Can The Red Sox Survive Their Starting Rotation?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,305
San Andreas Fault
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
Schilling was saying the same thing during the telecast last night.  He pointed out that the 2-seamer was extremely hittable since while it has a good deal of horizontal movement, all of its movement stayed on the hitter's swing plane so hitter's weren't missing it even when they were "off" in where they anticipated bat and ball connecting.
 
I have to say, as Schilling was explaining this, Kelly was pouring 4-seamer after 4-seamer at 96-97 on the black on both sides of the plate and looking really good in the process (top 2nd).  How is it that analysts can see and Kelly and the coaching staff can't make the appropriate adjustments.
The two seamer has its unique usages though, like starting it off outside the plate and backdooring it over the plate against righty hitters. Also, to Schilling's point, even though it breaks mostly horizontally, it can get the hitter to miss the sweet spot on the bat and fly out or ground out harmlessly. I think the two seamer us a great weapon and when Kelly is on and is getting that ridiculous 8-9 inch break at 94 or whatever that they can't hit, it's on the two seamer. I think he's a work in progress that will get it, hopefully this year. I'm wondering if Nieves is a major league quality pitching coach though that can help these young guys. Wondering a lot.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
m0ckduck said:
If I'd told you that Justin Masterson would be locked in an exact tie with Jon Lester for ERA at this point in the season, you'd figure that's good news. Until I told you that they are tied for 83rd among qualified MLB pitchers. 
 
Of course, Lester's runs support is 3.30/gm while Masterson's is 5.79.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
charlieoscar said:
 
Of course, Lester's runs support is 3.30/gm while Masterson's is 5.79.
 
Heck, while pitching in the NL, the savior, Hamels is sporting a WHIP of 1.35 which is basically the same as Masterson (1.36) and is higher than both Kelly(1.24) and Porcello (1.25).  
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,506
Not here
Is there anyone here who doesn't think the rotation is going to be better at the end of the season than it is right now?
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
Rasputin said:
Is there anyone here who doesn't think the rotation is going to be better at the end of the season than it is right now?
 
Unlikely. The argument is going to be if it's good enough to make the playoffs, let alone go anywhere if they do.
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
In my lifetime said:
 
I think the biggest improvement would be if he started throwing more 4-seam fastballs and fewer 2-seamers.  To this point in the season he has thrown 38.5% 2-seam as compared to 30.0% 4-seam fastballs.
It's not possible to separate Kelly's 4- and 2-seam fastball; certainly not to fraction of a percent precision.  His fastballs all come in very fast, and they all move a lot.  Some move really, really fast and move quite a bit, and PITCHfx/ calls them 4-seams, and some come in really fast and move even more, and PITCHf/x calls them 2-seams, and the bulk of them come in pretty damn fast and move a fair bit, and PITCHf/x randomly throws a  name at them.
 
Here's a quick and dirty look at his pitches;   You can see how PITCHf/x decides to call them one or the other, but there's absolutely no sharp division between the FT and the FF -- they're just a single cluster that has two different names on it.
 
(A little more at http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/pitching-repertoire-of-joe-kelly/
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
iayork said:
It's not possible to separate Kelly's 4- and 2-seam fastball; certainly not to fraction of a percent precision.  His fastballs all come in very fast, and they all move a lot.  Some move really, really fast and move quite a bit, and PITCHfx/ calls them 4-seams, and some come in really fast and move even more, and PITCHf/x calls them 2-seams, and the bulk of them come in pretty damn fast and move a fair bit, and PITCHf/x randomly throws a  name at them.
 
Here's a quick and dirty look at his pitches;   You can see how PITCHf/x decides to call them one or the other, but there's absolutely no sharp division between the FT and the FF -- they're just a single cluster that has two different names on it.
 
(A little more at http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/pitching-repertoire-of-joe-kelly/
 
Thanks for that.  The RS would certainly know which pitches are 2 vs. 4-seamers and it would make sense that if they saw an obvious disparity in the two pitches (better control and higher % swing and misses) that they would very quickly adjust the pitch selection. Even watching him it is easy to add viewer bias in the same way PITCHf/x does ---- every hard pitch that moves horizontally, call a 2-seamer and every hard pitch that has more vertical movement, call a 4-seamer.  I would like to think this correlates to the grip, but I have no way of factually determining that.  
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Buchholz:  6.1 ip, 9 h, 5 r, 5 er, 2 bb, 7 k.  Against a team that is 25th in all of baseball in runs scored.
 
