Beckett 30
Lackey 28
Lester 33
Matsuzaka 30
Wakefield 20
Buchholz 25

Total 166

Just using some back of the napkin calculations with 3 year averages (above, not weighted, totaled to 166), these six guys are fragile, but there's no reason to think you can't get about 30 starts from Beckett, Lackey, Lester, Matsuzaka. Wake & Buchholz maybe 20-25. That doesn't leave you much margin for error. I haven't tried sticking it into the schedule to see what we get. If Buchholz gives you 30, that makes up for Wake giving you less than 20.

Daisuke Matsuzaka still projects as a solidly above average starter, but he’s already going to miss the first week or two of the season.

I hadn't heard this.

I hadn't heard this.

It's been in the news a lot. He had a stiff back. I think he's fine, but he won't be ready until the second week of the season. Tito said they only need 4 starters for the first two weeks anyway with all the off days.

You may not actually need a 5th starter until April 19.

Tito said they only need 4 starters for the first two weeks anyway with all the off days.

You may not actually need a 5th starter until April 19.

But if Wakefield is healthy, I would bet on them using 5 during that time.

I don't think anyone has a top 3 with better projected health than Boston and I'm hard pressed to think of a team with a better #6 option than Wake. Buchholz at #4 has been up and down but he has been pretty consistently healthy as starting pitchers go. Now, for #5, Daisuke may not be a specimen of health but he has a big advantage over other #5s--he is much less likely to pitch so badly that he can't stay in the rotation.

So overall, 1-6, the starting pitching is safely above average in health and excellent in quality. I'm more optimistic on Tazawa/Bowden, as I think they were worn down by the time we saw them. There's no way, for instance, that Tazawa was a top international prize and dominated AA with the stuff we saw in Boston. All in all, I'm more worried about the offense.

I don't think anyone has a top 3 with better projected health than Boston

I have to disagree with this. If the Yanks have one advantage in the rotation, it's that four of their starters have been among the most durable pitchers of the last few years. Sabathia and Vazquez don't miss starts. They just don't. Pettitte and Burnett have been surprisingly durable as well. But, yeah, Wakefield has to be the league's best #6.

Ah, but I said health. CC makes a lot of starts, sure, but is he really healthy at that weight?

CC makes a lot of starts, sure, but is he really healthy at that weight?

touche

Wow, think about this...if you are concerned about your #5 guy and it's Dice-K, it's a nice problem to have if he gives you 20 odd starts.
Unfortunately every start he makes will see the double, southern hemisphere explosion as both mine and Phil Coorey's head will simultaneously combust as he continues to nibble on the corners in a 3-2 game with 2 on, 1 out in the bottom of the 3rd....

I expected the Red Sox to pick up more depth in the #7 starter area than they did this offseason.

Ah yes, because Theo's been so good at those #7s. Paul Byrd, John Smoltz, Bartolo Colon, Jason Johnson ...

But seriously: Pedro Martinez. Just do it, Theo.

I like Post #5 !

Bartolo Colon: 4-2 118 ERA+

But seriously, what team expects their #7 starters to be above replacement level? They ARE the replacements. How many number *5* starters last year had ERA+'s above 100?

Lackey 28
Lester 33
Matsuzaka 30
Wakefield 20
Buchholz 25

Total 166

Just using some back of the napkin calculations with 3 year averages (above, not weighted, totaled to 166), these six guys are fragile, but there's no reason to think you can't get about 30 starts from Beckett, Lackey, Lester, Matsuzaka. Wake & Buchholz maybe 20-25. That doesn't leave you much margin for error. I haven't tried sticking it into the schedule to see what we get. If Buchholz gives you 30, that makes up for Wake giving you less than 20.

That will work great if they'd be so kind as to time their owies when the rest of the guys are healthy.

The Red Sox will get some percentage of starts from crappy pitchers this season (hopefully, not because some of the aforementioned six have crappy seasons). Virtually every team will, some many more than others. But when you're starting the season with Wake as your sixth option, you're in a pretty damn good position depth wise.

Yes. Pedro. Yes.

Pettitte and Burnett have been surprisingly durable as well.

In what universe (talking about Burnett here)? His starts, after his rookie year, are:

27
29
4
19
32
21
25
34
33

Now, maybe, those last two are the start of a new trend. I wouldn't bet on it.

32
21
25
34
33


these last 5 years are durable. and surprisingly so after his early career injuries.

these last 5 years are durable. and surprisingly so after his early career injuries.

Three of those last five years are durable. In two of them, he missed more than a quarter of his starts.

Three of those last five years are durable. In two of them, he missed more than a quarter of his starts.

Nowadays, that's pretty durable.

Burnett is 28th in GS over the last 5 years with 145. Roy Halladay has 147.

But seriously: Pedro Martinez. Just do it, Theo.

...

Yes. Pedro. Yes.

Huh, that's interesting. Pedro Martinez would be a near-perfect solution to the problem I've outlined. Who knew?

