jscola85 said:
Remember though he was coming back from knee surgery. His second half K rate was 7.2. Still lower than his career average, and I see why you'd be concerned, but if he's healthy I think he's a guy you take a shot on at age 27.
Let's talk about James Shields
- Thread starter MakMan44
- Start date
- Status
Remember though he was coming back from knee surgery. His second half K rate was 7.2. Still lower than his career average, and I see why you'd be concerned, but if he's healthy I think he's a guy you take a shot on at age 27.
This could also go in the Lester thread I suppose:
Without intending to restart the whole debate about whether offering Lester 4/70 was ridiculous, if they offer Shields 4/80 now I'll be completely stumped. If they're fine offering a 33 year old 4 years why wouldn't they offer a 31 year old 6 years? Unless they're that confident that Shields' age 33 through 36 seasons will be so much better than Lester's to offset the fact that they'd also get Lester's age 31 and 32 seasons, this makes zero sense to me.
Without intending to restart the whole debate about whether offering Lester 4/70 was ridiculous, if they offer Shields 4/80 now I'll be completely stumped. If they're fine offering a 33 year old 4 years why wouldn't they offer a 31 year old 6 years? Unless they're that confident that Shields' age 33 through 36 seasons will be so much better than Lester's to offset the fact that they'd also get Lester's age 31 and 32 seasons, this makes zero sense to me.
That's why I'm not sure I believe the reports that we're the front runners for Shields. If our FO was willing to go 5/100-ish on Shields, I don't see why they wouldn't go 7/160 on Lester. If it comes down to one or the other, I think they go after Jon for multiple reasons.glennhoffmania said:
That's because it isn't your $60 million. That's a lot of money.BornToRun said:
Personally, I think the deal would've gotten done if the Sox were bullish on Lester based on private information. I suspect they're neutral or bearish on him -- keeping in mind that "bearish" on a guy who has been as durable as Lester doesn't mean thinking his arm is going to fall off or anything.
But then who replaces Cespedes? Remember that by the time they probably made traction in the Lester talks after the initial screw up in spring training the season was mostly over.snowmanny said:
glennhoffmania said:
Two reasons (or maybe two different ways of saying the same reason):
1) The risk involved in a multiyear contract is not 100% age-correlated. A 10-year contract to a 25-year-old is obviously more risky than a 5-year contract to a 30-year-old, even though they both end in the same age year. The difference between 4 years to Shields and 6 to Lester is less obvious but still a factor.
2) Shields has already finished the first two seasons of a hypothetical 6-year contract and is healthy and effective. There's no guarantee Lester will be healthy and effective after the first two years of a 6-year contract. So Shields has already jumped a hurdle that is still awaiting Lester.
Sure, but Shields is also closer to the start of his decline, all things being equal. While there's risk in the two extra years Lester would get, there's a lot of potential upside because those are two more years in his prime. So it's entirely possible that the two extra years will be the best years of either deal. The odds of Shields being better at ages 33 and 34 than Lester will be at ages 31 and 32 don't seem great to me.
I never understood the "team X is an early favorite to land player Y" statements DURING a season. How exactly are we the "early favorites"? Because we scouted Shields this season? Or because our needs and him being a FA line up?
It seems like this "leak" is from Shields' camp to make sure everyone knows the (sometimes) big spending Red Sox intend to be players on Shields.
It seems like this "leak" is from Shields' camp to make sure everyone knows the (sometimes) big spending Red Sox intend to be players on Shields.
He doesn't exactly live up to his nickname. Nine playoff games now. His first two were ok, but the next seven, not so much. One quality start in his last seven (last week against the Angels). He hasn't gotten out of the sixth inning in 6 of 9, and hasn't gone more than 6.0 since 2008. Post-season ERA of 5.19 and WHIP of 1.470 (61 hits and 13 BB in 51.1 innings). He has a good K to BB ratio, and does an ok job of limiting extra base hits and HRs in the postseason, but his post season history, such as it is, doesn't suggest a guy you want to roll out against the other side's ace in game 4 or 5, or the guy you want starting when your bullpen is gassed.
