iortiz
-
Posts
17,480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by iortiz
-
No you didn't. In my 3905, 3903, 3900 posts I was already talking about a 4 year period. Again, go figure.
-
No, Check the posts. I don't think you read well. Focus. Two of those four years his ERA+ were under 100 and 1 barley above 100. Again his only one great year was when he surprisingly won the CY. Agian, it doesn't matter how you slice it, he sucked. BTW a 4.65 ERA clip can't be called "Oks" as you try to present. Simply no way.
-
I'm considering 4 years, when he made 20 M/Y. 2016 (3.15, great), 2017 (4.65, horrible), 2018 (4.28, mediocre), 2019 (5.52, horrible) I'm taking away his also awful 2015 (4.92) BL he was most of the times horrible in Boston uniform. It doesn't matter how you slice it.
-
Again, under his contract (2016-2019/ 4-Y contract) he had 2 bad (5.52 and 4.62), 1 mediocre (4.28) and one great (3.15) For you, good is 4.23 and oks 4.62. You bar is so low. To put it in context, our pitching staff has a 4.55 ERA. Our pitching staff is one of the worst in baseball FYI
-
Sale's case is different. He hasn't even pitched for whatever reason, so his contract is horrible too. At the time it made sense. It didn't pan out though. Sale's pedigree was way better than Porcello's before wearing RS uniform. It's not even close and unfair the comparison.
-
Under that period 2 bad (5.52 and 4.62), 1 mediocre (4.28) and one great (3.15) I guess our definitions of good are bad are not the same lol
-
Well he was horrible in 2 years, bad in one, mediocre in 1 and great in 1. Put it in my mixer and it is a bad tenure all-in-all.
-
Porcello was expected to perform at 3+ fWAR in a regular basis in Boston. He didn’t most of his tenure, so yes, he sucked and the contract didn’t pan out well. That’s the point. Again, Porcello had a bad tenure in Boston uniform.
-
RPs by definition are role players BUT RPs could have their own chart since fWAR takes in consideration (and a lot) IPs. The other day in other post I adjusted the chart. If I recall well the ceiling for RPs was at 3 WAR, and from there you can readjust it.
-
The 7-run rule was always in effect lol
-
Thing is that you are not sorting levels as FG does. For FG most pitchers are what they call role and scrub players. Porcello is in that category in most of his tenure in Boston. Only a few (if you consider the universe of SPs) are what they call good or above. Porcello had only one year above good in Boston. One. It is a bad tenure. I think most of the fans expected at least, 3 or 4 years of what FG calls you a "Good" player. It didn't happened, the rest is history.
-
Still it ain't good.
-
1 to 6 is the FG's scale regardless the names they give to each level. Average could be something around 3. 4 out of those 5 years were not even average. Kind of the point. He sucked.
-
2 WAR is also role player lol Porcello sucked man.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
He wasn't even average.
-
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
-
No problem mate, all good!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sure, it counts but it was a fluke when you look at his career. He never posted something close to that. Geez it’s fair to say that most pitchers who win the CY are consistent and have several good to great years — ERAs around 3 and below. Porcello had only one year around 3. One — 2106, 3.15.
-
LOL you bar is too low mate. 2016 4.92 (horrible) 2017 3.15 (very good) 2018 4.65 (horrible) 2019 4.28 (mediocre at best, bad in my book) 2020 5.52 (horrible) 2021 5.64 (horrible) Porcello was a horrible pitcher with a fluke year in his prime.
