The Plan? Be flexible, I guess.

[Adrian's Dome]

You don't think the Red Sox farm system is stacked? Otherwise I see no reason for the quotation marks.

It's ranked near the top in MLB by most experts, not just the "experts" that post here at SoSH.

 
That was a jab at the other guy, read how he spelled ridiculous. Jesus, this topic is spiraling. I'm done here.
 

 
But you said happen "often".
 
I mean, if your argument is that singles, IF hits, and errors will happen more often than when someone swings and misses, well, I guess you nailed it, but that can't be what you were actually saying was it?

 
When you have a staff filled with contact-inducing groundballers, you don't think those three outcomes vs. strikeouts could be a big deal?

 

[lexrageorge]

 
I haven't said a word about the offensive side other than I thought both Sandoval and Hanley was unnecessary and I believe the money put to either of those guys should've been spent on the starting rotation. For every word people say about the offense's potential, the rotation is every bit as shaky and there's still not a bullpen.
 
I would've been fine with Miley as a fill-in type to go along with a front line starter or someone who can miss bats. I hate Porcello, he can't strike anyone out and his upside is entirely dependent on luck on ground balls and the defense behind him, and I think we could've used Cespedes plus some of the "ridiculously stacked farm" to acquire higher-end pitching talent in trade. I also don't like Masterson, a pitcher coming off injury with major platoon split problems who's been all over the place as far as his numbers go. If all that makes my opinion radical, then so be it. The rotation, as it stands right now, will be both underwhelming and frustrating to watch.

Again, there are some mistaken assumptions in your post.
 
There's no evidence that the Sox ran out of money to spend on pitching after signing Ramirez and Sandoval.  
 
There are 3 ways for pitchers to be successful:  strike batters out, avoid walking batters, and keep the ball in the park.  Porcello has had success in the latter two areas; his BB/9 last season would beat Lester's career best.  And they probably got what they could realistically get for Cespedes, a guy who's no more than a one year rental for the acquiring team. 
 
Masterson was essentially free.  If he's terrible in 2015, they can cut him and move on without any great loss. 

 

[repole]

 
 
That was a jab at the other guy, read how he spelled ridiculous. Jesus, this topic is spiraling. I'm done here.
 
 
When you have a staff filled with contact-inducing groundballers, you don't think those three outcomes vs. strikeouts could be a big deal?
 

 
Not when they're counteracted by the low BABIP a pitch to contact guy produces.
 
I mean, at the end of the day, Porcello gets guys out at a pretty good rate. Why do you care how it happens? I'd get it if our infield defense was a disaster, but it's not.

 

[Shamus74]

 
 
That was a jab at the other guy, read how he spelled ridiculous. Jesus, this topic is spiraling. I'm done here.
 
 
When you have a staff filled with contact-inducing groundballers, you don't think those three outcomes vs. strikeouts could be a big deal?
 

 
jabbing at guys for typos is a great way to make friends.
 
I guess your argument would hold weight if strikeout pitchers struck out 80% of the batters they faced. Contact is contact in my book. Most high-K pitchers tend to give up a lot of fly balls. I'd rather give up some "seeing eye singles" than see Josh Beckett serve up another 30 HRs.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
That "complaining" was a response to someone saying the offense would be ridiculous. There's still question marks there.
 
Miley's improved K rate last year also came with a BB% spike, and Porcello has been nothing if not underwhelming his entire career outside of one decent season last year. Yes, he's young, but where's the upside?

 
Here's an interesting comp. I'm in no way predicting Miley will become this, but it's food for thought.
 
Age 25-27 seasons for Miley.
 
2012: 6.66 K/9, 1.71 BB/9, 0.65 HR/9, 43.3% GB, 6.90% HR/FB, 81 ERA-, 78 FIP-
2013: 6.53 K/9, 2.93 BB/9, 0.93 HR/9, 52.0% GB, 12.5% HR/FB, 91 ERA-, 102 FIP-
2014: 8.18 K/9, 3.35 BB/9, 1.03 HR/9, 51.1% GB, 13.9% HR/FB, 114 ERA-, 104 FIP-
 
Age 25-27 seasons for mystery pitcher.
 
2008: 6.50 K/9, 2.82 BB/9, 0.60 HR/9, 47.5% GB, 7.00% HR/FB, 71 ERA-, 81 FIP-
2009: 9.96 K/9, 2.83 BB/9, 0.89 HR/9, 47.7% GB, 10.6% HR/FB, 68 ERA-, 81 FIP-
2010: 9.75 K/9, 3.59 BB/9, 0.61 HR/9, 53.6% GB, 8.90% HR/FB, 75 ERA-, 71 FIP-
 
I didn't shy away from the differences as many of them (ERA-, FIP-) can be explained by the difference in HR/FB. What we have is two guys who went through a period of low strike outs early in their major league careers while they learned to trust their stuff to induce weak contact. Once the second pitcher started pitching for strikeouts more, his walk rate came up. Same has happened to Miley. Here are the age 28, 29 and 30 seasons for the mystery pitcher.
 
2011: 8.55 K/9, 3.52 BB/9, 0.94 HR/9, 50.5% GB, 11.4% HR/FB, 82 ERA-, 91 FIP-
2012: 7.28 K/9, 2.98 BB/9, 1.10 HR/9, 49.2% GB, 13.9% HR/FB, 113 ERA-, 96 FIP-
2013: 7.47 K/9, 2.83 BB/9, 0.80 HR/9, 45.0% GB, 8.30% HR/FB, 90 ERA-, 87 FIP-
 
As you may have guessed the mystery pitcher is Jon Lester. Again, I'm not predicting Wade Miley is destined to become Jon Lester. I'm just pointing out that the rise in his walks coinciding with the rise in his strikeout rate could be part of an adjustment as he tries to find a balance between his stuff inducing weak contact and his stuff generating swings and misses. It also points out that home run rates can have a pretty big impact on performance relative to league. If Miley can get his HR/9 back down to something in the .7 to .8 range, his ERA- and FIP- are going to look much better. The move to Fenway should help, as would a reversion to the mean.
 

When you have a staff filled with contact-inducing groundballers, you don't think those three outcomes vs. strikeouts could be a big deal?

