JPINAA

[Paint it Black]

You mention the burnt out, gas can bullpen, while your $17 million starter can't even finish the 6th inning? He forced them to get 10 outs, since he had already thrown 117 pitches.

 

The offense deserves blame too, but excuse me if I would like to see Peavy outpitch the other team's starter in a clutch game.

 

I'm shocked that a pitcher who struck out 9 threw a ton of pitches.

 

Ok, snark aside, I can count the number of ACTUAL #1/aces in baseball on one hand right now. Besides, I'll take 3 runs/ 9 K's and 2 walks (IIRC, I was at the game and kept score last night) against a real ass lineup in Detroit. Besides, was the strike zone as tight as it looked from my seats last night? It felt like there were a ton of pitches that didn't go his way.

 

 

[Donny Lucy's Avocado Farm]

In all honesty, the Sox wouldnt be playing meaningful games right now if not for Peavy anchoring the staff the first half of the season. Had the offense not s*** the bed 4 or 5 of his starts, he could have 16 wins and not 10.

 

From my 10,000 foot view as a Sox fan in the rural south....

1) Jake Peavy is no longer an ace. I think that much is clear. However, that doesn't mean he can't or shouldn't be counted on for a lock down start when its needed.

2) Last night was on the offense. They weren't putting in good ABs and Peavy was probably well aware he had to be perfect if the Sox wanted the win.

3) Ventura had to over-manage the game to compensate and the bullpen gave up 3 runs by the time the Sox started scoring non-HR runs.

 

Let's get em tonight.

 

 

 

 

 

[cabiness42]

1) Jake Peavy is no longer an ace. I think that much is clear. However, that doesn't mean he can't or shouldn't be counted on for a lock down start when its needed.

 

Agree 100%

 

2) Last night was on the offense. They weren't putting in good ABs and Peavy was probably well aware he had to be perfect if the Sox wanted the win.

 

Agree 100%

 

3) Ventura had to over-manage the game to compensate and the bullpen gave up 3 runs by the time the Sox started scoring non-HR runs.

 

Agree 100%

[SI1020]

Sorry but in big games Jake Peavy does not remind me of Bob Gibson. I appreciate how hard he has worked to become competitive again, but I still wish he could back up his bravado when it really counts. As for WAR, it's a dreadfully flawed stat, and baseball-reference greatly changed how it was calculated this May.

[southsider2k5]

Sorry but in big games Jake Peavy does not remind me of Bob Gibson. I appreciate how hard he has worked to become competitive again, but I still wish he could back up his bravado when it really counts. As for WAR, it's a dreadfully flawed stat, and baseball-reference greatly changed how it was calculated this May.

 

Now there is an impossible standard.

[LittleHurt05]

In all honesty, the Sox wouldnt be playing meaningful games right now if not for Peavy anchoring the staff the first half of the season. Had the offense not s*** the bed 4 or 5 of his starts, he could have 16 wins and not 10.

 

From my 10,000 foot view as a Sox fan in the rural south....

1) Jake Peavy is no longer an ace. I think that much is clear. However, that doesn't mean he can't or shouldn't be counted on for a lock down start when its needed. 2) Last night was on the offense. They weren't putting in good ABs and Peavy was probably well aware he had to be perfect if the Sox wanted the win.

3) Ventura had to over-manage the game to compensate and the bullpen gave up 3 runs by the time the Sox started scoring non-HR runs.

 

Let's get em tonight.

 

When has he provided a lock down start when it was needed? It sure as hell hasn't happened against Detroit the past few weeks.

 

I know he has been a huge part of the success this season. But for all the talk about how you need a "competitor" on the mound, he has yet to shut a team down when on the biggest stage, and that's going back to San Diego.

[JoshPR]

Wow I'm reading this thread again after reading it while eating breakfast at 4am and I gotta say, a lot of clueless people here, I may not be the smartest but sheesh, this whole game and debacle of late is on the offense and the piss poor approach, konerko getting his head outta his ass and Viciedo wanting to hit the ball to the moon everytime, like someone said, pitchers are afraid yes, they can't make one mistake or they know the have almost zero chance of winning, pitching like that it changes things quite fast

[witesoxfan]

Sorry but in big games Jake Peavy does not remind me of Bob Gibson. I appreciate how hard he has worked to become competitive again, but I still wish he could back up his bravado when it really counts. As for WAR, it's a dreadfully flawed stat, and baseball-reference greatly changed how it was calculated this May.

