Josh Beckett

[redandwhite]

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jul 25, 2006 -> 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Beckett is alot better against NL teams and AL teams who haven't seen him yet compare to Vazquez. Overall Beckett has been better this year, but not by much. Vazquez also get 1/10 of the hype Mister Blister gets too.

 

Vazquez has had one "good" year in the last four and it was for a mediocre national league team. Beckett has had "good" years pretty much his entire career, including exceptional years between 2003-present. He's three years younger than Vazquez, has proven himself as an elite pitcher on the center stage, and makes a fraction of what Vazquez makes.

 

Vazquez doesn't deserve any hype. He's been a below average pitcher this year, Beckett has not.

[Wedge]

Vazquez has had one "good" year in the last four and it was for a mediocre national league team. Beckett has had "good" years pretty much his entire career, including exceptional years between 2003-present. He's three years younger than Vazquez, has proven himself as an elite pitcher on the center stage, and makes a fraction of what Vazquez makes.

 

Vazquez doesn't deserve any hype. He's been a below average pitcher this year, Beckett has not.

 

I'm not sure you'll find anyone on this site to debate with you that Vazquez sucks.

[Balta1701]

Vazquez has had one "good" year in the last four and it was for a mediocre national league team. Beckett has had "good" years pretty much his entire career, including exceptional years between 2003-present. He's three years younger than Vazquez, has proven himself as an elite pitcher on the center stage, and makes a fraction of what Vazquez makes.

 

Vazquez doesn't deserve any hype. He's been a below average pitcher this year, Beckett has not.

1. Beckett has not had what I would consider "exceptional" years between 03-present. First of all, he has never made 30 starts in a season. You have to be healthy to be exceptional.

2. Becketts numbers are good, but not exceptional, even in seasons where he was healthy. In 2004, for example, he put up a 9-9 record and a 3.79 ERA in the NL (26 starts). While those aren't terrible, they're not exceptional. 15-8 and 3.38 in 2005 is much better, but still wouldn't even make him the best pitcher on that Marlins staff, and that was only 29 starts thanks to the blister problems.

 

And the big one:

3. Beckett makes a fraction of what Vazquez makes. Next year, that fraction will be 10/12 (10/11 if you count the couple million the White Sox got from Arizona).

 

And finally, yea, Beckett has been below average this year. Out of 45 pitchers in the AL who have enough innings to qualify in the ERA crown, Beckett is #33. That is below average. He could get better, but thus far, he certainly has been below average.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Jul 25, 2006 -> 12:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the majors first thirteen game winner, outpitches zito in oakland.

 

Everybody here's right though, he sucks, he's hanging on to one good start.

How's Beckett doing against the Indians (second time they've seen him.)

[whitesoxfan101]

Some guy named Choo Choo hit a grand slam off of him tonight as Boston fell 7-6. His ERA is now right about 5, and as we know very well as Sox fans, that SUCKS for a starter. His win total is an illusion created by that offense. Last year was the first time he ever won 10+ games (and even last year, he had those blister issues and pitched in a great park for his craft), and although he had an EPIC run in the 2003 playoffs, he has yet to show anything besides that. He's the starting pitcher on my all overrated team.

Edited August 4, 2006 by whitesoxfan101

[El Barto]

I like Beckett for what he did in 03. However, he does not scare me right now if the white sox had to face him in a regular season game or a playoff situation. Welcome to the AL Beckett.

[Jordan4life_2007]

What? You mean there's other teams in the AL with starters having below average years? I thought it was just the White Sox. Why didn't the Red Sox trade Beckett at the deadline? Why, damnit?

[ZoomSlowik]

My all-overrated rotation:

 

1) Josh Beckett

2) Mark Prior

3) Kerry Wood

4) A.J. Burnett

5) C.C. Sabathia (he keeps getting thrown around as an ace despite a 4.05 career ERA. Decent, but not stellar)

[whitesoxfan101]

Actualy the Beckett story is very simple. You look at his splits this year (batting average against, strikeouts, walks, hits allowed) and they are identical to last year and his career numbers? The difference is the AL and DH obviously hurt him A LOT since the NL is so bad, and also, he's not in Florida anymore. That 1 flyout a game in Florida that went 405 feet is a home run in the AL, hence his home runs allowed total is so high obviously. And there you have it. Beckett had an epic run in 2003 as I said, but that really was a mirage and a hot streak. A VERY VERY WELL TIMED mirage, but still a mirage.

[santo=dorf]

Here's a table for R&W

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2006 by santo=dorf

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Jul 25, 2006 -> 12:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everybody here's right though, he sucks, he's hanging on to one good start.

Yep. He sucks.

 

[whitesoxfan101]

Since April 20th, Beckett has the 2nd worst ERA in all of baseball among starting pitchers. That's a pretty damning stat.

[RockRaines]

Since April 20th, Beckett has the 2nd worst ERA in all of baseball among starting pitchers. That's a pretty damning stat.

but hes on the SAWKS!!! HE IS EXCEPTIONAL!!!