 
No. An out is an out. This is sort of like arguing that hitters who strike out a lot even though they get on base a lot are inherently a problem because they strike out a lot. Getting on base is what matters. There are arguments to be made for high contact rate hitters being slightly more valuable due to the fact that putting the ball in play means the opportunity for a double, triple or home run, just as not putting the ball in play removes the chances for those same things, but an out is an out.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
They can still trade for Zimmermann, Cueto, Hamels or Fister.  None of the current group are going to block one of those guys and it's entirely possible that one or two would go the other way in such a trade.

For that matter, it could be that the availability of those guys has been wildly overstated. The Cueto possibility, for one, seems to mostly exist in the fevered imagination of baseball-starved Red Sox fans.

Meanwhile, Zimmermann is going to cost Betts, which nobody would be happy about.

 

[Shamus74]

 
That "complaining" was a response to someone saying the offense would be ridiculous. There's still question marks there.
 
Miley's improved K rate last year also came with a BB% spike, and Porcello has been nothing if not underwhelming his entire career outside of one decent season last year. Yes, he's young, but where's the upside?

 
So I guess I was wrong then. You said nothing about offense. My mistake.
 
Porcello's WAR has trended upward for 5 straight seasons, from 0.1, 0.2, 1.5, 2.4 and finally 4.0. Those are his age 21-15 seasons. Please explain to me how that is "underwhelming?"

 

[Hoplite]

 
I would've preferred Latos, for one. If not him, any one of Zimmermann, Iwakuma, Samardzija, Cueto, Hamels (especially if it only cost Swihart+,) or Fister, if that's naming enough pitchers rumored to be available. Past that, yes, I would've loved to have signed Lester, he is exactly the type of player I'm talking about in regards to be able to predict knowing what you've got to a degree going in. Any one of those guys plus a McCarthy type would've rounded out the staff more than well enough, but as it stands it's filled with inconsistent groundball-types.
 
Secondly, I think the offense could've done without one of Hanley or Sandoval. There's still a glut in the OF, even after moving Cespedes. That money should've been put towards pitching.

 
Hey man, I hear you. I was hoping the Red Sox would acquire many of the same pitchers. Unfortunately, the Mariners are saying they won't trade Iwakuma. The Nationals are attempting to extend Jordan Zimmerna. The rumor on Cole Hamels is that the Phillies are asking for teams' 2-3 best prospects and for them to take on all of his salary, so your Swihart scenario doesn't seem likely. The Reds have supposedly been re-directing inquiries on Cueto to other pitches. Latos and Samardzija were traded for surprisingly reasonable packages, but it's hard to know what their asking prices would have been for the Red Sox. The good news is that none of the moves we've made preclude us from still improving. We could still add a Scherzer or Shields or trade for a Cueto, Zimmerman or Fister if the asking price is reasonable. The even better news is that we're not in such a desperate situation anymore that we would need to acquire one of those types of pitchers, even if the asking price is unreasonable.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

No. An out is an out. This is sort of like arguing that hitters who strike out a lot even though they get on base a lot are inherently a problem because they strike out a lot. Getting on base is what matters. There are arguments to be made for high contact rate hitters being slightly more valuable due to the fact that putting the ball in play means the opportunity for a double, triple or home run, just as not putting the ball in play removes the chances for those same things, but an out is an out.

 
The fuck is this?
 
When a pitcher strikes a batter out, it's an out. End of story. When a pitcher pitches to contact and the batter hits a grounder, multiple instances can happen. The out is one of them. An error is one of them. A seeing-eye single is one of them. An infield hit is one of them. Hell, a baserunner disrupting a routine play is one of them. The out is the most likely outcome, but it's far from guaranteed. When you load a staff with multiple guys who can't strike people out but have huge GB rates, this is going to be an issue because the grounders, unlike the Ks, are not guaranteed outs. We also don't exactly have Ozzie out there at short, either. Nap and Panda are sure-handed but lack range, too.
 
Planning your whole staff around generating ground balls is unwise. There's a reason sinkerballers don't get the huge contracts.

 

[SumnerH]

 
Use peripheral stats and the story changes.
 
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone not named Pedro Martinez who has the ERA+ consistency you are looking for. There's just too much year-to-year variability with ERA-based metrics.
 
Ex: Lester's 5-year ERA+ 75, 82, 113, 90, 63

 
Huh?  Lester's ERA+ over the past 5 years:
 
2010: 134
2011: 124
2012: 87
2013: 110
2014: 155

 

[Devizier]

ERA- I think. Still, just focusing on ERA is pointless without considering context.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I can't see the cause/effect.
 
Miley had 8.18 K/9
 
better than:
 
Cobb
Archer
McCarthy
Iwakuma
Gray
Shields
Wainwright
Fister (5.38)
 
Does that mean he's a better pitcher than those guys?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
The fuck is this?
 
When a pitcher strikes a batter out, it's an out. End of story. When a pitcher pitches to contact and the batter hits a grounder, multiple instances can happen. The out is one of them. An error is one of them. A seeing-eye single is one of them. An infield hit is one of them. Hell, a baserunner disrupting a routine play is one of them. The out is the most likely outcome, but it's far from guaranteed. When you load a staff with multiple guys who can't strike people out but have huge GB rates, this is going to be an issue because the grounders, unlike the Ks, are not guaranteed outs. We also don't exactly have Ozzie out there at short, either. Nap and Panda are sure-handed but lack range, too.
 
Planning your whole staff around generating ground balls is unwise. There's a reason sinkerballers don't get the huge contracts.

 
What's important is getting outs. Less important is how a pitcher does it. No one is arguing against the idea that when the ball is put in play, more possibilities exist. The only possible response to that is "No shit." A ground ball pitcher having more balls put in play does not, however, automatically mean they get outs less frequently. You keep asserting that nothing is more important for a pitcher than missing bats, but you haven't provided a shred of evidence to back that up. I'm arguing that the most important thing for pitchers to do is get hitters out and that there are a number of ways to do that.
 
This idea that a staff of ground ball pitchers is inherently risky enough so as to be "unwise" is intriguing, but I don't see any reason why this would be the case. Can you actually support that argument?

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Actually, a pitcher that puts the ball in play often vs one that strikes out a lot of batters, will often generate less outs by the entire nature of the game.