The perennial issue for Boston isn't so much whether their #6-10 starters will be ineffective, nor whether their #1-5 starters will be healthy. It's a #1-5 starter being healthy* but ineffective. This could happen with Beckett, Matsuzaka, Buchholz, or Wakefield... or a combination of them. I'm confident enough that Lackey and Lester won't Smoltz us like that.

On the plus side, Wake is pretty honest about his health, and Matsuzaka is supposedly better about this stuff. And it's not like their competitors won't have the same issue among the fewer quality starters they have. I'm optimistic, but that's kinda my default setting.

* By "healthy" I mean "not obviously so injured as to need a DL trip". A pitcher could be completely healthy but ineffective (Wakefield), or have some kind of owie that they're hiding (the other three).

This could happen with Beckett, Matsuzaka, Buchholz, or Wakefield... or a combination of them. I'm confident enough that Lackey and Lester won't Smoltz us like that.

I don't know, I could see Beckett maybe finishing with a 95-100 ERA+ or something, but he's REALLY unlikely to be much worse than that. Any of those other guys have a realistic (if unlikely) chance of cratering and throwing 75 innings with a 6 ERA. I really don't think that's going to happen to Beckett, and I think he belongs in the Lackey/Lester "will be significantly better than replacement value if healthy" category.

Pedro, Pedro, Pedro.

P.S. "Smoltz" is a good verb. And "smoltzy" is a good adjective. Sounds Yiddish.

You've got a little Smoltz on your jersey

If the Sox' biggest concern is their #7 starter, we're OK. Yeah, there could be a group wide collapse (see 2006) but realistically the Sox have to be as confident as any team in baseball about their rotation and their depth. If you are looking for something to panic about, the offense is a fair concern and I frankly think the bullpen is thinner than people are acknowledging. There seems to be a little too much comfort about Bard's ability to step in and pitch well.

If any Red Sock fan here needs a little perspective, take a look at the equivalent-market Mets who'll be running out a starting rotation that threw all of 524 innings last year.

On the other hand, after Santana and Pelfrey we do have seven guys who can fill the #5 slot...

I don't know, I could see Beckett maybe finishing with a 95-100 ERA+ or something, but he's REALLY unlikely to be much worse than that.

I agree. But I could easily see him trying to pitch through some kind of unrevealed injury, and being toast for over a month.

Instead of me taking the time to annoy you all with my usually long-winded post about why Pedro is not the answer to any good question, can we just pretend I made that very compelling case for the 1,000th time? That way, no one has to yell at me for living in the real world where guys who have pitched 150 IP over the past 2 years in NL with an ERA over 5.00 (and who throw 85) have no business in the AL East?

I don't want Pedro to screw-up his pretty career stats any by getting slapped around in the AL East.
Let him finish-up in Petco.

Instead of me taking the time to annoy you all with my usually long-winded post about why Pedro is not the answer to any good question, can we just pretend I made that very compelling case for the 1,000th time? That way, no one has to yell at me for living in the real world where guys who have pitched 150 IP over the past 2 years in NL with an ERA over 5.00 (and who throw 85) have no business in the AL East?

Not to mention...what exactly would Pedro be doing again? Sitting in the BP waiting for someone to get hurt? Sitting in Pawtucket? Surely no one here is recommending giving him a rotation spot?

Not to mention...what exactly would Pedro be doing again?

Being awesome. What else would you want?

I don't know, I could see Beckett maybe finishing with a 95-100 ERA+ or something, but he's REALLY unlikely to be much worse than that. Any of those other guys have a realistic (if unlikely) chance of cratering and throwing 75 innings with a 6 ERA. I really don't think that's going to happen to Beckett

Contract year. I can virtually guarantee 18 wins and 110 ERA+ at a minimum.

The Pedro Martinez of 2007 that throws 85-88 is not a good fit for this team. The Pedro Martinez of 2009, whose average fastball was a touch over 89 mph, and who had regained command of his changeup, is a great fit for the Boston Red Sox.

Not to mention...what exactly would Pedro be doing again? Sitting in the BP waiting for someone to get hurt? Sitting in Pawtucket? Surely no one here is recommending giving him a rotation spot?

Pedro's not going to be going in spring- I assume he'll be on a June schedule again. I'll accept that if the Red Sox over the first two months of the season have a fully healthy rotation, they won't likely be after Pedro. If, much more likely, they're preparing to give a number of starts to their 7th and 8th starters, Pedro will look like a very attractive option.

Let me say this: If starting pitching becomes a problem for this team, then it is screwed for 2010. I'm not saying you can't worry about the pitching, but if it becomes a real concern, well then... that's pretty much it for the season.

MCoA, did you see game 2 of the World Series? Pedro rocks, and his NLCS performance was inspirational, but this guy wants no part of the AL East and the Sox wouldn't want him. (P.S. I did pay tribute to your using a message-board handle to oddly reference marginal players from years past on CelticsBlog.com, "Ryan Gomes Phone Home.")

Dave,

Not to hijack (ok to hijack a little), I have to recommend CelticsHub as a place to go for Celtics coverage. They are very sabermetric in their approach, and their analysis/breakdown of plays is really great.

