I'm with anthony and have been on this subject for a while.  Koch has done his job this year.  He's 7 for 8, who cares about his era, his era went up big time in those two games against baltimore where he let up one and two runs in back to back games but he still closed out the game and did his job.  You guys can say what you want about koch but he's done his job this year, period.

Who cares about his ERA, I'll tell you who, I care about his f***ing ERA. You can't be giving up runs on a consistent basis if you are going to be closer. Period.

Who cares about his ERA, I'll tell you who, I care about his f***ing ERA.  You can't be giving up runs on a consistent basis if you are going to be closer.  Period.

If he comes into a game with a two run lead and lets up one does it matter?? Not to me it doesn't, I think era is pretty overrated for a closer, he has to close games out period. If he lets up a run or two when he has a two run or three run lead it doesn't matter as long as the sox win the game. You guys can rip billy all you want but he's doing his job.

Who cares about his ERA, I'll tell you who, I care about his f***ing ERA.  You can't be giving up runs on a consistent basis if you are going to be closer.  Period.

The job of a closer is to save at lest 80% of your chances which koch has done. It's not to have a pretty era.

Also the hits are a product of having the slumbering Lee and Konerko behind him.  If they start to hit, Frank will see more pitches to hit, but the walks will drop off.

He will start to hit, but it won't be singles....

 

Frank is gonna walk 120 times regardless.

Not to me it doesn't, I think era is pretty overrated for a closer

And I think the air is pretty overrated for a human being.

 

See, we all have our wacky theories.

Surprisingly, NOBODY has mentioned Sandy Alomar yet.

 

I would give him a B/C. B on the offense, but his defense brings him down I think.

I'd say we just say F**K it and just give the whole damn team an A.

 

Now lets go get us some Rangers!

 

Could be worse, we could be like the Royals fans --->

I agree with those of you that said Olivo should be graded higher. He has certainly exceeded my expectations. I thought Cotts and Adkins were rated too high, since they are both basically long-middle relief mop up guys and have faltered at times. Olivo B. Cotts and Adkins C.

I agree with those of you that said Olivo should be graded higher. He has certainly exceeded my expectations

 

How so?

 

He can't throw out a baserunner to save his life, has 5 errors already, pass-balls, allowed some catchable wild pitches and, quite frankly, is a subpar pitcher-handler/pitch-framer.

 

Sure the spike in offense is nice (and expected), but defensively he has been one of the worst catchers in AL, a big disappointment.

How so?

 

He can't throw out a baserunner to save his life, has 5 errors already, pass-balls, allowed some catchable wild pitches and, quite frankly, is a subpar pitcher-handler/pitch-framer.

 

Sure the spike in offense is nice (and expected), but defensively he has been one of the worst catchers in AL, a big disappointment.

I wouldn't consider the spike in his offense as "expected". A gradual increase in offensive productivity, yes. A spike to a .300 hitter, no.

If he comes into a game with a two run lead and lets up one does it matter?? Not to me it doesn't, I think era is pretty overrated for a closer, he has to close games out period.  If he lets up a run or two when he has a two run or three run lead it doesn't matter as long as the sox win the game.  You guys can rip billy all you want but he's doing his job.

So does batting average matter to hitters? If you take away Crede's .211 average he is on pace for about 30 HRs and 85 RBI. Does that mean he is having a great season? Technically if you throw out his BA he is doing his job... To me ERA=batting average.

To me ERA=batting average.

 

Not OPS?

Not OPS?

Thats my point. ERA and Batting average aren't the most important stats. They are meaningful, but they aren't the be all end all. They indicate a big part of what is going on though.

Thats my point.  ERA and Batting average aren't the most important stats.  They are meaningful, but they aren't the be all end all.  They indicate a big part of what is going on though.

I think ERA is the single best stat for a pitcher, while BA is not as important for a hitter.

 

Crede's hitting problem this season is a really low OPS, clutch #s and quite a few GIDP.

I think ERA is the single best stat for a pitcher

I'd say that it's WHIP ratio.

 

Although someone like Curt Schilling could give up 30 HR in a season and still have a 1.10 WHIP ratio. But otherwise, there aren't very many exceptions.

 

If there are two outs in an inning and someone like, ahem, JOSE! JOSE! JOSE! JOSE! makes an error, and runs score as a result of subsequent walks and hits, the ERA doesn't take a hit, but your WHIP ratio certainly does. Mind you, this could never happen because Jose's errors never result in unearned runs.

 

Damaso Marte enters the game with men on first and second. Both of those runs score before the inning ends, but he doesn't pick up any earned runs. That's bulls***. But the walks and hits that he gave up are reflected in his WHIP ratio.

I'd say that it's WHIP ratio.

 

Although someone like Curt Schilling could give up 30 HR in a season and still have a 1.10 WHIP ratio.  But otherwise, there aren't very many exceptions.

 

If there are two outs in an inning and someone like, ahem, JOSE! JOSE! JOSE! JOSE! makes an error, and runs score as a result of subsequent walks and hits, the ERA doesn't take a hit, but your WHIP ratio certainly does.  Mind you, this could never happen because Jose's errors never result in unearned runs. 

 

Damaso Marte enters the game with men on first and second.  Both of those runs score before the inning ends, but he doesn't pick up any earned runs.  That's bulls***.  But the walks and hits that he gave up are reflected in his WHIP ratio.

yeah you beat me to that answer

 

OPS=WHIP

Im a whip man myself, I think if you have a low whip, your era is bound to stay low, considering era is just the end result of walks and hits.