When you're a pitcher, you either strike the batter out, or you don't. And when you don't, multiple other scenarios exist where the batter might find himself on base. Strikeout = batter sits. If not a strikeout, it's a walk, clean hit, or ball in play. The first two are bad. The latter might not necessarily be so, but then you're introducing multiple variables where the batter might get on base, none of which can be ignored, especially when your entire staff has a tendency to have the ball in play often. Luck can be a factor in that the pitcher might record outs he didn't deserve, but alternatively, he will also give up hits he didn't deserve. If he could consistently miss bats, this would be less of an issue and his future performance would be not only more predictable, but more sustainable. If I really need to explain this out in a long-winded statistical diatribe to appease you, I'd wager the problem is with you, not me.

 

[canyoubelieveit]

While the above arguments in favor of a K-pitcher vs a GB-pitcher are valid, a GB pitcher may be more likely to induce double plays and to induce outs with fewer pitches per AB.  A pitcher who can go deeper into games (regardless of the type of pitcher) has great value to a team and its bullpen, and a GB pitcher may be more likely to achieve this than a K pitcher, all other things being equal.

 

[rodderick]

Actually, a pitcher that puts the ball in play often vs one that strikes out a lot of batters, will often generate less outs by the entire nature of the game.

When you're a pitcher, you either strike the batter out, or you don't. And when you don't, multiple other scenarios exist where the batter might find himself on base. Strikeout = batter sits. If not a strikeout, it's a walk, clean hit, or ball in play. The first two are bad. The latter might not necessarily be so, but then you're introducing multiple variables where the batter might get on base, none of which can be ignored, especially when your entire staff has a tendency to have the ball in play often. Luck can be a factor in that the pitcher might record outs he didn't deserve, but alternatively, he will also give up hits he didn't deserve. If he could consistently miss bats, this would be less of an issue and his future performance would be not only more predictable, but more sustainable. If I really need to explain this out in a long-winded statistical diatribe to appease you, I'd wager the problem is with you, not me.

 
Honestly, it's starting to get really annoying to see you repeat yourself ad nauseum and still say shit like "I'm done", "The fuck is this?" and take shots at the intelligence of the kind souls who have had the patience to respond to your incessant complaining up to this point. Yes, a strikeout is better than a groundball. You're not breaking any new ground with this observation. Yes, a guy who strikes out a batter per inning is, in a vaccum, better than the pitcher who strikes out 6 players per 9 innings, provided he doesn't have worse control or home run issues. Filling up a rotation with a bunch of high strikeout pitchers who don't walk people would run the Red Sox a 300 million dollars payroll. The thing is, aside from big money guys like Lester and Scherzer, and some other pitchers who would demand a lot in terms of prospects in a trade (and who are mostly under one year of control), who are these high strikeout guys available out there that are a sure fire bet to be better than the pitchers they got? Would you rather have Ervin Santana and Francisco Liriano than Miley and Porcello? If so, is their higher K/9 enough of a justification for you? 
 
Also, both Miley and Masterson have had some good seasons in terms of K/9 under their belts, so I think you're overstating the issue at the very least. It should also be said that what's enticing about Porcello isn't the mere fact that he gets groundballs, but his control is also excellent. Not giving up free passes makes up for the inability to get strikeouts on some level. Oh, you'd rather have a pitcher with his command and a high K/9? That guy costs 150+ million in this market.
 
Sure, you can say you would have prefered if they had poneyed up the money for Lester, that's reasonable, but that would still leave at the very least 2 spots in the rotation to be filled. Is signing Lester and trading for a guy like Cueto the only acceptable option? That's not even considering the fact that they are not done dealing and could still very well obtain one of those pitchers you crave so much. Settle down and let things develop. 

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

There are three things a pitcher can do to effect run prevention. Strike batters out, don't walk people, don't give up home runs. If a pitcher does all three of those well, he is an All-Star, perhaps a Hall of Famer. Lots of very good pitchers can do two of three, compensating for the the third.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Honestly, it's starting to get really annoying getting piled up on incessantly because god forbid I have an opposing viewpoint to the majority on here, which also hasn't been proven as an incorrect one. Kind souls? Are you kidding me? Yeah, I'm "not breaking any new ground with this observation," except when I say it, I have to explain it over and over again to those who are unwilling to accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, the team's plan to this point might not be a great one. Have I said I want a rotation full of guys with 10 k/9 rates who don't walk anybody? No. I've argued that filling the rotation with groundball specialists with low K-rates isn't optimal and has a big chance to backfire, and I've said (multiple times) that I think it would've been a wiser move to invest some of the money thrown at either Sandoval or Hanley toward a starter instead of trading for more back-end or question mark types. None of that is unreasonable, yet I'm still getting ganged up on and dared to explain simple concepts.
 
And that's why I'm leaving you with another "I'm out."

 

[repole]

Actually, a pitcher that puts the ball in play often vs one that strikes out a lot of batters, will often generate less outs by the entire nature of the game.

When you're a pitcher, you either strike the batter out, or you don't. And when you don't, multiple other scenarios exist where the batter might find himself on base. Strikeout = batter sits. If not a strikeout, it's a walk, clean hit, or ball in play. The first two are bad. The latter might not necessarily be so, but then you're introducing multiple variables where the batter might get on base, none of which can be ignored, especially when your entire staff has a tendency to have the ball in play often. Luck can be a factor in that the pitcher might record outs he didn't deserve, but alternatively, he will also give up hits he didn't deserve. If he could consistently miss bats, this would be less of an issue and his future performance would be not only more predictable, but more sustainable. If I really need to explain this out in a long-winded statistical diatribe to appease you, I'd wager the problem is with you, not me.

 
And yet you seem to be the one ignoring these variables, talking as if a pitcher can only do two things: allow a ball to be hit into play, or not.
 
Some pitchers have the ability to induce weak contact, that leads to balls in play that are less likely to turn into hits, thus accomplishing the same ultimate goal of getting outs.
 
I'm frankly baffled this conversation has gone on this long, if you're trolling it's a very impressive job.

 

[rodderick]

There are three things a pitcher can do to effect run prevention. Strike batters out, don't walk people, don't give up home runs. If a pitcher does all three of those well, he is an All-Star, perhaps a Hall of Famer. Lots of very good pitchers can do two of three, compensating for the the third.