 

Explain.

 

Beyond that, bWAR and fWAR have never been calculated the same anyways. Using both is a pretty good idea.

[kitekrazy]

Sorry but in big games Jake Peavy does not remind me of Bob Gibson. I appreciate how hard he has worked to become competitive again, but I still wish he could back up his bravado when it really counts. As for WAR, it's a dreadfully flawed stat, and baseball-reference greatly changed how it was calculated this May.

 

more like Debbie Gibson

 

The latter is what pisses me off more than anything. He had Kenny fooled.

 

[TitoMB345]

This is a stupid thread.

[SI1020]

Now there is an impossible standard.

OK fair enough. If he could remind me of a recent White Sox pitcher who had "big game" as a nickname then I would be content.

 

[southsider2k5]

OK fair enough. If he could remind me of a recent White Sox pitcher who had "big game" as a nickname then I would be content.

 

Jack McDowell is probably the closest thing to a "big game" pitcher the Sox have had since I have watched them.

[fathom]

Jack McDowell is probably the closest thing to a "big game" pitcher the Sox have had since I have watched them.

 

Freddy Garcia

[Balta1701]

Jack McDowell is probably the closest thing to a "big game" pitcher the Sox have had since I have watched them.

Garcia comes to mind for me. He was always on when e faced a good team.

 

[kitekrazy]

Jack McDowell is probably the closest thing to a "big game" pitcher the Sox have had since I have watched them.

 

Big time. He was another ace that produced team confidence.

 

[kitekrazy]

Garcia comes to mind for me. He was always on when e faced a good team.

 

Hopefully we will be saying this about Chris Sale. (not tomorrow)

 

[greg775]

Peavy is an OK pitcher, nothing special. He's worth the going rate for No. 3 starters, whatever those guys get on the open market. I guess to be fair he's a 2 or 3 starter. I happen to think he's more a 3. I'll be shocked if he gets huge money, but I guess Boston has the money to give him now.

Edited September 13, 2012 by greg775

[SI1020]

Explain.

 

Beyond that, bWAR and fWAR have never been calculated the same anyways. Using both is a pretty good idea.

I thought about if I should reply, because it's a contentious subject and people will call you an idiot or worse no matter you say, but I'll give it a try. It may be long, so skip this anyone not in the mood.

 

First of all I've loved to study various statistics since my maternal grandmother bought be an Almanac when I was 6 1/2. In my teens a local (Chicago) sociologist Pierre DeVise was in the papers regularly with his continuing demographic research on Chicago and suburban communities. I found his work so fascinating that in the summer of 1966 I visited every Chicago neighborhood but one and started my own little demographic study. By the time the 1970 census came around my estimates and projections turned out to be very accurate. I'm not a scientist, engineer or actuary but do have some experience with detailed statistical research at the graduate level.

 

I've tried to keep up with the new statistical approaches since I first became aware of Bill James a couple of decades ago. When he came out with his Total Baseball I noticed that some players thought to be stars like HOFer Jim Bottomley turned up in the negative. The Total Baseball approach left me totally unsettled and Bill James himself seemed to contradict Total Baseball when he published his all time rankings which showed he valued players like Bottomley more than his Total Baseball rankings ever did. I came away thinking that James was a very knowledgeable baseball historian even if I disagreed with some of his methods. By the way the last time I looked retrosheet.org still used a formula similar to the old Total Baseball method.

 

I continued to follow the whole Sabermetrics thing. CHONES, PECOTA, VORP, Win Shares you name it. Slowly I came to believe that this was an attempt to reinvent the wheel. Many times I've read true believers talent evaluations that to me didn't jibe with real baseball reality. Then there is one thing after another. BA doesn't count it's OBP. Long live Billy Bean and Scott Hatteberg. Strikeouts are king and any pitcher without a high K ratio stinks. His UZR is low, he must be suspect fielder. One stat I did manage to hang my hat one was WAR. Then I noticed little things like before last year Adam Dunn's WAR was higher than Konerko's. In May baseball-reference totally blew up its methods of calculating WAR and many players slid up and down the all time rankings. It reminded me of Winston Smith and his department constantly rewriting history in the novel 1984.

