moonslav59

Bottom order thunder!

It certainly has nothing to do with 2021, unless we sign him.

I'd say ERA- and ERA+ more so, but basically, yes. The ERA, ERA- and ERA+ show Porcello to be a decent #3 or #4, same with WHIP. Other measures, especially those that place great value on IP show him to be a solid #2 or #3. (fWAR actually shows he could be a lower #1 starter in his era (top 30 SP'er). I think some of this debate is actually semantics. What do I consider "good" or "very good" vs what others do. I'm fine with that. I get the argument that pitching lots of mediocre innings should not add value, but I think he was better than mediocre, and mediocre sure is better than crappy, which is usually what you get when you have a SP'er not give you many innings. To me, Porcello was good to maybe very good- not great, not elite. He was either a low #2 SP'er or a top #3. That's good in my bookand many stats back that up. Even going by ERA, ERA- and ERA+ and comparing him to the all the starters of his era, he was still good. I can see people calling his ERA mediocre, and I would not say they are wrong, but there are a ton of crappy pitchers out there and not that many batter than Rick. IMO, all terms like mediocre, good and very good are relative terms. You are relating Porcello to the pitchers of his era and determining where he fits in the spectrum. Most stats and metrics show him to be average to good and some even very good. Put them all together, and he was good.

Think what you want, but you can't answer simple and direct questions. I've been in the discussion from the start.

Kike had about 90 innings at 1B. I was surprised they moved Arroyo. Maybe Kike plays 1B, despite it being a waste of his defense.

Agreed, and I think we have some good assets that we cannot protect, next season, unless we only sign 1-2 FAs. I think Bloom will identify a 2-3 good players that may not be part of our long term plans and trade them.

I followed the discussion from the start. You responded to a post with a statement about HR% being mostly a fluke. You did not say in small sample sizes nor does that relate to the debate, even if you had said it. I'm still waiting to know how that statement relates to Porcello, a guy with a good HR% over a super long sample size. Why did you say it, if it doesn't relate to Porcello? If it does relate, tell us how it relates.

When Arroyo returns, I think he plays 1B vs RHPs. Dalbec plays 1B vs LHPs. Arroyo plays 2B vs LHPs. Kike plays OF vs LHPs. (Someone sits: Duran, Verdugo, Arroyo, Kike or even give Bogey a rest and play Arroyo at SS.)

Here it is...(including the post you responded to) Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post HR/FB does rely on FB%. If a pitcher simply isn’t giving up fly balls, the percentage that go yard takes on less meaning. Also, ballpark is a factor… You responed: HR% most of the times are fluke outcomes, but HR/FB tries to predict —as BABIP and LOB do— whether it was a fluke or not. As I said, in Porcello’s case, when you watch his FB/HR rate through 11 years, you can assume with 100%% certainty, that he’s been a prone HR pitcher due his poor command of his sinker. What did I misread? He pitched o long career and his HR/FB rate did not "predict" a high HR%. He had a very decent HR% and a high GB%. What am I missing?

I agree. The debate we were having is that Nick and I think, if he's pitching, why not let it be in the bigs, even if on a limited pitch count? I think it's a good idea, but the danger might be that he overdoes it in the bigs where he would not do that in the minors, and maybe we should not bring him up until we think it's safe for him to go all out. (Not in terms of too many pitches but in throwing too hard.) I'd say bring him up after this next minor league game in a limited role, at first. Dangers and all.

You responded to someone saying Porcello's 1.1% career HR % with a statement about HR% being mostly a fluke. His career number is not a fluke and is actually very decent. It counters your point about his high HR/FB rate argument, as well as the point I raised about his very nice 47.2% GB %. I still don't get your point and how small sample size HR rates have to do with the Porcello debate.

Nick, I was agreeing with you, and yes, nobody can tell Sale not to be fierce. My point is he is more likely to go overboard in MLB than the minors and that is something the team controls. Like I said, at some point he will be ok to go all out. Does anyone know the exact date for that?

You didn’t answer why HR% is a fluke. Why is his career HR% mostly a fluke?

It’s hard to say who is the most hurt. I think players on other teams are worse.

I agree, but there is one danger we have to admit is possible. Being the fierce competitor he is, he would likely throw harder in the bigs than in the minors. There comes a point where throwing your hardest is going to happen. Is that time now? One week? Two weeks? Next year?

It makes sense for crappy hitters to learn to bunt, but if you are getting burned by the shift, it makes sense for those guys, too.

Bunting is not easy, but it can be learned. Usually players bunt to a normal field, but bunting to a side of the IF with nobody there has to increase your odds of getting a hit. You have to be a good enough bunter to make your odds better than just swinging away, but is anyone good even trying to learn how to bunt, anymore?

Sorry about your dog, Thunder. I know that hurts.

Why is Wilson going to be any better? They could have had Cordero at 1B, Chavis at 2B and Kike in the OF.

Yes, I didn't mean to imply you felt he might not trade prospects. I'm sure Bloom has identified a few prospects and ML players like Chavis, maybe as many as 5-8, that he feels may not be good enough to be on next year's roster, but who might still have some trade value. By trading some of these guys, he won't be mortgaging the future unless one of these players ends up surprising Bloom by being better than he realized.

Ted was a freak. Of course I'm not thinking he needs to change his approach, but most hitters are better if they can go the other way. If trying to do so would mess them up, then learn to BUNT, for god's sake!

Those Aug-Sep numbers look real good.

I've said all along getting a salary dump type player at the deadline makes the most sense, since the prospect return will be lower, but we have a few million to play with, and I think Bloom will try to get a very helpful piece that still keeps us under the tax line. That being said, if he can get someone way better, but we have to go over the line to get him, I can see him do that, and I'd have no issue with it. I just think there is a priority not to go over. Not a mandate. Also, I could see us trade for a high priced player, then trade Richards, Perez or Sawamura to keep us under the line and free up a roster slot for Sale and Sawamura.

In theory, this makes the most sense, and I think that was the goal of Theo and Ben, too. In reality, I think you get to a point where you think this is the year, and you splurge, when maybe you didn't really need to, but with the randomness of the playoffs, you go overboard just to "make sure." Personally, I don't see 2020 as a year to "splurge," and it seems like Bloom & Co. did not see it that way, last winter, but we have won more than expected, and maybe that has changed. Certainly many posters want us to make a big splash or two, which would have to be at the expense of future projected productivity. I'm thinking Bloom still has his eye on the long term, but we have some pieces that are not part of the long term plan we can afford to trade. The question is, how much do other GMs want those pieces and what will they give us for them? It might not look like much, but Eovaldi and Pearce did not look like all that much in July 2018.

Many times, yes, but when you put up .550-.650 OPS against in the later months, I'm not seeing a problem.