 
Exactly. Making it an issue of "groundball guys" versus "strikeout guys" is moot, because it presumes the other variables are constant (mostly BB% and HR%), otherwise you can't make a comparison. In that scenario, all things being equal, sure, you take the high K/9 guy (and pay a whole lot more for him in the process), but pitchers are individuals, each guy has his strengths and weaknessess that should be analyzed. Merely reducing a player to a "groundball specialist" without taking into consideration ohter qualities/flaws he may have in comparison to other available options is absolutely useless.

 

[rodderick]

Honestly, it's starting to get really annoying getting piled up on incessantly because god forbid I have an opposing viewpoint to the majority on here, which also hasn't been proven as an incorrect one. Kind souls? Are you kidding me? Yeah, I'm "not breaking any new ground with this observation," except when I say it, I have to explain it over and over again to those who are unwilling to accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, the team's plan to this point might not be a great one. Have I said I want a rotation full of guys with 10 k/9 rates who don't walk anybody? No. I've argued that filling the rotation with groundball specialists with low K-rates isn't optimal and has a big chance to backfire, and I've said (multiple times) that I think it would've been a wiser move to invest some of the money thrown at either Sandoval or Hanley toward a starter instead of trading for more back-end or question mark types. None of that is unreasonable, yet I'm still getting ganged up on and dared to explain simple concepts.
 
And that's why I'm leaving you with another "I'm out."

 
 You're being "piled on" because you have exposed the same exact opinion about 75 times without elaborating on your point, and making it seem like you're saying the most logical shit in the world while acting baffled that people disagree.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

 
 You're being "piled on" because you have exposed the same exact opinion about 75 times without elaborating on your point, and making it seem like you're saying the most logical shit in the world while acting baffled that people disagree.

 
I would've only posted it once if not for being asked repeatedly to explain it, which I have multiple times.
 
Spending money on an OF we didn't need was unnecessary when pitching is the biggest need.
To fill these pitching needs, stockpiling low K/9 pitchers with high GB rates is risky.
Signing Masterson with his platoon splits coming off an injury is also risky.
 
That's the basic jist of my point, and it's turned into a clusterfuck.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

I'm just saying I would've preferred one big pitcher in trade and only dollars for a round-out-the-rotation type as opposed to the throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks method they've actually gone with.

I think they're just saying that it's December 11th and no one is at all certain that BC and Co. are at all finished.

 

[The Celtbot]

Not to mention Cherington has said he's looking for inning eaters, guys that are around the 200 innings/season mark.  I would argue those who pitch to contact, at least weak contact/ground balls in theory can go longer in games than guys that are aiming to strike out 9+ batters a game because of pitch counts being lower.  Not that I agree 100% that pitch counts are the most important thing to monitor, but it seems managers over obsess about that.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Again, if you are a ground ball pitcher (which usually means you do not give up many home runs) who does not walk anyone you can be a very effective pitcher. Greg Maddux got by OK, Tom Glavine, Jamie Moyer. You can also be a high strike out pitcher and not be a good pitcher.

The Red Sox are trying to get better. Please, I beg you, do not conclude that they do not want an ace pitcher. They do. They also want Mike Trout and Buster Posey. I am confident that they have had hundreds of conversations with all 29 teams about everyone. They have improved the team the way they can, and tomorrow they will try to improve it again.

They wanted Lester and they still want Hamels. You can't always get what you want.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
I would've only posted it once if not for being asked repeatedly to explain it, which I have multiple times.
 
1. Spending money on an OF we didn't need was unnecessary when pitching is the biggest need.
 
2. To fill these pitching needs, stockpiling low K/9 pitchers with high GB rates is risky.
 
3. Signing Masterson with his platoon splits coming off an injury is also risky.
 
4. That's the basic jist of my point, and it's turned into a clusterfuck.

 
1. Unnecessary for 2015 but not for the long run. They needed to pick up bats to replace what they are going to lose in Napoli and Ortiz. Doing so a year before losing Napoli and possibly Ortiz means a bit of a logjam, but was hardly unnecessary. There is also exactly zero indication that it has impacted their ability to spend money on pitching.
 
2. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that Wiley is not a low K/9 pitcher. Part of the problem with your position is that you seem to think ground ball pitchers and high K/9 pitchers have very little or no overlap. That is patently untrue. Here's are the top 20 GB% pitchers from 2013 and their K/9.
 

Spoiler

1. Dallas Keuchel: 6.57
2. Tyson Ross: 8.97
3. Felix Hernandez: 9.46
4. Alex Cobb: 8.06
5. Sonny Gray: 7.52
6. Francisco Liriano: 9.70
7. Kyle Gibson: 5.37
8. Jared Cosart: 5.74
9. Zack Wheeler: 9.08
10. Henderson Alvarez: 5.34
11. Wily Peralta: 6.98
12. Mike Leake: 6.89
13. Tim Hudson: 5.70
14. Brandon McCarthy: 7.88
15. Clayton Kershaw: 10.85
16. Jorge de la Rosa: 6.79
17. Wade Miley: 8.18
18. AJ Burnett: 8.00
19. Garrett Richards: 8.75
20. Yovani Gallardo: 6.83

 
One of those low K/9 ground ball guys the Sox just picked up is on that list with an 8.18. And Justin Masterson's K/9 was 8.11 last year and has reached 8.28 and 9.09 in two of his previous seasons. He has a career rate of 7.53. Not exactly a low K/9 guy. If we lower the innings threshold on the above list to 100, he slots in at number 3.
 
3. Sure, signing Masterson is a risk. That's why he's on a 1 year 9.5 million dollar deal. With the depth the team has at starting pitcher (Johnson, Owens, Rodriguez, Ranaudo, Barnes) it's a risk they can take. The upside is fairly large. The downside is 9.5 million on a ROOGY.
 
4. It's a clusterfuck because you keep asserting something without offering a shred of evidence to back it up. Your position is flawed, as pointed out above, since the Sox didn't acquire three low K/9 pitchers who induce a lot of ground balls. They acquired three ground ball pitchers. Period. The end. Two of them have been solid K/9 pitchers at points in the career. Miley last year, Masterson the last two seasons and back in 2009. Maybe if you spent a moment or two explaining what evidence you have to back up your claim that low K/9 high GB% pitchers are inherently more risky than other types of pitchers (which is an interesting idea, actually, I've just never seen it argued or proven before) rather than just reasserting your position over and over, you wouldn't get piled on. Or maybe if your characterization of the three new pitchers fit more than one of them?
 