It's really tough. I've hated what I've seen of Shields so far this postseason, I wouldn't want him as a #1 BUT 200 + innings of mid 3 ERA in the regular season is still really valuable. I've certainly dropped Shields a few notches down my desirable FAs list but I can't take him off completely.
He's almost the inverse of Andrew Miller. Shields is a workhorse who mows through lineups and innings, saves the bullpen, and helps you win series after series in the regular season. He's a guy that on an already good team helps you get to the playoffs. In the playoffs to date, though, he's fine but not really the guy who is going to battle a Scherzer or Lester pitch for pitch for 8 innings in a 2-1 game. Miller is a regular season luxury, who makes games more comfortable but whose marginal value over 162 games above a cheaper competent option is really unlikely to be the thing you look back on to say "that's why we made the playoffs ". But, boy, when get to the playoffs does a guy like that seem to have magnified value.MakMan44 said:
Time for a bump.
His value will definitely go down as a result of his performances, but probably not by much. At what point would he become a reasonable steal? 3/60? 4/70?
Personally, if he won't settle for a contract that short, I'd steer clear. He looks like a riskier proposition than he did three weeks ago.
MakMan44 said:
Agree with the sentiments above. As much as James Shields has sucked of late, he still has the potential to offer a lot going forward.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
His value will definitely go down as a result of his performances, but probably not by much. At what point would he become a reasonable steal? 3/60? 4/70?
Personally, if he won't settle for a contract that short, I'd steer clear. He looks like a riskier proposition than he did three weeks ago.
I have a hard time letting this postseason impact my opinion of him much and I don't think MLB GMs will either. Including playoffs, he has a 3.51 ERA in 246 IP this year, and a 3.29 ERA in 954 IP in his last 4 years. That's what I'd evaluate him on (along with his age and peripherals, etc), not any kind of clutch-ness.
He certainly could be fatigued and maybe on a different team they would have given him a couple weeks off in August. As he ages, maybe he's less durable. But any hope of his price dropping based on 4 starts (4 more than nearly every other pitcher in the league made) is pretty silly.
He certainly could be fatigued and maybe on a different team they would have given him a couple weeks off in August. As he ages, maybe he's less durable. But any hope of his price dropping based on 4 starts (4 more than nearly every other pitcher in the league made) is pretty silly.
JimD said:
They certainly do not, and one would hope that common sense, not to mention honesty, would preclude them from spinning his acquisition that way. He'll be 33 in December. His track record is substantial, as excerpted from a WaPost article before the most recent debacle.
Last night's game was effectively over in the first inning, when the ump denied him borderline pitches that he needed to have any hope of posting a quality start. The nickname is not his fault, but he has no margin for error.
Part of the postseason issue may be that he is just overused in the regular season. The last four years, he has averaged 233 innings pitched in the regular season. He dominated in September this year to the tune of a 2.31 ERA and 30/4 K/BB ratio, while beating the vaunted Tigers offense twice in that stretch.
I would hope/imagine the Sox would scale back that innings target from 230+ to something in the 200-210 range, which may keep him fresher for any postseason run.
I just have a hard time worrying about postseason stats - would folks around here be worried about acquiring Clayton Kershaw because of his recent playoff performances?
I would hope/imagine the Sox would scale back that innings target from 230+ to something in the 200-210 range, which may keep him fresher for any postseason run.
I just have a hard time worrying about postseason stats - would folks around here be worried about acquiring Clayton Kershaw because of his recent playoff performances?
His postseason struggles are real and they aren't really SSS anymore after this year. But, that being said, the Sox are great at optimizing when to rest pitchers so they're ready for postseason runs. I think Farrel could "fix" him if he were here & that should be part of the sales pitch.
I hope they get Shields if the price is right (so I hope he continues to bomb these playoffs) and if they also pick up an Ace to pencil in front of him in the rotation. If Shields is our "Ace" I'll have zero hope of contending.
I hope they get Shields if the price is right (so I hope he continues to bomb these playoffs) and if they also pick up an Ace to pencil in front of him in the rotation. If Shields is our "Ace" I'll have zero hope of contending.
jacklamabe65 said:
So, if the Dodgers offered up Clayton Kershaw ... Would you want him?
