Can The Red Sox Survive Their Starting Rotation?
- Thread starter Snodgrass'Muff
- Start date
- Status
TomRicardo said:
1. They've benefitted from an ungodly number of unearned runs. That won't last.
2. The FIP is what it is. So what? Looking at the pitch f/x graphs we have seen that they've thrown big, fat middle-middle meatballs and so it's a bit disingenuous to call their crappy pitching "bad luck".
3. Why wouldn't it burn a year of service? If a guy came up and played 21 of 24 weeks of the season it wouldn't burn a year of service time? I find that hard to believe, but I'm happy to be shown to be in error.
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe · 1h 1 hour ago
Based on what Hanigan said, there were a lot of conversations in the last 24 hours with the #RedSox pitchers. Interesting weekend on tap
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe · 48m 48 minutes ago
#RedSox catcher Ryan Hanigan on changes the pitching staff talked about:
it took them this long?!?!??!
Based on what Hanigan said, there were a lot of conversations in the last 24 hours with the #RedSox pitchers. Interesting weekend on tap
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe · 48m 48 minutes ago
#RedSox catcher Ryan Hanigan on changes the pitching staff talked about:
it took them this long?!?!??!
ivanvamp said:
You've shown one graph of middle middle meatballs. That's a long way from proving your point. Also, service time rules are easy to look up. Here, I'll take the first step for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mlb+service+time+rules
Probably trying to cash in on Harang knowing Amaro and his value system.HangingW/ScottCooper said:
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Clay vs NY (4/12)
Miley vs Was (4/15)
Porcello vs Bal (4/19)
Kelly vs TB (4/22)
Miley vs Bal (4/26)
I mean, it doesn't look like the Sox' starters here are living on the corners and the other guys are just hitting tough pitches. It seems like the Sox' starters are wild and can't paint the corners so when they throw strikes they are pretty much in the middle, and they're getting smacked around.
soxhop411 said:Pete Abraham @PeteAbe · 1h 1 hour ago
Based on what Hanigan said, there were a lot of conversations in the last 24 hours with the #RedSox pitchers. Interesting weekend on tap
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe · 48m 48 minutes ago
#RedSox catcher Ryan Hanigan on changes the pitching staff talked about:
it took them this long?!?!??!
It's interesting that Farrell had to inject himself into this situation, whereas in the past, one would think the catchers and pitching coach would be picking up on this.
Via MLBTR
The Red Sox have long been connected to Hamels in trade talks, and while those rumors have primarily swirled around Mookie Betts and Blake Swihart, Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe notes that the Phillies also “like” Sox youngsters Jackie Bradley, Deven Marrero, Eduardo Rodriguez, Brian Johnson and possibly others. The Phillies have been insisting on Swihart or Betts in any Hamels deal and the Sox have been firm that neither player is being traded. Also from Cafardo’s mailbag piece, he feels Boston should add an ace but thinks the team will give Rodriguez or Johnson a shot in the rotation before they make a major trade to upgrade their pitching.
The Red Sox have long been connected to Hamels in trade talks, and while those rumors have primarily swirled around Mookie Betts and Blake Swihart, Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe notes that the Phillies also “like” Sox youngsters Jackie Bradley, Deven Marrero, Eduardo Rodriguez, Brian Johnson and possibly others. The Phillies have been insisting on Swihart or Betts in any Hamels deal and the Sox have been firm that neither player is being traded. Also from Cafardo’s mailbag piece, he feels Boston should add an ace but thinks the team will give Rodriguez or Johnson a shot in the rotation before they make a major trade to upgrade their pitching.
Maybe he should do a Belichick and not have a pitching coach, but handle those duties himself.catomatic said:
Right, as well as a pitcher and head of the farm system. My point is that it's interesting that he felt he needed to take the reins. When that happens in a working environment, it's not always a good sign.catomatic said:
threecy said:
This.
The problem goes deeper than just one guy. I wonder if having a healthy CV would have had an effect?
Edit: I have no idea who CS is/was
threecy said:
BB may "get with" the defense once in awhile during games, but he's not undermining the defensive coaches.
I think this is much ado about nothing. Farrell can bring something to the pitching table. It would be idiotic for him not to chime in once in awhile.
theapportioner said:
I see nothing wrong with that. It's like a company bringing the VP of engineering or even the CEO, if he's technically strong, into meetings If there is a serious technology problem with a product. I would hope they'd include Pedro, if he's in town, who would say yeah, both sides of the plate and drill a couple guys in the ass while you're at it.threecy said:
No pitcher's PitchFX graph looks as orderly as you envision. Here's Felix pitching a 9 inning shutout:ivanvamp said:
now compare to the game you picked for Kelly:
In addition, look at the pitch outcomes of some of those pitches. The teal box in the bottom right, the teal box outside the zone on the bottom left...