And if you don't like snark, maybe you shouldn't introduce it into the discussion. My first reply to you had no snark. Your response was "The fuck is this?"

 

[lexrageorge]

 
 
 
Spending money on an OF we didn't need was unnecessary when pitching is the biggest need.
To fill these pitching needs, stockpiling low K/9 pitchers with high GB rates is risky.
Signing Masterson with his platoon splits coming off an injury is also risky.
 
That's the basic jist of my point, and it's turned into a clusterfuck.

On item #1, again, please provide evidence that signing Sandoval and Ramirez prevented them from signing a pitcher.  They weren't going to match the Cubs offer for Lester, regardless of whether they had those 2 guys.  
 
On item #2, you are ignoring the basic fact that a lot more goes into making an effective pitcher than a high K/9 rate.  Pitchers that strike out a lot of guys, but also walk a lot of guys, can be real frustrating to watch.  More importantly, such pitchers tend not to go deep into games, putting a strain on the bullpen.  Porcello doesn't walk guys; David Wells made a good career out of not walking guys.  No, I'm not comparing them.  
 
If your point is that you'd prefer one of their pitchers to be a high K/9 guy, they may have that in Buchholz.  Or even Masterson. Personally, I'm not convinced they're done getting pitchers, which is another point you conveniently ignore and refuse to respond to. 
 
On point #3, Masterson didn't cost the Sox anything; no prospects, no draft pick, just salary that is essentially a rounding error for this team.  It's hardly "risky".  

 

[czar]

 
Huh?  Lester's ERA+ over the past 5 years:
 
2010: 134
2011: 124
2012: 87
2013: 110
2014: 155

 
My bad, ERA-.
 
Although I feel that typo should have been pretty obvious.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

On item #1, again, please provide evidence that signing Sandoval and Ramirez prevented them from signing a pitcher.  They weren't going to match the Cubs offer for Lester, regardless of whether they had those 2 guys.  
 
On item #2, you are ignoring the basic fact that a lot more goes into making an effective pitcher than a high K/9 rate.  Pitchers that strike out a lot of guys, but also walk a lot of guys, can be real frustrating to watch.  More importantly, such pitchers tend not to go deep into games, putting a strain on the bullpen.  Porcello doesn't walk guys; David Wells made a good career out of not walking guys.  No, I'm not comparing them.  
 
If your point is that you'd prefer one of their pitchers to be a high K/9 guy, they may have that in Buchholz.  Or even Masterson. Personally, I'm not convinced they're done getting pitchers, which is another point you conveniently ignore and refuse to respond to. 
 
On point #3, Masterson didn't cost the Sox anything; no prospects, no draft pick, just salary that is essentially a rounding error for this team.  It's hardly "risky".  

 
1. Did I say it prevented them from signing anybody? No. I said that money still should've gone to a pitcher which would've afforded them more flexibility in other matters (such as the bullpen, where maybe they would've been able to retain Miller.) Sure, maybe they can still afford a pitcher, but without that contract on the books, maybe they could afford 2. Or give themselves more wiggle room when it comes to trades. Why is there such a willingness to throw 90 mil at a LF the team didn't need but people were squabbling over an extra 15 mil for Lester, who the team did need? Where do you draw the line?
 
2. Guys with high K/9 rates are generally better pitchers. Guys who generally rely on ground balls are often not. There are exceptions to each rule, but that's exactly what they are...exceptions. Past that, my problem with Masterson isn't his K rate specifically, it's his platoon splits and the fact he was signed as a starter. Even when he is striking guys out, which is no guarantee, he still gets torched by lefties. Everybody keeps conveniently saying "well, you don't know the Red Sox aren't done!" as a counterpoint, but you don't know if they are, either. That's a worthless thing to point out.
 
 3. 9 million dollars on a major-league contract is nothing? A 40-man roster spot is nothing? For a guy that was downright terrible last year and is a platoon nightmare?

 

[Devizier]

Here's the thing to remember.
 
A pitcher's K-rate is included in every fielding-independent metric that you can think of. The same metrics that make Miley look like a better pitcher than his ERA indicates. I don't see what the argument is, here.

 

[nvalvo]

 
1. Did I say it prevented them from signing anybody? No. I said that money still should've gone to a pitcher which would've afforded them more flexibility in other matters (such as the bullpen, where maybe they would've been able to retain Miller.) Sure, maybe they can still afford a pitcher, but without that contract on the books, maybe they could afford 2. Or give themselves more wiggle room when it comes to trades. Why is there such a willingness to throw 90 mil at a LF the team didn't need but people were squabbling over an extra 15 mil for Lester, who the team did need? Where do you draw the line?
 

 
In a way, Hanley's $88 m was spent on pitching, because by upgrading LF, they rendered Cespedes available to trade... for pitching. 

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The Red Sox have identified what they believe is a market inefficiency in ground ball pitchers. Maybe they are incorrect about that, but this has been a pretty savvy front office and I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt on this.

I agree that the FO is pretty savvy, but I would be surprised if they intentionally targeted sinkerballers (plus I'd very interested to see any evidence that there is a "market inefficiency" w.r.t sinkerballers. I lean much more towards LoBC's original premise - they were looking for upgrades and these were the potchers that they could get without breaking the bank either money- or prospect-wise.

 

[benhogan]

 
2. Guys with high K/9 rates are generally better pitchers. Guys who generally rely on ground balls are often not. There are exceptions to each rule, but that's exactly what they are...exceptions. Past that, my problem with Masterson isn't his K rate specifically, it's his platoon splits and the fact he was signed as a starter. Even when he is striking guys out, which is no guarantee, he still gets torched by lefties. Everybody keeps conveniently saying "well, you don't know the Red Sox aren't done!" as a counterpoint, but you don't know if they are, either. That's a worthless thing to point out.

Would you be disappointed if the Sox acquired Dallas Keuchel, he had a 6.57 k/9 last season?
 
Look at something independent like STEAMERs WAR projection. Take a gander at Porcello's and Cole Hamel's 2015 projections, it won't be difficult since they are pretty close to each other.  While you're there check out Wade Miley, he isn't that far behind those guys.
 
