moonslav59

You are talking about 2014 with Swihart and 2013 with Vaz. 1) Swihart caught 701 innings at AA and 143 at AAA that year not 844 at AA as you presented. 2) Vaz caught 9 innings at AAA in 2013. 3) Steven Wright did pitch 5 IP at AA and 95 at AAA in 2014. I'm not sure who his catcher was. 4) Charlie Haegar, a knuckleballer, pitched 70 innings with Portland in 2013- none in 2014. He had 11 WPs in AA in 2013, so my guess is there were a lot of PBs with him pitching that year. 5) I'm not sure PBs is the best stat to choose one guy over another, especially when they both caught different pitchers and no pitch framing numbers are included in your cross study.

ERA- and ERA+ are both "better" or "more important" stats than ERA. Since most of us use OPS or wOBA to judge hitters' effectiveness, I feel OPS against and wOBA against should be a major tool used to judge a pitcher's skill level. Of course, some pitchers face much tougher opponents and play in different parks, so OPS- or wOBA- should be used to help adjust for those factors.

But, even those stats rely heavily on high Ks. They might bring Maddux up, but still short changes a large group of great low K% pitchers.66

Say Pom or Wright gets hurt, we'll still have a great 4 starters and a replacement level 5th starter. I'm not sure I'd call that "serious trouble", but it is a concern. We still won the division last year (yes, we can now say last year!) with this from some of our starters: IP Pitcher W-L ERA 117 Buchholz 6-8 5.01 107 Rodriguez 3-7 4.71 67.1 Pomeranz 3-5 4.68 22.1 Joe Kelly 2-0 8.46 22.0 H Owens 0-2 6.95 20.1 O'Sullivan 2-0 6.64 4.0 R. Elias 0-1 15.75 Wright, who was our 6th starter last year is now our 6th starter (maybe 5th depending on ERod's knee), so adding a full year and hopefully a better one by Pomeranz and Wright as the number 5 still looks so much better than 2016 that maybe having a 5.50 ERS guy as our 5th starter would not be such a horrible thing. Once we make the playoffs, our 5th starter is a non issue.

I'm pretty certain we'll end up signing one of these type pitchers for added depth.

I never thought of myself as a perfectionist. I don't think of myself as greedy either, but I think getting spoiled led to getting greedy. H A P P Y N E W Y E A R !

I feel blessed to be able to watch Papi play for the team I have loved since childhood. Add to Papi the joy I had watching Pedro and Clemens put up some of the best performances in MLB history, and I wonder why I ever complain about anything to do with the Sox of the past 2 decades.

I remember during that championship game that I was "in a zone", I went up for an uncontested 10 foot jump shot, but I spotted a wide open teammate undeR THE RIM. I drilled a pass to him and he botched the gimmie. On the way back on D, he told me, "Take the shots you know you can make!" I guess Pistol Pete would have.

I agree. Also, it seemed like an inordinate amount of Papi's great playoff OPS came at the most clutch times within the context of the playoffs being clutch by itself in its entirety. So many walk off hits and HRs. The grand slam vs Detroit when the whole team was looking shell-shocked on offense that night.

I realize that high K rates correlate closely with good pitching, but that's not the same as saying a player should be judged significantly by high K rates at the expense of lower wOBA, WHIP and ERA-..

I've accepted that K% is a better predictor for most pitchers and the league as a whole. The stats show this. Anecdotal evidence is not meaningless, however, as a whole (large) class of pitchers are short-changed. It's not an outlier when you're talking 4000 IP sample sizes. Pitchers like Maddux should not be rated poorly for not getting K outs instead of GB outs. My point is about evaluating a pitcher's performance in the past. To me, a combination of ERA-, WHIP and OPS against or wOBA show how well a pitcher did more than FIP, xFIP or other metrics that discount value due to low K%. I do value xFIP and use it as part of my evaluation of how good a pitcher is. I do think Ks matter and K/BB as well.

