Our #2 starter -- 41st in baseball!

by mattwelch on Mar 6, 2006 9:11 PM PST

According to Part 2 of the Hardball Times Top 50 pitchers.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/top-50-starting-pitchers-for-2006-part-2/

Here's the sniffy little blurb:

41. John Lackey: Analysts are on the fence as to whether Lackey just had his breakout season in 2005. I think he did, and should have a hard time posting an ERA under 3.50 while allowing so many baserunners. The 200 Ks are beautiful, and World Series memories might inflate his price some more. Maybe he builds upon the 3.44 ERA, but I'm leaning more towards 3.94.

Danny Haren, to pull one name out of a hat, was 28th. Here's what Tim Dierkes says about Danny:

28. Dan Haren: Acquiring Haren probably ranks as Billy Beane's best trade. The 25-year-old had an excellent 2005, and I expect a very similar year in 2006. Perhaps the WHIP will rise a tick, but I don't want to nit-pick. Problem is, one of last year's very best sleepers is now a known commodity after winning 14 games. You'd probably have to go past $10 to get him, and that won't result in positive value.

Gosh, sounds like Haren's a whole lot better than Lackey, right? Um...

14-12, 3.73 ERA, 163/56 K/BB in 217 IP, 24 yrs old
14-05, 3.44 ERA, 199/71 K/BB in 209 IP, 26 yrs old, panther

No other Halo besides Bart (24th) made the Top 50. Joe Blanton was 33rd, Barry Zito 18th, Rich Harden 7th.

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan and may or may not be a reflection of human evolution, divine enlightenment or nine cans into a 12-pack.

0 recs | Comment 68 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The bias will sink them

Idiotic ...why waste more on some pinhead fantasy advisors who are probably hoarding Angel pitchers in their own leagues...

by Rev Halofan on Mar 6, 2006 9:16 PM PST 0 recs

Because it's FUN!

And a good day to wind down after a day at the factory.

by mattwelch on Mar 6, 2006 9:18 PM PST up 0 recs

Interesting logic

Last year was Lackey's breakout season, so naturally this year he'll be worse.

Switch the hats, and Lackey's in the top ten.

by LA Seitz on Mar 6, 2006 9:34 PM PST 0 recs

heres the logic

anybody can pull convient stats to make somekind of argument no matter how weak it may be.

look at haren's splits by month.

APR: 1-3, 3.73, 29/16, 30.2
MAY: 1-4, 4.54, 22/11, 35.2
JUN: 5-0, 3.09, 30/6, 43.2
JUL: 1-0, 6.35, 14/4, 28.1
AUG: 3-3, 2.76, 27/5, 42.1
SEP: 3-2, 2.48, 32/9, 36.1

is it unfair to suggest that rookie may take his lumps during a season, especially at the start?

haren's stats w/o APR & MAY

12-5, 3.46, 103/24, 150.2

those are some nice numbers for a rookie. but what about lackey's career stats.

lackey's career

47-38, 4.15, 563/230, 719.2

lackey's stats as a 24yr old

10-16, 4.63, 151/66, 204.0

now for the comparison. are the angels more likely to get lackey from last year, career avg. lackey or do i dare say an 04 or 03 lackey? last year was his career year, i doubt he follows it up with simular numbers. haren showed stints of brillance as a rookie and just about everyone agree that he is just going to improve and without a horrible july haren would have blown lackey away. thats why lackey is rated lower. do you understand this "interesting" logic?

by numbtards on Mar 7, 2006 10:31 AM PST 0 recs

you think

lackey had his career year at age 26? you think it's "logical" to say "I doubt he follows it up with simular [sic] numbers" yet you say haren's going to improve? where the hell's the logic in that? this is total A's bias. no one here is saying haren will not improve.