Now sports a 6.03 era.  
 
Just great.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
ivanvamp said:
Buchholz:  6.1 ip, 9 h, 5 r, 5 er, 2 bb, 7 k.  Against a team that is 25th in all of baseball in runs scored.
 
Now sports a 6.03 era.  
 
Just great.
More importantly than the final line, almost immediately put the team in a 4-0 hole. He pitched reasonably well after the 2nd, but that's got to be a weight on the lineup.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,100
Should have been out of the first on the ball to Hanley, but still - predictably - the wheels come off again.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
uncannymanny said:
Should have been out of the first on the ball to Hanley, but still - predictably - the wheels come off again.
 
And even then would have been out of it with only one run if Pedroia makes a play he makes 9 times out of 10.  And, the fifth run should be charged to Tazawa.  One out and a man on second is a situation a good reliever should have no trouble squashing.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,463
Plympton91 said:
 
And even then would have been out of it with only one run if Pedroia makes a play he makes 9 times out of 10.  And, the fifth run should be charged to Tazawa.  One out and a man on second is a situation a good reliever should have no trouble squashing.
This seems a little harsh and probably untrue.  Tazawa is a damned good reliever.  He's being asked to do too much and is pitching more than he should because of the starters inability to pitch deep into games.  Taz might not ever be a dominant bullpen ace or closer and we get it- that you miss Miller like you missed Ellsbury last season and the Sox could probably have had him (?)... but I have a hard time believing the bolded here.  One out.  Man on Second.  I'm willing to say that that runner scores even on "good to great" relievers maybe 50% of the time.  No time this morning to look into that, but I'm sticking with it! :colbert:
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Trotsky said:
This seems a little harsh and probably untrue.  Tazawa is a damned good reliever.  He's being asked to do too much and is pitching more than he should because of the starters inability to pitch deep into games.  Taz might not ever be a dominant bullpen ace or closer and we get it- that you miss Miller like you missed Ellsbury last season and the Sox could probably have had him (?)... but I have a hard time believing the bolded here.  One out.  Man on Second.  I'm willing to say that that runner scores even on "good to great" relievers maybe 50% of the time.  No time this morning to look into that, but I'm sticking with it! :colbert:
 
You make it sound like I have a personal affection for players.  If they'd traded for Kimbrell or Chapman, I wouldn't be complaining about the fact that they lost Miller.  What I complain about is when they construct teams that are in last place.
 
And, to relate it back to the thread title, the Red Sox would be far more able to survive their at best mediocre starting rotation if they had a deep and high quality bullpen like the Yankees, Royals, or Orioles.
 

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
Plympton91 said:
You make it sound like I have a personal affection for players.  If they'd traded for Kimbrell or Chapman, I wouldn't be complaining about the fact that they lost Miller.  What I complain about is when they construct teams that are in last place.
 
And, to relate it back to the thread title, the Red Sox would be far more able to survive their at best mediocre starting rotation if they had a deep and high quality bullpen like the Yankees, Royals, or Orioles.
They didn't "lose" Miller. They traded him for Eduardo Rodriguez who is our top pitching prospect. We have the possibility for depth, the FO just chose to keep scrubs like Breslow and Mujica instead of giving Barnes and other kids a shot.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,196
LuckyBen said:
They didn't "lose" Miller. They traded him for Eduardo Rodriguez who is our top pitching prospect.
 
Well, they could have signed him in the offseason after that, there was no compensation pick attached (because he was traded mid-season). 
 

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
jon abbey said:
Well, they could have signed him in the offseason after that, there was no compensation pick attached (because he was traded mid-season).
Well then, I guess we lost out on every free agent. Just another example of p91 skewing the facts to fit his narrative.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
LuckyBen said:
They didn't "lose" Miller. They traded him for Eduardo Rodriguez who is our top pitching prospect. We have the possibility for depth, the FO just chose to keep scrubs like Breslow and Mujica instead of giving Barnes and other kids a shot.
 
I agree with that last part and it is puzzling to me.  They have no problem thrusting a rookie into a major role like "starting centerfielder" or "starting shortstop," where roster construction and mismatch of supply/demand make it hard to have a safety net of a capable backup, yet when it comes to the #5 starter, they go out sign Dempster/Masterson to 10-figure contracts, and for the last 2 or 3 spots in the bullpen, the lowest leverage spots on the roster, they bring in declining journeymen like Breslow or hold on to failed signings like Mujica instead of giving the kids a shot.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,526
Miami (oh, Miami!)
LuckyBen said:
Well then, I guess we lost out on every free agent. Just another example of p91 skewing the facts to fit his narrative.
 
