Red Sox signed Porcello to four year deal. 4/82.5M

[Tyrone Biggums]

As people did last year they're looking at the worst case scenario on this. What if this deal never happened and Porcello pitches himself to a top 5 cy young finish? Then people would be crying that Ben didn't learn from his mistakes with Lester and did the same thing once again. Or that the Red Sox are too cheap to pay for pitching etc...I'm fine with this deal. I remember when 11 million a year was top money for a starting pitcher. Now 20 million is more like 15 million. I'd look at this on the same level as the Lackey contract from a few years ago given how much contracts have spiked.

 

[Plympton91]

It's worth repeating that Porcello is vastly underrated for 2 reasons:

1. He spent the last 4 years pitching behind some combination of 2 Cy Young Award winners, Anibal Sanchez, and Doug Fister

2. He was rushed to the majors at age 20, rather than having a normal minor league development curve in which he dominated age-appropriate competition and spent a couple years as a consensus top 10 overall prospect.

3. His strikeout rates, in part because he was rushed to the majors, aren't sexy despite well above average velocity.

There's nothing wrong with this contract.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
Porcello's xFIP only beat FIP in 2013. All four other years are very close. 
 
On defense, hopefully better defense will help Porcello but his career BABIP isn't particularly high, .310 and last year it was .298. How low do we expect good defense to put his BABIP?

 
Actually .311 according to BR and .316 according to FG. I don't know how you would define "particularly high," but either of those numbers would put Porcello in the top (or bottom) decile of qualifying pitchers in this decade. According to FG he ranks 13th out of 228 in that group. His .298 from last year, OTOH, would tie him for 82nd. So if the Sox defense can help him stay in that league-average upper-.290s zone, that won't be an insignificant difference. 
 
In spite of my reservations about the AAV, I'm on board, mostly because of the modest duration. Not only does that limit the Sox' risk, but it means that at the tail end of the contract he'll still be in his prime and pitching for another big payday rather than playing out the string. As others have noted, that increases the likelihood that the Sox will get full value for their investment.

 

[joe dokes]

There is also some concern on my part that was was willing to leave a bunch of money on the table. Not showing a lot of confidence in himself.
 

 
I couldn't let this bit of psychoanalysis pass. 
 
Maybe he saw His BFF Scherzer's hair fall out (figuratively) over off-season free agent stress and said "fuck that noise, I could get enough money NOW for generations of Porcellos and *still* be a FA at 30.
 
Or maybe he has the utmost confidence that he will pitch so well over the next 5 years that his 2nd prime of career long-term deal will add up to even more $$$ overall, and he is smart enough to realize that the money now is a good hedge against the injury that even the most confident pitchers sometimes get.
 
That's two of about a hundred possible reasons he signed, none of which have anything to do with his confidence.

 

[amarshal2]

I think the AAV is a bit rich but I'm in favor of the Sox overpaying in AAV for shorter contracts. 5 years (inc. 2015) is a lot better than 7 and I think will enable the Sox to stay more competitive from year to year. I love Lester but I'm not optimistic that he'll be worth anywhere near that AAV 5 years from now. It's not easy to sign young, high upside guys on short contracts so even if I think they overpaid in AAV I really can't be critical. It's the right strategy.

More interestingly, is anyone else connecting the dots with this signing and Castillo/Moncada signings? There are some similarities in terms of using scouting to project a young player to meet a level of performance he has not yet achieved at the mlb level. That isn't to say that these decisions aren't highly analytical in nature but that they are not based primarily on statistical performance. There are statistics to look at but the statistics don't say you should sign these guys for the money they got. To get the logic you have to use some scouting to project the players along with an analysis of the nature of the potential risks and rewards.