I also hear a lot of "would haves" from you - is there a stat for that, numbtards?

also, what's more brilliant than winning a World Series game 7 as a rookie?

by Higz on Mar 7, 2006 10:46 AM PST up 0 recs

A's bias by the nubmers

yeah young guys tend to improve, disagree? lackey came from back to back seasons with an ERA over 4.6 has he all of sunder seen that light and now he knows how to pitch. its not unusual for pitchers to have a really good year amoung a bunch of garbage years. and if by a lot of would haves you mean zero yeaht that is a lot. whats more brilliant than winning game 7 of the world series? following with his 03 season, simply brilliant.

by numbtards on Mar 7, 2006 11:00 AM PST up 0 recs

you don't get it

lackey is a young guy still, he has refined his pitches in the last few years to bring about what he did in 05

regarding "would haves," you're the one who wants to subtract Haren's bad month and say "without that month he would have been better than Lackey... duh, you don't get to do that. (do I really need to explain that to you?)

by Higz on Mar 7, 2006 11:14 AM PST up 0 recs

So your point

is that you can predict the future - why not get a job as a phone psychic?

Sorry dude, unless you are holding back the results of that tarot reading, you cannot predict the future, you can only guess and your patternspotting methods here are amateurish at best:

Someone who was that age of the guy on MY TEAM who once did something similar went on to achieve at this level...

BUT...

The guy on YOUR TEAM who did something pretty good will go on to be lousy because some other people who once accomplished that feat went on to never again attain that level.

Genius? Delusioned? Infantile?

by Rev Halofan on Mar 7, 2006 11:16 AM PST up 0 recs

I quoth numbtard

"without a horrible july haren would have blown lackey away"

zero would haves indeed

by Higz on Mar 7, 2006 11:22 AM PST up 0 recs

Pull out Lackey's April and May

and you have the best pitcher in basbeall.

by Rev Halofan on Mar 7, 2006 10:52 AM PST up 0 recs

ah no

you dont have the best pitcher in baseball. you have a very good pitcher but there are guys that put better entire years together that are better than lackey's minus apr & may.

by numbtards on Mar 7, 2006 11:07 AM PST up 0 recs

your right

a lot of would haves = 1. sorry for the oversight. i never claimed to predict the future nor did i stipulate on who would have a better season between the two. i did however offer some insght as to why haren is rated higher than lackey. but congrats to a guy who all of a sudden refined his pitches to drop his ERA by over 1 point from his previous two seasons.

by numbtards on Mar 7, 2006 11:32 AM PST up 0 recs

did I say all of a sudden?

learning pitches is an ongoing process the results of which usually coalesce down the road, not overnight. you know, kind of like the process by which you're striving to learn how to spell

by Higz on Mar 7, 2006 11:39 AM PST up 0 recs

no

i said it. never claimed you did. to drop your ERA by over 1 point in one season is pretty sudden. due to both the magnitude of the improvement and the fact that it happened in 1 year.

by numbtards on Mar 7, 2006 11:44 AM PST up 0 recs

Prediction

John Lackey will be in the Top 5 for the 2007 Cy Young voting and Dan Haren will not.

by Rev Halofan on Mar 7, 2006 12:54 PM PST up 0 recs

YES!

a Panther Prediction! i like that one, Rev.

by yeswecan on Mar 7, 2006 12:58 PM PST up 0 recs

WOW

nice prediction, and by nice i me absurd. if lackey is in the top 5 then i guess that leaves room for zito, harden, haren, and blanton ahead of him. seriously, unless he wins 25+ games its going to be hard to be considered for the cy young with an ERA that is more than likey to be around 4.

by numbtards on Mar 7, 2006 1:04 PM PST up 0 recs

LIKELY TO BE AROUND 4 ???

THERE YOU GO AGAIN - what Tarot deck do you use to to find that out - oh,yeah, the one you pull out of your ass.

by Rev Halofan on Mar 7, 2006 1:49 PM PST up 0 recs

again?

thats the first number i've associated with lackey for next year. you just predicted he'd be in the top five in cy young, guess your tarot cards are better than mine. heres my numbtard math i sure hope you can handle it. 2 years of throwing garbage with 1 year of solid pitching. 2 > 1. so he's thrown more garbage than non-garbage. its amazing how soon you forget the dude's ERA was 4.6+ before last year.

by numbtards on Mar 7, 2006 1:58 PM PST up 0 recs

No tarot here

Yeah, garbage, as if they were going to release Lackey or something.