The front office has done a fantastic job acquiring young cost-controlled pitching, while retaining our top prospects.  Maybe not the headline names some desire, but shrewd moves nonetheless.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

This is as good a place as any to say this, I guess. You know, every time a pitching acquisition target has been brought up around these parts, the general consensus here is fairly predictable. If it's a trade target, people will say "I'd give up anyone other than Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, or Owens to get him." If it's a free agent, particularly one who's near or over 30, it's "could we get him for [under five years] and [under $100 million]?" (Lester being an exception). In other words, nobody here wants to spend too much or give up the truly elite prospects. 
 
Well, here you are: the Red Sox brought in three pitchers without giving up the four untouchables and without giving out a nine-figure deal.... and we have at least two threads filled with people just straight-up angry ranting about how bad the acquisitions are. Isn't this exactly what we here at SoSH wanted? 

 

[sackamano]

1. Did I say it prevented them from signing anybody?

No, but you did say you were done with this thread hours ago.

You probably should have listened to that instinct.

 

[Plympton91]

No. An out is an out. This is sort of like arguing that hitters who strike out a lot even though they get on base a lot are inherently a problem because they strike out a lot. Getting on base is what matters. There are arguments to be made for high contact rate hitters being slightly more valuable due to the fact that putting the ball in play means the opportunity for a double, triple or home run, just as not putting the ball in play removes the chances for those same things, but an out is an out.

Right, and so what is important for a pitcher is not BABip, but rather BAA. If pitchers cannot control BABip, as is the current consensus of the SABR community, then if you have one pitcher with a K rate of 9 and another with a K rate of 8, then the pitcher with a K rate of 9 will get more outs over a relevant sample period.

There's nothing wrong with having Porcello on your staff, especially because the price was quite right. He's like getting back Derek Lowe in his prime. Derek was a very valuable guy on net over the 6 year sample in which he pitched for the Red Sox. But his performance was quite variable. He had some really good seasons when all his groundballs went at people, and some really mediocre to terrible seasons when he had bad luck on balls in play. So, will we get a good luck season from Porcello in the one year of control, or a bad luck season?


But Derek Lowe had Pedro Martinez ahead of him in 2002 and 2003; and both Martinez and Curt Schilling in 2004. He wasn't asked to lead the staff.

Same goes with Wade Miley; I think they overpaid by a ton (and we don't know who the third prospect is, which will make the overpayment worse), but they can afford to given the 40-man roster crunch and Pawtucket rotation crunch. He'll almost certainly be a positive WAR player and eat a bunch of innings. But, he's also at the mercy of BABip. If he has a lucky year, he'll look a little like John Lester in 2013; if he has bad luck, he'll look a lot like Ryan Dempster in 2013.

And people are really ignoring two other key points in their comparisons of this staff to the Orioles. Most importantly, the Orioles have 5 pitchers in their bullpen as good as or better than Junichi Tazawa. They probably have the second best bullpen behind Kansas City. That bullpen allows their starters to be mediocre, by allowing Buck to go to the pen starting in the 6th inning every night, thereby protecting the weaknesses of his starting staff. The Red Sox have Tazawa and Uehara, then a whole bunch of ifs, buts, and maybes. And the remaining free agent relievers are more of the same. Secondly, the Orioles have Kevin Gausman and Dylan Bundy, both of whom have unquestioned potential to become a staff ace, in Gausman's case possibly as soon as this year. The Red Sox would trade Henry Owens even up for either of them in a Manziel heartbeat.

 

[sackamano]

Most importantly, the Orioles have 5 pitchers in their bullpen as good as or better than Junichi Tazawa.

No, no they don't. There isn't one regular member of the O's 2014 bullpen who has a better FIP than Taz.

It's like you know nothing. 2 (two) had better ERA+

WTF are you on about?

 

[lexrageorge]

Right, and so what is important for a pitcher is not BABip, but rather BAA. If pitchers cannot control BABip, as is the current consensus of the SABR community, then if you have one pitcher with a K rate of 9 and another with a K rate of 8, then the pitcher with a K rate of 9 will get more outs over a relevant sample period.

There's nothing wrong with having Porcello on your staff, especially because the price was quite right. He's like getting back Derek Lowe in his prime. Derek was a very valuable guy on net over the 6 year sample in which he pitched for the Red Sox. But his performance was quite variable. He had some really good seasons when all his groundballs went at people, and some really mediocre to terrible seasons when he had bad luck on balls in play. So, will we get a good luck season from Porcello in the one year of control, or a bad luck season?


But Derek Lowe had Pedro Martinez ahead of him in 2002 and 2003; and both Martinez and Curt Schilling in 2004. He wasn't asked to lead the staff.

Same goes with Wade Miley; I think they overpaid by a ton (and we don't know who the third prospect is, which will make the overpayment worse), but they can afford to given the 40-man roster crunch and Pawtucket rotation crunch. He'll almost certainly be a positive WAR player and eat a bunch of innings. But, he's also at the mercy of BABip. If he has a lucky year, he'll look a little like John Lester in 2013; if he has bad luck, he'll look a lot like Ryan Dempster in 2013.

And people are really ignoring two other key points in their comparisons of this staff to the Orioles. Most importantly, the Orioles have 5 pitchers in their bullpen as good as or better than Junichi Tazawa. They probably have the second best bullpen behind Kansas City. That bullpen allows their starters to be mediocre, by allowing Buck to go to the pen starting in the 6th inning every night, thereby protecting the weaknesses of his starting staff. The Red Sox have Tazawa and Uehara, then a whole bunch of ifs, buts, and maybes. And the remaining free agent relievers are more of the same. Secondly, the Orioles have Kevin Gausman and Dylan Bundy, both of whom have unquestioned potential to become a staff ace, in Gausman's case possibly as soon as this year. The Red Sox would trade Henry Owens even up for either of them in a Manziel heartbeat.

You are forgetting the ability to not give a walk, something that Porcello has shown to be very good at in his career (he was #15 in the majors last season).  Think about it:  typical BABIP for a pitcher is around 0.300.  A walk is a 100% chance of a batter getting on base; making contact gives the batter only a 30% chance of getting on base.  Avoiding walks is a good thing.  Derek Lowe's career best BB/9 was 1.9 (and that was pitching in an absolute god-awful division), which is still higher than Porcello's BB/9 last season.  
 
