FredLynn

This is also why I focused later in the discussion on number of starts as opposed to just innings because there the relationship between number of starts and position in the rotation is easier to see. Sure. Lets use number of starts. Burnett got more starts than anyone but Sabathia last year; was he their #2 pitcher? Not in my book. Lewis got more starts for the Rangers than anyone but CJ Wilson, yet he was their #5 SP statistically. I think there are two differences of opinion here: first, your statement that if Aceves is named the #4 SP he will certainly get more starts than the #5 SP (and you further assumed good health, which simply almost never happens in the course of the season) and second, you guys are calling the #4 SP the guy who starts the fourth game of the year and I am calling the #4 SP (especially at the end of the season) the guy who performs fourth best.

There is no need for you to tell me what my arguement is. I already know what it is. I don't recall any point this year that Francona told a single media person that "You know what, Lackey will be our #4 starter this year". Thats simply a charade. Your initial statement is simply not true. Penciling in Aceves as our #4 SP (whatever that means to you) in no way guarantees that he will get more starts and innings than our number 5. What if he gets injured or fails to perform? Isn't it possible (likely, I would say) that if he were the #5 and the so-called #2 got injured he would get more innings than the #2 SP? I showed you that already, if you believe that the order of the SP is performance based. The initial statement you made about Aceves is inherently illogical. Its hard for me to believe that you cannot see that this is true.

Again, the post below is the one I initially commented on as being inaccurate. No, I don't want to go on with this, really. Its a difference in how we view ranking our SP. I do not view Lackey as our #4 SP last year, for example. He was the worst SP in MLB: I don't think you could pencil Aceves in as your #4 because you will automatically be assigning him more innings than he would pitch from the #5 hole.

I don't think you could pencil Aceves in as your #4 because you will automatically be assigning him more innings than he would pitch from the #5 hole. This is where all of this began. Just because you call Aceves the #5 guy does NOT mean that he will get fewer innings than the #4 guy...or the #2 guy..or anyone else. His innings will be determined by many factors, the most important being health and effectiveness. THIS is what I disagreed with initially. We are losing sight of the reason for the discussion IMO.

OK; you don't like ERA as a criteria. Do the analysis with another stat.

Let me put it to you this way to help you out: you are the manager right now: how do you rank our SPers? Who is #1, #2 and so forth? Just because you CALL someone our #3 or 4 does not make him better than the #5. Thats reality.

I guess the difference of opinion here is that I view our BEST pitcher as our #1 SP and our statistically WORST pitcher (with a decent number of innings pitched) as our #5 SP. That is calling it the way it really is. You can call Lackey our #4 SP, or our #3 SP, but he didn't perform that way. As they say, you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig. The point is that the worst SP on the team, the #5 SP in ACTUAL PERFORMANCE, may have more starts and innings pitched than anyone else on the team.

The manager uses his best pitcher as his #1 SP. Who did Maddon pitch in game 2 vs the Rangers in the playoffs, Shields or Price? What criteria do you think a manager would use to determine his order of SP? Did you really think that Lackey, the worst SP in baseball, was our #4 SP this year in terms of performance? Hint: he wasn't.

Incidentally, I looked at a few more teams. The Rangers: Colby Lewis, their statistical #5 SP (ie lowest ERA among SP) pitched the second most innings for his team this year, and the A's: Trevor Cahill, the worst SP in terms of ERA pitched more innings than anyone! Its absurd to assume that guys will stay healthy enough so that the number of innings pitched decreases as you go down 1-5. Thats not reality; thats theoretical and isn't particularly relevant to the real world.

Looking back at what you wrote: Assuming reasonable health (which did not happen for the Sox rotation with the lose of dice for the whole season, Bucknoltz for part of the season, Lackey's decline to surgery and the conditioning issues) your first four should get more work than your 5, its the "assuming reasonable health" part that I disagree with. I don't think you can make assumptions about the health of any player. Thats why teams are 7 or 8 SP deep to begin the season, and thats why, in reality, the inferior pitchers on teams may get more innings and starts than the better ones. Of course, in an ideal world, you would see the innings and starts decline as you go from #1 to #5. Practically speaking, it doesn't work out that way very often, if ever.