 

[smastroyin]

Once again:
 
FIP attempts to correct for things which the pitcher does not control by predicting ERA based on HR, BB+HBP, K, and IP, with a constant added to bring it in line with ERA.  It does not give a shit what BABIP allowed is.  Although you can back your way into the calculation of BABIP effect in comparing several pitchers, and BABIP is often a good reason that a pitcher's FIP is better than ERA.  FIP = (13 *HR+3(BB=HBP)-2*K)/IP + constant to get league FIP to equal league ERA.
 
xFIP only cares about your groundball tendencies insofar as it means less flyballs.  xFIP "corrects" for HR/FB fluctuations with the implication that pitchers have little control over this variation.  xFIP = FIP but with the HR term replaced by FB*(lg HR/FB rate)
 
SIERA is the one that would take components (GB rates, FB rates, etc.) and try to predict an ERA out of it, and therefore be more rewarding (in comparison to ERA) to a guy who gets a lot of groundballs that go for hits because his defense sucks.

 

[DanoooME]

The wild card here is that Porcello moves to a much better hitting division and will face an increase in his quality of opposition.   There is also some concern on my part that was was willing to leave a bunch of money on the table.  Not showing a lot of confidence in himself. Reminds me of Josh Becketts last extension.
 

 
At first thought, I didn't think this was true any more.  So I took Steamer projections for this year and added them up.  Obviously I left out the Sox (since Porcello now pitches for them) and the Tigers (since he used to pitch for them) to compare whether the rest of the division he pitches in is really any different.  This is a quick and dirty effort so the "true" numbers may be off a point or two from what I have.
 
[tablegrid= AL East vs AL Central 2015 ] Slash   wOBA Tor 256/327/423   0.329 Bal 254/307/412   0.315 NYY 246/312/400   0.314 TB 245/309/380   0.305         Cle 252/316/397   0.315 KC 262/310/393   0.309 Min 254/313/393   0.311 ChW 256/314/400   0.314 [/tablegrid] 
 
The AL East has the single best team, but also the single worst team.  Otherwise, it's pretty even.  Another thing to consider is the PA projected for Toronto was the fewest of all 8 of these teams by 300 PA or so from the next fewest, so there's some replacement level work that needs to be added in to even things out a little.
 
Other than Toronto, I don't see how you can say that the AL East is a much better hitting division.  Maybe if you count the Sox (271/337/423, .334) and Tigers (266/321/420, .325) in the calculations then the gap is a little more.  I don't see how it's that significant to make a huge difference.  It's not 2004 anymore.

 

[Plympton91]

It might be useful to compare the park factors -- He'll be pitching half his games in Fenway instead of cavernous Detroit, and he'll have 9 opportunities to pitch in la toilette neuveux that will replace 9 opportunities to pitch in Minnesota's huge park. Not sure how the other park factors line up.

 

[rembrat]

It might be useful to compare the park factors -- He'll be pitching half his games in Fenway instead of cavernous Detroit, and he'll have 9 opportunities to pitch in la toilette neuveux that will replace 9 opportunities to pitch in Minnesota's huge park. Not sure how the other park factors line up.

 
Why would park factors matter for a ground ball pitcher? 

 

[jk333]

 
Actually .311 according to BR and .316 according to FG. I don't know how you would define "particularly high," but either of those numbers would put Porcello in the top (or bottom) decile of qualifying pitchers in this decade. According to FG he ranks 13th out of 228 in that group. His .298 from last year, OTOH, would tie him for 82nd. So if the Sox defense can help him stay in that league-average upper-.290s zone, that won't be an insignificant difference. 
 
In spite of my reservations about the AAV, I'm on board, mostly because of the modest duration. Not only does that limit the Sox' risk, but it means that at the tail end of the contract he'll still be in his prime and pitching for another big payday rather than playing out the string. As others have noted, that increases the likelihood that the Sox will get full value for their investment.

 
I saw .310 on FG. After reading your post, I investigated a bit more. From 2012-2014 Porcello had a .319 BABIP. That's 5th worst among pitchers w/ >300IP over the period (as you've already said). The safest thing to assume is that moving to Boston Porcello will become league average with a .298 BABIP. That would account for ~13 less hits per year and per linear weights about 5 - 6 less runs. That should drop his ERA about 0.1-0.2 and increase his WAR by about 0.5 to a 3 - 3.5 WAR player.
 