The fact that BABIP is mostly out of a pitchers control is not just "the current consensus of the SABR community", but something that has been essentially proven as fact based on extensive statistical analysis.  All pitchers are at the mercy of BABIP to some extent.  You seem to imply that the Sox will be more so at the mercy of BABIP.  Well, Wade Miley had a 8.2 K/9 last season, which is quite good (good enough for #22 in the majors last season).  
 
Your characterization of Dylan Bundy as having potential of being a staff ace in 2015 is laughable to the point of absurdity.  

 

[DJnVa]

 
The fuck is this?
 
When a pitcher strikes a batter out, it's an out. End of story. When a pitcher pitches to contact and the batter hits a grounder, multiple instances can happen. The out is one of them. An error is one of them. A seeing-eye single is one of them. An infield hit is one of them.

 
Oh for crying out loud, stop.
 
First off Miley struck out 183 hitters. He was 4 strikeouts away from top 10 in the NL. Let's look at Porcello. He had 129 Ks. He was 52 strikeouts from being in the top 10. He averaged 5.7 K/9, top 10 is about 8.1, so 2.4 K/9
 
Those 52 fewer Ks and 2.4 K/9 are your issue. If he had struck 52 more guys then I guess you wouldn't have posted over and over saying the same thing.
 
So, 52 Ks in 31 starts. Essentially 1.7 hitters per start (or about 2.5 per 9 innings). Now, that's not 1.7 more HITS per start. It's 1.7 hitters making contact. If we say BABIP is .300, that means every 2 games ONE more hitter gets on base. About 15-17 a season.
 
Now sure, 1 more runner on base (every 2 games mind you) is not as good as 0. But it's not bad. And it's nowhere near as bad as you're making it out to be. No matter how many times you say it. You've posted 16 times in this thread. That's almost exactly the number of hitters that will get on base next year against Porcello due to this fatal flaw you think you've discovered.

 

[DJnVa]

And people are really ignoring two other key points in their comparisons of this staff to the Orioles. Most importantly, the Orioles have 5 pitchers in their bullpen as good as or better than Junichi Tazawa. 

 
Only if a few members of the KC Royals are visiting.
 
The 5 most active members of the O's pen last season were O'Day, Hunter, Britton, Matusz, and Webb. Hell, add in Brach. None of them had a FIP as low as Tazawa.

 

[Comebacker to Foulke]

Sometimes, a groundball pitcher will not be quite as good as his ERA would seem to indicate, since groundballers tend to give up a bit more than their share of UER's. Perhaps this is part of AD's less than enthusiastic reaction to our recent acquisitions? Not giving up UER's is a skill. Schilling was the best ever at it, BTW.









That said, I like Porcello and Miley.

 

[smastroyin]

Strikeouts matter a lot. I can't believe you guys who talk about FIP would argue that they don't really. In fact they matter quite a bit. But, where Porcello tends to make up for it is that walks matter more and he's really good at avoiding those. His GB rates are high but it doesn't really translate to an awesome SIERA partially because he's not especially great at suppressing LD. As well, he has never shown a particular BABIP skill, so there's no real evidence that the numbers are saying the wrong things about him. We can hope an improved defense will help of course.

 

[MikeM]

This is as good a place as any to say this, I guess. You know, every time a pitching acquisition target has been brought up around these parts, the general consensus here is fairly predictable. If it's a trade target, people will say "I'd give up anyone other than Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, or Owens to get him." If it's a free agent, particularly one who's near or over 30, it's "could we get him for [under five years] and [under $100 million]?" (Lester being an exception). In other words, nobody here wants to spend too much or give up the truly elite prospects. 
 
Well, here you are: the Red Sox brought in three pitchers without giving up the four untouchables and without giving out a nine-figure deal.... and we have at least two threads filled with people just straight-up angry ranting about how bad the acquisitions are. Isn't this exactly what we here at SoSH wanted? 

 
Agreed.
 
Everybody is ace this, lack of a #1 pitcher that....but i just never saw it to begin with. Still don't. We were either going to be the top FA bid on Max/Lester (maybe include Shields here), trade one of Betts/X, or plan for a season that didn't include adding that top of the rotation starter. Coming to my own terms with that, my biggest fear going into the winter meetings was that the initial flurry would pass us by, and being left looking at the same projected starting 5 with less potential upgrade doors to open latter on. 
 
Given our trade chip match ups and the surrounding reality he had to work with, i believe Ben is walking out of these winter meetings a winner. Kinda on the fence with the Masterson flyer, but Miley and Porcello were solid upgrades with an eye on the future imo. Keeping in mind we'll still likely be in the market to spend money on multiple starting pitchers next winter, and there's added value to be had in getting that in-house look on Porcello. Who we might actually have a legitimate interest in paying the necessary market value for latter, as opposed to 4 years deals for the likes of McCarthy or Santana. 
 
Off season isn't over yet either. 

 

[The Boomer]

 
Agreed.
 
Everybody is ace this, lack of a #1 pitcher that....but i just never saw it to begin with. Still don't. We were either going to be the top FA bid on Max/Lester (maybe include Shields here), trade one of Betts/X, or plan for a season that didn't include adding that top of the rotation starter. Coming to my own terms with that, my biggest fear going into the winter meetings was that the initial flurry would pass us by, and being left looking at the same projected starting 5 with less potential upgrade doors to open latter on. 
 
Given our trade chip match ups and the surrounding reality he had to work with, i believe Ben is walking out of these winter meetings a winner. Kinda on the fence with the Masterson flyer, but Miley and Porcello were solid upgrades with an eye on the future imo. Keeping in mind we'll still likely be in the market to spend money on multiple starting pitchers next winter, and there's added value to be had in getting that in-house look on Porcello. Who we might actually have a legitimate interest in paying the necessary market value for latter, as opposed to 4 years deals for the likes of McCarthy or Santana. 
 
Off season isn't over yet either. 

