He is? f***. That leads me to believe even more than he was to be traded for Dunn.

 

Nah, so is Viciedo and Jones.

 

While Viciedo wasn't when we signed him, Jones was. Kenny/Cooper/Ozzie wanted Jackson.

This.

 

I wouldn't be all that upset if Coop didn't make dramatic changes to Jackson overnight, or even this season. I would STILL have more faith in Jackson than Hudson in a big game in the playoffs this year.

 

This whole thing reminds me so much of Brandon McCarthy. I think Edwin Jackson is going to be a monster next year.

 

It depends on what the flaw they are changing is. I know DickAllen referenced Silva at some point. The change Rothschild made in him was as simple as moving to the other side of the rubber to maximize hiding the rotation of his pitch a fraction of a second longer. It could be something of hand positioning on the ball, or an arm slot change, or the finish on a pitch. The arm slot change would be probably the hardest to adjust to, but it depends on how quickly Jackson's musclememory would pick it up. If it is simple, it could pay immediate dividends.

It depends on what the flaw they are changing is. I know DickAllen referenced Silva at some point. The change Rothschild made in him was as simple as moving to the other side of the rubber to maximize hiding the rotation of his pitch a fraction of a second longer. It could be something of hand positioning on the ball, or an arm slot change, or the finish on a pitch. The arm slot change would be probably the hardest to adjust to, but it depends on how quickly Jackson's musclememory would pick it up. If it is simple, it could pay immediate dividends.

Whatever the change we made was on Thornton, we picked him up at the end of ST, KW said "Here stop asking for him", and by day 1 of the season he was the Matt we've come to know and love.

Whatever the change we made was on Thornton, we picked him up at the end of ST, KW said "Here stop asking for him", and by day 1 of the season he was the Matt we've come to know and love.

 

IIRC the change in Matt was as simple as making him get the ball up over his wrist instead of on the side that way he had more control over it. That way he didn't have all of the sideways play in his release point.

And slightly off topic but anyone else notice that Linebrink's last 8 or 9 starts have been pretty damn good? Could you imagine if he had one of those elite half seasons the rest of the way?

 

Shhhhhhhh. Don't talk about it.

I was about to say, why hasn't Coop fixed Liney?? ;-)

 

It would be nice if he got his act together and started hitting his spots, our Pen would be just killer

 

It kind of already is killer. It'd jump to elite (one of the best of the last 20 years) if he and Jenks had a great finish to the season.

He's just not as fatigued since he's not getting used much.

 

Since June 11th...

 

9.2 Innings, 9 hits, 2 ER, 4 BB, 8 K, 2 HR, 1.86 ERA.

 

Because of the home runs, he does have a 5.47 FIP.

 

Whoa, less than 10 innings in more than a month and a half? That's very little use. And 9 hits in 9 innings isn't great.

I know that everyone hates the Edwin Jackson deal because of the money, but I'm fascinated by this dude.

 

Not to cherry-pick numbers, but he had an ERA+ of more than 150 heading into September last year (through 26 starts). I can't wait until he makes his Sox debut.

Whoa, less than 10 innings in more than a month and a half? That's very little use. And 9 hits in 9 innings isn't great.

Still light years better than what he had produced prior to this stretch.

Just because Coop likes him doesnt mean we didnt overpay for him. Jackson has been bad this year, there is no denying that, and with the price tag he has you dont give up the only SP prospect that you have that can make an impact on your big league club this year (we have other pitchers, but no one else is close to Hudson's level).

 

Even if Jackson succeeds, we're stuck with a $54 million starting rotation with no clear favorites to replace one of those expensive starters. I would like Jackson if we kept Hudson, because then we still ahve the flexibility to trade a starter in the offseason while having Hudson be the cheap yet potentially good 5th starter.

Sometimes you overpay to get your guy. If you really like him, and really have faith in him, then you can afford to overpay because you have immense confidence that he will pay large dividends for you.

 

Let the trade play out a bit...

I know that everyone hates the Edwin Jackson deal because of the money, but I'm fascinated by this dude.

