Red Sox: Off Season '23-'24

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

But what is the significance of him never winning more than 10 games?

 

Even 10 can be very significant.

 

If you add Montgomery's 10 wins in '23 to last year's Red Sox, it could mean a World Series -- since Boston would have 88 total wins, and then make the playoffs over the Rangers, who would have four less Ws (that Monty won for them), giving them only 86 totals wins.

[dgalehouse]

Even 10 can be very significant.

 

If you add Montgomery's 10 wins in '23 to last year's Red Sox, it could mean a World Series -- since Boston would have 88 total wins, and then make the playoffs over the Rangers, who would have four less Ws (that Monty won for them), giving them only 86 totals wins.

 

It would be great if we could take his 10 wins, but not the 11 losses.

[notin]

Even 10 can be very significant.

 

If you add Montgomery's 10 wins in '23 to last year's Red Sox, it could mean a World Series -- since Boston would have 88 total wins, and then make the playoffs over the Rangers, who would have four less Ws (that Monty won for them), giving them only 86 totals wins.

 

 

But what does it say about Montgomery as a pitcher when you notice that in the last 3 years, he has started 94 games and pitched 524 innings, but only has 25 wins in that timeframe?

[moonslav59]

It would be great if we could take his 10 wins, but not the 11 losses.

 

11 losses are fine, if we win the 12 no decisions.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

But what does it say about Montgomery as a pitcher when you notice that in the last 3 years, he has started 94 games and pitched 524 innings, but only has 25 wins in that timeframe?

 

How about career splits?

 

In the 38 starts he won, he had a 1.45 ERA in 236.2 IP (average 6.2 per start)

 

In the 34 starts he lost, he had a 6.38 in 169.1 IP (almost 5 per start)

 

In 69 no decisions (68 starts), 3.89 in 349 IP (5.1 per start)

 

What these stats may show: in basically 25% of his starts he's 2000 Pedro, in 25% he's 2023 Kluber, and in the other half he's an average guy who might pick up more Ws on a good team or absorb more Ls on a bad club.

 

What they don't measure are the intangibles on the rest of the staff and the attitude in the dugout and clubhouse by adding a pretty good starting pitcher who will take the ball every five days and keep his team in the game around 75% of the time.

[Randy Red Sox]

11 losses are fine, if we win the 12 no decisions.

 

You can't have it both ways Moon. Montgomery is at BEST a #2 SP but really more like a 3. The max I give him is a 3 yr deal with an option for a 4th.

[Randy Red Sox]

There was a time wins were more meaningful.

 

Times change. It's just the way she goes.

 

in any event Montgomery is not enough to get the team into true contention and i would not lock into him on a lengthy deal.

[moonslav59]

You can't have it both ways Moon. Montgomery is at BEST a #2 SP but really more like a 3. The max I give him is a 3 yr deal with an option for a 4th.

 

Both ways? How am I flipping?

 

Hey, I call Monty a #1. He's a 20th to 30th best SP'er in MLB.

 

There are 30 teams.

 

He's at worst a #2.

 

Saying he's a #3 says 60-89 pitchers are better?

 

He's only 30. Why is the 4th year so bad?

 

You always have to give at least 1 more year for good pitchers. Some could argue he deserves 4 and should get 5 (at less AAV than 4, of course.)

[moonslav59]

in any event Montgomery is not enough to get the team into true contention and i would not lock into him on a lengthy deal.

 

He's good enough to get us closer, if not real close to a WC slot.

 

He should still be good in the 2-3 or even 4 years after 2024, when in theory, we are looking to compete.

 

You prefer we just punt?

[moonslav59]

How about career splits?

 

In the 38 starts he won, he had a 1.45 ERA in 236.2 IP (average 6.2 per start)

 

In the 34 starts he lost, he had a 6.38 in 169.1 IP (almost 5 per start)

 

In 69 no decisions (68 starts), 3.89 in 349 IP (5.1 per start)

 

What these stats may show: in basically 25% of his starts he's 2000 Pedro, in 25% he's 2023 Kluber, and in the other half he's an average guy who might pick up more Ws on a good team or absorb more Ls on a bad club.

 

What they don't measure are the intangibles on the rest of the staff and the attitude in the dugout and clubhouse by adding a pretty good starting pitcher who will take the ball every five days and keep his team in the game around 75% of the time.

 

3.89 is above average.

 

SP ERA in MLB:

 

4.45 in '23

4.05 in '22

4.34 in '21

4.46 in '20

4.54 in '19

 

Out of the top 150 SP'ers by IP in 2023, a 3.89 ERA places 62nd (just 0.02 from top 60, or top 40%.) That's also above average.

