Orange Juiced

How many SP in MLB have been better than Doubront since May 16? Here's the short list of candidates, as far as I can tell: - DOUBRONT: 15 g, 91.2 ip, 2.55 era, 1.21 whip, 7.6 k/9 - Kershaw: 14 g, 104.0 ip, 2.16 era, 0.86 whip, 8.1 k/9 - Harvey: 14 g, 94.1 ip, 2.67 era, 0.98 whip, 10.5 k/9 - King Felix: 14 g, 96.0 ip, 2.81 era, 1.15 whip, 9.6 k/9 - Scherzer: 14 g, 97.0 ip, 2.23 era, 0.87 whip, 9.5 k/9 - Corbin: 14 g, 97.0 ip, 2.78 era, 0.99 whip, 8.2 k/9 - Kuroda: 14 g, 89.0 ip, 2.43 era, 1.02 whip, 6.6 k/9 - Colon: 14 g, 100.1 ip, 1.52 era, 1.13 whip, 4.6 k/9 - Fernandez: 14 g, 90.2 ip, 2.08 era, 0.95 whip, 9.8 k/9 - Wainwright: 15 g, 110.0 ip, 2.78 era, 1.06 whip, 7.9 k/9 - Darvish: 13 g, 86.0 ip, 2.62 era, 1.08 whip, 11.1 k/9 There may be a few more in this group, but to even be talking about Doubront with this list of A+ stars (I still can't believe Bartolo Colon...) is VERY impressive.

Doubront's numbers now: 21 g, 124.0 ip, 8-5, 3.56 era, 118 era+, 1.37 whip, 8.1 k/9 From May 16 through last night, here's his line: 15 g, 91.2 ip, 2.55 era, 1.21 whip, 7.6 k/9 Still has only one start all season whereby he's given up more than 3 er. The last 3 games the Sox have lost when he's pitched they've scored 2, 1, and 1 runs. Simply put, he's been one of the very best starting pitchers in all of baseball since May 16. Period.

I'm just telling you what I've read. Here's another way to look at it. Here are their respective minor league numbers at the same ages: Ramirez 2002 (18) - Rookie, A - 289 pa, 7 hr, 45 rbi, .352/.401/.548/.949 2003 (19) - A - 464 pa, 8 hr, 50 rbi, .275/.327/.403/.730 2004 (20) - A+, AA, Rookie - 428 pa, 6 hr, 46 rbi, .314/.369/.436/.804 2005 (21) - AA - 519 pa, 6 hr, 52 rbi, .271/.335/.385/.720 Bogaerts 2011 (18) - A - 296 pa, 16 hr, 45 rbi, .260/.324/.509/.834 2012 (19) - A+, AA - 532 pa, 20 hr, 81 rbi, .307/.373/.523/.896 2013 (20) - AA, AAA - 439 pa, 14 hr, 59 rbi, .298/.397/.493/.891 So to look at it by ages: 18 yrs old Ramirez (Rookie, A) - 289 pa, 7 hr, 45 rbi, .352/.401/.548/.949 Bogaerts (A) - 296 pa, 16 hr, 45 rbi, .260/.324/.509/.834 19 yrs old Ramirez (A) - 464 pa, 8 hr, 50 rbi, .275/.327/.403/.730 Bogaerts (A+, AA) - 532 pa, 20 hr, 81 rbi, .307/.373/.523/.896 20 yrs old Ramirez (A+, AA, Rookie) - 428 pa, 6 hr, 46 rbi, .314/.369/.436/.804 Bogaerts (AA, AAA) - 439 pa, 14 hr, 59 rbi, .298/.397/.493/.891 So at each age, Bogaerts was playing higher up in the system than Hanley. And his overall production was greater. Hanley gets the edge as an 18-year old in production, but he was playing at a lower level then. So looking at these numbers, we see that Bogaerts was more productive at the same respective ages than Hanley, *while playing each of those respective seasons at a higher level*. That says to me that Bogaerts' upside is greater than Hanley's. Hanley had several spectacular years and is really gifted. Bogaerts looks like he could project to be even better.

Detroit needed a SS b/c of the Peralta steroid issue. I don't think it was just a "want" on their part.

Bogaerts has, from all accounts and number-crunching, much more upside than Hanley Ramirez. Which, of course, is good for the Red Sox.

Don't forget Doubront. Since May 16, here's his pitching line: 14 g, 84.2 ip, 2.76 era, 1.25 whip, 7.7 k/9 - In none of those 14 starts has he given up more than 3 er. - In 4 of those starts, the Sox have scored 1 or 2 runs. His record on the season could easily be something like 10-2 instead of 7-5. Dude has been dealing.

When I posted this I was going on the speculation that Moore was going to be out for longer.

Well, of course we have no idea who will be placed on waivers. Probably a lot of guys will be placed on waivers, but one bummer about the Sox' spot in the standings is that they will basically be last in line for waiver claims. Odds aren't too good that they'll get a whole lot that's useful. But I could see a veteran bullpen arm that has been good in the past but who might be having a meh season this year getting through, and Boston claiming him hoping to just get 10-15 decent appearances out of him.

The good news on that front is that the Sox don't need him to pitch 200 innings. They just need him to pitch two-plus months (hopefully!) of quality baseball. Peavy is more than capable of that, even with his spotty injury history.