1-5 with a 5.12 ERA - career in the postseason.
Yes, they are. He has pitched 1,910 regular season innings at a 3.72 ERA, and pitched 54 innings in the postseason with a 5.19 ERA.ALiveH said:
54 innings is about 1/4 of a regular season. If someone with his career stats had a 5.19 ERA in mid-May, would you think he will never pitch well for the rest of the year, or would you say it's a small sample and he's likely to improve?
Just sharing the fact that Shields has been anointed with a new nickname, which I love unconditionally:
Three Frames James
Three Frames James
It is somewhat real though
Career 3.72 regular season ERA, 3.77 FIP, 3.61 xFIP
Career 5.74 postseason ERA, 4.66 FIP, 4.21 xFIP
So he has been somewhat unlucky, but also clearly a worse pitcher
Some other stats/metrics (reg season / postseason)
K/9: 7.66 / 7.15
BB/9: 2.13 / 2.32
WHIP: 1.22 / 1.47
Less K's, more walks, more baserunners. Not a recipe for success.
None of these postseason stats (K/9, BB/9, WHIP) include last night, so it is likely worse now
Career 3.72 regular season ERA, 3.77 FIP, 3.61 xFIP
Career 5.74 postseason ERA, 4.66 FIP, 4.21 xFIP
So he has been somewhat unlucky, but also clearly a worse pitcher
Some other stats/metrics (reg season / postseason)
K/9: 7.66 / 7.15
BB/9: 2.13 / 2.32
WHIP: 1.22 / 1.47
Less K's, more walks, more baserunners. Not a recipe for success.
None of these postseason stats (K/9, BB/9, WHIP) include last night, so it is likely worse now
Toe Nash said:
In that remaining 3/4s of a season, he would start very few if any games of the magnitude of a playoff game. And even if you slotted him to face most opponents' #1s, more often than not, they would be of lesser caliber than the starters he would be pitted against in the playoffs.
Few of us are saying, "no at any price." Most are saying be wary of the price and understand -- and don't oversell (particularly to the fan base) -- what you are getting. Evaluated in comparison to most teams -- and certainly to RS teams of recent vintage -- James Shields is not an "ace". And while we may be "spoiled", most are interested in someone who fits that description because we're not interested so much in being in the postseason as adding to the ring collection.
In this regard, if you are a Royals' fan today, you want no part of last night's pitching matchup again, and you certainly don't want it in an elimination game (for you), because in that event, you would almost certainly be fucked.
A few hypotheses have popped up as to why Shields might be worse in the playoffs:
H0: He's not, it's just a small sample
H1: Shields is tired by the end of the season
H2: Shields can not handle the pressure
H3: Shields is the kind of player that feasts on weak/mediocre competition, but struggles against upper echelon talent
H1: Let's look at his career xFIP by month:
Mar/Apr: 3.48
May: 3.45
Jun: 3.65
Jul: 3.93
Aug: 3.74
Sep/Oct: 3.33
H2: Let's look at xFIP by leverage
Low leverage: 3.44
Medium leverage: 3.76
High leverage: 3.56
H3: Let's compare Shield's tOPS+ to the league average tOPS+ by batting order position. Numbers here are AL-wide tOPS+ for 2014 minus Shield's career tOPS+. A positive number means Shields was better at facing that particular spot in the order compared to an average AL pitcher. I've tried to write this four or five times and can't quite do it justice, but by comparing tOPS+ between Shields and the league, we're controlling for total pitcher quality and just calculating relative ability versus different batting order positions.