 

25% Pedro

50% (3.77 Scherzer, 3.80 Beiber, 3.86 Peralta & Strider, 3.92 JP France, 65 Stroman)

25% Kluber

[moonslav59]

151 SP'ers have 200+ IP in the last 3 years, combined. (That's 5 per team x 30 teams.)

 

Here is where Monty places in some key stats/metrics:

6th GS at 94 (about 31 per season and elite level.)

16th IP at 524 (mid level #1 horse.)

16th fWAR 10.2 (mid level #1)

40th ERA 3.48 (higher range of a #2)

41st ERA- at 84 (just 1 from Cease & Castillo & tied w Nate)

46th xFIP 3.79 (Mid range #2)

47th K/BB at 3.60 (mid #2)

49th WHIP 1.18 (mid #2)

51st in wins with 25 (5 wins in 3 yrs from top 30)

 

He's about top 15 in GS/IP, and when he pitches, he ranks about top 25% to 35% in every meaningful stat- even WINS!

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

3.89 is above average.

 

SP ERA in MLB:

 

4.45 in '23

4.05 in '22

4.34 in '21

4.46 in '20

4.54 in '19

 

Out of the top 150 SP'ers by IP in 2023, a 3.89 ERA places 62nd (just 0.02 from top 60, or top 40%.) That's also above average.

 

25% Pedro

50% (3.77 Scherzer, 3.80 Beiber, 3.86 Peralta & Strider, 3.92 JP France, 65 Stroman)

25% Kluber

 

I agree an ERA of 3.89 is good -- and ERA is calculated per a 9 inning game -- but what if a starter gives up 3.89 runs every 5 innings (the average IP in Monty's no-decisions)? Does the number change over 9... what am I missing?

 

A "Quality Start" is supposedly 3 earned through 6 IP...

[notin]

I agree an ERA of 3.89 is good -- and ERA is calculated per a 9 inning game -- but what if a starter gives up 3.89 runs every 5 innings (the average IP in Monty's no-decisions)? Does the number change over 9... what am I missing?

 

A "Quality Start" is supposedly 3 earned through 6 IP...

 

If a pitcher gave up 3.89 ER over 5 innings, his ERA would be 7.00…

[notin]

How about career splits?

 

In the 38 starts he won, he had a 1.45 ERA in 236.2 IP (average 6.2 per start)

 

In the 34 starts he lost, he had a 6.38 in 169.1 IP (almost 5 per start)

 

In 69 no decisions (68 starts), 3.89 in 349 IP (5.1 per start)

 

What these stats may show: in basically 25% of his starts he's 2000 Pedro, in 25% he's 2023 Kluber, and in the other half he's an average guy who might pick up more Ws on a good team or absorb more Ls on a bad club.

 

What they don't measure are the intangibles on the rest of the staff and the attitude in the dugout and clubhouse by adding a pretty good starting pitcher who will take the ball every five days and keep his team in the game around 75% of the time.

 

I think you’ll find this kind of split is common.

 

For example - Blake Snell

 

In his 71 wins, 1.13

In his 55 losses, 6.94

In his 66 no decisions, 3.07

 

 

But this is also not what I asked.

 

A lot was made yesterday of his low season win totals. Several said it didn’t matter, and provided data in various forms. But even then, it was repeatedly pointed out it was a fact. But why was it ever worth mentioning, let alone repeated so often?

Edited February 29, 2024 by notin

[moonslav59]

I agree an ERA of 3.89 is good -- and ERA is calculated per a 9 inning game -- but what if a starter gives up 3.89 runs every 5 innings (the average IP in Monty's no-decisions)? Does the number change over 9... what am I missing?

 

A "Quality Start" is supposedly 3 earned through 6 IP...

 

A 3.89 ERA is allowing 2.1 ER in 5 IP.

 

A very good start.

[moonslav59]

I think you’ll find this kind of split is common.

 

For example - Blake Snell

 

In his 71 wins, 1.13

In his 55 losses, 6.94

In his 66 no decisions, 3.07

 

 

But this is also not what I asked.

 

A lot was made yesterday of his low season win totals. Several said it didn’t matter, and provided data in various forms. But even then, it was repeatedly pointed out it was a fact. But why was it ever worth mentioning, let alone repeated so often?

 

Offering context is not saying the facts presented were false.

 

This is something that seems to happen, often. Posters assume you are saying their facts are wrong, if you disagree or add context.

[notin]

Offering context is not saying the facts presented were false.

 

This is something that seems to happen, often. Posters assume you are saying their facts are wrong, if you disagree or add context.

 

And the bottom line - no one disputed Montgomery was not credited with a lot of wins. So why was it worth repeating so many times?