[SoxFanForever]

Since April 20th, Beckett has the 2nd worst ERA in all of baseball among starting pitchers. That's a pretty damning stat.

Who has the worst?

[Jordan4life_2007]

Josh's line today: IP 5.2, H 7, R 9, ER 9, BB 9, K 2, HR 1

 

Not even our guys walk 9. It's sad when you can make me apperciate Freddy Garcia a little bit.

[whitesoxfan101]

Today's outing puts him at THE worst ERA in baseball among starters since April 20th. Is he still a Cy Young candidate Red Sox nation and ESPN?

[3E8]

5) C.C. Sabathia (he keeps getting thrown around as an ace despite a 4.05 career ERA. Decent, but not stellar)

Sorry, but he's a legitimate ace. His peripherals continue to get better each year. Take his ERA over the past four seasons (his first two full seasons in the majors started at ages 20 and 21 mind you) and you get 3.79. To average that as a starter for four years in the AL is quite good.

Edited August 20, 2006 by 3E8

[DBAHO]

Some really great stats here;

 

Beckett has given up 32HR's in 26GS so far this season. Not even a Jon Garland in 2004 could approach that.

 

He has a 6.75 ERA since the ASB in 8GS.

 

His ERA+ this season, 88. Which means he's below average when it comes to the league norm. Javier Vazquez is higher on 91.

 

He gives up a HR/F 19.3% of the time. Yikes.

 

He actually has a higher DER ratio, then he got the past 2 seasons in Florida.

[HuskyCaucasian]

My all-overrated rotation:

 

1) Josh Beckett

2) Mark Prior

3) Kerry Wood

4) A.J. Burnett

5) C.C. Sabathia (he keeps getting thrown around as an ace despite a 4.05 career ERA. Decent, but not stellar)

I agree 100% on that. So much potential... so little production.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(3E8 @ Aug 20, 2006 -> 12:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but he's a legitimate ace. His peripherals continue to get better each year. Take his ERA over the past four seasons (his first two full seasons in the majors started at ages 20 and 21 mind you) and you get 3.79. To average that as a starter for four years in the AL is quite good.

3.79 is not "ace" material, and is it fair to remove everyone else's two worst years to make their numbers look better?

 

Is redandwhite not going to post in this subject until Beckett has a good start? I'm not sure if Beckett will be facing a team he hasn't seen yet for the rest of this season.

[3E8]

3.79 is not "ace" material, and is it fair to remove everyone else's two worst years to make their numbers look better?

I'm taking away his two first years because he was in the rotation at ages when most serious pitching prospects are still at advanced A or AA. No one labeled him the "team ace" during his first two seasons anyways because they still had Bartolo Colon. Why should those yearly ERAs be lumped into the equation when trying to determine if he is an ace? It wasn't his role.

 

Plus, why are we using ERA as the end-all be-all for throwing pitchers in the ace category? Could you tell me what the magic number is to qualify in the AL? Let's look at other stats. His K/9 has increased every year for the past four seasons, now above 8. His BB/9 has decreased steadily three seasons in a row to where he is finally in a good range at the low 2's (control has been his main issue). HR/9 and WHIP decreased three years in a row as well. He seems to be continually improving, and even if you don't think he is an ace, I definitely don't think he belongs in an all-overrated rotation. I'd take him over any of the "aces" of our pitching staff.

Edited August 20, 2006 by 3E8

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(3E8 @ Aug 20, 2006 -> 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm taking away his two first years because he was in the rotation at ages when most serious pitching prospects are still at advanced A or AA. No one labeled him the "team ace" during his first two seasons anyways because they still had Bartolo Colon. Why should those yearly ERAs be lumped into the equation when trying to determine if he is an ace? It wasn't his role.

 

Plus, why are we using ERA as the end-all be-all for throwing pitchers in the ace category? Could you tell me what the magic number is to qualify in the AL? Let's look at other stats. His K/9 has increased every year for the past four seasons, now above 8. His BB/9 has decreased steadily three seasons in a row to where he is finally in a good range at the low 2's (control has been his main issue). HR/9 and WHIP decreased three years in a row as well. He seems to be continually improving, and even if you don't think he is an ace, I definitely don't think he belongs in an all-overrated rotation. I'd take him over any of the "aces" of our pitching staff.

So how exactly is one supposed to be labeled as an "ace?"

 

I figure teams look at their best starter, and if they think he could be the #1 start on most MLB teams (I say, 75% or 80%) they call him their "ace."

 

Other people only label aces based on OVERALL numbers and compare them to other pitchers in the mlb so they only guys they consider aces are Johan Santana, Pedro, Roy Halladay, and Josh Beckett

 

You seem to want to only consider a guy an "ace" if he is labeled by his team. Someone like Mark Redman.

What if Halladay and Santana are on the same team? There can only be one ace.

 

As for CC's other stats, so what? How do improving numbers make him an ace now even though he is not at the level of Johan or Doc Halladay?

 

I don't think he's overrated either, but I really don't hear much about him.

[Dan]

........is a cocky pitcher who i would never care to see in a white sox uniform.