At this point I'd rather see Pedro in there than Wakefield. I thought he was done last year, and I still think he is. That mobility problem is tough to get over, at his age.

Pedro's average fastball velocity during the fangraphs era:

2002 - 90.7
2003 - 89.8
2004 - 89.4
2005 - 88.0
2006 - 87.1
2007 - 86.2
2008 - 87.7
2009 - 88.5

A couple of thoughts:

1. I hadn't realized his velocity had dropped that much by the end of his Red Sox tenure, especially during his still-vintage-great-Pedro seasons of 02-03 when he put up ERAs of 2.26 and 2.22.

2. The shoulder injury and then surgery that caused him to miss the end of 2006 and most of 2007 was clearly sapping his velocity. Now a couple years out from that, he seems to have recovered to his 2005 self...

3. ...With the caveat that he took the first four months of the season off. I think (and I think Pedro thinks) that that's the best route for him from here on out, if he wants to maintain velocity and effectiveness (unless some team wanted to revive the old Sunday Starter role, which I don't see happening in today's uber-regimented game). There's no reason for the Sox to sign him now, but if they're short a starter come mid-season I'd love to see them roll the dice on Pedro.

Contract year. I can virtually guarantee 18 wins and 110 ERA+ at a minimum.

Is he more likely, or less likely, to try to hide an injury in a contract year?

Not sure anyone is interested but I just returned from ten days at Ft. Myers. A few things that I noticed;

1. David Ortiz looks terrible. The poor results don't tell the story, he's not hitting the ball hard and it seems every at bat features a check swing of some form or another.

2. Ramon Ramirez looked very good. I had great seats behind home plate for one of the games he pitched and his change up was really diving away from hitters at the last minute.

3. Jon Lester has had bad results but actually seems like he is good shape. His command isn't there yet but the fastball was moving and his curveball seemed to have a lot of bite. It seemed like he was trying to use the change up quite a bit and he seemed to have guys off balance with it though that may be a function of hitters not being in game shape also.

4. In the few games I saw Kevin Youkilis hit the ball hard just about every time up.

5. I'm officially on two bandwagons. The first is the Tug Hulett bandwagon. He reminds me of Matt Stairs, nice swing, can drive the ball, I really would love to see him win the utility infielder job. The other bandwagon I'm on belongs to Jose Iglesias. Yeah he swings at almost everything but it seems like he hits the ball abnormally hard for a guy of his stature, somewhat reminiscent of Robinson Cano (though obviously I'm not saying he's that good).

6. Lastly I spent several days at the minor league camp but most of the high profile guys were up the street with the big club. Derrik Gibson is crazy skinny, he almost looks ill.

For what it's worth if you've never done the Spring Training thing I highly recommend it. For the diehard it's a fun chance to see a lot of different players that you wouldn't see a lot of. Plus there is the unintentional comedy aspect of fans getting way too into a meaningless game. Guy behind me kept complaining at one game that because Tito used Papelbon in the 4th inning he wouldn't be able to close it out.

Jose, good report, thanks.

Joel, I'll check out, good tip.

Free Elijah Dukes?

Yeah, thanks for that great report Jose. On your recommendation, I decided to watch Ramon Ramirez today. walk walk homer single tv off.

I saw that last night and my first hope was that it was "The Other" Ramon Ramirez...alas.

Thanks, Jose - although, I wasn't exactly thrilled to read that the morning after drafting Ortiz in a Fantasy League.

Because I have nowhere else to post this...

Just bought tickets on StubHub. Section 18 Row 14. OK, I figured before clicking "Order"--behind home plate, might be some poles, but shouldn't be all that bad.

But when the seats came up on StubHub's "Thanks for ordering" page, it listed the individual seat numbers as "General Admission."

WTF? Can someone explain this to me? Was I just hosed for SRO tickets? Is that what all StubHub orders say for the seat numbers when the seller didn't provide the actual seat numbers to StubHub? Or is there some weird bench-like GA seating way back in the Infield Grandstand I don't recall ever seeing on previous trips? (Row 14 didn't seem like the last row in the section.)

I feel like I just got hosed, but am hoping against hope this is just a common StubHub thing when the seller didn't provide the actual seat numbers... Has anyone else encountered something like this? Thanks in advance for any help on this... It'll be Textbook Editor Jr.'s 1st Fenway game since his surgery so I'm trying to make it as cool as possible.

The grandstand has around 17-18 rows in Section 18. But... The Coca-Cola Corner on the roof in LF? That's Section 18 of the upper deck. I don't know how many rows they have there, but they do have standing room at the back, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's the 14th row. However, I think they use letters for rows rather than numbers up there. They definitely use numbers for rows in the grandstand.

I think you're fine.

Boston.com reporting that the Sox have traded a PTBNL to the Giants for IF Kevin Frandsen.

Boston.com report from this afternoon;

Meanwhile, now we know why Junichi Tazawa hasn't been throwing too well in camp. He's in Birmingham, Ala., today to be examined by Dr. James Andrews for an elbow problem.

This always ends well.