Edited February 29, 2024 by notin

[moonslav59]

And the bottom line - no one disputed Montgomery was not credited with a lot of wins. So why was it worth repeating so many times?

 

I can only think that they feel we were saying they were wrong with their numbers and not the idea that looking at a pitcher's win total as the first or most important thing to look at is flawed, in our opinions.

 

This happens, often, here.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, I have to disagree . There is room for speculation, opinion, explanations and such. And these are often influenced by particular beliefs and biases. And people do love to debate. And sometimes it is not clear what is or is not the truth. But sometimes it is clear. The truth sometimes hurts and we don't like to hear it. But it does matter. In this case Montgomery, while a good pitcher, has not won a lot of games. That is a fact.

 

So do we think Jordan Montgomery will be "hurt" by the fact he's going to get a lot more money than Mike Wacha? Shouldn't Wacha be the one who's "hurt'?

[notin]

Well, I have to disagree . There is room for speculation, opinion, explanations and such. And these are often influenced by particular beliefs and biases. And people do love to debate. And sometimes it is not clear what is or is not the truth. But sometimes it is clear. The truth sometimes hurts and we don't like to hear it. But it does matter. In this case Montgomery, while a good pitcher, has not won a lot of games. That is a fact.

 

 

So it’s a fact and it matters, but no one will tell my why it matters…

[notin]

So do we think Jordan Montgomery will be "hurt" by the fact he's going to get a lot more money than Mike Wacha? Shouldn't Wacha be the one who's "hurt'?

 

 

That’s to be expected, since Wacha is used to being hurt…

[Bellhorn04]

So it’s a fact and it matters, but no one will tell my why it matters…

 

I'll tell ya what matters. Getting a contract for 172 mill with a 32-31 record over your last 3 seasons. That matters bigly.

[notin]

I'll tell ya what matters. Getting a contract for 172 mill with a 32-31 record over your last 3 seasons. That matters bigly.

 

It also tells you what an incredible bargain hunter Chaim Bloom really was, when he was able to get Rich Hill (90-73) for only $5mill when his equivalent Aaron Nola (90-71) costs $172mill…

[notin]

I'll tell ya what matters. Getting a contract for 172 mill with a 32-31 record over your last 3 seasons. That matters bigly.

 

Also does this mean the Sox should focus instead on Mike Clevinger (60-39) instead of Jordan Montgomery (38-34)?

[Bellhorn04]

It also tells you what an incredible bargain hunter Chaim Bloom really was, when he was able to get Rich Hill (90-73) for only $5mill when his equivalent Aaron Nola (90-71) costs $172mill…

 

But it also shows that Bloom was a Baboon for not re-signing Winner Wacha!

[Bellhorn04]

Also does this mean the Sox should focus instead on Mike Clevinger (60-39) instead of Jordan Montgomery (38-34)?

 

Clevinger should be swimming in dough right now!

[notin]

Clevinger should be swimming in dough right now!

 

Clevinger should be swimming in a shark tank filled with AB+.

 

He’s one those guys I like less and less every time I google him. It’s actually unfair that that primate is allowed to play while Bauer is cancelled…

[Bellhorn04]

Clevinger should be swimming in a shark tank filled with AB+.

 

He’s one those guys I like less and less every time I google him. It’s actually unfair that that primate is allowed to play while Bauer is cancelled…

 

You're probably right that Bauer is a better guy. Bauer is just not very smart more than anything...

[notin]

You're probably right that Bauer is a better guy. Bauer is just not very smart more than anything...

 

Also he’s an *******. But he does openly and brashly admit as much

[Old Red]

I'll tell ya what matters. Getting a contract for 172 mill with a 32-31 record over your last 3 seasons. That matters bigly.

 

Do you guys like to just hear yourselves talk? You must, because you just keep rambling on' and on. It all boils down to some of you just can’t accept there are other opinions out there that doesn’t match yours. Just like you who said Sean McAdams didn’t know what he was talking about, because he didn’t agree with you on where Monty ranks in a rotation like it matters one way, or the other. I get every point everyone has made on Monty, but the big sticking point is on how much a W-L matters. I’ve never said it’s the be all end all, but you guys says it’s meaningless, and that is where we disagree. Monty must have been very unlucky all through his career to have never been more than a 10 game winner even playing on some good Yankees teams. I’m not saying your opinions are wrong, but when you guys goes with the meaningless route you guys aren’t doing the same. If Monty was a 20 game winner I’m sure that would get mentioned, and I would do it myself. It’s always amazing on here there just can’t be a agree to disagree on an opinion, and that’s a fact.