Lay off P91.  
 
1) Every free agent wants to sign with the Sox.
2) The Sox have an unlimited budget to sign all the top free agents in every single off season.
3) The Sox have a special "60 man 40 man" which means unlike other teams they don't have to make tradeoffs between future value of vets and future value of prospects.  
4) The Sox are perfect evaluators of talent and can forsee injuries via Lucchino's magic 8-ball and Ben's magic decision making dartboard.
5) Ergo, failure to sign a free agent is merely idiocy or shows a malicious desire to screw with the fan base.  
 
Once you accept these facts as true any former Red Sox player currently doing well for another team can be held up as an example of what the current management is doing wrong.  Els = wrong.  Miller = wrong.  Lester = not wrong until he heats up again, then way way so way wrong, in contrast to the weakest SP on the Sox's staff.  I'm sure Salty ='d wrong until the numbers started piling up. 
 

gryoung

Member
SoSH Member
Rasputin said:
Is there anyone here who doesn't think the rotation is going to be better at the end of the season than it is right now?
I'm thinking the starting rotation as it is constructed now will look different by the end of the season with a couple of new names in there.

It's early May - there's lots of baseball to be played.
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,474
In my lifetime said:
 
I think the biggest improvement would be if he started throwing more 4-seam fastballs and fewer 2-seamers.  To this point in the season he has thrown 38.5% 2-seam as compared to 30.0% 4-seam fastballs.
According to F/X, he has thrown 2 seam fast ball for a strike 59.5% compared to his 4 seam fastball at 68.2%.  This is not a surprise for most since his (and almost every pitcher's) 2 seamer has more horizontal movement.  However, he is getting 8.8% swing and misses with the 4 seamer as compared to only 2.6% with the 2 seamer.  So Kelly like most controls the 4 seamer better and it has also been harder for batters to put the ball in play.  Yet he is throwing almost 30% more 2 seam fastballs as compared to 4 seam fastballs.
 
Considering he is throwing the 4 seam at 96-97 mph, it is not the speed that is needing adjustment, but the pitch selection.
 
Are these tightly enough grouped in the data to be confident that they actually are 2-seam and 4-seam?  I think there might be some selection error in that when his fastball moves more it is likely to be categorized as a 2-seam and more likely to be carried out of the strike zone, but when it moves less it is likely to be categorized as a 4-seam and stay in the zone.
 
Given that he has 92s in his four seam pile and 98s in his two seam pile and the difference in average is only 1mph, I have a feeling a lot of these are being miscategorized based just on how much they move and aren't simple pitch selection.  When you throw 95+ and mis-execute a pitch and release it armside inside, it is likely to run more, and it is likely to be a ball, and it is likely not to be swung at.  All things that would match the data you mention, yet have the cause being pitch execution, and not the difference between 2-seam and 4-seam pitch selection.
 
Other than commanding his fastball better to both sides of the plate, I think the biggest thing Kelly needs to turn the corner in his career is to throw his changeup more and throw it better.  I would love to hear about Pedro working with him on it both physically and mentally.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Recap of current Red Sox stats (against AL Starters only - 15 teams), with #1 as a comparison
 
Wins: 13th (7 wins behind Tigers)
IP: 11th (22 innings behind Tigers)
K/9: 2nd (1.29 behind Indians)
BB/9: 11th (1.32 ahead of Yankees)
BABIP: 4th (0.53 below Indians @ .368 - holy shit! / 0.62 above Orioles @ .253)
GB%: 5th (4.5% below Astros)
xFIP-: 6th (11 above Indians @ 85 / 38 below Jays @ 122)
 
Difference between xFIP and FIP (is this a correct view?): -0.02 / Mariners @ -0.59 / Jays @ -0.57 // Tigers @ +0.55!
 
WAR: 8th (1.8 below Tigers @ 3.4)
 
Sorry for citing obvious data, but it appears to me (I'm not a sabrematician) that the Blue Jays are clearly the worst group of starters in the League and that the Red Sox are currently better than the Orioles and White Sox...which is a surprise.
 
