In the faint hopes of helping return this thread to something even remotely related to the topic, I will add my $.02 that Porcello is as much fun to watch right now as Derek Lowe on his really good nights, e.g. '04 ALCS g.7, where the ball is moving into the black from multiple directions all night. With an ERA+ of 144 right now, Porcello is well above his mark from any other year [though vintage D-Lowe, in his 21-8 season, was at 177]. Lowe was 29 that year. Porcello is only 27. Hope he can keep it up.Poor Rick. Guy might win the Cy, might win 23-24 games, and his thread is reduced to turd-fights over Ben
You know what's really remarkable? Look at his "Batted Ball" peripherals from 2015 and 2016. Walks are down some, as are HR/9, but he's basically the same guy.In the faint hopes of helping return this thread to something even remotely related to the topic, I will add my $.02 that Porcello is as much fun to watch right now as Derek Lowe on his really good nights, e.g. '04 ALCS g.7, where the ball is moving into the black from multiple directions all night. With an ERA+ of 144 right now, Porcello is well above his mark from any other year [though vintage D-Lowe, in his 21-8 season, was at 177]. Lowe was 29 that year. Porcello is only 27. Hope he can keep it up.
There's of course one big differenceYou know what's really remarkable? Look at his "Batted Ball" peripherals from 2015 and 2016. Walks are down some, as are HR/9, but he's basically the same guy.
His k/BB is much better this year. His FIP is -0.69, which is a lot smaller than the ERA differences but not nothing. But I hear what you're saying, that the difference isn't as extreme as it may seem. If nothing else, he has a steady, solid defense behind him and is pitching to the same competent catcher each time out, so the contextual improvements might make up for a lot of the difference.You know what's really remarkable? Look at his "Batted Ball" peripherals from 2015 and 2016. Walks are down some, as are HR/9, but he's basically the same guy.
I respectfully disagree because at the time of the trade you only had one year of control.In a bit of an attempt to pull the discussion back into a Porcello focus, this point annoys me. As someone pointed out later in the thread, he was basically the same guy. More importantly, he certainly could have had these results last year as far as Ben knew at the time of the trade. Ben both thought he was getting a good pitcher and got a good pitcher. Saying the trade was bad because the one year of his contract at the time didn't work out well is a silly argument to make when evaluating Ben's decision to bring in Porcello. It's also not necessarily fair to say that the trade and extension are totally separate decisions. Whatever team had him last year may have extended him. If not, whether he had a year like 2015 or a year like 2016 with that team, there's virtually no chance he ends up locked up at a bit of a discount for his prime seasons without that contract coming in the form of an extension. He'd either be on a short contract for less money for 2016, then a monster contract after this Cy-contending year, or he'd have put up a great year for some other team and been on a contract much bigger than this.
Yes and no. The trade was basically one year of Cespedes for "one year of Porcello" plus "first dibs on signing Porcello to a longer contract". The latter piece has some independent value on its own (particularly since Cespedes was very, very likely to test free agency either way), even if the team hadn't come to agreement on an extension.So yes, I feel you can count them as 2 separate moves.
To be fair, most thought the same about Porcello. especially since DD himself didn't think he could resign Porcello, and I have a hard time believing he wouldn't have taken this deal after Rick's 2014 year.Yes and no. The trade was basically one year of Cespedes for "one year of Porcello" plus "first dibs on signing Porcello to a longer contract". The latter piece has some independent value on its own (particularly since Cespedes was very, very likely to test free agency either way).
True.Porcello might have changed his mind after the trade and chosen to exit, but because it was an offseason trade Boston had sounded him out on an extension, which was signed that spring, allowing Boston to give him, in essence, a 5/92.5 deal while limiting their luxury tax exposure in the first year.
If Porcello left as a FA after last year would the trade have been a great move?Does it really matter? Cherington made the trade and signed the extension, if you want to break it down into two it was two great moves. He signed the extension before the season began, so it was 5/92.5 at that point, and to get a potential Cy Young winner on that sort of contract is so big that we can probably call it a yuuuuge win.