Once again, the Angels get no respect as they dance on the Oakland mound in division clinching victory. Yeah, they ALL suck and they are ALL getting older and the A's are immortal and unbeatable and will be fighting Texas for a distant 3rd place.

All I have are my eyes.
You have your numbers and Ken Macha.

I'll take my eyesight over your inadequate abstract representations of reality and the numbskull in charge of getting hte best numerals out of the flesh and blodd you ignore.

by Rev Halofan on Mar 7, 2006 2:08 PM PST up 0 recs

improvement

the way lackey pitched for most of last year, and seeing the improvement he's made, there's no reason to think he will revert to the inconsistencies that plagued him up until last year.

by yeswecan on Mar 7, 2006 2:44 PM PST up 0 recs

Sure there is

You're forgetting, he doesn't wear a green hat, and therefore any improvement he showed was fluky. Guys who wear green hats, however, can always be expected to improve on their numbers from prior seasons.

And haven't you heard, most major league pitchers tend to reach their peaks at age 25 or so. That's why Haren's on the way up, and the 27 year old Lackey is completely over the hill.

by LA Seitz on Mar 7, 2006 3:04 PM PST up 0 recs

Completely

unless he 35 and signed a 3 year, $21 million deal with Billy Beane. Then, in that instance only, he is an immortal stud and Billy is a genius for spending all that money...

by Rev Halofan on Mar 7, 2006 4:01 PM PST up 0 recs

oooh emasculation!

numbtards = numbgnards

by atomburn on Mar 7, 2006 4:41 PM PST up 0 recs

Numb and Dumb

Read his posts and it is clear that HE IS JUST NOT FEELIN IT !

by Rev Halofan on Mar 7, 2006 4:46 PM PST up 0 recs

Thanks for the feedback

Hi, I'm that Tim Dierkes guy who wrote that article. It was odd, I was reading Rev's latest trade rumor and then I noticed the comments about my article.

First off, I most definitely do not have an Oakland bias. I'm a Cubs fan and while I like the work of Beane it certainly wasn't on my mind when evaluating the 2006 fantasy value of Lackey/Haren.

Which leads to my next point: the rankings are based on projected 2006 fantasy baseball 5x5 value. Not real life value, just plain old fantasy.

So Haren is 25 and I have him getting 14 wins with a 3.71 ERA and 1.26 WHIP with 167 Ks in 220 IP. Compared to his '05: mild improvement in K rate, slight regression in hits allowed, slight regression in walks allowed, slight improvement in HR allowed. Peripherals plugged into Bill James's component ERA formula to get 3.71. I have his WHIP getting signficantly worse.

Lackey is 27. Component ERA says his 3.44 ERA last year should've been 3.78. I have him with a career high 15 wins, slight regression in K rate, slight regression in hits allowed, slight improvement in walks allowed, slight regression in HR allowed. It is highly likely he gives up more HRs per IP. Result is a 3.94 ERA in 216 innings with a 1.34 WHIP. You can't argue that the dude allows a lot of baserunners.

Honestly, guys, when I buried myself in numbers to do projections I wasn't thinking about hat color. The difference is only $1.89 in fantasy value anyway; the rankings could easily flip.

Ron Shandler loves Lackey and his second half control improvement, predicting a 3.55 ERA and 1.28 WHIP with 3.00 ERA 20 win upside. Dude's a fantasy baseball genius so go with his if it makes you feel more secure.

