Few players on the Red Sox had a more impressive year than John Lackey.
Oh, you may laugh and scoff, but consider this: only twice before has a pitcher managed 160 innings of work while playing as terribly as John Lackey did according to ERA+. The other two, for the record, are Jose Lima in '05 and Hub Pruett in 1927. Aside from a short stint of average pitching in July, Lackey was completely without merit for the season, offering up 6+ runs about as often as he managed a quality start.
Yes, John Lackey was historically bad, and that is, in its own special way, impressive. It's also unpredictable, it turns out.
| IP | Wins | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | BB/9 | FIP | |
| John Lackey | 160 | 12 | 6.41 | 1.62 | 6.08 | 3.15 | 4.71 |
| Username | IP | Wins | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | BB/9 | FIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSNexile | 220 | 15 | 3.90 | 1.30 | 6.70 | 2.80 | 3.80 |
| Drabidea | 210 | 15 | 4.00 | 1.32 | 6.85 | 2.40 | 3.70 |
| Brogshan | 208 | 15 | 3.79 | 1.28 | 6.99 | 2.43 | 3.85 |
| Tarrsk | 216 | 14 | 4.09 | 1.32 | 6.95 | 2.63 | 3.88 |
| Jason A | 213 | 19 | 3.69 | 1.28 | 7.04 | 2.45 | |
| Dsharp | 222 | 16 | 3.93 | 1.29 | 6.82 | 2.37 | 3.73 |
| Rogue Nine | 218 | 17 | 3.82 | 1.25 | 7.20 | 2.30 | 3.95 |
| GroundRuleTriple90 | 210 | 16 | 3.87 | 1.28 | 6.91 | 2.35 | |
| Totheights | 228 | 16 | 4.11 | 1.21 | 6.66 | 1.98 | 3.69 |
| Nuthinboutnuthin | 211 | 16 | 3.81 | 1.34 | 7.02 | 2.92 | 3.77 |
| Mmmmm | 220 | 16 | 3.92 | 1.31 | 7.00 | 2.00 | 3.75 |
| Theartolater | 207 | 18 | 3.87 | 1.23 | 5.90 | 2.36 | 4.01 |
| BoldandBrash | 197 | 16 | 3.88 | 1.30 | 6.85 | 2.50 | 3.70 |
| Remembering9ergods | 210 | 17 | 3.98 | 1.32 | 6.80 | 2.80 | 3.85 |
| Justin_Bobo | 214 | 14 | 4.12 | 1.41 | 6.91 | 2.25 | |
| Steve Boyle | 227 | 14 | 4.35 | 1.32 | 6.85 | 2.70 | |
| Mattsullivan | 209 | 16 | 4.05 | 1.34 | 6.96 | 3.10 | 3.80 |
| Westcoastredsox | 223 | 16 | 3.94 | 1.30 | 6.75 | 2.75 | 2.80 |
| AlohaSox | 205 | 16 | 3.98 | 1.30 | 6.90 | 2.30 | 3.90 |
| ThePanda | 220 | 16 | 3.80 | 1.20 | 7.00 | 2.30 | |
| Gizmosandy | 209 | 15 | 3.70 | 1.35 | 6.80 | 2.50 | |
| Alfredo | 186 | 17 | 3.90 | 1.33 | 7.20 | 2.80 | |
| Royredd87 | 211 | 16 | 3.80 | 1.40 | 7.00 | 2.40 |
No, I didn't forget to add color. Lackey was just bad enough to thwart even the lowest expectations. Only Matt Sullivan even came close to being close with his BB/9, so maybe he gets the win? No, let's be honest, we're all losers when it comes to John Lackey.
You may remember that before the season started there was even some optimism surrounding our favorite albatross. He'd ended 2010 on a high note, came into spring training in good shape, and seemed to be refocused. And then the season actually started, and he went completely to hell. That'll teach us to hope. Carl Crawford, you're gonna have to prove it to us.
Sorry to start the year off on such a sour note, but we can always find solace in the fact that, thanks to his Tommy John Surgery, we won't be seeing much of John Lackey in 2012.