1st: 20
2nd: -10
3rd: -3
4th: -4
5th: 19
6th: -12
7th: -15
8th: 6
9th: -4
H0: He's not, it's just a small sample
H1: Shields is tired by the end of the season
H2: Shields can not handle the pressure
H3: Shields is the kind of player that feasts on weak/mediocre competition, but struggles against upper echelon talent
H1: Let's look at his career xFIP by month:
Mar/Apr: 3.48
May: 3.45
Jun: 3.65
Jul: 3.93
Aug: 3.74
Sep/Oct: 3.33
H2: Let's look at xFIP by leverage
Low leverage: 3.44
Medium leverage: 3.76
High leverage: 3.56
H3: Let's compare Shield's tOPS+ to the league average tOPS+ by batting order position. Numbers here are AL-wide tOPS+ for 2014 minus Shield's career tOPS+. A positive number means Shields was better at facing that particular spot in the order compared to an average AL pitcher. I've tried to write this four or five times and can't quite do it justice, but by comparing tOPS+ between Shields and the league, we're controlling for total pitcher quality and just calculating relative ability versus different batting order positions.
1st: 20
2nd: -10
3rd: -3
4th: -4
5th: 19
6th: -12
7th: -15
8th: 6
9th: -4
H1-H3 don't fully replicate all the conditions of being on national television against elite teams late in the season. They isolate those factors one by one, but perhaps in combination it's too much for him to handle.
if you believe that part of the reason we acquired Beckett & Schilling was their postseason dominance in much smaller, and about the same sample size respectively as Shields before they joined the Sox... and that these were good decisions b/c their continued dominance with us was "real" and not just continued luck, then that argument cuts both ways.
Same thing for Lester. If you think there is value to his strong postseason track record in only slightly larger sample size, then the same logic cuts both ways.
Also, I agree that there are good reasons to believe that a random string of 11 consecutive games within a season might not be a big enough sample size, due to serial autocorrelation caused by an extraneous factor (mechanics temporarily out of wack, injury, etc). But, if you take 11 games selected from three different seasons, then the cold/hot streak is much less of a statistical issue. I guess an analogy to a hitter would be that taking 60 consecutive plate appearances from three different seasons, each 2-3 years apart, should be a better statistical sample than 180 consecutive plate within one particular season.
I understand Shields is the #1 starter on a team playing in the WS. He was tremendous helping them get to the playoffs, but they're winning in the playoffs in spite of him, not because of him.
I'm not trying to totally crap on Shields. I like him. I think if he's our #2 on the right terms we'll be in good position to contend.
if you believe that part of the reason we acquired Beckett & Schilling was their postseason dominance in much smaller, and about the same sample size respectively as Shields before they joined the Sox... and that these were good decisions b/c their continued dominance with us was "real" and not just continued luck, then that argument cuts both ways.
Same thing for Lester. If you think there is value to his strong postseason track record in only slightly larger sample size, then the same logic cuts both ways.
Also, I agree that there are good reasons to believe that a random string of 11 consecutive games within a season might not be a big enough sample size, due to serial autocorrelation caused by an extraneous factor (mechanics temporarily out of wack, injury, etc). But, if you take 11 games selected from three different seasons, then the cold/hot streak is much less of a statistical issue. I guess an analogy to a hitter would be that taking 60 consecutive plate appearances from three different seasons, each 2-3 years apart, should be a better statistical sample than 180 consecutive plate within one particular season.
I understand Shields is the #1 starter on a team playing in the WS. He was tremendous helping them get to the playoffs, but they're winning in the playoffs in spite of him, not because of him.
I'm not trying to totally crap on Shields. I like him. I think if he's our #2 on the right terms we'll be in good position to contend.
You guys do realize that in 2003-2004, Pedro Martinez had a 48 inning stretch in the postseason where he posted this line, right?
48.1 IP, 5.07 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, 43/18 K/BB
During 2003-2004, does anyone think Pedro wasn't an ace?
The over-analysis on Shields' postseason is getting silly.
48.1 IP, 5.07 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, 43/18 K/BB
During 2003-2004, does anyone think Pedro wasn't an ace?
The over-analysis on Shields' postseason is getting silly.
jscola85 said:
Well, Pedro was not a post-season ace, especially at that stage of his career, and likely for the same reason as Shields: he wore down with heavy in-game or in-season workloads. He was the first superstar pitcher to deserve that title while missing starts virtually every summer with injuries or arm tiredness. This was a necessary part of the package.
In 2004 he missed zero starts for the first time in five years, which was more than he could handle. He lost the last four of those, pitching horribly.