By the way Rev I was hoping to email you if possible - dierkes@gmail.com if you have a minute.

by Tim Dierkes on Mar 7, 2006 6:30 PM PST 0 recs

Wound tight

No props for the Division Champs across the preseason baseball mediasphere has gotten us edgy to say the least - you canonly take so much criticism.

by Rev Halofan on Mar 7, 2006 6:36 PM PST up 0 recs

be careful tim...

you are going to make rev's head explode

The Los Angeles Angels Of Anaheim (Fully translated into English: The The Angels Angels of Anaheim)

by wakeupLA on Mar 7, 2006 10:36 PM PST up 0 recs

Like your

Daddy's?

by Rev Halofan on Mar 7, 2006 10:50 PM PST up 0 recs

Rotisserie baseball's the problem

I had a long conversation by e-mail with Aaron Gleeman, who told me that the problem isn't so much Lackey as the kind of things rotisserie baseball likes to see. By those metrics, Lackey isn't all that impressive.

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

by scareduck on Mar 7, 2006 7:03 PM PST 0 recs

bottom line

the guy came out of nowhere threw garbage all of 03 and 04, threw garbage for april and may of 05 and all of a sudden knows how to pitch? time will tell. for fans of a defending divisional champ you guys sure are defensive, sounds like you scared and if i was a the the angels angels of anahiem fan i would too. keep talking about loaiza and how billy beane sucks cause there aren't many people that have done what he's done with so little money. plus all signing loaiza did was give the best starting rotation in baseball. btw the way the comparison of lackey and haren is comparing the angels #2 to the A's #3 or 4 starter, nobody would even mention lackey in the same sentence as zito or harden. oops i just did. billy i'll drink the koolaid please don't strike me down.

by numbtards on Mar 8, 2006 10:26 AM PST 0 recs

Mr. 'Tard

if you've ever watched baseball instead of studying D&D manuals--err, infallible stat sheets, you might realize that some players improve, and that improvement can be projected based on factors that involve more than simple math and 20-sided dice.

i was no fan of lackey throughout '04, and i was very vocal in my criticism of scioscia continuing to roll that guy out there. but i was wrong--it seems like lackey figured it out last year. he's a much smarter pitcher now, and he doesn't let his emotions get to him the way they did in 03 and 04. simply put, he's matured as a pitcher, and i expect him to have a fantastic season.

by yeswecan on Mar 8, 2006 11:18 AM PST up 0 recs

Little money

Hey, why is that the A's have so little money to work with?

Oh, that's right, they have shitty fans.

By the way, I'd point out the inconsitency of your opinion of Lackey when compared to your opinion of Loaiza, he of the below average career (and simply brutal numbers the last time he played in a park smaller than Yosemite), but I'm not sure you'd understand it.

by LA Seitz on Mar 8, 2006 11:50 AM PST up 0 recs

sure dood

the fact that the A's have little money has nothing to do with beane, not a whole lot to do with the fans. rev himself said he was inspired by the A's fans. they don't sell tickets cause its a shitty stadium in a shitty part of town. there are no "white collar fans" buying luxury boxes and no casual baseball fan would go to the colesium over pac bell. back to lackey an ERA of 4 would be a drastic improvement from 03 and 04. but if hes found the pitching light switch good for you guys.

by numbtards on Mar 8, 2006 11:56 AM PST up 0 recs

You can make all the excuses you want

Doesn't change the fact that the A's have shitty fans.

by LA Seitz on Mar 8, 2006 12:12 PM PST up 0 recs

based on what

we have shitty fans cause we don't lead the league in ticket sales? so the yankees have the best fans? i know a lot of people who claim they're yankee fans but no nothing of the team or baseball. lets compare blogs, a reasonable measure of fans. for having shitty fans AN dominates hh. so i guess that makes angels fans even shittier. plus your rev already said A's fans were better than angels fans. plus what would this thread be doing if i hadn't had posted? nothing. you'd all still just be talking about rev's myspace.

by numbtards on Mar 8, 2006 1:19 PM PST up 0 recs

Reasonable measure?