MLBTR reports on our 3 biggest need areas: 1. Third Base: Boston is hoping that a healthy and in-shape Pablo Sandoval can get back to his old Giants form, though that’s no small risk given Sandoval’s disastrous 2015-16 seasons. With Travis Shaw off to Milwaukee, the Sox are left with Brock Holt and Josh Rutledge as the primary third base backup options on the MLB roster. The Red Sox didn’t hesitate to bench Sandoval after he struggled in Spring Training last year, so if he has another rough spring, the Sox could start looking for a reliable everyday option at the hot corner. I agree here. With Hernandez and Dominguez at AAA, I think we'll be okay, even if Pabloe sucks. 2. Bench Depth: While the Red Sox have several backup options on the 25-man roster or high minors, WEEI.com’s Rob Bradford recently pointed out that the team is rather lacking in proven depth pieces, and might not be able to handle an injury to one or two regulars. Adding the likes of an Adam Rosales or Trevor Plouffe (names cited as Bradford as players of interest for the Sox) would help in this regard. I disagree here, although adding Plouffe and trading or giving back Rutledge makes some sense. We have Young as our 4th OF'er is fine. Holt is an okay 5th OF'er. Holt is a giid utility IF'er. Moreland, Rutledge, Hernandez, Dominguez, Travis and Marrero gives us plenty of depth here. 3. Left-Handed Reliever: The club’s decision to tender a contract to Fernando Abad was something of a surprise, given how poorly Abad fared after joining the Red Sox last summer. Robbie Ross is the primary lefty in Boston’s bullpen and while it appears the Sox feel Abad will get back on track, it wouldn’t hurt to find another southpaw. Admittedly, this is a pretty borderline “need” on what is a pretty stacked Boston roster — the Sox could potentially find another lefty reliever internally in the form of Roenis Elias, Brian Johnson, Henry Owens or perhaps even one of Eduardo Rodriguez or Drew Pomeranz (if Steven Wright reclaims a rotation spot). We don't necessarily need a lefty. Thornburg's career splits show he's .200 points better vs lefties, so they overlooked that fact.

Well said. I'm not saying some psychological factors aren't in play with Price. I am worried about his next playoff start.

I like Nolan Ryan, but he was not better than Maddux. Although I believe Ryan had the best H/9 rate SINCE 1966, his 4.7 BB/9 rate was horrible. FIP has him as the best pitcher with over 4000 IP since 1966- significantly ahead of Maddux(2.97 to 3.26) . WHIP Maddux 1.14 (.281 BAbip) N Ryan 1.25 (.265 BAbip) ERA- Maddux 76 N Ryan 90 To be fair, FIP- has Maddux ahead of Ryan (76 to 83),b ut with an ERA- difference that large over two huge sample sizes, Maddux should be clearly the better pitcerh, and FIP related metrics short change him (and others with low K% rates).

I respect the stats and metrics that try to take the fielding of the team behind the pitcher out of consideration, but there is a systemic flaw as it pertains to how they value low K rate pitchers who continuously get batters to hit into outs--even on poor fielding teams. I realize those types of pitchers are not too common, so that's probably the reason high K% rate is easier (or better) to project how pitchers will do going forward. While low K% pitchers who do very well might not be too common, there's a big enough subset of pitchers in this group that rated too lowly due to poorer FIP related numbers due to lower Ks. , I agree that ERA is flawed, and so is ERA- and ERA+, and since just the labeling of an error is so subjective, these numbers are bound to be flawed as well, but the bottom line for a pitcher is ultimately not to allow runs. Extremely low BAbip or high LOB% can skew the numbers based on luck, so I see the reasoning behind trying to lessen their influence on a metric trying to determine how well a pitcher did over a given period, but to me, it should not be totally eliminated.

Top 3 starters by projected 2017 WAR: 13.6 LAD 7.7 Kershaw, 3.2 Hill, 2.7 Maeda 13.3 WSH 6.0 Scherzer, 4.4 Strasburg, 2.9 Gonzalez 13.1 NYM 5.7 Syndergaard, 3.9 deGrom, 3.6 Matz 12.9 BOS 4.8 Sale, 4.5 Price, 3.6 Porcello 12.7 CLE 4.9 Kluber, 4.5 Carrasco, 3.3 Salazar 12.0 SFG 4.9 Bumgarner, 4.2 Cueto, 2.9 Samardzija 11.9 CHC 4.5 Lester, 4.1 Arrieta, 3.2 Hendricks According to these numbers, we have the best number 2 and second best number 3, but we finish 4th because our number 1 lacks significantly behind Kershaw, Syndergaard and Scherzer.

Not bad for an "off year".

I like Johnson better now too, but with emotional issues, there's always going to be a huge question mark over his head once the pressure rises.