Miley has definitely put up some stinkers, and he readily acknowledges this. Some of the others, I'm not so sure.
The speech BB gave to the defense during the Baltimore playoff game (and mostly the same speech during the Super Bowl) when they were down and it was looking grim were both what I'd call taking over. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The Pats def. coordinator and Sox Nieves are both better off if the results are good, which certainly was the case for the Pats. Remains to be seen for the Sox.joe dokes said:
So, Fangraphs has decided to weigh in on the debate: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-red-sox-bizarre-rotation/
Essentially taking the "FIP/xFIP are much better than ERA, some extreme bad luck on the pitching staff due to sequencing, wait for it to normalize" stance, that a lot of people around here agree with. Pretty much every DIPS-related stat out there, from FIP to SIERA, most heavily rely on the two most important pitcher-controlled skills as being strike outs and ground balls, while trying to minimize the effect of balls in play, HR/FB rates, and sequencing. The Sox staff is doing a pretty good job with the first two, close to average on BABIP, and terrible on the latter two.
I don't think that I buy the "meatballs" argument, mainly because a.) yes, meatballs get hit, but that's true of every pitcher on every staff; some end up over the plate, some of those get hit hard (the graphs, without actually counting the relative frequency of colored dots, tell us little), and more importantly, b.) it is accounted for in the sequencing portion. Guys give up hits, that's normal, it hurts us more in terms of runs because they are bunched together and/or followed by an unusual number of HRs.
Does that mean that it is all bad luck? No, but a few weeks of poor results are no reason for this board to abandon the well-researched and proven notion that xFIP and SIERA are more predictive than ERA.
Essentially taking the "FIP/xFIP are much better than ERA, some extreme bad luck on the pitching staff due to sequencing, wait for it to normalize" stance, that a lot of people around here agree with. Pretty much every DIPS-related stat out there, from FIP to SIERA, most heavily rely on the two most important pitcher-controlled skills as being strike outs and ground balls, while trying to minimize the effect of balls in play, HR/FB rates, and sequencing. The Sox staff is doing a pretty good job with the first two, close to average on BABIP, and terrible on the latter two.
I don't think that I buy the "meatballs" argument, mainly because a.) yes, meatballs get hit, but that's true of every pitcher on every staff; some end up over the plate, some of those get hit hard (the graphs, without actually counting the relative frequency of colored dots, tell us little), and more importantly, b.) it is accounted for in the sequencing portion. Guys give up hits, that's normal, it hurts us more in terms of runs because they are bunched together and/or followed by an unusual number of HRs.
Does that mean that it is all bad luck? No, but a few weeks of poor results are no reason for this board to abandon the well-researched and proven notion that xFIP and SIERA are more predictive than ERA.
Are we discussing *actual performance* or are we trying to predict future performance?
Because ERA is more indicative of actual performance than xFIP. I mean, whether or not a certain pitch *should* have been hit 500 feet is irrelevant; what matters is if it *did* get hit 500 feet. You don't win games with xFIP.
That said, as we move forward, of course I think the Sox' starting rotation will improve. I don't need xFIP to tell me that each of these starters has a track record that tells us that they cannot possibly continue pitching this poorly. It's almost statistically impossible.
But I also think they need to make some changes (apparently the Sox' staff agrees). Because they're getting shelled on a regular basis. Some of that may be bad luck. A lot of it is they're just not pitching well.
Because ERA is more indicative of actual performance than xFIP. I mean, whether or not a certain pitch *should* have been hit 500 feet is irrelevant; what matters is if it *did* get hit 500 feet. You don't win games with xFIP.
That said, as we move forward, of course I think the Sox' starting rotation will improve. I don't need xFIP to tell me that each of these starters has a track record that tells us that they cannot possibly continue pitching this poorly. It's almost statistically impossible.
But I also think they need to make some changes (apparently the Sox' staff agrees). Because they're getting shelled on a regular basis. Some of that may be bad luck. A lot of it is they're just not pitching well.