The Sox starters are not going deep, but is that skewed by several amazingly shitty performances? BAPIP has not been their friend (as it has to the O's). They're doing well on ground balls and very well on strikeouts...but shitty on walks (which leads to the fewer innings pitched).
 
It seems to me that the Sox are more middle of the pack than dregs.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,317
Ann Arbor
geoduck no quahog said:
Recap of current Red Sox stats (against AL Starters only - 15 teams), with #1 as a comparison
 
Wins: 13th (7 wins behind Tigers)
IP: 11th (22 innings behind Tigers)
K/9: 2nd (1.29 behind Indians)
BB/9: 11th (1.32 ahead of Yankees)
BABIP: 4th (0.53 below Indians @ .368 - holy shit! / 0.62 above Orioles @ .253)
GB%: 5th (4.5% below Astros)
xFIP-: 6th (11 above Indians @ 85 / 38 below Jays @ 122)
 
Difference between xFIP and FIP (is this a correct view?): -0.02 / Mariners @ -0.59 / Jays @ -0.57 // Tigers @ +0.55!
 
WAR: 8th (1.8 below Tigers @ 3.4)
 
Sorry for citing obvious data, but it appears to me (I'm not a sabrematician) that the Blue Jays are clearly the worst group of starters in the League and that the Red Sox are currently better than the Orioles and White Sox...which is a surprise.
 
The Sox starters are not going deep, but is that skewed by several amazingly shitty performances? BAPIP has not been their friend (as it has to the O's). They're doing well on ground balls and very well on strikeouts...but shitty on walks (which leads to the fewer innings pitched).
 
It seems to me that the Sox are more middle of the pack than dregs.
 
You want ERA-FIP or ERA-xFIP or ERA-SIERA. You want the difference between the results (ERA) and a DIPS-type predictor within the pitcher's control (FIP, xFIP, SIERA, etc.).
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Thanks. Difference between xFIP and ERA is as follows:
 
Red Sox have the biggest variance at -1.88
 
The next closest is the White Sox at -1.25 and Mariners at -1.11. 
 
The other end of the scale shows the Rangers at +0.69 and the A's at +0.52
 
I guess if that's a measure of disappointment, the Red Sox are in a league of their own.
 
Do the laws of man and nature predict the staff will start trending the other direction?
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
28,004
Saskatoon Canada
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Clay Buchholz took the mound in the World Series with his arm basically falling off, barely touching 89 mph, and threw four innings of one-run ball that kept his team in the game long enough to win it and even the series at 2-2. Give us a call when you've done something like that, Mr. Rival Scout.
 
mauidano said:
Exactly.  Clay is a premier pitcher at a major league level.  You don't get to be a World Series champ with out having a "tiger" in you.  Dick-head statement.
 
[SIZE=9pt]DrewDawg, on 03 Apr 2015 - 06:49 AM, said:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]I wonder if the next line, which they didn't publish, was that he had an ugly girlfriend or something.[/SIZE]
 
 
I wonder, just wonder, perhaps if that boneheaded rival scout was on to something.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,317
Ann Arbor
geoduck no quahog said:
Thanks. Difference between xFIP and ERA is as follows:
 
Red Sox have the biggest variance at -1.88
 
The next closest is the White Sox at -1.25 and Mariners at -1.11. 
 
The other end of the scale shows the Rangers at +0.69 and the A's at +0.52
 
I guess if that's a measure of disappointment, the Red Sox are in a league of their own.
 
Do the laws of man and nature predict the staff will start trending the other direction?
 
I have an article in the queue at Fangraphs/Rotographs about this question which should be pushed out in the next day or two.
 
Essentially, Buchholz is almost assured of pitching better than he has assuming his peripherals don't fall off the table. Joe Kelly likely in same boat. Rest of pitchers more in line with 2015 peripherals so question is whether SSS April is new baseline or they can get back to former talent levels.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Haven't been keeping up here day to day because the subject matter has become increasingly depressing so forgive me if this has been mentioned anywhere up thread. With all the publicity surrounding Pedro Martinez's new book I got to wondering if he's been consulted at all by the team about the pitching issues. I know that his primary involvement with the team has been work with young pitchers, but it seems to me that Pedro is a very valuable resource that could/should be tapped into in hopes of trying to turn a few of these guys around. I'm not sure how receptive some of the veteran guys might be or which of them might be salvageable, but it seems to me that the only risk in this is not trying.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
YTF said:
I'm not sure how receptive some of the veteran guys might be or which of them might be salvageable, but it seems to me that the only risk in this is not trying.
 
