User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6395 seconds
58 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
18.9% - Red Sox 3-1
37.1% - Series split
31.1% - Yankees 3-1
9.3% - Yankees sweep
The Yanks aren't hitting much right now, hopefully a big series against the Sox wakes them up. The Yanks better win the first two, those last two games look like L's the way Burnett has pitched against the Sox.
I am pretty sure Lowell will have a huge series. He always seems to come up with a big HR in the late season series against the Yanks. But Youkilis is that terrifying presence in the middle of the lineup and there's (IMO) no way Vazquez could have faced him 3 times in a game and kept him in the yard (Yes, I know he's probably done it before). With him out, I feel much better about Vazquez's chances to keep the Yanks in the game. Pedroia is nearly as good of a player, but Youkilis scares me a lot more, especially with a right hander who throws 89-91 with a change and HR problem on the mound.
This could be a crazy series though. Neither team features a real lock down bullpen so I wouldn't be shocked if one of these games had a big comeback in it.
From memory, it seems that the Burnett-Beckett games tend to have scores like 11-8 (it may just be that 15-11 game skewing my memory, when Tek hit that grand slam against Burnett) or something like that, because Burnett sucks and Tito always leaves Beckett out there an inning too long. Buchholz-Vazquez would be my second pick to be one of those 20 run games.
I haven't seen the Yanks play in more than a month. I am pumped (as evidenced by my constant posting in Sox Therapy) that I am going to get to see 3 out of the four games in this series.
Yes. The numbers show that he's mortal (although really, really good), but every time I see him against the Yankees, it seems like everything off his bat is a laser beam. I have yet to see him make weak contact.
http://tdotsports1.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/beckett-career-perspective/
Well, if it's any consolation, he's only .273 / .429 / .273 / .701 against Mo.
9.3% Red Sox sweep
34.9% Red Sox 3-1
41.0% series split
14.8% Yankees 3-1
I like it. I think most of us have given up on this team, but its cool to see them have some serious balls and fight to the death over this season.
Yeah, you keep those updates coming, Matt
Yankees vs Paps:
Jeter - .675
Cano - .646
Posada - .500
Swisher - .250
Teixeira - .111
Oh, I almost forgot your starting catcher:
Cervelli - .000
Something has to start going their way - the Czervelli dropped catch may be just the beginning
So, you're just cherry-picking the worst head-to-head OPS's? Obviously Papelbon has struggled against the Yankees, and guys like ARod and Gardner have hit him well. Granderson, too, from his days in Detroit. I really have no idea what you're trying to say.
Cervelli's OPS is actually 1000 - he got hit by a pitch. Once. It's a meaningless number either way.
I don't think head-to-head OPS is a meaningful number, due to sampling issues. I also don't think that player v. team OPS is meaningful, both due to sampling issues and because teams change over time. Papelbon looked good last night, regardless of what OPS different Yankees have put up against him in seven to ten plate appearances.
-I really like watching Ryan Kalish play baseball. He's a good defender in a corner, he's got an advanced approach at the plate, he's quick to the ball, and while his power right now is a bit marginal for a corner player, you can see the projection in his swing. If Kalish stays healthy, I expect him to be a solidly above average RF during his cheap years, and he could easily be an all-star. Right now, Kalish is only about average with the bat, but he'll start hitting homers more regularly as he develops.
-On the other side, it is deeply, deeply annoying that Robinson Cano has become a great hitter. Michael Kay would not shut the crap up about how beautiful Cano's swing is, but godammit, it really is a nearly perfect swing.
-And what's the deal with Javy Vazquez's fastball? I guess I just hadn't watched him closely this season, but he's lost several mph off the fastball from his peak. (According to fangraphs, it's a 2.3 mile drop in average velocity just from 2009.) After the freakouts about the salary dump trade and the debates about FIP, Vazquez looks to have made this all moot just by aging.
-Papelbon continues to look just fine, thanks.
