Jump to content

Direction?


GreatScott82

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 03:50 PM)
Yeah I know there's a ballpark effect built in, but in terms of ERA, the Sox haven't had "Great pitching" the last 3 years, they've had mediocre pitching. Each of the last 3 years the Sox have been 8th or tied for 8th in the AL in ERA. Compare that to 2009, they were 2nd in the AL in ERA.

 

They've invested a lot in their pitching staff in both money and talent and it has not produced great pitching year to year. A whole lot of that, FWIW, is Jake Peavy and his associated injury, which has hurt every one of those years.

 

But ballpark factor is exactly why ERA is not a good way to judge pitching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 03:50 PM)
But I think this process has started. Rushing it will only ensure you get less value out of the assets you use -- both talent and dollars. And those questions of positions are extremely important, ESPECIALLY if you advocated a scorched-Earth approach to rebuilding because if you don't have them covered, where are you when the core you want exists in a few years? You still have a bunch of other positions to fill and you dumped all of your tradeable assets for pennies on the dollar.

 

I think the longer you hold on to Rios, Peavy, and maybe even De Aza beyond this trade deadline the lesser their trade value will be. As far as position goes, unfortunately because of the state of our minors, I would not make position a priority in any trade that's made.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 04:06 PM)
I think the longer you hold on to Rios, Peavy, and maybe even De Aza beyond this trade deadline the lesser their trade value will be. As far as position goes, unfortunately because of the state of our minors, I would not make position a priority in any trade that's made.

 

Sure, if Rios and Peavy are at peak value AND there is a team willing to give up surplus value for them, then it is the right time to trade and you've made a good long-term decision. As far as stocking the minors for position, I agree with you, but I think the other poster was talking about the suggestion of getting rids of controllable major league assets like De Aza and Viciedo, which I think is a bad idea unless you get a lopsided offer -- because you're just creating a different hole to fill later otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 05:00 PM)
But ballpark factor is exactly why ERA is not a good way to judge pitching.

But you know what? That simply isn't "Great pitching". Top of the league in ERA ought to be the standard for great pitching. With the ballpark factor you might tell me it's tolerable...it's clearly not "Bad" pitching, but it's not the level of pitching that will carry a team to the playoffs.

 

If the Sox were averaging #3-4 in ERA per year, fine, with the ballpark factor you can call that great pitching. They're not. They're middle of the pack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 04:00 PM)
But ballpark factor is exactly why ERA is not a good way to judge pitching.

 

Yep. 108 ERA+ last year, with the Yankees and Orioles both at 109. The Rays had by far the best pitching staff in the AL last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 04:09 PM)
But you know what? That simply isn't "Great pitching". Top of the league in ERA ought to be the standard for great pitching. With the ballpark factor you might tell me it's tolerable...it's clearly not "Bad" pitching, but it's not the level of pitching that will carry a team to the playoffs.

 

I don't know if I'd call it "great" either, but another factor that has made the SP really good is the amount of innings they've covered, which is very valuable in maximizing the value of a bullpen. This is why the fWAR of our pitching is always so high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 02:01 PM)
This is a guy who wanted to stay in SD when they were in a full fire sale mode. It is also a guy who passed up a chance to the hit the free market and go to any team he wanted to for a massively undermarket contract with the White Sox.

Talk to me in July when he's staring at a team with no hopes for the postseason and looks bleak for next year too. He hasn't been in the playoffs since what, 2006 or so? He's not getting any younger.

 

Him turning down the FA market doesn't mean he would have signed a bigger deal with a team that was also a contender. I think one reason he stayed here is he also thinks the Sox have a chance to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 16, 2013 -> 10:50 PM)
Talk to me in July when he's staring at a team with no hopes for the postseason and looks bleak for next year too. He hasn't been in the playoffs since what, 2006 or so? He's not getting any younger.

 

Him turning down the FA market doesn't mean he would have signed a bigger deal with a team that was also a contender. I think one reason he stayed here is he also thinks the Sox have a chance to win.

 

The Dodgers and Rangers at least were desperate for pitching. The Angels went hard too. Tigers could have gone after him as well. You can always take the easy "you don't know" card out here, but there is pretty much zero chance that at least one contender wouldn't have ponied up when you look at how the free agent market actually went last off-season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 17, 2013 -> 06:49 AM)
The Dodgers and Rangers at least were desperate for pitching. The Angels went hard too. Tigers could have gone after him as well. You can always take the easy "you don't know" card out here, but there is pretty much zero chance that at least one contender wouldn't have ponied up when you look at how the free agent market actually went last off-season.

 

Timing is everything. The Blue Jays were trying to work out a deal with the Sox where they would have picked up Jake's $22 million option, and traded for him.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,3712979.story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

 

The interesting question is can the Twins/Indians/Rays 10 game homestand avoid putting us in 29th place for attendance?

 

We will have to wait until May 10th to play a team that should be a good draw in the Angels, and that's also a weekend series (assuming the Angels actually pick up the pace and start playing better than their woeful 4-10 start).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 17, 2013 -> 03:50 AM)
Talk to me in July when he's staring at a team with no hopes for the postseason and looks bleak for next year too. He hasn't been in the playoffs since what, 2006 or so? He's not getting any younger.

 

Him turning down the FA market doesn't mean he would have signed a bigger deal with a team that was also a contender. I think one reason he stayed here is he also thinks the Sox have a chance to win.

 

Peavy said he'd be willing to approve a trade to a team that has a chance to win the World Series according to this article

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,5004147.story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 17, 2013 -> 09:55 PM)
http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

 

The interesting question is can the Twins/Indians/Rays 10 game homestand avoid putting us in 29th place for attendance?

 

We will have to wait until May 10th to play a team that should be a good draw in the Angels, and that's also a weekend series (assuming the Angels actually pick up the pace and start playing better than their woeful 4-10 start).

 

Worry about attendance rankings at the end of the year. On April 17th, you are worried. That's ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 18, 2013 -> 09:39 AM)
Worry about attendance rankings at the end of the year. On April 17th, you are worried. That's ridiculous. never.

Seriously, attendance increases of 10% or decreases of 10% aren't going to make huge hits on revenue this year. Every single team in MLB will have an extra $25 million+ next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 18, 2013 -> 08:42 AM)
Seriously, attendance increases of 10% or decreases of 10% aren't going to make huge hits on revenue this year. Every single team in MLB will have an extra $25 million+ next year.

 

It does make a difference in that every team is getting that extra money. It is the money besides that which makes the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...