 
Kelly, Miley, Rodriguez, Owens and Johnson are all under team control into the future.  Porcello, entering his prime, younger and with Vermont/grandfather legacy ties to the team, will be worth market price to extend if he continues his progression with the Sox.  With Masterson, Napoli and Victorino coming off the books, there will be money freed for both him and, if needed, a missing ace.  The 2016 rotation could well be Zimmerman, Miley, Porcello, Buchholz (if he isn't traded) or Kelly (if he doesn't move to the bullpen) and one or two from among Rodriguez, Owens and Johnson.  They could get there without giving up their bluechip rookies, second years and even one of their top 10 prospects (all untouched at the winter meetings) by virtually standing pat through July.  They could keep this powder dry until the trade deadline, deal one of their studs from their greatest depth to the Nationals and, because they are in contention, rent Jordan Zimmerman for the stretch run and post season.  Boras is tough to negotiate with when he has a premier free agent but Zimmerman will still be just age 29 to start next season.  He has a work ethic and history that will make a top dollar 6 years contract a relatively reasonable risk.

 

[Shamus74]

 
The fuck is this?
 
When a pitcher strikes a batter out, it's an out. End of story.

 
Unless strike 3 gets past the catcher...

 

[Plympton91]

 
Only if a few members of the KC Royals are visiting.
 
The 5 most active members of the O's pen last season were O'Day, Hunter, Britton, Matusz, and Webb. Hell, add in Brach. None of them had a FIP as low as Tazawa.

I was including Miller in my count. But, you and the previous critic are right, my mental xFIP calculator was off by a bit. I prefer xFIP to FIP, as my highly regressed metric of choice (all of which should be quoted with bootstrapped standard errors to avoid the false precision most SABR people attach to their estimates).

Tazawa was 3.17, while four Orioles (Britton, Miller, Hunter, O'Day) had xFIPs below 3.32; to me that's close enough given the error bars around the statistic. But I missed on McFarlane (3.62) and Webb (3.55), who aren't close to Taz.

The third best Red Sox reliever right now is Mujica, whose xFIP was 3.82. So, let me amend my statement to say that the Orioles now have 5 relievers who were better then the Red Sox current 3rd best reliever. They have proven bullpen depth; the Red Sox don't. Hopefully, with it being only December 12, Ben has a plan to rectify that problem.

Edit: Responding to a couple other comments

Rudy others are right that Porcello limits walks and so that along with his groundball tendency mitigates the low strikeout rate in his xFIP calculations. I don't want to come off as not liking Porcello; the point was that he's Derek Lowe/John Lackey and not Pedro Martinez/John Lester. I love the trade for him as a low #2/kick-ass #3, but he was the Tigers' 4th best starter behind Max, Price, and Sanchez, yet he's currently the Red Sox best.

An optimist, however, could say that they have some reasonable probability of getting a low #1/good #2 season out of at least one of Masterson or Buchholz. In which case, they'll be all set.

There's high variance in this starting staff, but it has the potential to be really good.

 

[smastroyin]

FIP and xFIP do not care about batted ball types, really.

FIP considers HR, BB, HBP, K. That's it (IP as well but only to make it like ERA). There is a constant applied to make each year's league FIP equal to league ERA.

xFIP has larger error bars if you hate regression because it replaces actual HR with a calculation of projected HR allowed based on FB allowed. I'm on mobile so too lazy to take the effort of finding link, but as far as I know, data has yet to show that xFIP is actually more predictive...partly because HR/FB rate has a lot of variation.

 

[JimD]

 
Kelly, Miley, Rodriguez, Owens and Johnson are all under team control into the future.  Porcello, entering his prime, younger and with Vermont/grandfather legacy ties to the team, will be worth market price to extend if he continues his progression with the Sox.  With Masterson, Napoli and Victorino coming off the books, there will be money freed for both him and, if needed, a missing ace.  The 2016 rotation could well be Zimmerman, Miley, Porcello, Buchholz (if he isn't traded) or Kelly (if he doesn't move to the bullpen) and one or two from among Rodriguez, Owens and Johnson.  They could get there without giving up their bluechip rookies, second years and even one of their top 10 prospects (all untouched at the winter meetings) by virtually standing pat through July.  They could keep this powder dry until the trade deadline, deal one of their studs from their greatest depth to the Nationals and, because they are in contention, rent Jordan Zimmerman for the stretch run and post season.  Boras is tough to negotiate with when he has a premier free agent but Zimmerman will still be just age 29 to start next season.  He has a work ethic and history that will make a top dollar 6 years contract a relatively reasonable risk.

 
This post pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.  I don't believe that Ben and his staff are getting enough credit for incrementally improving the team while still keeping their options open for a big move.  As you state, they can add a big talent at the deadline if the Sox are competitive in 2015 and they can still go after a big-name free agent next winter.  This is the exact opposite of a team that makes big splashes just to see tickets.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Here are the links explaining how FIP, xFIP and SIERA are calculated.

 

[In my lifetime]

I am a little surprised how hard it is to please some on this board.  I look at what has been done by Ben & Co. and come away extremely impressed.
 
They added:
 
Upgrade at LF -- Ramirez    22 x 4 yrs
Tremendous Upgrade at 3B -- Sandoval  19.6 x 5 yrs
Tremendous upgrade in 3/5ths of the starting rotation --
Porcello  12.3
Masterson  9.5+ 
Wade 4.3
 
 
While giving up
Cespedes   10.5
De La Rosa  2.0
Webster
Wilson 
Speier
Minor League PTBNL 
 
and not getting Lester who probably would have cost the RS 25M x 6 yrs to get in the ball park where he would have considered returning to Boston.
 
 
 
So for upgrading tremendously at 5 of your 1st 16 roster spots (10 starting position players, 5 man rotation, closer), the RS have spent 55 M this year.  2 of the contracts extend for 4 or 5 years, so the long term comittment is very reasonable.  The entire financial expenditure over the life of the contracts for the 5 players subtracting the salaries traded is 201M.
 
On the other side, If the RS signed Lester and made no other moves the expenditure would have been ~162.5M and resulted in
Tremendous upgrade at #1 starter, but nothing else.  IMO, it would also have resulted in a more significant 4-6 year back-end risk as compared to the chosen course and its 4-5 year back-end risk.
 
 
All this was accomplished without sacrificing your top 5 prospects,
 
 
I think kudos are due Ben & Co. They managed to tremendously improve the team without dealing from a position of weakness or doing something desperate.
 
In Ben I trust.
 
I also trust they aren't done, but they certainly are now dealing from a position of relative strength.  An ace would be great, but there are no longer gaping holes that could lead to panic and desparation.