A Brief Look

Sheets would certainly upgrade the Yankees’ rotation, and put them on more or less even ground with the Sox. Without him, though, the Yankees’ rotation has much more risk, although a 100 and an 85 are certainly nearer to the low-end of projections for those two starters.
Both rotations remain extremely talented, and extremely formidable. It’s a battle of attrition, and like always, the group with the best health will be the group that performs better.

“…A good quick-and-dirty projection formula tends to be three times the most recent year, plus two times the previous year, plus the year before that, divided by six….”
what, no bat wings or eye of newt?
quick and dirty = hokey and contrived
not picking on you paul because you have made a believer out of me that certain stats have value over traditional, somewhat archaic, methods of evaluation, but this version has more holes in it than a screendoor, as you pointed out…like the fangraphs value discussion we had yesterday…i looked up jeter for the heck of it, and he’s “worth” $33.4m v. his salary of $21.6m [for ’09]….right…i noticed that you offered this “without comment”…i’ll comment…like i said yesterday, the sox would appear to have the overall edge in starting pitching with the addition of lackey…the problem i have with projections, beyond the “interesting” factor, is that unless the season plays out exactly the way it “looks” on paper right now, which never happens, or more specifically, the way it’s played out the past 3 seasons [assuming you’ve played all 3], all we’ve got is offseason filler…but thanks, no kidding, it gives us something to talk about, and me something to snipe at ;)

Lucky for Lackey his greatest season, 2007, was taken into consideration. ;)
Lackey, Lackey, Lackey…I hated him on the Angels, he may become the face on my dartboard after only a few days with the Sox.
With ALL due respect, I just can’t put much stock in a system that doesn’t account for variables such as growth, breakout seasons, innings limitations, etc…It’s not a knock on you Paul, just the systems that project solely based on the past numbers. Who here thinks Ben Sheets is a better pitcher than Josh Beckett? I know I don’t and I have a man crush on Sheets, even my crush couldn’t jade me that much. Is Tim Wakefield really a better pitcher than Andy Pettitte? I said it in jest, but Lackey is fortunate his 2007 was included, while AJ’s best season was not. Also, Daisuke has a very limited track record, with some success, yet he’s 4 points higher than AJ and 9 pts higher than Pettitte? With all that said the Sox rotation as is right now is better than the Yankees, but that was also the case last December as well. Again, it’s not you Paul, it’s just that sometimes systems and numbers that are used don’t tell the entire story.
Thanks for putting this together and again, it’s not a shot at you.

ON the other side:
Dice-K who knows. He’s in the same place as sheets is now, except his upside isn’t anywhere near Sheets.
Buchholz is a year behind Joba in MajorLB innings pitched. He could be exactly like Joba was last year. Very strong start, followed by everyone saying he’s just not built up his stamina in the second half (and whatever Mike Francesa equivalent in Bean town saying he should be a set up man everyday of the season).
Wakefield is a big question mark (health wise). I never thought he would be (he seemed to just do what he doos year in and year out).
He’s basically Pettitte for the Sox in that if he is healthy all year he’ll be a very solid number 4 or 5 guy and everyone will be super happy about that (except me and other Yankee fans) but if he isn’t right, meh.

So are we going to have an offensive comparison post as well?
I mean, pitching is obviously the strength of the Sox, but how about scoring some runs? If the Sox are “better” at this point pitching wise, but it’s close, then how about the bats?

Also, shouldn’t we wait until both teams have all nine slots filled out? The Sox are missing a 3B, the Yankees a DH and LF. As it stands now, the Sox have the edge because they can put Youkilis at third and Kotchman at first, while the Yankees will be putting a AAAA player at DH and Melky Cabrera in left. I think both are pretty unlikely as Opening Day scenarios.
So I think it’s probably better if we wait until both teams are set.
As for the projection system, Marcel tends to be among the more accurate, and as I understand it, it’s basically this system with some adjustments for things like injury, age, playing time, etc. To call a stat or projection contrived is kind of silly because ALL stats to some extent are contrived. Even counting stats. After all, someone had to decide it was worthwhile to count these particular events.
It is fortunate for Lackey that his best season was three years ago and unfortunate for Burnett that his was longer ago, but is it not the case that the farther a player is from a peak performance, the less likely he is to repeat it? Lackey’s 2007 is 17 percent of his projection because it was three years ago. That’s not an incredible amount of weight, but it should certainly bear more weight than a peak season from longer ago.
John, you ask whether Wakefield is really a better pitcher than Pettitte. Well, Wakefield hasn’t been below league average since 2000 and posted a 100-112-102 ERA+ in the past three seasons. Pettitte’s been 111-98-103. That’s not by any stretch better. It’s basically the same, except his best season is longer ago, which makes it less likely to occur again. Of course, Pettitte pitched more innings, which adds value and isn’t accounted for here. But he’s also the Yankees’ No. 3 whereas Wakefield has consistently been the Sox’ 5/6.
In short, discounting the entire system because it doesn’t do something it isn’t designed to do is a copout. Address the merits of the system and note which players are unlikely to meet — or are likely to exceed — these projections based on the facts on the ground. As dc noted, this is really just for discussion. If health works out, these are reasonable projections, I think. Of course, health rarely works out across the board (though it certainly does every so often, as it did for the Sox in 2004), and that’s where we can start debating depth and likely performance ranges in case of injury.

