I was not aware that ERA was the end all, be all stat. The guy barely strikes more people out than he walks and it's all going south. Dempster had a rough 2011, but 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012 were all very good.

I was not aware that ERA was the end all, be all stat. The guy barely strikes more people out than he walks and it's all going south. Dempster had a rough 2011, but 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012 were all very good.

 

Did I ever say it was an end all be all stat? I was just pointing out that if you look at their careers, and past 3 years, the "results" are pretty similar. Also a guy like Dempster at age 35 isn't likely to suddenly show some huge vast improvement.

 

By no means am I saying Lannan is a better pitcher then Dempster, I am just saying that giving Dempster 30-39 mil over 3 years is a mistake.

ERA isn't the end all be all stat because its a team game. ERAs can be distorted by Good Defense and Not so good defense. Distorted by RP failures. But it's still a pretty nice indicator.

 

WHIP is still my favorite and Lannan is a little below average in that department... Yet so Is Pelfrey... So go figure. I can be as conflicted as the rest of us.

How has Lannan kept his ERA so low? Lots of ground balls? Luck? Voodoo?

How has Lannan kept his ERA so low? Lots of ground balls? Luck? Voodoo?

 

A combination of good defense and a decent but by no means great GB% (53%) Dempster is 46% FWIW

Let's cherry pick stats and call ourselves right. Over the last 6 years Dempster will win a dozen games, lose about the same, and get to the mound 30 times a year. For that he will be absurdly paid. xfip and War would lead you to believe that Dempster is just above an average pitcher while Lannan is below average. On a very good team he won a few games. Who knows, if cheap enough the Twins will coach him up a level.

Let's cherry pick stats and call ourselves right. Over the last 6 years Dempster will win a dozen games, lose about the same, and get to the mound 30 times a year. For that he will be absurdly paid. xfip and War would lead you to believe that Dempster is just above an average pitcher while Lannan is below average. On a very good team he won a few games. Who knows, if cheap enough the Twins will coach him up a level.

I don't disagree with a thing you just said. I think Dempster is a safer bet to be "better" in 2013/2014 then Lannan. My whole point is I don't want the Twins rushing out to overpay for Dempster a guy who is "just above an average pitcher" who is 35.

 

but if you ask me who I would rather have:

Lannan at 2-3 mil for 1 year

or Dempster for 33-39 mil for 3 years?

 

Give me Lannan any day. Worst case scenario is he sucks and the Twins live to fight (spend) another day/year. Signing Dempster long term could hurt our potential to bring in not only help this year, but moving forward.

 

As they say, there really is no such thing as a "terrible" one year deal.

How has Lannan kept his ERA so low? Lots of ground balls? Luck? Voodoo?

 

I watched him pitch a couple of games... His fastball isn't hard but it sinks. If he keeps it down he can be effective and its one of the best pitches for getting out of jams. But guys that rely on the sinker get lit up if they leave it up. A good example of that is... Blackburn.

 

I like guys who can get a good sink on their two seamer but I feel more comfortable with guys who also have a 2nd pitch if they lose command of that sinker. That is where Lannan could get into trouble and exactly where Blackie got into trouble.

 

Pelfrey on the other hand is similiar but his sinker is much harder and I think his arm strength will let him get away with mistakes easier.

Edited December 8, 201213 yr by Riverbrian