Knew about Rivera but didn't realize Robertson had straightened out. Still, like the Sox with Bard/Papelbon they seem thin out there with Joba playing the role of Okajima as "key guy not getting it done." Any game the starter leaves early is up in the air even with a good lead. I'm not concerned about Joba/Wood and no reason for Yankee fans to worry about Delcarmen/Atchison.
This was, depending on how one feels about the recent struggles of Lester, probably the most favorable pitching matchup of the four game set.
Today's obviously a pretty important game from that perspective. Steal this one (I imagine Yankee fans think of CC as the firewall of this weekend) and it is a bit of a game changer.
While I hate the idea of Delgado wearing a Red Sox uni, I'm pleased to see he may get his chance to get to 500 HR.
Sox lineup:
Scutaro SS
Lowrie 2B
Ortiz DH
Martinez C
Beltre 3B
Lowell 1B
Drew RF
Hall LF
McDonald CF
Probably a week or two. He's undoubtedly in game shape physically, since he's been doing nothing but working out for the last year. Really, all he needs to work on is his timing, and it shouldn't take too long in the minors to sort that out.
Season's over.
25.7% - Red Sox 3-1
51.0% - series split
23.3% - Yankees 3-1
Can't really complain about today's game. Sabathia looked excellent in that deeply boring way that he's made his own. Lackey showed the sort of stuff that made him an ace in LA, as well as the lack of command that's made him so mediocre in Boston. That's a sort of improvement for him. Hard to win when that's the pitching matchup.
Bottom line: He'll almost always keep the Yanks in the game going into the late innings.
I give full props to CC today. But the home-plate umping was so bad, it's hard to say what the game would have look like with a competent ump back there. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but I'm still angry, dammit.
I will say, pretty much the same given that Drew and Papi were facing a very tough lefty, and Youks and Ellsbury were not. The aggregate SLG% of last nights lineup vs last nights pitcher can not be more than say, .300. Lackey simply had to show up for the game but he did not.
That seems particularly good, but I don't know how common it is for top starters.
Too little, too late. I'm going to lose that damn bet because of the first week of the season.
Would be nice to beat Moseley tonight and then play on Monday to take the series. That would make them 4 back of the Yanks, and as of right now they're only 4 back of the Wild Card; the Rays have fallen into a slump, losing 5 in a row.
At least everyone is on normal rest. Thank you, day off!
What if New York wins tomorrow? There's still the Wild Card, if Tampa keeps losing.
No 'almost' for me. When it was announced that Burnett was being scratched with 'don't-want-him-to-face-the-Sox-itis' I turned to my dad and said "Oh, ####."
It's too bad Beckett can't come down with a similar ailment against the Pinstripers. 19.3 IP-26 Runs (24 Earned) against the Yankees in 2010. I'm sure Teddy could explain how they weren't big games.
Add to that the continued time behind the plate Kevin ####### Cash gets
He makes his pitchers better, as you can plainly see.
I swear at some point last night I remember Miller's saying that Beckett has the highest regular season career ERA (5.95 before last night) against the Yankees of any starting pitcher who began his career after 1960. Which would be kind of ironic, considering the way he totally dominated them in the 2003 World Series.
He's also got a 7.34 career ERA against the Blue Jays, 5.56 against Cleveland, and 4.82 against the Rangers. I've always kind of thought of Beckett as having ace-type stuff, with only injuries having held him back, but reading the breakdown of his stats makes me suspect that his problem is that he's simply pitching in the wrong league.
Seriously, in a playoff series, there's no way I want Beckett pitching before Game 3, and Lackey, before Game 4.
Me either. If some craziness happens and somehow the Red Sox make the playoffs, I'd prefer they left Lackey off the roster altogether. I'd honestly rather see Doubront out there. At least he isn't horribly ugly.
I find this quote hysterical because I distinctly recall Verlander being washed up 2 years ago. "Lost too much on his fastball", they said. "He's done".
Although Beckett was quite ace-like last year.
When a pitcher throws 93 MPH fastballs down the middle of the plate, maybe because his location isn't yet back after a half season on the DL, he will be hit hard. And if he's hit hard while his team cannot muster runs nor defend, his team will probably lose.