I agree with the bolded portion of your post.  Personally, I would've waited on signing the contract. But your post is persuasive that the a relatively short(ish) deal is nice for Boston. 

 

[FinanceAdvice]

Our friends in NY paid $175MM for 7yrs of Tanaka.

Before I spout out some stats, let me say I am all in favor of the deal!  I think Porcello has great upside potential and minimum downside risk (  lol Im a financial consultant!)  But these facts are of concern and Im sure Farrell, BC and player development people are well aware!
 
...........................................Porcello...................................OTher SP earning $20 m +
ERA.....................................4.30........................................3.23
WHIP...................................1.36........................................1.17
K/9.......................................5.5..........................................8.5
Ag. WAR..............................1.8..........................................4.2
 
Source:  BR circa April 6

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Before I spout out some stats, let me say I am all in favor of the deal!  I think Porcello has great upside potential and minimum downside risk (  lol Im a financial consultant!)  But these facts are of concern and Im sure Farrell, BC and player development people are well aware!
 
...........................................Porcello...................................OTher SP earning $20 m +
ERA.....................................4.30........................................3.23
WHIP...................................1.36........................................1.17
K/9.......................................5.5..........................................8.5
Ag. WAR..............................1.8..........................................4.2
 
Source:  BR circa April 6

 
Not sure what you are getting at.  If these are lifetime statistics, then it's been discussed above.  The TL, DR version is that if you want the Sox to pay for past performance, yes, they should sign an over-30 FA to a long-term deal.  OTOH, if the Sox are trying to get as many 20-something players on the field as possible (or 30+ year old players with short-term, manageable, contracts), then they are going to have to sign the Rick Porcellos of the world who may not have the gaudiest prior stats but are "projectable."

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Before I spout out some stats, let me say I am all in favor of the deal!  I think Porcello has great upside potential and minimum downside risk (  lol Im a financial consultant!)  But these facts are of concern and Im sure Farrell, BC and player development people are well aware!
 
...........................................Porcello...................................OTher SP earning $20 m +
ERA.....................................4.30........................................3.23
WHIP...................................1.36........................................1.17
K/9.......................................5.5..........................................8.5
Ag. WAR..............................1.8..........................................4.2
 
Source:  BR circa April 6

 
How many of those other pitchers earning $20M+ were in the major leagues full time at age 20?  Felix?  Kershaw?  Anyone else?
 
Really really hard to look at Porcello's career numbers without considering that he was throwing 160+ innings with an ERA north of 4 (but south of 5) at an age when most of those other big money pitchers were still in the minors, if not still in college.

 

[bellowthecat]

At the start of the 2014 season there was lots of extension talk about Jon Lester.  Lester was about to start his age 30 season with one year remaining on his deal.  His previous 3 seasons xFIPs were 3.62, 3.82, and 3.90 as he saw his Ks and groundballs diminish closer to league average.  The Sox offered the much publicized and criticized 4/$70M extension.  The Sox brass probably didn't see a return to elite form coming from their 30 year old and saw him as more of a middle of the rotation workhorse so they offered what they thought he was going to be worth going forward.
 
Now we're at the start of the 2015 season and the extension talk focuses on Rick Porcello.  The 26 year old had one year remaining on his deal and is coming off 3.89, 3.19, and 3.68.  Similar, and actually slightly better, than Lester's numbers in the same situation.  The Sox brass offered him essentially the same deal they had lined up for Lester, although a touch higher for the prime years.
 
Granted nobody was quite sure how Lester would perform last year after 3 years of middling performance and declining peripherals, there were still people saying to extend him now (pre-2014) and that anything signed then will be a bargain compared to paying him real free agent money.  After the ridiculous contract he signed with the Cubs it seems that they were correct.
 