What degree of loyalty does it take to sit behind a computer and post on a blog? From my experience, not much. Angels fans put their money where their mouths are. A's fans don't.

for having shitty fans AN dominates hh

I agree. In the category of shitty fans, Athletics Nation definitely dominates Halos Heaven.

by LA Seitz on Mar 8, 2006 1:27 PM PST up 0 recs

If I was color commentator...

I would say "Numbtards" just got his ass handed to him.

Halo Country

by cupie on Mar 8, 2006 4:27 PM PST up 0 recs

let's compare BLOGS?????

LOL!!!

using blogs as a "reasonable measure of fans" is like comparing universities based on their Physics departments.

and if that's the case, then AN is definitely sporting the most pocket protectors. congrats.

by yeswecan on Mar 8, 2006 1:49 PM PST up 0 recs

Don't forget

He was making a quality comparison completely, and his evidence was completely based on quantity.

by LA Seitz on Mar 8, 2006 1:57 PM PST up 0 recs

Which, come to think of it

Is sort of what I was doing to, to be fair.

by LA Seitz on Mar 8, 2006 2:25 PM PST up 0 recs

based on?

you haven't said what makes a fan a not shitty fan. are they shitty because they lack numbers? you discredit blogs calling people who post on them nerds, yet your doing the same. so A's fans are shitty because there are less of them? thats fine if we're shitty cause we're not as popular in the bay area cause of the giants, i can deal with that. tickets sales are the measure of the quality of a teams fans. sietz thats one of the dumbest things i've ever heard and i'm a numbtard. you guys make lame comments that aren't substantiated by anything and claim them to be true.

by numbtards on Mar 8, 2006 2:06 PM PST up 0 recs

substantiate this

did anyone see the TV show "Police Squad" with Leslie Neilsen? a classic (much better than the Naked Gun movie adaptations). for each episode, during the opening credits, the episode title onscreen never matches what the voice-over says. my favorite is the one where the VO says dramatically "tonight's episode: The Broken Promise", but the screen reads "A Substantial Gift". classic.

oh yeah, baseball. i have no opinion on who's fans are better than who's -- i just thought that the idea of judging fans based on their blogs was fucking hilarious. but if you forced me to give a shit, then i'd judge a team's fans based on a number of factors: number of fans, baseball IQ, involvement in the fan community, and whether or not they're Angel fans.

so, based on this highly scientific criteria, i would have to objectively substantiate seitz's claim that A's fans are worse than Angel fans. in fact, this evidence would suggest that A's fans suck completely.

by yeswecan on Mar 8, 2006 3:19 PM PST up 0 recs

UPDATE

i just got some more numbers back from the computer, and they confirm another seitz claim: A's fans are indeed shitty, scientifically speaking.

by yeswecan on Mar 8, 2006 3:22 PM PST up 0 recs

you didn't get it

sietz was judging fans by how many people sit their asses in a seat at an angels game compared to that at an A's. so why can't we compare how many people sit there asses in front of a computer talking about their team? they are both weak arguments.
so are the dodgers fans not shitty? they buy tickets and a ton of dodger dogs.

by numbtards on Mar 8, 2006 3:35 PM PST up 0 recs

re: tard

according to my scientific analysis, yes -- Dodger fans are shitty. in fact, the computer categorizes them as "super shitty", yankee fans as "extremely shitty", and A's fans as "mind-NUMBingly shitty".

by yeswecan on Mar 8, 2006 3:58 PM PST up 0 recs

Oops, ,my mistake

according to my scientific analysis, yes -- Dodger fans are shitty.

When I plugged the numbers in, I ended up with "not shitty". Turns out I forgot to carry the one.

by LA Seitz on Mar 8, 2006 4:00 PM PST up 0 recs

They're not as shitty as A's fans

Dodgers fans aren't shitty. Their team is shitty, but the Dodgers have one of the best fan bases in baseball.

so why can't we compare how many people sit there asses in front of a computer talking about their team?