That said, when Berkman cannot hit anyone, yet slaps Beckett around like every Yankee has for 2 years, I wonder if the Yankees know exactly what Josh is treating them to, and that maybe, just maybe, he might want to work on that.
This isn't directed at Beckett in particular, but how can a pitcher with a 3.86 ERA be thought of as "ace-like"? Lester was clearly the ace of the Red Sox, and Beckett's ERA didn't even put him on the AL leaderboard. Not to mention that his ERA was 5.34 against the Yankees, 4.50 against the Angels, and 5.02 against the the defending AL Champion Rays. What's "ace-like" about any of that?
Apr 7 TAM W 5-3 7.0 2 1 1 0 3 10
Apr 12 @ LAA L 4-5 6.0 8 4 4 0 2 5
Apr 30 @ TAM L 0-13 4.2 10 7 7 1 3 8
May 10 TAM W 4-3 6.0 6 3 3 0 3 5
Sep 2 @ TAM L 5-8 6.0 7 5 4 2 0 9
Sep 17 LAA L 3-4 8.0 7 3 3 1 0 7
Oct 9 @ LAA L 1-4 6.2 5 4 4 0 1 3
Edit: don't know how to create a table here, but posters should be able to seperate the data
Yeah, Berkman can't hit anyone after 22 plate appearances. Who would have though that one of the better hitters of the last decade could string together a couple of flukey base hits?
Apr 7 TAM W 5-3 7.0 2 1 1 0 3 10
Apr 12 @ LAA L 4-5 6.0 8 4 4 0 2 5
Apr 30 @ TAM L 0-13 4.2 10 7 7 1 3 8
May 10 TAM W 4-3 6.0 6 3 3 0 3 5
Sep 2 @ TAM L 5-8 6.0 7 5 4 2 0 9
Sep 17 LAA L 3-4 8.0 7 3 3 1 0 7
Oct 9 @ LAA L 1-4 6.2 5 4 4 0 1 3
Unless I'm misreading those numbers, I see three very good starts, one so-so one (8 IP, 4 ER), and three duds. There were also three quality starts of 6, 6, and 7 innings against the Yankees, bookended by two blowouts.
That comes to six quality starts, one so-so, and five duds or semi-duds against Boston's main three rivals. Whatever term you'd want to apply to that, "ace-like" isn't what would first spring to mind. An ace is as an ace does.
You know, life does not begin with the Yankees. Berkman was never "cannot hit anyone."
Look at how CC fared vs LAA, BOS and TB last year. He did well vs BOS, not so well vs LAA and TB. On a quick look, his overall numbers vs all 3 look about the same as Josh's.
6 IP, 7 H, 4 ER, 0 BB, 9 K, and 6.2 IP, 5 H, 4 R, 1 BB, 3 K, are bad games? Come on, surely you watched that playoff game vs LAA. That was a very good game he pitched into the 7th, when he seemingly became unraveled after a few stolen bases.
Fun fact: How to tell when Beckett becomes unraveled/pissed: Some player gets clocked with a fastball.
It is kind of weird. Overall he's been just flat out terrible against the Yanksees (see #56 for the details), but we can all recall more than a few times where he's handled them like an NL also-ran. Maybe it was sometimes a case of putting him out there when he wasn't 100%, just because he was Josh Beckett, and suffering the consequences. Managers are known for doing things like that.
Look at how CC fared vs LAA, BOS and TB last year. He did well vs BOS, not so well vs LAA and TB. On a quick look, his overall numbers vs all 3 look about the same as Josh's.
That's a fair point, and I wasn't picking on Beckett just because of the uniform. As I wrote in #39 above, Sabathia's "a legitimate ace, but more because of his stamina and consistency than because of any otherworldly stuff." He's been one of the dominant pitchers in the AL over the past few years, but I wouldn't confuse him with Randy Johnson or Pedro.
When raw ERA is a terrible way to evaluate a pitcher who pitches in a high offense era in a DH league in a hitter's park with a disproportionate amount of starts against the team with the best offense in the league?