If you're not receptive to advice from Pedro Martinez, your status should be changed to "60-day DL (ego reduction surgery)".
 

luckysox

Indiana Jones
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2009
8,084
S.E. Pennsylvania
YTF said:
Haven't been keeping up here day to day because the subject matter has become increasingly depressing so forgive me if this has been mentioned anywhere up thread. With all the publicity surrounding Pedro Martinez's new book I got to wondering if he's been consulted at all by the team about the pitching issues. I know that his primary involvement with the team has been work with young pitchers, but it seems to me that Pedro is a very valuable resource that could/should be tapped into in hopes of trying to turn a few of these guys around. I'm not sure how receptive some of the veteran guys might be or which of them might be salvageable, but it seems to me that the only risk in this is not trying.
 
I think they are all salvageable - the staff is made up of 3 guys with excellent stuff, and two gamers who should keep you in the game. The problem has been consistency.  All of them have had excellent outings that make you think they all belong. It almost seems like it's becoming a mental thing along with the no executing thing. Porcello and Masterson both have great body language out there, but the other 3 feels appear to wilt a bit as soon as someone gets on base. It's an interesting thing to watch.  I'm big on the psychological part of the game, and this staff definitely has guys who are "fun" to watch from that perspective. Clay and Kelly really remind me of each other in this way - which is interesting, as they are probably the two most purely talented pitchers on the team.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,305
San Andreas Fault
YTF, I think Pedro would have to make a large time commitment to the Sox to carry out your idea. I don't think even he could just watch a bullpen or two with each guy and tell them what to change. A pitcher may look fine in a bullpen and crack and choke in games. And then there's Nieves and even Farrell; are you kind of taking over their jobs. Believe me though, I wish it could happen somehow. Maybe make him assistant pitching coach? Pitching coach? [emoji7]
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
A few bright spots at this point….
 
- Porcello last two starts:  14.0 ip, 10 h, 1 r, 1 er, 2 bb, 12 k
- Masterson last three starts:  18.0 ip, 16 h, 6 r, 6 er, 7 bb, 11 k (and only one bad start, really, out of five…but boy was it bad)
- Betts last 8 games:  .333/.378/.667/1.045, 2 hr, 8 rbi
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Al there isn't a thing in your post that I disagree with. It would def be a larger commitment than what he now has with the team and  Farrell and Nieves might possibly feel as though their toes are being stepped on. Huge investment in the team this season and regardless as to whether we might think it was all spent in the right places, this pitching problem doesn't seem to be fixing itself any time soon. If the team is going to stand pat with what they have (long or short term) I think they are wasting a chance to potentially do something in house if Pedro was willing to take this on. They may have asked, he may have declined, I really have no idea. Just thought I would toss the idea out there if it hadn't already been mentioned.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
28,004
Saskatoon Canada
FWIW i was at a coaching clinic this weekend and one of the coaches was a guy that had been a MLB coach, and still worked as a hitting consultant. He told a story about how Greg Maddux called his own pitches, and that former catchers and team mates did not share the method since maddux was so respected. he said, "Had it been Pedro Martinez, it would never worked." He stated Pedro was known as a bad team mate, and credited the Red Sox with getting the most out of him, and allowing him to have a great career, and a good public image despite being disrespectful towards team mates. 
 
The coach was very complementary of Pedro the pitcher, saying his metal toughness, was legendary, pointing to how he pitched well for Philly with at times below average stuff.
 
I asked the question about Pedro helping the Sox woes, and he said his info was Pedro was impatient, and not very effective as a coach. He said coaching is grind, and a guy with Pedro's money has no incentive, unless he wants to manage, to put in the hours to become a coach. He said it is not like the movies where you notice a technical flaw and the guy fixes it. He said there are thousands of guys who can look at film of (he used Clay as an example) and see what he is doing wrong, and he said Clay himself will know, but being able to help the guy fix it is an entirely different skill. The guy hinted he had heard Pedro privately admitted "not getting" guys that don't trust their stuff. He also thought that it was unfair to say about Buchholz and other athletes, "Just have confidence like Pedro" since he saw Pedro's personality, which made him supremely confident, and a pain in the ass to play with, was as god give, maybe more so that his arm.
 
Quick aside he was asked who had the worst rep as a team mate and he said, "without a doubt Arod."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.