Sorry, but with all due respect Jung, this is nonsense. There are simply too many factors for your statement to be true, that a #4 SP will get more innings than a #5, injuries being a major factor. Here is an analysis of the Sox, Yankees, and Rays SP with their number of innings pitched and ERA followed by games started: Sox: Lackey: 160/6.41/28 Lester: 191/3.47/31 Beckett: 193/2.89/30 Wakefield: 154/5.12/23 (no one else had more than 14 starts) Yankees: CC: 237/3.00/33 Garcia: 146/3.62/25 Colon: 164/4.00/26 Nova: 165/3.70/27 Burnett: 190/5.15/32 Rays: Niemann: 135/4.06/23 Davis: 184/4.45/29 Shields: 249/2.82/33 Hellickson: 189/2.95/29 Price: 224/3.49/34 If your #5 SP is your fifth best pitcher (and I use ERA to measure that-if you want to use another statistic go ahead and do the analysis with that stat), then our worst pitcher was Lackey, for the Yankees it was Burnett, and for the Rays it was Davis. In EACH CASE the #5 SP pitched more innings than one of the higher ranked pitchers on the team. I suspect that if you analyze most teams this will be the case. In addition, the statistical #5 SP in EACH CASE had more starts than a higher ranked SP. Burnett had more starts for the Yankees than anyone but Sabathia. What you have stated is simply not true.

Not sure I really understand that reasoning. Assuming a rotation is five men deep then the fifth SP will get 99.9% of the starts the fourth SP gets. In any event, I was referring more to the quality aspect. I don't think this is the year to be bringing in a pitcher of high quality, even a #4 SP, because its a REBUILDING year. Its a year to wait until some of the many blunders our former GM come off the books. For example, Matsusaka will be off the books after next season. That is the time to look for real quality in SP.

I don't see the Red Sox signing anyone of Beuhrle's caliber and cost this year. There is simply too much money already allocated to SP right now. Cherington has intimated as much. Not to mention that his career BAA/OPSa vs the NYY are .333/.871 respectively. Furthermore, the list of potential FA pitchers for the 2013 season includes Cain, Greinke, Hamels, and Shields among others. I would wait until that year to sign another top tier SP.

Apparently Martinez is not going to be considered because he is felt not to have enough experience: Bradford from the Herald explains why neither Tim Wallach or Dave Martinez will get an interview for the Sox mgr job.... Tim Wallach won’t be next up in Red Sox manager search MILWAUKEE — Speculation regarding potential names on the Red Sox list of candidates for the team’s vacant manager position was rekindled Wednesday night when Sox president Larry Lucchino and general manager Ben Cherington both said the organization was most likely going to expand its pool of interviewees. Despite the likelihood that the team will meet with a new candidate, two names that still won’t be part of the process are Tim Wallach and Dave Martinez. Wallach, who was once considered a leading candidate to be interviewed by the Red Sox for their search, has not been eligible to be included in the team’s interviewing process due to a clause in his contract with the Dodgers. The 54-year-old, who has been serving as the Dodgers’ third base coach, has a stipulation in his current contract that states teams have a brief window after the season’s completion to ask for permission to interview Wallach for a managing job. The Red Sox did not ask for permission to talk to the former major league hitting coach and Triple-A manager prior to the expiration of that window. Martinez, the Tampa Bay bench coach, fell out of consideration during the due diligence phase of the process, as he was simply viewed (by both the Sox and Cubs) as not being a strong enough candidate to justify an interview. Early on in the process, the 47-year-old’s name had been included in most conversations regarding who might be brought in for interviews by thosee teams. Multiple reports stated late Wednesday night that Dale Sveum, a finalist for the Red Sox’ manager job, had been offered the Cubs’ managerial position. FoxSports.com reported that the Red Sox had not made Sveum an offer at the time of Chicago’s offer.

I read that somewhere: that Aceves has been told to report to camp ready to be a SP next year. Cannot cite a link, but it makes sense. He wants to start. Can he really be worse than who we have now as a #4?

Not a problem. I will make it a point to drink enough for both of us.