Although I couldn't agree more with the premise of your post, I just wanted to point out that Porcello is currently 26th in SO/9. Probably the only knock against his CYA candidacy. I think it's a 3 man race at this point.5th in ERA
1st in WHIP
2nd in BB/9
2nd in IP
2nd in ERA+
1st SO/9
Even without the 20 wins he's meriting of CY consideration.
Porcello's been a workhorse and an absolute beast since the ASB. Averaging over 7.1 IP with a 2.44 ERA. .193/.219/528 slash line against, 0.789 WHIP.
Guessing they meant K/BB?Although I couldn't agree more with the premise of your post, I just wanted to point out that Porcello is currently 26th in SO/9. Probably the only knock against his CYA candidacy. I think it's a 3 man race at this point.
I meant K/BB. Good eyeAlthough I couldn't agree more with the premise of your post, I just wanted to point out that Porcello is currently 26th in SO/9. Probably the only knock against his CYA candidacy. I think it's a 3 man race at this point.
Except that they began negotiating the extension at the time of the trade and it was signed before the season ever started, so there was literally no chance of him leaving. It's a fantastic move no matter how you try to slang it.If Porcello left as a FA after last year would the trade have been a great move?
No chance.
.328? that .528 can't be right.Porcello's been a workhorse and an absolute beast since the ASB. Averaging over 7.1 IP with a 2.44 ERA. .193/.219/528 slash line against, 0.789 WHIP.
After the trade was completed.Except that they began negotiating the extension at the time of the trade and it was signed before the season ever started, so there was literally no chance of him leaving. It's a fantastic move no matter how you try to slang it.
I think he's listing BA/OBP/SLG. I'm which case I'm not sure why that couldn't be right..328? that .528 can't be right.
Because that would mean that opposing hitters had a Sammy Sosa-esque .335 ISO against him. That's a BA/OBP/OPS line. I wish people would stop doing that.I think he's listing BA/OBP/SLG. I'm which case I'm not sure why that couldn't be right.
D'oh! You're absolutely correct.Because that would mean that opposing hitters had a Sammy Sosa-esque .335 ISO against him. That's a BA/OBP/OPS line. I wish people would stop doing that.
Just as long as he doesn't develop his equivalent of the 'Derek Lowe face'.In the faint hopes of helping return this thread to something even remotely related to the topic, I will add my $.02 that Porcello is as much fun to watch right now as Derek Lowe on his really good nights, e.g. '04 ALCS g.7, where the ball is moving into the black from multiple directions all night. With an ERA+ of 144 right now, Porcello is well above his mark from any other year [though vintage D-Lowe, in his 21-8 season, was at 177]. Lowe was 29 that year. Porcello is only 27. Hope he can keep it up.
Of course they're 2 different moves, but it's silly to consider them separately when evaluating Ben. If your point was simply that the trade only guaranteed a year that turned out poorly, fine. But you were saying this as a way of making the trade a bad decision by Ben, and it wasn't. You eitherAfter the trade was completed.
Hence it being 2 separate moves. You only were guaranteed 1 year of control over Porcello.
That's on me, I flipped the columns in my head by mistake. Fully intended to post BA/OBP/SLG. ApologiesBecause that would mean that opposing hitters had a Sammy Sosa-esque .335 ISO against him. That's a BA/OBP/OPS line. I wish people would stop doing that.
Two weeks, man. He puts up a couple decent-good starts, it's his.With the win Porcello moves into #1 on ESPN's Cy predictor
http://www.espn.com/mlb/features/cyyoung
i think you can make a strong case for any of about 5 guys, but pretty impressive that he is at that position with only a month to go
Sorry to be cranky about it.That's on me, I flipped the columns in my head by mistake. Fully intended to post BA/OBP/SLG. Apologies
He had a 70 ERA- (T1st in the AL) going into tonight, so he should be all alone in 1st now. And he'll widen his MLB lead in K/BB with a 7K/0BB performance.So an 89 pitch complete game on the road against a team they're battling for 1st place in the division--did Porcello nearly clinch the Cy Young tonight? I might be missing someone, but (if he holds on) would he be the first Sox starter since 2002 (Lowe and Pedro) with a sub-1.00 WHIP?
