evilhand

He actually doesn't look like anything he's been before except maybe the guy who was overpowering the minors at every level. In 2007 and 2008, while he got very different results in each year, he was a strikeout machine who made hitters look foolish on a regular basis. He also gave up a lot of hits in 2008 and started walking the park. He was having trouble harnessing his stuff for strikes. The hitters had no idea where his pitches were going, but neither did he. Plus, he relied on the 4 seam fastball too much and as a flat pitch, it became the thing hitters looked for and eventually they stopped swinging at his breaking stuff entirely. So in 2009 he changed his approach and started pitching to contact, inducing a lot of ground balls. It was a striking shift as he stopped striking hitters out. But it worked and in 2010 he had an ERA so low he was in the discussion for Cy Young (probably undeservedly so, but that at least demonstrates how good his line looked). He seemed to be trending a bit back toward being a strike out pitcher in 2011 while still going deep into games. He had a handful of starts where he started making guys look foolish again. Then he got hurt. So to see him striking guys out over the last two starts while also remaining efficient is very encouraging. It's like a combination of the high strike out guy he was when he came into the league and the very efficient guy he was in 2009 and 2010. If he can put those two together, he's going to be a very good pitcher. And, coincidentally (or perhaps not), this is similar to the transformation Jon Lester went through in his first few seasons.

His last two starts certainly paint the picture of him "figuring it out." He's been dominant the last two times out. 15 IP, 2.4 ERA, 7.8 k/9, 1.8 bb/9, 4.33 k/bb I posted some graphs in his game thread from his last start in May pointing out how well he was using the change up. He's getting similar vertical and horizontal movement between his two fastballs and the change, with similar spin, but a significant difference in velocity. It's been really hard for hitters to distinguish between it and his heat which makes it a very effective weapon. So long as he can keep throwing it like that, he'll continue to baffle hitters, strike out a bunch of them and go deep into games. So it's now just a matter of consistency, which he has a long way to go to prove he's found. I'm hoping he's turning the corner. I picked him up for my fantasy team after his last start because I think he might be. The pitchfx data show a completely different pitcher in the last two games than he was in the previous 9. If it's not a flash in the pan, the rotation is going to be a strength going forward, even if Lester keeps middling about like a back of the rotation kind of guy. At least until Doubront wears down and needs to be moved to the pen or shut down for the year.

Daisuke has always been up and down as a starter, though. He was certainly on a role before he got hurt, but let's not pretend he's something other than what he is: a pitcher who doesn't attack the strike zone enough, is inefficient, but has excellent stuff and works out of a lot of the jams he creates. He's a solid pitcher, and really... it probably wasn't fair to expect more than that when he was being wooed by the Red Sox front office. He's been paid 40 million by the team (his AAV has had him costing 40m as well) and according to fangraphs, has been worth about 44 million over that time. So by that metric, he's been a good investment. Of course, many people lump the posting fee in with that cost even though it's not part of luxury tax calculations and didn't go to him directly. But strictly speaking contract, he's been worth more than they've paid. That means the team evaluated him pretty well as a talent and have gotten roughly what they expected up to this point. He'll need to be worth 6 million this year to finish his contract being worth what he's been paid, so it remains to be seen if he'll keep up the pace. The injury really derailed him in this regard.

He was their number 2 pitching prospect coming into the year and has been talked about as having a good chance to be a solid number 3 type pitcher. No one is calling him an ace, but he's a good young pitcher. His early inconsistency is to be expected from a rookie. He has solid stuff and he was throwing well today. Not every poor day by the offense is simply the a failure to show up by the home town boys. Sometimes credit should be given to the opposing pitchers for having a good day.

Or he's hurt.

I think a DL stint is a great idea. He probably needs to shut it down and just rest for a few weeks, then try to come back as a reliever with a fresh start. Even if this is just dead arm, rest is required before he can start being effective again. Yeah, even if they can't come back today, it's been a good weekend. Hell, it's been a really good month. This team looks like a contender right now.

Do don't disagree with most of this. I will point out, however, that missing the playoffs last year required an historic collapse during an historically bad month. Play that September out 100 times, the result we got happens once, maybe twice. Not making excuses, just pointing out that the results were so far beyond three standard deviations from what you would expect, that in a statistical simulation you'd simply toss them out as outliers. This is the real world, so there are not do-overs due to extremely unlikely results, but let's not pretend that anyone could have seen September 2011 coming on August 31st.

After an encouraging increase in velocity last time out, he's back to topping out at 94 and averaging around 92. And his control is as bad as I've ever seen it right now. I'm back to thinking he's injured.

Not just Ellsbury and Crawford... they're missing Matsuzaka, Bailey, Cody Ross and went a month without Youk in the lineup. None of that was in the game plan coming out of spring training.

If they can get healthy, I think there's an argument for the Sox being the best team in baseball. The problem is, they can never seem to actually get healthy. At some point you have to look at the ability to stay healthy as a skill of sorts, and the Sox are lacking in that department. That said, the timing of the injuries this year, and the ability to weather them so far has me hoping for a perfect storm type finish where they get the majority of their injured players back in time to gear up for the playoffs and go on a run.

Barnes should get promoted soon. He's not being challenged at all right now. I'm really curious to see how he does against AA hitters.

He still sucks.

Or to lay down a bunt between the pitcher and the first baseman.

Jung, SoxFanForsyth has already made most of the points I would have made in response to your ridiculous position. You may want to say that baseball was better back in the good old days than it is now, and you probably wouldn't even get much resistance on that as it's purely a matter of opinion. But refusing to acknowledge good performances today based on criteria that are outdated by decades? Come on... the game has changed. Any night when your starter goes 6 and gives up less than league average runs per 9 is a good night. Your pining for the 60's and 70's isn't going to change the sport as it exists today.

Yeah, Michael Bowden wasn't ruined by not pitching in the majors. He was exposed as a middling talent without any real plus pitches because he never had any in the first place. He's a classic AAAA player.

And I'll say again that league average is 5.9 innings. If a pitcher is averaging 6 IP per start at an ERA lower than the league average of 4.36, they are by definition good. Your top of the rotation pitchers should be better than that on average, but that doesn't mean that any start off less than 7 IP is mediocre or bad. 6 IP at an ERA significantly lower than league average is the definition of good. You keep ignoring this point just repeating that 6 innings can't be good because... well, because you say so. Josh Beckett has been better than 6 IP for four straight games (better than 6.2 even!). He has a 2.20 ERA in those games. That's not mediocre, that's not good, that's great. Arguing otherwise is lunacy.

Rhetoric? I've responded to each of your points with statistical data. You keep throwing platitudes and random numbers that you're making up on the spot around as if they mean something. I'm using relevant data to disprove your statements. I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. You said if a pitcher doesn't go at least 7 innings while giving up 0 ER, it isn't a great start. By your criteria, Pedro Martinez only had 14 great games during the two greatest seasons in the modern era. It sounds like your definitions of good and great are the problem. The definition of good varies depending on usage, but since you're using it as a step down from "great" the best fit is "worthy" or "satisfactory in quality." Great, then, would be "wonderful, first rate, very good." Your definition of great is well beyond this. Your definition of good falls into the definition for "great." Either way, your position is untenable.

No, where we're differing is that you keep ignoring that I'm posting evidence that they *are* exceeding league averages. Even in the merely good starts, the IP totals are at league average with the ER/9 being below. These specific starts are well better than average and that is the definition of good.