I'm not sure how we can all knock the 4/$70M as a low-ball offer after those 3 years of performance from Lester and then knock the very similar Porcello deal coming from a very similar situation.

 

[JimD]

4/$82 is probably what they were hoping to get Lester to sign at, presuming that his agents would counter the obvious 4/$70 lowball. 

 

[swingin val]

 
Why would park factors matter for a ground ball pitcher? 

~50% of his batted balls against are not goundballs.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

~50% of his batted balls against are not goundballs.

 
More like 100%, amirite!
 
Seriously, though, foul territory is probably the single most important factor of park effects.  As a RHP, Porcello is likely less impacted by the green monster than a lefty, but it will be interesting to see how increasingly sophisticated defense analytics changes how park effects play out over the next few years. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

But why would you use ERA+? It's been mentioned again and again that Porcello is a groundball pitcher that pitched with a horrible Detroit defense behind him. Shields 2012-2014 FIP/xFIP was 3.51/3.51, Porcello's was 3.71/3.59.

 
Sort of an aside, but the way he generates ground balls is interesting. He doesn't attack the low part of the zone as much as you might expect. Instead, he has a two seam fastball that compliments his four seamer very well in that it starts off looking very much the same, but moves in a drastically different way as it approaches and crosses the plate.
 
Four Seam.

Two Seam.

 

Though Porcello is a groundball pitcher (25th in the majors, with a GB% of 49.1%), you can see that he doesn’t rely on placing his pitches at the very bottom of the strike zone; rather, his deception and pitch mixture probably means that batters often hit over the top of his sinking two-seamer when expecting a straighter four-seam.

 
http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/teams/al-east/boston-red-sox/pitching-repertoire-of-rick-porcello/

 

[rajendra82]

 
Why would park factors matter for a ground ball pitcher? 

The presence or absence of snakes within the infield grass?

 

[GreenMonsterVsGodzilla]

Wow, we always talk about how free agent contracts pay for past performance, not future performance. Past performance definitely doesn't justify the dollars, but hopefully the Sox are right about the expected future performance.
 
And it's amazing for Porcello that he can cash in again at 31.

xvhxxvcv

 

[benhogan]

How much of Porcello's upward sloping trajectory over the last 4 years is due to the increased use of shifts?  
 
MLB teams shifted 5X more in 2014 then 2011.  
 
Did the Tigers shift as much as the Sox?
 
 Porcello mentioned in his Players Tribune article: "the meticulously detailed scouting" and  "The organization offers every opportunity for you to excel as a player on the field".  I wonder if that was in reference to the Sox advanced defensive metrics?
 
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11060210/defensive-shift-used-all-mlb-teams-espn-magazine

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

 
...after every 6 inning, 3 run performance.

You sir, are very good.

 

[pokey_reese]

It's worth repeating that Porcello is vastly underrated for 2 reasons:

1. He spent the last 4 years pitching behind some combination of 2 Cy Young Award winners, Anibal Sanchez, and Doug Fister

2. He was rushed to the majors at age 20, rather than having a normal minor league development curve in which he dominated age-appropriate competition and spent a couple years as a consensus top 10 overall prospect.

3. His strikeout rates, in part because he was rushed to the majors, aren't sexy despite well above average velocity.

There's nothing wrong with this contract.

 I agree with the first two parts of this, however #3 isn't true. Porcello has never had much velocity, with a career FB velo at 91.2, and it was 90.5 last year, compared to a major league average of 92.1 last year. In fact, during Porcello's career from 2009 - 2014, he has only had above-average velocity once, in 2012, and that year was an outlier for him at 92.3 mph. If you look at his other pitch types this holds true as well, where he is almost always just about average, or very slightly below average.

 

[ALiveH]

He primarily (but not exclusively) throws a 2-seamer.  How's his 2-seamer compare to the average 2-seamer velocity?

