Comments on: Dice-K without a loss, but with plenty of walks http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/dice-k-without-a-loss-but-with-plenty-of-walks-2/ People don't think it be like it is, but it do. Sun, 20 May 2012 07:23:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: shtiny http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/dice-k-without-a-loss-but-with-plenty-of-walks-2/#comment-1375 Fri, 30 May 2008 16:05:57 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/dice-k-without-a-loss-but-with-plenty-of-walks-2/#comment-1375 Jake Peavy, Roy Oswalt, are in the $17 M range. I would take either over Dice-K. Jake Peavy, Roy Oswalt, are in the $17 M range. I would take either over Dice-K.

]]> by: Cliffy http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/dice-k-without-a-loss-but-with-plenty-of-walks-2/#comment-1372 Fri, 23 May 2008 13:18:19 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/dice-k-without-a-loss-but-with-plenty-of-walks-2/#comment-1372 Back to Dice-K and the walks and ERA, posted on that baseball listserv, this interesting tidbit: "For what it's worth, in 1959, Sam Jones led the NL in both ERA and walks allowed. Amos Rusie did it in 1894, John Clarkson in 1889. Also Sam McDowell, AL 1965." Back to Dice-K and the walks and ERA, posted on that baseball listserv, this interesting tidbit:

“For what it’s worth, in 1959, Sam Jones led the NL
in both ERA and walks allowed. Amos Rusie did it
in 1894, John Clarkson in 1889. Also Sam McDowell,
AL 1965.”

]]> by: Cliffy http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/dice-k-without-a-loss-but-with-plenty-of-walks-2/#comment-1371 Fri, 23 May 2008 13:17:20 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/dice-k-without-a-loss-but-with-plenty-of-walks-2/#comment-1371 He's definitely got good stuff, as far as whether its "#1 or #2 stuff", I dunno. Beckett's the staff ace, and hopefully will be for a while. Buchholz looks to have "#1 stuff" - but still has to grow into it and learn how to pitch (though with a no-hitter already under his belt, I guess we can say he's coming along in that dept - and throwing to Varitek can't hurt his development either). As for "#1 money", depends how you wanna look at it. Purely on salary, he's a bargain at $8 mil/yr. Factor in the posting fee, and he averages to $17 mil/yr - but look at the other guys in that neighborhood.... Zito, Zambrano, Pettitte... I'm probably missing a couple. Is Mike Hampton still being paid on that ridiculous contract he was given? The Sox can afford to "overpay" - but that's apparently market pricing for good FA pitchers, and I'm not sure I'd trade Dice-K (considering age and ability) for any of the other pitchers in the $17 mil/yr range... give or take. So whether he's #1 or #2... moot point - just go win games (and he's doing that). On a related note, Beckett is 28, Dice-K is 27, Lester is 24, and Buchholz and Masterson are 23. Colon and Schilling are fat and old, but could still be effective in short spurts, at least this year. And 40-yr-old Wakefield is still effective with his knuckleball, and who knows when that'll end. Lester and Buchholz already have no-hitters. Beckett and Dice-K have no-hitter stuff. Masterson has made two ML starts, going at least 6 innings both times, only allowing 1 run each time. It is well. He’s definitely got good stuff, as far as whether its “#1 or #2 stuff”, I dunno. Beckett’s the staff ace, and hopefully will be for a while. Buchholz looks to have “#1 stuff” - but still has to grow into it and learn how to pitch (though with a no-hitter already under his belt, I guess we can say he’s coming along in that dept - and throwing to Varitek can’t hurt his development either). As for “#1 money”, depends how you wanna look at it. Purely on salary, he’s a bargain at $8 mil/yr. Factor in the posting fee, and he averages to $17 mil/yr - but look at the other guys in that neighborhood…. Zito, Zambrano, Pettitte… I’m probably missing a couple. Is Mike Hampton still being paid on that ridiculous contract he was given?

The Sox can afford to “overpay” - but that’s apparently market pricing for good FA pitchers, and I’m not sure I’d trade Dice-K (considering age and ability) for any of the other pitchers in the $17 mil/yr range… give or take. So whether he’s #1 or #2… moot point - just go win games (and he’s doing that).

On a related note, Beckett is 28, Dice-K is 27, Lester is 24, and Buchholz and Masterson are 23. Colon and Schilling are fat and old, but could still be effective in short spurts, at least this year. And 40-yr-old Wakefield is still effective with his knuckleball, and who knows when that’ll end.

Lester and Buchholz already have no-hitters. Beckett and Dice-K have no-hitter stuff. Masterson has made two ML starts, going at least 6 innings both times, only allowing 1 run each time.

It is well.

]]> by: Jakes http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/dice-k-without-a-loss-but-with-plenty-of-walks-2/#comment-1370 Fri, 23 May 2008 01:10:54 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/dice-k-without-a-loss-but-with-plenty-of-walks-2/#comment-1370 Agreed. Surprising. I haven't seen him pitch much this year, but my sense is that he's light years ahead of last year in terms of his propensity to nibble. He knows that he needs to throw strikes, and seems to be trying to do so with more consistency than he did last year - with mixed results. I think he's only going to get better. Now, I don't know if he has #1 stuff, so maybe if he throws more strikes he'll hit more bats. But it seems like he's going to be a nice #2. Granted for #1 money, but the Red Sox can afford that luxury. Agreed. Surprising.

I haven’t seen him pitch much this year, but my sense is that he’s light years ahead of last year in terms of his propensity to nibble. He knows that he needs to throw strikes, and seems to be trying to do so with more consistency than he did last year - with mixed results. I think he’s only going to get better.

Now, I don’t know if he has #1 stuff, so maybe if he throws more strikes he’ll hit more bats. But it seems like he’s going to be a nice #2. Granted for #1 money, but the Red Sox can afford that luxury.

]]>