was pegged as a guy to buy low on who might develop into an ACE, and then he did....for one season.

[Bellhorn04]

Without looking it up, how much does that change? maybe that makes an awful season a bad season, or a bad season borderline average to below average. Porcello had two seasons were he was servicable and I wouldn't call bad but I wouldn't call great either, and one as an ACE. In the end he won a cy young here and helped the Sox win a world series in 2018, not going to complain about him but I think I remember expecting more out of him. He was pegged as a guy to buy low on who might develop into an ACE, and then he did....for one season.

 

Porcello was slightly above average in quality, well above average in quantity.

 

There's a lot of value in being able to take the ball every 5th day and deliver 5-6 innings as he did.

[iortiz]

Based on fWAR Porcello was not horrible.

 

2015 1.7

2016 5.1

2017 2.0

2018 2.4

2019 1.8

Yes it is horrible, when you expected him to perform as a No. 3 pitcher and not as a No 5. most of the times.

 

When 3 out of those 5 years in Boston (60%) were what fangraphs calls you role player, it is horrible in my book.

 

To put it in context it is the 6th level out of 7 levels in that chart.

 

Scrub 0-1 WAR

Role Player 1-2 WAR

Solid Starter 2-3 WAR

Good Player 3-4 WAR

All-Star 4-5 WAR

Superstar 5-6 WAR

MVP 6+ WAR

[iortiz]

Porcello was slightly above average in quality, well above average in quantity.

 

There's a lot of value in being able to take the ball every 5th day and deliver 5-6 innings as he did.

 

He wasn't even average.

[Hugh2]

Also, how does one establish what a #1 starting pitcher is? To me, I'd say you'd have to be a top 30 pitcher in baseball. one for each team (I know it doesn't work out that way) but by the metric of an ERA below 3.00 that means there are only 15 #1 pitchers in baseball.

[iortiz]

Without looking it up, how much does that change? maybe that makes an awful season a bad season, or a bad season borderline average to below average. Porcello had two seasons were he was servicable and I wouldn't call bad but I wouldn't call great either, and one as an ACE. In the end he won a cy young here and helped the Sox win a world series in 2018, not going to complain about him but I think I remember expecting more out of him. He was pegged as a guy to buy low on who might develop into an ACE, and then he did....for one season.

 

I think his celling was to be what a I call a No. 2 pitcher (3-3.5) but would have called it deal if he had posted as a No. 3 (3.5-4)

 

Thing is he performed 3 years as a No. 5, 1 year as No.4 and 1 year as a No. 1, based on my ERA charts.

 

Based on FG´s ERA estimators and WAR charts he was nothing but poor to awful pitcher most of the times in Boston uniform.

[iortiz]

Also, how does one establish what a #1 starting pitcher is? To me, I'd say you'd have to be a top 30 pitcher in baseball. one for each team (I know it doesn't work out that way) but by the metric of an ERA below 3.00 that means there are only 15 #1 pitchers in baseball.

 

The thing is that very few are No.1 and way more fewer what I call aces. Just a handful are out there, maybe less.

[Hugh2]

If there are 5 starters per team (for argumentative purproses, injuries happen and all that) for 30 teams, then ideally out of 150 guys the top 30 are your #1's your 31-60 are your #2's and 61-90 are your #3's so on and so forth.

 

This might be a semantics battle, but I say an ACE is your top pitcher, so hypothetically your top 30 pitchers in baseball are an ACE. Now, maybe there's a difference between the top 5 and top 25-30 that's fine. But I believe that's a fair argument because what's average is completely reliant upon what everyone else is doing. If runs per game go up and the average ERA is 6.00 then all of a sudden a guy with a 4.00 ERA is an ACE. It's all relative to what everyone else is doing.

 

Of course, AS fangraphs has said, league ERA changes from year to year, and I'm just looking at ERA leaders from this year. Maybe next year there are 30 guys in that group. IDK.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes it is horrible, when you expected him to perform as a No. 3 pitcher and not as a No 5. most of the times.

 

When 3 out of those 5 years in Boston (60%) were what fangraphs calls you role player, it is horrible in my book.

 

To put it in context it is the 6th level out of 7 levels in that chart.

 

Scrub 0-1 WAR

Role Player 1-2 WAR

Solid Starter 2-3 WAR

Good Player 3-4 WAR

All-Star 4-5 WAR

Superstar 5-6 WAR

MVP 6+ WAR

 

Solid Starter is 2-3 WAR.

 

So based on that:

 

1 year Superstar

2 years Solid Starter

2 years Role Player

 

5 year Average = Solid Starter

 

How you get horrible out of that I don't know.

[Bellhorn04]

Porcello made $95 million for his 5 years with Boston.

 

His total dollar value for those years per FanGraphs, based on average productivity of free agents, was $104.7 million.

[iortiz]

If there are 5 starters per team (for argumentative purproses, injuries happen and all that) for 30 teams, then ideally out of 150 guys the top 30 are your #1's your 31-60 are your #2's and 61-90 are your #3's so on and so forth.

 

This might be a semantics battle, but I say an ACE is your top pitcher, so hypothetically your top 30 pitchers in baseball are an ACE. Now, maybe there's a difference between the top 5 and top 25-30 that's fine. But I believe that's a fair argument because what's average is completely reliant upon what everyone else is doing. If runs per game go up and the average ERA is 6.00 then all of a sudden a guy with a 4.00 ERA is an ACE. It's all relative to what everyone else is doing.

 

Of course, AS fangraphs has said, league ERA changes from year to year, and I'm just looking at ERA leaders from this year. Maybe next year there are 30 guys in that group. IDK.

 

Aces are durable with great numbers.

 

Several teams does not even have a No 2. Look at us. While Wacha has shown great things he has pitched very little this season. Aside him what you got? Pivetta? Hill? and I'm not even going to look at the pen. There's no surprise we are in this position.

 

OTOH look at the Mets or the Dodgers.

 

Baseball is still a game of budget.

[iortiz]

Solid Starter is 2-3 WAR.

 

So based on that:

 

1 year Superstar

2 years Solid Starter

2 years Role Player

 

5 year Average = Solid Starter

 

How you get horrible out of that I don't know.

 

 

2 WAR is also role player lol

 

Porcello sucked man.

[Maxbialystock]

I never liked Porcello and was astounded when he got the Cy Young. He had a complete repertoire, but it wasn't that good.

 

His cumulative WAR over 12 seasons was 18.8, which is an average of 1.5. And his cumulative salary was $127M, so he was paid $6.75 M per 1 WAR of performance. His 2018 WAR was 2.5 with 33 starts, so whoever said there is value in taking the ball every 5th game has a point. He contributed to the Sox best season ever.

[Bellhorn04]

2 WAR is also role player lol

 

Porcello sucked man.

 

Disagree.