Game 7, win or go home, your choice of a pitcher: Tim Wakfield or Andy Pettitte. Who are you picking? I just think sometimes you need to look PAST numbers. Not ignore them, but look deeper. I don’t know anyone, including most of you Sox fans, that would take Wakefield over Pettitte. In addition, which seemed to be ignored, I don’t think Sheets is a better pitcher than Beckett, so it’s not my Yankee bias speaking. I am a big supporter of all these systems, but sometimes we need to use our own eyes to judge rather than what the numbers say. (Now I sound like the old guys in Moneyball) Beckett is better than Sheets and Pettitte is better then Wakefield. I don’t imagine anyone would argue those points, despite what the system is telling you.

Sabathia has been far and away the most valuable pitcher on either rotation (for the last three seasons anyway) not just because of his ERA+ totals, but also because he has logged a ridiculous number of innings..
That’s an excellent way to look at it, Nick, but does that help or hurt future projections? I’m not saying the guy will be hurt, but those innings have to project negatively at some point, no?

The “game 7 win or go home” question is irrelevant to this comparison, for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that Tim Wakefield hasn’t been on a postseason roster in a while, if I remember correctly.
If Tim Wakefield is ever a Game 7 starting option for the Sox it means that Game 6 went 43 innings, Wakefield didn’t pitch for some unexplained reason, and the Sox’ team bus hit a telephone pole, killing the rest of the pitching staff who were all sitting next to each other right where the pole hit.
It’s a meaningless comparison and question.

It’s meaningless only because you deem it so. The reason I asked the question was to prove my point and to me that’s not meaningless. As I said earlier, sometimes you need to look beyond just the numbers for the answer. The point of the post was to compare the two staffs and then break it down SP vs SP. Wasn’t that what I was doing when I asked who you would prefer in a must win situation? The numbers that Paul showed above say that Pettitte is the lesser of the two pitchers, I disagree.
Different question, staying on topic though. Overall, who is the better pitcher: Andy Pettitte or Tim Wakefield?
2009 (Pettitte pitched more innings granted) Pettitte was the better pitcher, pure end of year stats. Better WHIP, better ERA, etc… With the exception of 2008 and even then it’s still close, Andy Pettitte was the better pitcher pure stats, pure results dating back to 2002 (where I stopped looking). No metrics needed, just my eyes and the final tallies.

Pettitte is the better pitcher, I hate Tim Wakefield (despite whatever measured metrics show him to be as good as Pettitte, I don’t buy them). But Wakefield is the Sox’ #6 starter right now, while Pettitte is the Yanks’ #3.
One other thing: regular season innings are not translatable or measurable against postseason innings. That is why I find the comparison irrelevant in the terms you framed the question. It is a false choice to have to make, and will never have to be made in the first place. Hence it’s irrelevance to me.

Good guy, hell of a career for a gimmick.
Intergral part of two championships? Wow. OK.

krueg:
Wakefield pitched nearly 400 innings in 2004 and 2007. One might argue with the term “integral”, but one cannot argue that he did not contribute to the Sox’ success, even if one might fallaciously argue that a replacement might have done equivalently. That isn’t how it works, at least not looking backwards.
As for the word “gimmick”, I stand corrected. But I don’t think you think the word means what you think it means. As I didn’t before looking it up myself.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/GIMMICK

You said “intergral”, did you not?
Yes, I did, and in the comment just above yours I actually walk back that comment, saying it is arguable. He was an innings eater, as you say. But he was a regular starter on two teams that won championships, for whatever that is worth.
He can’t even hold Pettitte’s jock in any universe, not even the one you and Paul simultaneously inhabit where the drugs MUST be fantastic.
Stop manufacturing phony enemies. You have no beef with me. See my above assessments of the two pitchers. Start over.
Well if you didn’t know what the word meant, how could I possibly, right??? Wow SF. That’s low even for you bro.
My point, perhaps not eloquent, was that I interpreted your use of the term “gimmick” as derogatory, since in colloquial terms the word “gimmick” can mean something like a trick, or a ruse. But in dictionary terms it means something different. Were you insulting Wakefield or not? If not, then my bad. If so, see 9000 retired batters and nearly 200 wins.
I hope that explains things, I am not looking for this to go downward.

“… To call a stat or projection contrived is kind of silly because ALL stats to some extent are contrived….”
i don’t think you mean “silly”…rather, calling a stat or projection contrived is “redundant”…sorry i missed the rest of what looked like a fun debate…i’ll settle it…right now, the sox have a slightly better starting staff…the yankees have a better offense, and the best closer of all time…john’s right, all of this stat talk without context and judgement injected into the analysis is what’s silly…did i mention that jeter is worth $33.4m?…
“…In short, discounting the entire system because it doesn’t do something it isn’t designed to do is a copout….”
no, using contrived and tortured data to prove a point is a copout…
wakefield has been good for the sox, and pettitte has been good for the yanks…..i love the guy, but i’d rather not have a knuckleballer in a critical situation…