When despite facing the Yankees 5 times his 122 ERA+ is 10th in the league anyway? When he pitches 212 innings with typical excellent peripherals? When his ERA+ from 2007-2009 was around 130?
I don't think Beckett has been an "ace" over his whole career - he's generally been a cut below that - but in 2009 he certainly was "ace-like."
So he struggled against the team with the best offense in the league (Yankees), posted a better-than-league-average ERA against a team with a good offense (Angels), and struggled against a team with an above-average offense (Rays).
Yes, that is shocking.
It's odd to argue this issue on the basis of these kinds of splits, anyway.
Also, just because Lester was the team's best starter doesn't preclude another starter on the team from also being "ace-like." If "ace" means "number one starter" and there are 14 teams in the league, then it would seem to me that there are 14 "aces" in the league, with (in all likelihood) some of them being on the same team.
Can a case be made that Beckett was one of the 14th best pitchers in the AL in 2009? I think so. He was 10th in ERA+ and 9th in innings. He had a 4.2 WAR, and the 10th best pitcher in the league had a 4.3 WAR, so Beckett was right there.
Fair enough, but an ERA+ of 122 doesn't strike me as any more ace-like than a raw 3.86 ERA.
But again, it's mostly a matter of definition of standards. You can perhaps say that the best 14 starters in the league are "aces", and put Beckett somewhere near the bottom of that mix. Or you can go out on a limb and be a bit more subjective, and say that an "ace" is a pitcher who's consistently dominant, with the emphasis on both words. And by that standard there are usually only a handful of true aces in any given year, depending on how you define those two words, and how strict a standard you use for either of them.
Beckett's Game Scores for 2009 broke down this way:
60 or better: 13 starts
50-59: 6 starts
40-49: 7 starts
39 or worse: 6 starts
Or more crudely, Beckett was better than average in 19 of his 32 starts, and dominant in 13 of them. Whether you call that an "ace"-like year is entirely up to you, but I wouldn't.
Well, I concede that Beckett wasn't one of the top 5 or 7 pitchers in the league in 2009, so, yes, if you restrict your number of ace slots available to somewhere below 10 then at some point he won't make the cut. I don't really follow that, though; at least my number of 14 ace slots available wasn't pulled out of thin air, and corresponds to the number of AL teams.
I have absolutely no idea whether to call that an "ace"-like year; you've presented no comparison at all. You've simply quoted Beckett's performance by this new measure and deemed it non-worthy.
If one is attempting to show how good (or not good) a player is, one presents a comparison.
The offense didn't excel, either, but it is also missing two of their best hitters - Youkilis and Pedroia - and it's tough to blame some of the other players for not scoring runs (Beltre has been awesome all year, way beyond what anybody expected, and has earned a lot of slack; Lowell, by contrast, is being asked to play a position (1B) that he LITERALLY has never played in a major-league game before this year, all while having a hip like my grandmother. How can anybody get mad at Lowell for anything he does right now? And Billy Hall? He's got 13 HRs in part-time play, and has played all three OF position, 2B, 3B, SS, and even f***ing pitched an inning this year! How can anybody get mad that he's not hitting .300 or something right now?)
Is Beckett an "ace"? Is he one of the 10 best starting pitchers in the AL (or top 14, or whatever)? I don't think so, but I know this: if he is, then my team has three of the 10 best starters in the AL, because Lester and Buchholz are better than him right now (not to mention younger, healthier, and a s**tload cheaper)...