 

Not to cherry-pick numbers, but he had an ERA+ of more than 150 heading into September last year (through 26 starts). I can't wait until he makes his Sox debut.

Can you give me a run down of the ERA+ statistic

Can you give me a run down of the ERA+ statistic

http://tinyurl.com/3a32e73

Can you give me a run down of the ERA+ statistic

It's a pitcher's ERA normalized by the cumulative set of ballparks he's pitching in and the performance of the rest of the league.

 

ERA+ of 100 = average pitcher. ERA+ of 120 = very good pitcher. ERA+ of 82 = Randy Williams.

It's a pitcher's ERA normalized by the cumulative set of ballparks he's pitching in and the performance of the rest of the league.

 

ERA+ of 100 = average pitcher. ERA+ of 120 = very good pitcher. ERA+ of 82 = Randy Williams.

You sure he was that high?

You sure he was that high?

Yes, I checked.

 

His total ERA was only 5.40 and he logged a lot of innings in one of the best hitting parks in baseball.

Yes, I checked.

 

His total ERA was only 5.40 and he logged a lot of innings in one of the best hitting parks in baseball.

Is there a similar stat that also includes inherited runners scored?

The issue with ERA+ is that it takes defense into account, which is a incredibly big factor if you think about it. It's nice that it adjusts for parks and league, but it's not exactly a great indicator of talent with a smaller sample size.

 

If we're talking ERA+ over 10 years, then it becomes extremely accurate. However, if we're looking at it over a time period of 5 months, I'm not so sure it would be a great measure.

Edited August 2, 201015 yr by chw42

I don't think the Sox overpaid for Jackson. I'm in the Hudosn is being overrated side of things. If you told me a year ago that the Sox could have Peavy and Jackson for, basically, Richard and Hudson, I would have said you're nuts. Peavy's injury notwithstanding I think they were both excellent trades for the Sox.

Just trying to be positive here. I know it's some extreme cherry-picking.

 

The American League ERA+ rankings going into September of 2009 looked something like this:

 

1. Greinke 200+

2. King Felix 170+

3. Edwin Jackson 150+

4. Roy Halladay 140+

 

I did not read all 120 pages of the Edwin Jackson thread. I have no idea if people are looking at stuff like this.

I don't think the Sox overpaid for Jackson. I'm in the Hudosn is being overrated side of things. If you told me a year ago that the Sox could have Peavy and Jackson for, basically, Richard and Hudson, I would have said you're nuts. Peavy's injury notwithstanding I think they were both excellent trades for the Sox.

It sure would be nice if Peavy comes back in 2011 with no ill effects from his injury.

If Jackson can realize his potential as well - then, wow...

 

We'd have four bonifided aces: peavy, danks, Floyd, and Jackson.

Mark as a number 5 - rediculious!!

For anyone curious of Edwin Jackson's inherited runners numbers this season, they're incredibly tame:

 

(1st/2nd/3rd = where Edwin left the runner)

 

1 IR 1 IS (1 out, 1st)

1 IR 0 IS

1 IR 1 IS (1 out, 2nd)

1 IR 0 IS

1 IR 0 IS

2 IR 0 IS

1 IR 1 IS (0 out, 2nd)

 

3 IS/ 8 IR

 

Completely eliminate those 3 runs and his ERA is still about five.

 

To put things in perspective: JJ Putz allowed 3 runners he inherited from Gavin Floyd to score with 1 swing on April 23rd.

For anyone curious of Edwin Jackson's inherited runners numbers this season, they're incredibly tame:

 

(1st/2nd/3rd = where Edwin left the runner)

 

1 IR 1 IS (1 out, 1st)

1 IR 0 IS

1 IR 1 IS (1 out, 2nd)

1 IR 0 IS

1 IR 0 IS

2 IR 0 IS

1 IR 1 IS (0 out, 2nd)

 

3 IS/ 8 IR

 

Completely eliminate those 3 runs and his ERA is still about five.

 

You would have thought the bullpen screwed him more.

 

It's more or less his doing. That Arizona defense behind him is also pretty decent. Johnson and Reynolds have had pretty good years (for them) defensively. Their infield UZR isn't any lower than ours.