 

[chrisfont9]

 
I couldn't let this bit of psychoanalysis pass. 
 
Maybe he saw His BFF Scherzer's hair fall out (figuratively) over off-season free agent stress and said "fuck that noise, I could get enough money NOW for generations of Porcellos and *still* be a FA at 30.
 
Or maybe he has the utmost confidence that he will pitch so well over the next 5 years that his 2nd prime of career long-term deal will add up to even more $$$ overall, and he is smart enough to realize that the money now is a good hedge against the injury that even the most confident pitchers sometimes get.
 
That's two of about a hundred possible reasons he signed, none of which have anything to do with his confidence.

Maybe he's got a nasty coke habit and needs cash, pronto. Maybe he saw "the next iPhone" on Kickstarter and wants to go all in. Maybe his elbow felt bad this spring.
 
Joe, you're implying that speculation is pointless but you forgot that it can also be fun!

 

[pokey_reese]

He primarily (but not exclusively) throws a 2-seamer.  How's his 2-seamer compare to the average 2-seamer velocity?

Pretty much the same story, his 2-seamer is slightly below average velocity (90.6 for his career, 90.2 last year, compared to 91.5 for the league last year). You can debate the classification accuracy, but there is certainly no support for the idea that he has above average velocity.

 

[Reverend]

He primarily (but not exclusively) throws a 2-seamer.  How's his 2-seamer compare to the average 2-seamer velocity?

 
This was true prior to 2014, but last season saw him throw them at much closer to the same rate, possibly reasons indicated in the piece Snodder linked to.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
This was true prior to 2014, but last season saw him throw them at much closer to the same rate, possibly reasons indicated in the piece Snodder linked to.

Yep. Velocity may be less important when batters can't distinguish it from your four-seam fastball.

 

[Plympton91]

 I agree with the first two parts of this, however #3 isn't true. Porcello has never had much velocity, with a career FB velo at 91.2, and it was 90.5 last year, compared to a major league average of 92.1 last year. In fact, during Porcello's career from 2009 - 2014, he has only had above-average velocity once, in 2012, and that year was an outlier for him at 92.3 mph. If you look at his other pitch types this holds true as well, where he is almost always just about average, or very slightly below average.

Hmm, my bad on that one. I thought he was one of those 95 mph guys who for some reason doesn't miss bats. That makes me less bullish on his potential than I was and pushes me more into the camp of "good deal for both sides" as opposed to "locking up a potentially ace for a contract that is short years."

 

[Comebacker to Foulke]

FWIW, Bill James Online has a new feature that provides an updated ranking for all starters in MLB. Porchello is 41st.

Miley is 55th, Buch is 61st, Masterson 120th. Kelly is 130th.

The rankings are updated after each start.

 

[SumnerH]

 
Why would park factors matter for a ground ball pitcher? 

 
Heck, there are park factors for Ks and BBs.  They don't attempt to make a causal judgement, and there are a ton of possibilities (some of which could be way off base).
 
Amount of foul territory as mentioned is a huge one.  Infield quality could affect fielding, artificial turf being an obvious culprit but also grooming, rockiness, evenness, etc.  High or low contrast backdrops might affect the infielder's ability to see the ball coming off the bat.  There could be psychological factors at play (pitchers pitching differently in stadiums with bigger outfields or whatever), humidity or altitude effects on ball movement that could affect contact quality, shadows that fall across the infield (particularly between the mound and home plate) more often in some stadiums, or maybe Front Row Amy distracts infielders.
 
The nice thing is that it doesn't really matter; park factors are mechanically derived and don't need to offer a "why" in order to have some value (though obviously knowing why would give even more value).

 

[teddywingman]

 
I saw .310 on FG. After reading your post, I investigated a bit more. From 2012-2014 Porcello had a .319 BABIP. That's 5th worst among pitchers w/ >300IP over the period (as you've already said). The safest thing to assume is that moving to Boston Porcello will become league average with a .298 BABIP. That would account for ~13 less hits per year and per linear weights about 5 - 6 less runs. That should drop his ERA about 0.1-0.2 and increase his WAR by about 0.5 to a 3 - 3.5 WAR player.
 