Player GS GS>60 %
Tim Lincecum 112 67 60%
Adam Wainwright 110 61 55%
Orlando Hernandez 53 29 55%
Johan Santana 150 81 54%
Chris Carpenter 88 47 53%
CC Sabathia 155 79 51%
Jake Peavy 126 64 51%
Brandon Webb 102 51 50%
Zack Greinke 102 49 48%
Clayton Kershaw 74 35 47%
Matt Cain 153 72 47%
Roy Halladay 152 71 47%
Erik Bedard 91 42 46%
Francisco Liriano 76 35 46%
Roy Oswalt 148 68 46%
Jered Weaver 134 61 46%
Felix Hernandez 150 68 45%
A.J. Burnett 135 61 45%
Dan Haren 158 71 45%
Josh Beckett 134 60 45%
AJ Burnett: 135 starts, 61 of them game score above 60, 45%
Does this not strike you as about right? These two guys' careers are interesting in terms of the points in which they parallel, intersect, etc., and now they are on the two rivals' teams. Nobody thinks Burnett is an "ace", or even the second-best pitcher on the Yankees. If you switched the players, Burnett would be the thirs or fourth best starter on the Sox, and Beckett would be the third or fourth best starter on the Yankees. They both make a lot of money. They both look like HOF'ers several times a year.
And neither of them is an ace...
But, even though Jose's numbers support my side of the argument, I reject this entire methodology of evaluating pitchers. Evaluating pitchers by Game Score? Why?
Year by year breakdown:
2006: 12 60+ GS / 33 starts, 36% (with 8 sub-40 GS)
2007: 19 / 30, 63% (4 sub-40)
2008: 13 / 27, 48% (4 sub-40)
2009: 13 / 32, 41% (6 sub-40)
2010: 3 / 12, 25% (5 sub-40)
We can all argue about what the cutoff point should be, but those are the raw numbers.
One nice curiosity I found while looking up Beckett's game logs---my 2010 nomination for the Jack Morris "Pitching to the Score" award©. A Game Score of 9, but he must have kept the Sox in the game, because they won!
I don't argue what the cutoff point should be; I get stuck before that point, as I object to the entire framing of the discussion. It's not a useful methodology.
Ray, those weren't my standards. I was raising the thought of defining an ace by ranking among his peers, but I wasn't endorsing it at all.
But, even though Jose's numbers support my side of the argument, I reject this entire methodology of evaluating pitchers. Evaluating pitchers by Game Score? Why?
There's no one perfect way to rank pitchers, but Game Scores have one distinct advantage over any cumulative method: They treat each game separately. A pitcher who gives up two runs each in his first two starts (7 innings each)** won't have those two dominant Game Scores modified or erased by a blowout in his third start, whereas the more conventional metric might show him with a terrible overall ERA or ERA+, depending on how long his manager let him stay in there to keep getting punished.
The bottom line for that pitcher (to me) is that his team likely won 2 of those 3 games, thanks to his pitching, but if you looked at his overall ERA or ERA+ you might not realize that. In general, the more detailed attention that a metric pays to particular games or circumstances, the more I value it, even though the overall stats obviously have their use.
**with a good K/BB ratio, which also enters into it
And I was right, as Cano got plunked. I've taken me a lot longer than most of my Yankee fan friends here to come up with this one, but Beckett gives every indication to me that he's a bad human being.
Why not?
Seriously I prefer a method that focuses on a game by game look at pitchers rather than a totality of the pitcher's accomplishment. One or two bad starts can skew a pitcher's numbers within a season so I think there is a benefit to trying to parse out some of the noise. In practicality there is little difference between 9 ER, 3 1/3 IP and 5 ER, 3 1/3 IP, both teams are likely to lose the game. But even that has an impact of 0.18 on a pitcher's ERA in a 200 inning season. The problem of course is you start getting into selective end points and invaldating the data.
Just for interest the same 20 players listed above only this time by percentage of games with a Game Score < 30. Beckett now is 3rd on the list (behind the curious El Duque and his doppelganger Burnett) which I think confirms the Jekyll & Hyde nature of his performance with Boston.
Orlando Hernandez 17%
A.J. Burnett 16%
Josh Beckett 13%
Francisco Liriano 12%
Zack Greinke 12%
Felix Hernandez 11%
Jered Weaver 11%
Erik Bedard 10%
Matt Cain 10%
Clayton Kershaw 9%
Adam Wainwright 8%
Jake Peavy 8%
Dan Haren 8%
Roy Oswalt 7%
Brandon Webb 7%
CC Sabathia 6%
Chris Carpenter 5%
Roy Halladay 4%
Tim Lincecum 4%
Johan Santana 3%
That was truly disappointing. I doubt he'll ever be a year-in, year-out ace (I'm more in the Andy camp that the number of aces doesn't equal the amount of teams, but reflects a certain level of quality). And I'm almost positive that he'll continue to be a year-in, year-out ass.