Assuming Farrell genuinely stepped in, it does raise an interesting question: during a game where is the pitching coach's attention focused? It is not hard to believe he is more focused on watching the pitcher's form and release more than looking at the catcher's pitch calls/locations. In Clay's last start it became evident that the batters (especially righties) largely were targeting pitches on the outer third (and just beyond) of the plate. They could comfortably do this since it seemed few pitches were being called inside. So perhaps Farrell noticed this while Nieves was paying attention to other stuff.
Alternatively, this all came out from a post-game analysis which Nieves was involved with, but he was just not mentioned. It's even possible that Nieves had already raised this pitch calling issue before with no response from the players, so Farrell decided to amplify the message now.
Alternatively, this all came out from a post-game analysis which Nieves was involved with, but he was just not mentioned. It's even possible that Nieves had already raised this pitch calling issue before with no response from the players, so Farrell decided to amplify the message now.
threecy said:
Or, its a case of someone slightly on the outside (he's probably not in every pitcher/catcher meeting or 100% hands-on in game planning for opposing lineups...these guys are professionals, after all) noticing a trend over the course of the last 2-3 weeks and finally deciding to step in and say something.
He has a pitching coach and a scouting staff for a reason. He trusts them to handle the day to day details of preparing for games. When things run hot and cold or hit and miss over a week or two, it probably doesn't warrant him jumping in and micromanaging things that he trusts these guys to take care of. But clearly he was seeing something that was happening too consistently to be statistical noise and addressed it.
One great start from Porcello doesn't automatically confirm that whatever Farrell saw or said "did the trick". It could be that Porcello wasn't part of the "problem" Farrell saw and the timing of the meeting and his start is coincidental. It's going to take a week or so to really see if Farrell's fix is good for what had ailed the staff. So I'm going to agree with the notion that, for now, the whole thing is much ado about nothing.
Results being what they are, Clay Buchholz actually has a very similar line in terms of things a pitcher controls compared to Felix so far this year. He is absolutely NOT getting lit up.ivanvamp said:
Clay has so far had his second-highest GB% of his career at over 52%, and has a very low LD% of 17.8, yet a BABIP of over .400. He is striking out 2.5 more batters per 9 innings than Felix is. He has in many ways been the ace, even if the results in his last start were a disaster.
This seems contradictory to me. You admit that the stats based on peripherals are more predictive, but then advocate making changes based on the stats that only reflect past results (and remember, those reflect results, NOT process).ivanvamp said:
Yes, ERA does describe what happened in terms of one thing, earned runs allowed, but it is basically not much better than using Wins to evaluate pitcher performance, both from a predictive standpoint and descriptive.
Here are two hypothetical games:
Clay strikes out 10 guys in six innings, walks two, and gives up mostly GBs, but has a bunch of seeing eye singles and bloops fall in during one unlucky inning that leads to 3 runs, and one of his 3 FBs ends up being a solo shot down the line. He loses this game.
Some guy strikes out 3 with 3 walks in six innings, and has a bunch of hard hit liners right at fielders and a lot of deep FBs caught on the warning track, escapes a few bases loaded jams, etc., but only gives up 2 runs. He wins this game.
Clay will have a much higher ERA, but I would prefer that he come out the next game and do exactly the same thing, because history tells us that he should have better results than the second guy. ERA really doesn't tell you much more about how the pitcher performed than win/loss does in most cases.
I am saying that I don't think they've been the victim of particularly bad luck. I think they've generally pitched poorly. And have paid the price for pitching poorly. Clearly Farrell thinks they've been doing some things poorly or they wouldn't bother to make changes.
I also think that each of these pitchers has a track record of being better than this, so I am hopeful (I expect, really) that they will improve, and we will see better results going forward.
There's nothing contradictory about these two things.
I also think that each of these pitchers has a track record of being better than this, so I am hopeful (I expect, really) that they will improve, and we will see better results going forward.
There's nothing contradictory about these two things.
I guess for me the thing being missed in this is the distinction between pitching poorly and getting bad results, and the fact that they are not the same, nor necessarily dependent, and shouldn't be conflated.ivanvamp said:
Clay at least, has not pitched poorly overall, but he has gotten bad results. When you see a guy who is striking out a ton of people, not walking many, and getting a lot of ground balls, yes, we can say that he is a victim of bad luck. What makes me think so? Certainlyhe fact that he has a BABIP on grounders of .342, that's way out of line. If he had a very high BABIP and it was because he was giving up a lot of line drives, you could call that bad performance, but he is actually below league average in terms of LD%. He also has a strand rate well below league average, and while some of that is a result of not getting 'big outs' in certain situations, that's a matter of sequencing that pretty much always regresses over a larger sample. Clay's current LOB% of 59 would be the worst in baseball by a significant margin in any of the last few years, and you especially expect a guy getting a lot of strike outs to do well by that measure.