 

But to each their own.

 

SB

I'd say that it's WHIP ratio.

 

Although someone like Curt Schilling could give up 30 HR in a season and still have a 1.10 WHIP ratio.  But otherwise, there aren't very many exceptions.

 

If there are two outs in an inning and someone like, ahem, JOSE! JOSE! JOSE! JOSE! makes an error, and runs score as a result of subsequent walks and hits, the ERA doesn't take a hit, but your WHIP ratio certainly does.  Mind you, this could never happen because Jose's errors never result in unearned runs. 

 

Damaso Marte enters the game with men on first and second.  Both of those runs score before the inning ends, but he doesn't pick up any earned runs.  That's bulls***.  But the walks and hits that he gave up are reflected in his WHIP ratio.

Or.....

 

If given a choice of a 2.50 ERA and a 1.50 WHIP and a 5.00 ERA and a 1.00 WHIP.....what would you choose?

 

That one is dependent on the other matters not - afterall we're talking about which is the bigger stat. It's ERA.

Esteban Loiaza- While hoping he would build off of last years success, his numbers have plunged towards ordinary, including a huge drop in strikeouts.

 

Loaiza has changed quite a bit. He is still my favorite Sox pitcher even though he lost three times in a roll, but the year is still young. I hope to see him get his sixth win tomorrow as he is leading the pitching staff with 5 wins.

 

One more thing. I am still proud Esteban decided to stay with the Sox once again. Not like some other people *cough*Colon*cough*

If he comes into a game with a two run lead and lets up one does it matter?? Not to me it doesn't, I think era is pretty overrated for a closer, he has to close games out period.  If he lets up a run or two when he has a two run or three run lead it doesn't matter as long as the sox win the game.  You guys can rip billy all you want but he's doing his job.

His ERA should not be 4.67. Period.

 

I don't give a s*** if his ERA is 3.50, 3.75, something like that. 4.67 is unacceptable.

Just to add on to this ERA/WHIP argument...

 

To me, WHIP is more important for relievers, while ERA is more important for starters. I don't want my relievers allowing baserunners. I don't want my starters allowing runs.

 

Is that reasonable?

For a starter to have such an era 5 with a 1 whip, would be a very bizzare set of results.

 

I would say that I doubt it would continue, and that over the long term I would prefer a starter that had a very low whip, and had a year with a high era, than a starter with a very high whip with low era.

 

The first would suggest bad luck, the later would suggest good luck.

 

If you are giving up less hits and walks, more times than not you will give up less runs. Unless you just have some major problem giving up hits in a row, or being ineffective with men on.

 

Whatever it is, it would be a very wild circumstance.

 

Generally if you have around a 1 whip your giving up less than 4 runs.

 

SB

Just to add on to this ERA/WHIP argument...

 

To me, WHIP is more important for relievers, while ERA is more important for starters.  I don't want my relievers allowing baserunners.  I don't want my starters allowing runs.

 

Is that reasonable?

Absolutely -- Though an even better stat for starters is just RA -- Screw that ERA bulls***. As a pitcher it is your job to keep runs from scoring. Period. A pitcher that prevents runs from scoring in general is more valuable than one who is just good at keeping his ERA numbers looking nice. There are inaccuracies that occur when factoring in errors, Home scorekeepers et al. sure there are times when a defence, or lack thereof, costs a pitcher in the RA category, but that just puts more emphasis on the ability of a pitcher to get hitters out without the need of the defense(i.e. strikeout)

 

I also think that if a pitcher makes an error, and then there is an "Unearned run" that it should still count against the ERA -- After all, it was the pitchers fault the run scored.

Absolutely -- Though an even better stat for starters is just RA -- Screw that ERA bulls***.  As a pitcher it is your job to keep runs from scoring. Period.  A pitcher that prevents runs from scoring in general is more valuable than one who is just good at keeping his ERA numbers looking nice.  There are inaccuracies that occur when factoring in errors, Home scorekeepers et al.  sure there are times when a defence, or lack thereof, costs a pitcher in the RA category, but that just puts more emphasis on the ability of a pitcher to get hitters out without the need of the defense(i.e. strikeout)

 

I also think that if a pitcher makes an error, and then there is an "Unearned run" that it should still count against the ERA -- After all, it was the pitchers fault the run scored.

We can agree on this as well.

 

I do think RA can be useful when deterimining a pitcher's value. You also have to consider who was playing behind him and how bad they were too. If a guy's RA is say 3.50, but he has 7 GG's with all kinds of range behind him who have great hands and can make damn near any play, you have to take that into effect. And the opposite is true too...if a guy's RA is around 4.50 or 5.00, and his defense is full of Royce Clayton's and D'Angelo Jimenez's, that has to be considered.

 

Basically, if a guy's RA is close to his ERA, take a look at the defense behind him, because it may be very good, and if his RA is way different then his ERA, look at the defense behind him, because he could have s***ty-ass fielders behind him.

 

Using a comparison of ERA and RA is a good way to determine a starter's value.

 

And I agree with the last part too. I believe a wild pitch is considered an error, so when the runner on third scores, it is ruled as an unearned run. That should not be so.

 

 

Another stat I want to see is keeping track of a catcher's W-L record. Not a lot is said about how a catcher calls a game. Sometimes, that can show a lot.

Wild pitches and pass balls are that, not errors.