I started to compile such a list, but thanks for sparing me the work. And it confirms what I wrote about Sabathia above: His consistency factor in avoiding blowouts is what also contributes to his ace status. His 51-6 ratio of dominant starts to blowouts confirms his tremendous value to his team(s).
One question, though: How did El Duque slip onto those lists? He retired three years ago, and had only 44 starts in 06-07.
I haven't considered GS before but it is interesting. One complaint:
6 IP
7 H
3 R
6 K
2 W
Depending on who that pitcher's starting against, that 50 is either an excellent or ok game. Which is to say, pitchers of the AL Beast deserve some slack.
14 of '09's highest 20 GS are NL starters
I'm hesitant to share this with this crowd (y'all can be tough) but I did some rudimentary analysis on this a few years ago on my blog. The relevant piece was this;
Obviously it is not perfect but it was an attempt to find guys who had one or two terrible starts skewing their data.
Well, is "ace" something better than "#1 starter"? Because by definition it would seem that if there are 14 teams, then there must be 14 #1 starter slots alloted.
I use the terms synonomously, basically just as a quick and dirty way of conveying how good the pitcher is.
Anyway, Andy was using "ace-like," which seems to me like something less than "ace."
If we're worried about disaster starts skewing the ERA+ (which I agree is a legitimate concern), I think Michael Wolverton's Support Neutral work essentially takes care of this.
G1 = Lester
G2 = Buchholz
G3 = Beckett
G4 = Lackey
G5 = Lester
Beckett's been out most of the year and Lester and Buchholz are the staff aces (at least in 2010).
I don't think most people think No. 1 starter and ace are exactly synonymous, no. But in the end, it doesn't really matter, since everyone seems to agree on where Beckett rests compared to his contemporaries (at least before this year. In 2010, he's just crap).
It was a cut fastball that barely grazed Cano, and only because it didn't break back toward the plate as much as Cano expected it to, as he made no effort to get out of the way. Cano was the most surprised guy in the park when it nicked him.
Aces: In my own mind I put the correlation between aces and teams at zero. "Ace" to me is easier for the eye to see than for the brain to quantify. I basically see an ace as someone who combines a high number of dominant starts with a very low number of disaster starts and has year-to-year consistency. A guy who, were he to go the distance in a big game and beat a good team 2-1 on a 12-whiff five-hitter, would surprise no one. The kind of guy you want starting Game 7. Big, strong, high-strikeout monster who lives on his fastball and power breaking ball (Madduxian exceptions may be granted). This hews pretty closely to what scouts and pro evaluators mean, too. When a kid's name is bandied about as a "future ace," scouts aren't suggesting he could be the best pitcher on the majors' twentieth best team. YMMV.
Beckett: I'm not the first to suggest that pitchers whose stuff exceeds their command might have more start-to-start and year-to-year variance than guys who have less velocity or movement but could fit a baseball through a key hole pretty much on demand. The Burnett comp is a good one, although I think Beckett is both better at his best and less likely to be at his worst. Casual fans look at Bex' biggest moments/years ('07 campaign plus playoffs, '03 Series), on-the-mound demeanor, and talent, and just naturally think of him as a great pitcher. Beckett to me prompts another question: Setting aside knowing-how-to-win blather, why are some pitchers with high "stuff/results ratios" overrated ("untouchable when he's on") while others are perceived to be disappointments ("can't seem to put it all together") by the MSN/casual-fan crowd? As just one example, Floyd Bannister, to go back a bit, seemed to be the former. Beckett seems to be the former. Ryan over his career was the latter, then the former, even when his winning percentages, ERA, etc., didn't vary all that much. That's something I can't seem to answer satisfactorily.
Happy Base Ball
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main