I agree with the bolded portion of your post.  Personally, I would've waited on signing the contract. But your post is persuasive that the a relatively short(ish) deal is nice for Boston. 

I am wondering why "the safest thing to assume" in future performance is a significant decline in BABIP.

 

[jk333]

I am wondering why "the safest thing to assume" in future performance is a significant decline in BABIP.

 
Not a decline, a regression to the mean.The belief is that [in general] pitchers don't control BABIP against them. They have control over HR rate, strikeout rate and walk rate, but not BABIP. Hitters can sustain higher or lower BABIP than league average due to speed and the type of contact they generate. (higher LD%, higher BABIP)
 
Thus, it makes most sense to regress Porcello's BABIP to league average to determine future performance. His 2014 performance was league average, and thus I'd expect him to post similar ERAs in the future 3.5 - 3.8 rather than his higher ERAs from earlier years.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
Not a decline, a regression to the mean.The belief is that [in general] pitchers don't control BABIP against them. They have control over HR rate, strikeout rate and walk rate, but not BABIP. Hitters can sustain higher or lower BABIP than league average due to speed and the type of contact they generate. (higher LD%, higher BABIP)
 
Thus, it makes most sense to regress Porcello's BABIP to league average to determine future performance. His 2014 performance was league average, and thus I'd expect him to post similar ERAs in the future 3.5 - 3.8 rather than his higher ERAs from earlier years.

 
As far as BABIP is concerned .. wouldn't an expanded strike zone (which is what we currently have) lower the league BABIP- mainly because it's harder to hit balls the farther you get from the strikezone's sweetspot? This seems like an intuitive given.  

 

[pokey_reese]

 
As far as BABIP is concerned .. wouldn't an expanded strike zone (which is what we currently have) lower the league BABIP- mainly because it's harder to hit balls the farther you get from the strikezone's sweetspot? This seems like an intuitive given.  

It does seem like that should be the case, but even as the strike zone has grown over the last few years, BABIP hasn't declined. In fact, it has if anything increased very slightly over the last decade, but at a low enough level that it's probably just noise. You would also think that all of the shifting would have a negative effect on league-wide BABIP, but again, even with the larger strike zone and way more shifts, that effect hasn't been realized.

 

[tims4wins]

It does seem like that should be the case, but even as the strike zone has grown over the last few years, BABIP hasn't declined. In fact, it has if anything increased very slightly over the last decade, but at a low enough level that it's probably just noise. You would also think that all of the shifting would have a negative effect on league-wide BABIP, but again, even with the larger strike zone and way more shifts, that effect hasn't been realized.

 
But does the slight increase to BABIP have multiple components? I am thinking that 1) shifting has decreased BABIP a little; 2) the strike zone has decreased BABIP a little; but this may be offset by 3) home runs being down, home runs becoming doubles, thus increasing BABIP since BABIP doesn't include home runs. Is home run per fly ball percentage down?

 

[mauf]

I am wondering why "the safest thing to assume" in future performance is a significant decline in BABIP.

 
In addition to JK's comments, Detroit's infield defense has been epically bad during Porcello's tenure, especially prior to last year. (Trading Fielder and moving Cabrera from third to first helped.)

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

It does seem like that should be the case, but even as the strike zone has grown over the last few years, BABIP hasn't declined. In fact, it has if anything increased very slightly over the last decade, but at a low enough level that it's probably just noise. You would also think that all of the shifting would have a negative effect on league-wide BABIP, but again, even with the larger strike zone and way more shifts, that effect hasn't been realized.

 
Well - it's easy to see how a bigger strikezone increases K rates. But BABIP may not decrease until batters have adjusted to start swinging at all those low strikes that used to be balls. 