I've never argued ERA is a better measure. I will argue a pitcher with a consistently low ERA-, OPS against or WHIP will continue to do so, regardless of K%. Show me the evidence that high K% projects a better ERA- the following season than previous ERA-, OPS against or WHIP does. Just because there are more good ERA- pitchers with higher K%s than lower K%s does not mean it is an accurate predictor of individual pitcher projections. If a low K pitcher continuously puts up low ERA- numbers, I'd reject K% projections. Same with high K guys with higher ERA- histories. I'll project continued higher ERA-s based on his career trend. I'm sure there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show some pitcher's previous low ERA-, OPS against or WHIP did not lead to continued success, and maybe higher K% guys in this category fared better than low K% guys, but to me the hole in the fielding independent metrics is too large to respect its outcomes. Take Hideo Nomo; the guy has the 13th best K%(22.7%) since 1986, yet his ERA- (which adjusts for park and other factors) is 101. From 1996 to 2003 he had over 150 IP every year. His best ERA- (77) season after his rookie year came after one of his worst K% seasons (20.8%). His 2003 season with his lowest ERA- since his rookie year was also his worst K% season (19.7%). His worst two ERA- seasons (1997 & 1998) were both seasons that saw his K% 3% higher than his career norm. BTW, 5 of his first 9 seasons saw his ERA- above 99.

Agree.

Good point. I remembered incorrectly and felt he caught much more than just 20 innings more in 2014 than his scattered 2016 innings. 20 innings more is not a significant sample size difference. My bad.

Stop saying "It won't mean anything." Nobody is saying when player sucks in the playoffs, it is meaningless. While post season sample sizes are rather small, it does not mean they meaningless. % post seasons are smaller than 10, so 10 sucky post seasons would hold more "meaning" than just 5, and I suppose you could begin to judge the guy as a "choke" after a certain amount of games played, but the poor playoff performance might have little to do with choking under pressure. It could just be bad luck. It could be lack of stamina after 200 or 220 IP'd during a season. It could just be nothing but a selected choice of his worst games that happened to fall during the playoffs. One could probably find a sample size throughout Prices career where he has an 8.50 ERA between 7pm on April 22nd and 4 pm on April 24th. Would anybody care? Would you be concerned with his next start on April 23rd? I realize I am oversimplifying things, and I'm not denying that a player can "choke" under pressure or "rise to the occasion" as well, but there is a point where the sample size is too small to know it's just coincidence or if there is a deeper meaning or reason involved.I'm not sure if Price's playoff sample size is large enough to label him anything. I, for one, would not bet on him in his next playoff start, so I wouldn't say his history has no meaning, but what if he pitched two straight shut outs next October, what would that mean to you guys? He's no longer a choke? He's still a choke, because his overall numbers still suck. Would his two game sample size now be large enough to expect continued brilliance? If forced to bet, what sample size do you use to determine how well he'll do in his next game?

Would you really say a player going oh for 1 "sucked"? Even if his out was a long fly ball robbed of an HR by a spectacular play? How about oh for 2? We probably all have differing views on when a sample size become "definitive" or more definitive. Does going of for 2 really define a player? O for any 25 stretch in his career? Maybe a 10 for 100 stretch for a good hitter might define him as "streaky", but I don't think a 2 for 20 stretch necessarily does, unless he has a lot of them over his career.

None of us have ever said it "doesn't mean anything". Any 0-25 streak has meaning and can greatly affect a team's chances of winning. When I say "making definitive judgments" I mean labeling a player as a choke based on just a 25 AB sample size. That's "definitive" to me. Saying he sucked for those 25 ABs is not "definitive" in the sense that we are making a long-lasting judgment on a player's overall skill level, career accomplishments or expected future production level. Maybe we are at odds with the semantics or contexts associated with the words "definitive" and "judgment". Perhaps, I should have been more descriptive in my explanation, but then I'd probably be accused of being too verbose.

Agreed, but is someone who goes 1 for 5 in a WS as bad as guy who went 10 for 50? Yes, you can say both sucked, but a sample size context is needed in both examples. Vaz had pretty good pitch framing skills in 2014... a much larger sample size than 2016. It's hard to know why he was worse in 2016. maybe it was partially due to injury, not fully being rehabbed and/or catching a staff of pitchers he had little experience with. Yes, we can say he was "bad" in 2016, but can we really say for certainty that because of his smaller 2016 sample size, he's a bad pitch framer? Or, more importantly, how can we view the likelihood of his being a bad pitch-framer going forward. My guess is that with added experience with newer pitchers on the staff, a healthier body, and hopefully improved confidence, he will revert back to be a plus pitch-framer, a plus CS% catcher, a plus wild pitch-blocker, and a better overall CERA-related catcher than he was in 2016. His hitting is still a mystery, but I'm not optimistic he'll ever be consistently over .725 or even .700.