In the post-season, managers have traditionally leaned on their best pitchers more than they do during the regular season. This is almost certainly a mistake, and it was especially a mistake for Pedro. In his Red Sox post-season career, he was twice asked to pitch to batters in the eighth inning (as a starter). 2003 ALDS clincher, he faced two batters in the eighth inning. Single, double. ALCS clincher Grady tried it again. Out, double, single, double, double. In 2004 Francona wasn't going to be that stupid, but in both ALCS games Pedro was lights out for five innings and then lost it.
Shields looks worn down to me. He's a very good pitcher, but probably needs a 200 inning workload. That's still a guy you want.
Another factor is breaking a pitcher's routine once the post-season starts. I imagine settling into a predictable routine over a period of 6 months leads to a certain predictable performance, and then that routine is thrown out the window in post-season, with too much (or too little) rest and different throwing programs. I guess that different pitchers handle this in different ways, some better than others.
Shields had an 11-day layoff between Game 1 of the ALCS and Game 1 of the WS.
On the other hand, he had normal rest on all the previous games, so maybe it's more a factor of wearing down after throwing so many innings. Didn't he also have some sort of medical issue during/after Game 1 of the ALCS?
Shields had an 11-day layoff between Game 1 of the ALCS and Game 1 of the WS.
On the other hand, he had normal rest on all the previous games, so maybe it's more a factor of wearing down after throwing so many innings. Didn't he also have some sort of medical issue during/after Game 1 of the ALCS?
Also, you need to adjust those Pedro numbers for the run-scoring era he was in and they wouldn't look nearly as bad. Apparently in 2004, a 3.90 ERA was good for a 5.5 bWAR and #4 CYA.
I do like Shields at a reasonable price if you get the free call option that Farrell can fix whatever is wrong to get a better performance out of him in the postseason. I feel like the Sox seem handle their pitchers better than most teams to optimize postseason performance.
I do like Shields at a reasonable price if you get the free call option that Farrell can fix whatever is wrong to get a better performance out of him in the postseason. I feel like the Sox seem handle their pitchers better than most teams to optimize postseason performance.
Of course the sample size is limited, usage could change, etc. - but postseason performance matters, and the stats we have point to uncertainty. The Sox' goals isn't just to win more games, it's to win in the postseason. Two out of three times, that's going to involve a one-game wild card play-in; and even in a series the first game is critical. If the Sox are going to commit $100 million for a stud #1 starter, it better be a guy who gives them a good shot at winning that game.
They could sign Shields without necessarily expecting him to be that guy, but that would have implications in terms of finding the other top-of-the-rotation piece they surely need. In that sense, he might be seen as a first-rate #2 target. And of course his age points the same way - he's worth a lot paired with a younger ace, less if he's to be the primary recourse.
They could sign Shields without necessarily expecting him to be that guy, but that would have implications in terms of finding the other top-of-the-rotation piece they surely need. In that sense, he might be seen as a first-rate #2 target. And of course his age points the same way - he's worth a lot paired with a younger ace, less if he's to be the primary recourse.
tims4wins said:
There's absolutely nothing there that indicates anything other than SSS. xFIP is susceptible to sample size issues just like ERA is, and 54 innings--or even twice that--is far too few for things to stabilize wrt sample size.
If the Sox need to win that game, odds are against being able to setup the rotation so that the Ace pitches it.Fireball Fred said:
If there is a pitcher in baseball you want to have starting that game, it's Felix Hernandez. The M's had to pitch him in game 162 this year to even have a chance to pitch someone else in the next game.
I dunno, with how the team has looked two of the last three years and the current uncertainty at multiple positions, I'd settle for getting there. Even if Shields' postseason results are predictive (strongly disagree) having an "ace" gives you what, a 55%-60% chance of winning the coinflip at best?Fireball Fred said:
Again, in Shields' last 6 starts of the regular season he threw 42 IP and had a 2.14 ERA with 34 K and 5 BB, and those were pretty much all must-win games for KC to even make the play-in game). High pressure, and he thrived.
It's very possible Shields will be overpaid. It's also very possible the other starters on the market will be too. But I wouldn't factor his or anyone's postseason into that calculus to the degree that many people are.
- Status