I think the key thing here to remember is that you really want to avoid that coin-flip play-in game. The division means a LOT right now. So with the Sox adding Peavy and the Rays losing Moore, that's a major SP talent swing in favor of the Sox for the forseeable future.

I understand. But he's had several 7 ip, 1 er starts, so a 9 ip, 1 er start isn't very far off. He's only had one epic, colossal disaster. But I get your point. I agree.

Re: the bolded part. In my initial post on this topic I took away just his worst start because I consider that to be a very strong outlier. He has had a number of great starts so I don't consider one of those to be an outlier. He's more than capable of spinning a beauty. But he's only had one epic disaster, which indicates that I don't think it's likely that we see that again over the next 2 months. That's why in my initial post I just discounted that one. Remember, my premise was that we are looking forward - trying to figure out what is reasonable to expect from Peavy *from this point on*. And so for me, I think he's much closer to a pitcher in the 3.70-3.80 range than a pitcher in the 4.20-4.30 range. YMMV.

Yeah it was. His worst start was 2.1 ip, 7 h, 6 er. I've already posted what his season's stats would look like minus this start. PS - Well, it's skewing his season's totals so far. But I thought that was obvious what I meant. Because we look at his numbers so far this year and wonder if he's really a 4.28 era pitcher. I'm arguing that I think he'll be better than that for Boston because his season's totals (so far) have been greatly skewed by this one horrific start, and I don't think it's likely he has a repeat performance of that.

No, I'm saying that Peavy has pitched much better, on the whole, than his stats indicate. He had one epic, colossal, disaster that was so bad it is skewing his entire season's worth of stats. And I am saying that moving forward, it is unlikely that he will have another such epic disaster of a start. Since that start was so integral in skewing his stats, if we remove it (because I think we're unlikely to see that again) what you have is a much better pitcher than the overall stats indicate. Now if he had a number of these horrible starts, then it can be seen as a trend, not a "freak" event.

Which, in Peavy's case, it was.

I didn't do the math, but someone mentioned taking away his single worst and single best starts, and the era comes out to 3.74.

You can't, and that's now how it's done. Because in any statistical sample, the outliers on either end may not be equal outliers. For example, if we took 10 NFL players and measured their average weight, and we took away the lightest guy and the heaviest guy, it would look different if the heaviest guy was Jerod Mayo (around 250 lbs) versus Vince Wilfork (around 340 lbs). So that shows that the outliers may have a greater or lesser effect on the average. So you can't look to take away equal data - what you do is take away an equal number of data points from either end and then do the math. So take away Peavy's best and worst outing, and you end up with a guy around 3.75.

Right. And if you do that, he's much closer to a 3.70 pitcher than a 4.28 pitcher. That was my point in the first place.

Right. I like this part. Every night the Sox should be throwing a guy that is pretty darned good. In terms of the last two months and getting to the playoffs, this will be huge.

Just his one worst and one best. And his worst impacts his numbers far more than his best.

Go back to my first post on this topic, where I presented my point about Peavy. My argument is that his stat line looks much better when you take out that one horrific outing. He's not likely to repeat that horrific outing, though he will likely have a couple of not-so-good ones. And once that horrific outing (which he's not likely to repeat) is removed, he's actually been a really good pitcher this year. I was forced to use that illustration that seemed a bit extreme to point out that we can't just look at the final stat line to show the quality of a pitcher. Some guys are consistently what they are. Other guys get those numbers because they are generally better than that first group, but just have the occasional blowup for some reason. So yes, in the end, over the course of a season, the stat lines may look similar. But that doesn't mean that they're both equal. I think Peavy is more likely to be around a 3.70 pitcher than a 4.20 pitcher, was my point.

At this point, seriously, if they added Lee for four prospects in the 10-20 range in the Sox' system, awesome. But then what in the world do they do with all these SP? Lester, Lee, Peavy, Dempster, Lackey, Doubront, with Buchholz hopefully returning. I mean, not a terrible problem to have, but it would be a problem.

I never said it was. You're missing the point entirely.

What would you rather have: a guy who is utterly dominant 9 out of 10 starts, but that other one is a colossal stinker, or a guy who gives you 10 starts and gives up 3-4 runs every time? Those are two VERY different pitchers, even if the final stat lines are similar.

Well right. Let's say you have two pitchers that end up with similar stats - say, a 4.00 era and a 1.20 whip. But they get there in very different ways. Pitcher A routinely puts up a pitching line of 6.2 ip, 3 er, and 7 or 8 base runners. Pretty consistently doing that. Pitcher B routinely puts up a pitching line of 7.0 ip, 1 or 2 er, and 7 base runners, but then has just one horrendous outing (say, 1.2 ip, 9 er, and 8 base runners). Which pitcher is "better"? Maybe the overall stats show they are similar, but it tells me that Pitcher B is better. Pitcher A may be more consistent and less prone to a horrible game, but Pitcher B is more dominant, and thus is more likely to have more talent. And that one horrid outing looks like a weird outlier. So in the end, they all count. But moving forward, you'd say that Pitcher B is probably a better pitcher than his final stat line looks, while Pitcher A is what he is.