Because, as you've done such a good job of proving, any asshole can sit in front of a computer and post on a message board. It doesn't do anything to help the team, though.

by LA Seitz on Mar 8, 2006 3:59 PM PST up 0 recs

chew on this

to sietz, having a large fan base means you fans aren't shitty. yeswecan totally disagrees with that but agrees that A's fans are shitty. sietz says that the A's fans that are members of AN are shitty cause they don't help the team.

AN raised over $5000 (in just a few weeks) for sports4kids inorder to send 8 kids to 30 A's games. that's pretty shitty, ain't it?

who's the numbtard now?

by numbtards on Mar 8, 2006 5:04 PM PST up 0 recs

Specious Evidence.

AN represents the core fanatic base that EVERY team has.

by Rev Halofan on Mar 8, 2006 5:08 PM PST up 0 recs

exactly

however some core fan bases are larger than others. so because the A's might have little fan base outside of their core fan base that means that their fans are shitty? this is a retard discussion even for a numbtard.

by numbtards on Mar 8, 2006 5:19 PM PST up 0 recs

wow

as i was reading this, i could almost see the light bulb turning on above your head. it only took us 400 posts.

by yeswecan on Mar 8, 2006 5:50 PM PST up 0 recs

Oh, it's still you

AN raised over $5000 (in just a few weeks) for sports4kids inorder to send 8 kids to 30 A's games. that's pretty shitty, ain't it?

Terrific fundraising. Great job. Some of your fans aren't shitty.

As a whole, the A's still have shitty fans, though.

And why are you asking me who the nubmtrad is when you post under the name nubmtrad?

by LA Seitz on Mar 8, 2006 5:48 PM PST up 0 recs

i believe

i was using my tag to suggest something about angels fan base being full of numbtards including you and the rev himself.

by numbtards on Mar 8, 2006 5:59 PM PST up 0 recs

Then you picked a pretty stupid way of doing it

Calling yourself a nubmtrad in order to call everyone else a nubmtrad seems like a really stupid thing to do. Then again, you're an A's troll, so I guess it's to be expected.

by LA Seitz on Mar 8, 2006 6:10 PM PST up 0 recs

The Oakland Penitentiary

You're right about one thing -- it is a shitty stadium.

by Jack Frost on Mar 8, 2006 10:12 PM PST up 0 recs

K rates usually correlate with success

And Lackey's K-rate has been 8.7/9 or thereabouts since July 2004, as opposed to something like 6.4/9 before. His jump last year was actually pretty predictable (at least I predicted it, based on his 2nd-half 2004); so to say that he just came out of nowhere after a few bad starts last year isn't exactly correct.

by mattwelch on Mar 8, 2006 7:12 PM PST up 0 recs

is nimrod for real?

this thread reminds me of the climactic scene in that cinematic triumph "Ruthless People", in which the FBI agents realize they're talking to quite possibly the stupidest person in the world. there's a long pause, and then one of them says, "maybe we should shoot him."

by yeswecan on Mar 8, 2006 7:12 PM PST 0 recs

sorry

But this is the best post i have ever seen.

Gold Medal-yeswecan for the "Ruthless People" post.
Silver Medal-LA Sietz for the "sorry I forgot to carry the one." Pure genius.
Bronze Medal-numbtards for showing up. If it wasn't for you none of this would not have happened.

Honorable "Panther" Mention-Matt Welch for making it all happen. "Our #2 starter - - 41st in baseball!"

Halo Country

by cupie on Mar 8, 2006 7:25 PM PST up 0 recs

Honorable mention

to cupie, for, in the spirit of the thread, continuing to misspell my name.

by LA Seitz on Mar 8, 2006 8:03 PM PST up 0 recs

Sorry man

I am a "numbtard"

I am doing the best I can. Really, how many words are there with T and Z in it, besides the candy Zots? And then throw in the rule "I before E except after C" and I am a wreck.

Thanks again for this fantastic thread.

Halo Country

by cupie on Mar 9, 2006 2:35 AM PST up 0 recs