 

[bellowthecat]

My initial take on Porcello is that of course he has a pretty high career BABIP – balls hit on the ground are more likely to turn into hits and the Tigers’ infield has trotted out its share of statutes the last several years. It’s true pitchers don’t have much effect on their BABIP because they aren’t the ones making the defensive plays, but they do seem to have some control over their batted ball splits.  Pitchers like Porcello who induce lots of groundballs tend to have higher BABIPs while guys who induce more flyballs and popups tend to have lower BABIPs.  I thoroughly expect him to still run a higher than average BABIP because he’s moving to Fenway and he’s still getting groundballs (yes park factor has a not insignificant effect on BABIP too).  Ideally I’ll take the extra groundball singles in exchange for him keeping the ball in the park.
 

 
But does the slight increase to BABIP have multiple components? I am thinking that 1) shifting has decreased BABIP a little; 2) the strike zone has decreased BABIP a little; but this may be offset by 3) home runs being down, home runs becoming doubles, thus increasing BABIP since BABIP doesn't include home runs. Is home run per fly ball percentage down?

 
So this is interesting.  My impression is that teams emphasizing defense more than in the past is a bigger factor than shifts.  What I mean is that we are seeing fewer sluggers in the twilights of their career clogging up the outfield.  My gut (no data) would agree that the enlarged strike zone has hurt BABIP as well.  As for the 3rd question, I could have sworn that someone at Fangraphs tackled this very question.  I cannot find a link right now, but I believe the findings were that the same number of home runs were being hit now per ball in play (HR/BIP) as during the peak PED era.  The difference in total offense being the result of rising strike outs.  I know you said HR/FB, but batted ball data only seems to go back to 2002.  Since that time it's remained pretty steady with a little noise year to year.
 
Another thought I have is that some positive movement in BABIP can actually be attributed to the rise in Ks.  Nobody likes a strike out as a hitter, but they have become much more acceptable in the modern day because baseball ops people now agree that you can be productive without making lots of "productive outs".  It's about the total package now, OBP, ISO, all that good stuff.  So if we're accepting Ks in exchange for more power, I would reason that BABIP should be going up for individuals with higher K rates. Or they could just hit a lot of home runs and walk a lot and the effect would be minimal.  I'm not really sure what the answer is with the league right now, but there are certainly a lot of components involved.  Ahhh, if only the public had access to "HitFX" and "FieldFX" or whatever they're called.
 
So back to Porcello.  He isn't going to break through to the next level just because of a better defense behind him in the infield.  If it does happen it's going to be because he figured out how to increase his strike out rate and maintain it.

 

[Don Buddin's GS]

Nice piece on Porcello from Sports on Earth, now with before & after Brooks Baseball pitching chart goodness:

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/124581376/examining-rick-porcellos-changing-profile-baseball-prospectus-boston-red-sox

 

[ivanvamp]

Porcello's last four starts:
 
7.0 ip, 2 h, 1 r, 1 er, 2 bb, 6 k
7.0 ip, 8 h, 0 r, 0 er, 0 bb, 6 k
5.0 ip, 9 h, 3 r, 3 er, 1 bb, 3 k
6.2 ip, 5 h, 2 r, 2 er, 2 bb, 6 k
 
TOT:  25.2 ip, 24 h, 6 r, 6 er, 5 bb, 21 k, 2.10 era, 1.13 whip, 7.4 k/9
 
Not too bad.  

 

[mt8thsw9th]

I saw this bumped and thought he was given another extension.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

 

[Cuzittt]

Porcello did not throw a changeup in his last start.

Porcello's last two starts

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Lost in the excitement about Rodriguez (which is well deserved) is that Porcello threw a pretty damned fine game last night.
 

 
Nice little donut hole, kept all of the variations of his fastball in and around the strikezone, and worked his change up back into his mix, throwing 12 of them over the course of the game. It was a welcome relief to see him looking good again. Hopefully he builds on it.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

I saw this bumped and thought he was given another extension.