FIP and xFIP are nice starting points and certainly better than ERA, but they aren't perfect. They don't take into account a pitcher's batted ball profile. I'm not sure if Porcello's is better than Kluber's but I recall Porcello having a pretty high percentage of popups and one of the lower line drive rates.He's a perfectly good candidate for CY in a year where nobody has really separated themselves. It's not like the great Colon/Santana snubbing of 2005.
I don't think we're at the point yet where CY becomes the xFIP and K/9 award. Nor should it be, IMO. Price is a sabermetric darling and I don't think I could tell you that he's had a better season than Price though WAR would disagree. The complete improbability of Porcello's 2016 is all kinds of awesome.
Bonus "what-writers-love" points for the huge career rebound, wins, clutch outings, etc. It's a great redemption story on a personal and team level.
It's 0.18. He's only given up runs in three of 53 outings in that time. In addition, Britton has faced 196 batters with a slash line of.156 / .226 ./ 196 for a .421 OPS against and a BABIP of .224. One of the greatest closer seasons ever, if not the greatest.It's a interesting race for CY. I saw that Britton's ERA is like 0.15 since May 5. A case can be made for Rick based on the WAR, workload of a SP, but a case can be made that the leverage that Britton faces in each appearance makes the closer just as important. His season is reminiscent of vintage K-Rod and roided up Gagne. Maybe he'll blow a save vs the Sox this week to make the decision easier!
I think it has to take a back seat to Koji's 2013 (.130/.163/.237, BABIP .189). But any season that can be mentioned in the same breath as Koji's without absurdity is pretty fecking amazing.It's 0.18. He's only given up runs in three of 53 outings in that time. In addition, Britton has faced 196 batters with a slash line of.156 / .226 ./ 196 for a .421 OPS against and a BABIP of .224. One of the greatest closer seasons ever, if not the greatest.
Something interesting from the Joe Sheehan newsletter I subscribe to (this is like 10% of the entire email)It's 0.18. He's only given up runs in three of 53 outings in that time. In addition, Britton has faced 196 batters with a slash line of.156 / .226 ./ 196 for a .421 OPS against and a BABIP of .224. One of the greatest closer seasons ever, if not the greatest.
Zach Britton, Lineup Spots Most Often Faced, 2016
PA
6th 32
7th 31
8th 29
5th 28
4th 27
1st 24
9th 22
3rd 21
2nd 19
Britton has faced sixth and seventh hitters 50% more often than he's faced second and third hitters. Lineups may not be optimized around the league, but I think we can guess which of those jobs is easier. This isn't his "fault," but rather an effect of the closercentric bullpen. (It is, in fact, one of the top arguments against it. We know that on balance, better hitters bat in the eighth than the ninth. The best reliever should be used when the best hitters are up.)
On the other hand, Britton has faced an above-average set of hitters. There are 121 relievers with at least 50 innings pitched. He's 31st in that group in Opponents' OPS, per Prospectus. The range here is pretty small (from 767 to 701) and heavily influenced by the unbalanced schedule, but it does mitigate against the idea that Britton is somehow just beating up on bad hitters. Even just looking at Orioles relievers, though, there's no difference among Brad Brach (756 Opponents' OPS), Mychal Givens (755), Darren O'Day (755) and Britton (753). I want to delete this entire line of research!
I hope to god not, since Porcello's numbers in those categories were both better last year going into last night's start.I don't think we're at the point yet where CY becomes the xFIP and K/9 award. Nor should it be, IMO. Price is a sabermetric darling and I don't think I could tell you that he's had a better season than Price though WAR would disagree.
Porcello Face is more like him calling Machado an idiot last night. So I don't think we have to worry here.Just as long as he doesn't develop his equivalent of the 'Derek Lowe face'.
Derek Lowe was pretty good at starting shit with the Orioles, as some of us may recall...Porcello Face is more like him calling Machado an idiot last night. So I don't think we have to worry here.
I guess Pedro has a bigger effect in his role as Special Adviser than I had thought. In 2000, he had 42 walks and 14 HBP.Porcello has 29 walks but has hit 13 batters.
It'd be interesting to ask Pedro about it.I guess Pedro has a bigger effect in his role as Special Adviser than I had thought. In 2000, he had 42 walks and 14 HBP.