I just want us all to keep in mind the fact that you can get bad results while pitching well, and you can get good results while pitching poorly. Over the long run, we expect improvement from a guy like Clay because his results haven't matched his performance so far, as opposed to because we expect his performance to improve.
pokey_reese said:
I understand what you're saying. But go back to last year, when he was just awful. Clay has terrific ability, we know that. He also has the ability to lose it pretty quickly out there. When he gets guys on base, he changes his approach. So I think something is mental with him in those situations. A high K rate but a high BABIP may indicate that he is simply inconsistent; when he can hit his spots, he generates lots of strikes (and strikeouts), but when he misses, he misses badly (within the strike zone even) and gets predictably bad results. It's one way to explain how you can strike out a lot of guys, not walk many, and still get hammered.
I agree that he may run into some approach problems with runners on, we've certainly seen what appear to be concentration problems over the years when he is worrying about the guy at first. However, the difference when he was bad last year was that he wasn't striking many guys out (in the small sample so far this year, his K rate is 7-% higher than last year!), while still walking the same number of guys and giving up the same contact. But his high BABIP isn't coming on getting hammered when he misses spots, presumably, because he isn't giving up lots of line drives and home runs/deep fly balls. That's one way to get a high BABIP, but that's also why we can look at batted ball data, and see that his LD and HR/FB rates are fine, but that when he induces GBs, which he wants to do, they are converting to outs at a significantly lower rate. It would be interesting to see if in such a small sample shifts are hurting him or something, or if they are just finding the normal holes.ivanvamp said:
edit: not sure how much it means, but Clay is 37th out of 142 pitchers with at least 30 balls in play in terms of exit velocity off the bat, at 90.3 mph. Just outside of the top quartile, but about 80% of qualifying pitchers are between 87 and 92 mph, so I wouldn't say that he is giving up abnormally hard contact when guys do hit the ball.
Chiming in on the Farrell/Nieves stuff.
Nieves picks up the lack of inside (or high) pitches. He discusses with Farrell. Farrell is the spokesman for the club. No need to read anything more into it.
Nieves picks up the lack of inside (or high) pitches. He discusses with Farrell. Farrell is the spokesman for the club. No need to read anything more into it.
From the always resourceful Red Sox Stats:
Red Sox Stats @redsoxstats 13m13 minutes ago
On podcast Olney says Rodriguez is now off-limits to the Phillies and Law suggests Margot, Johnson, Barnes, Marrero for Hamels, Papelbon.
Red Sox Stats @redsoxstats 13m13 minutes ago
On podcast Olney says Rodriguez is now off-limits to the Phillies and Law suggests Margot, Johnson, Barnes, Marrero for Hamels, Papelbon.
GaryPeters71 said:
https://twitter.com/redsoxstats/status/593868998418112512"]13m13
link to tweet minutes ago[/url]
On podcast Olney says Rodriguez is now off-limits to the Phillies and Law suggests Margot, Johnson, Barnes, Marrero for Hamels, Papelbon.
I would do that.
Would the Reds do that deal? To clarify: Would they do that deal for Cueto/Chapman?Rasputin said:
Edit: clarification, typo
GaryPeters71 said:
I would do that deal. And I like all the guys the Sox would be giving up. Adding Hamels obviously is a huge boost, and Papelbon would be terrific here (again). Meanwhile, Marrero has no place here with X at short, and Margot is years away.
cahlton said:
Not right now.
The Phillies are really really bad. They know they are bad, went into the season thinking they were bad, and have no illusions that they will become a playoff team. If they get the right package, they will trade Papelbon and Hamels today.
The Reds are a much different story. They are only one game under .500. Even though they probably lost Homer Bailey for the season, they have one of the best hitting infields in the NL, a decent rotation, and a good bullpen. It is not completely unrealistic for them to think they can stay in this. I can't see the Reds making a move now unless they are completely blown away and even though it is a dicey sell.
Papelbon is a junk finesse guy now. Pass. The AL East would treat him rudely.
If he's a throw-in and part of the cost of acquiring Hamels for lesser prospects, I'm OK with it. I have no delusions of him being great again, however.
If he's a throw-in and part of the cost of acquiring Hamels for lesser prospects, I'm OK with it. I have no delusions of him being great again, however.