 

As for Peavy I noticed his 2012 WAR was above all the starters in the MLB leading Nationals and once again I thought to myself really? Peavy is better than every one of them this year? So I've probably bored anyone who read this. I could have gone into much greater detail but as for now, count me out. I'll rate players my own way, no matter what Fan Graphs or BP has to say about it.

[bjm676]

Jack McDowell is probably the closest thing to a "big game" pitcher the Sox have had since I have watched them.

 

 

I can probably choose anyone from the rotation in '05. Contreras or Sweaty Freddy come to mind.

[Jake]

Peavy is an OK pitcher, nothing special. He's worth the going rate for No. 3 starters, whatever those guys get on the open market. I guess to be fair he's a 2 or 3 starter. I happen to think he's more a 3. I'll be shocked if he gets huge money, but I guess Boston has the money to give him now.

 

There's a good argument to be had about whether he's a 1 or not, especially for those that believe that not every staff has a "true" 1. He's easily a number 2 this year, he's been one of the best starters in baseball. You can speculate about whether it will last, but he's been immensely valuable this season.

[Jake]

I can probably choose anyone from the rotation in '05. Contreras or Sweaty Freddy come to mind.

 

Contreras reminds me of Gavin Floyd in some ways. I don't think Jose was influenced at all by game situations and that allowed him to occasionally dominate when it really counted. The only thing that affected Jose's pitching was his ability to throw strikes, particularly with the splitter. When he didn't have it, he really didn't have it and little things like moving to the stretch could really f*** things up. The main difference between he and Floyd is that Contreras happened to basically calibrate everything perfectly for 18 months before coming back to earth very quickly. Gavin has never had an extended, consistent run but has been on the whole a more effective innings eater than Contreras was (minus about a season and a half of dominance)

[cabiness42]

There's a good argument to be had about whether he's a 1 or not, especially for those that believe that not every staff has a "true" 1. He's easily a number 2 this year, he's been one of the best starters in baseball. You can speculate about whether it will last, but he's been immensely valuable this season.

 

There are 30 teams, every team has a #1 starter, and Jake is one of the 30 best starters. If you want to say there aren't 30 #1 starters, then there aren't 30 #2 starters and so on and so then you have to number beyond #5 to include all of the starters and maybe there's some guy out there that's a #9 starter and another who's a #13 starter.

 

 

 

[kitekrazy]

Peavy is an OK pitcher, nothing special. He's worth the going rate for No. 3 starters, whatever those guys get on the open market. I guess to be fair he's a 2 or 3 starter. I happen to think he's more a 3. I'll be shocked if he gets huge money, but I guess Boston has the money to give him now.

 

When it comes to pitchers, owners spend like Washington politicians.

 

[LittleHurt05]

There's a good argument to be had about whether he's a 1 or not, especially for those that believe that not every staff has a "true" 1. He's easily a number 2 this year, he's been one of the best starters in baseball. You can speculate about whether it will last, but he's been immensely valuable this season.

 

Except for when he's facing Detroit, his team's competition for a playoff spot.

 

Judging from the responses in this thread, I guess my standards for a $17 million pitcher are higher than everyone else's. When he can't even deliver a quality start in the most important game of the season, I think that's s***ty. And he has sucked in most big games in the past, but everyone else seems to think that's OK, to each their own I guess.

[Chisoxfn]

Peavy is an OK pitcher, nothing special. He's worth the going rate for No. 3 starters, whatever those guys get on the open market. I guess to be fair he's a 2 or 3 starter. I happen to think he's more a 3. I'll be shocked if he gets huge money, but I guess Boston has the money to give him now.

LOL. Peavy has been one of the 20 best starters in baseball. Do the math. He may not be an ace, but he is a #1 starter and to be frank is this teams 2nd best starter behind Sale and one of the best #2's in all of baseball.