Yeah, I'd much rather keep Barnes and see how he can do in the pen. But presumably this suggested deal has a money element where the Sox have to swallow Papelbon's contract to get Hamels. If so, that's pretty steep, along with the four players.foulkehampshire said:
But isn't Including Paps already pretty much why the four names aren't Margot, Owens, Barnes, and Kopech?foulkehampshire said:
I think Ben is going to trade at least one MLB pitcher. And based on Lucky's comments today, my guess is Clay.
You can make that deal and still have a top farm system. I don't see why you wouldn't. Papelbon fixes a lot of issues with this pen.ivanvamp said:
IF so people are ignoring what the Phillies have done so far.Buzzkill Pauley said:
They seem to think Papelbon has real value, and their other trades have shown a willingness to eat money to get better prospects.
They aren't going to reverse that strategy by tacking Papelbon on to Hamels and taking less in return for their best trade piece. If the team is willing to eat $4M to get Ben Lively in the Byrd deal I can't imagine they'll turn around and take worse prospects just to dump Papelbon.
Can't look it up now, but what would a Papelbon/Hamels deal mean for the 2016 payroll?
I'll look it up as soon as I can.
I'll look it up as soon as I can.
I was curious about the impact of the "big inning" on our starters this season, so I made kind of a running line score for each starting pitcher, highlighting the crooked numbers put up against them. The performance variance from this group just seems extremely abnormal to me.
Clay Buchholz:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 7 0 0 3* - 0 0 0 2 0 0 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 5**
21 innings, 1 run
versus
3 innings, 17 runs
*Game 2: Recorded 1 out in the fourth inning
**Game 5: Recorded 2 outs in the third inning
Rick Porcello:
0 0 0 0 0 3 - 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 - 2 1 0 0 2 3* - 0 0 0 0 4 0 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
27 innings, 4 runs
versus
5 innings, 16 runs
*Game 3: Porcello got 0 outs in the sixth
Justin Masterson:
0 0 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 0 0 6* - 0 1 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 1 0 0
20 innings, 3 runs
versus
2 2/3 innings, 10 runs
*Game 2: Recorded 2 outs in the fifth inning.
Wade Miley:
0 0 0 0 2* - 2 0 5** - 0 0 0 0 0 0*** - 0 1 6****
12 2/3 innings, 1 run
versus
2 innings, 15 runs
*Game 1: Recorded 1 out in the fifth inning
**Game 2: Recorded 1 out in the third inning
***Game 3: Recorded 2 outs in the sixth inning
****Game 4: Recorded 1 out in the third inning
Joe Kelly:
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 1 0* - 1 0 0 0 0 4** - 3 0 1 1 0 0
22 1/3 innings, 6 runs
versus
1 inning 7 runs
*Game 2: Recorded 1 out in the fifth inning
**Game 3: Recorded 0 outs in the sixth inning
Clay Buchholz:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 7 0 0 3* - 0 0 0 2 0 0 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 5**
21 innings, 1 run
versus
3 innings, 17 runs
*Game 2: Recorded 1 out in the fourth inning
**Game 5: Recorded 2 outs in the third inning
Rick Porcello:
0 0 0 0 0 3 - 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 - 2 1 0 0 2 3* - 0 0 0 0 4 0 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
27 innings, 4 runs
versus
5 innings, 16 runs
*Game 3: Porcello got 0 outs in the sixth
Justin Masterson:
0 0 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 0 0 6* - 0 1 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 1 0 0
20 innings, 3 runs
versus
2 2/3 innings, 10 runs
*Game 2: Recorded 2 outs in the fifth inning.
Wade Miley:
0 0 0 0 2* - 2 0 5** - 0 0 0 0 0 0*** - 0 1 6****
12 2/3 innings, 1 run
versus
2 innings, 15 runs
*Game 1: Recorded 1 out in the fifth inning
**Game 2: Recorded 1 out in the third inning
***Game 3: Recorded 2 outs in the sixth inning
****Game 4: Recorded 1 out in the third inning
Joe Kelly:
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 1 0* - 1 0 0 0 0 4** - 3 0 1 1 0 0
22 1/3 innings, 6 runs
versus
1 inning 7 runs
*Game 2: Recorded 1 out in the fifth inning
**Game 3: Recorded 0 outs in the sixth inning
So Chapman is the new Giancarlo Stanton around here - if we wishcast hard enough, the Reds might actually make him available!
- Status