Sox trade John Schreiber to KC for minor league right-hander David Sandlin

[Frisbetarian]

Schneider has just 6.46 K/9 this year, the lowest of his career and much lower than the 10.25 and 10.22 K/9 he had the last 2 seasons with the Red Sox. His strand rate, as @PrometheusWakefield mentioned above, is 94%, the highest of his career and well above the 77-78% he posted with the Red Sox in 22 and 23. Finally, his BABIP is just .227, unsustainably low, and again the lowest of his career by a lot.

Schneider has had a horseshoe up his ass so far this year both on balls in play and men left on base. He’s going to crater.

 

[Rovin Romine]

To say that the trade looks awful for the Sox is seems pretty short sighted considering that we're talking about a guy in A ball who ATM projects as a starter. Breslow came to Boston with a reputation of seeing talent where others might not and being able to help develop that talent. He saw something in Sandlin, a young, cost controlled pitching prospect.

And not just a prospect - a potential ML starting pitcher. When Breslow came on, it's not like the Sox farm system was overrepresented by that particular type of player.

 

[YTF]

And not just a prospect - a potential ML starting pitcher. When Breslow came on, it's not like the Sox farm system was overrepresented by that particular type of player.

Exactly. Considering the lack of depth at the position, these are the types of players that the Sox (and all teams really) need to be identifying and targeting. Especially when you take into account that it seems some of the pitchers that have been drafted early in the past few seasons aren't showing much in the way of early returns. Key word is early, but if you are able to track and identify young pitchers in other organizations and in a sense "draft" via trade like the Sox did with Schreiber and help restock the farm system then that's another option that needs to be examined.

 

[AB in DC]

Schneider has just 6.46 K/9 this year, the lowest of his career and much lower than the 10.25 and 10.22 K/9 he had the last 2 seasons with the Red Sox. His strand rate, as @PrometheusWakefield mentioned above, is 94%, the highest of his career and well above the 77-78% he posted with the Red Sox in 22 and 23. Finally, his BABIP is just .227, unsustainably low, and again the lowest of his career by a lot.

Schneider has had a horseshoe up his ass so far this year both on balls in play and men left on base. He’s going to crater.

His K rate may be low but his contact numbers have been excellent.

 

[simplicio]

Pitching to contact is also going to be easier in KC than Fenway.

 

[joe dokes]

So far the trade is looking like a loser.

https://bosoxinjection.com/posts/red-sox-offseason-trade-with-royals-is-already-looking-awful-for-boston-01hwt9ne41y6

If Sandlin contributes, the trade is not a loser. Who gives a shit what Schreiber does?

 

[scottyno]

We didn't learn from a few years ago with the AB trade to maybe wait a little to see what the Sox actually got to decide if a trade was terrible or not?

 

[canyoubelieveit]

I'm still grateful that the Red Sox won the Larry Andersen trade because he pitched well as a reliever right away after coming over. A 1.23 ERA!

 

[jon abbey]

On top of everything else, Schreiber blew the game today, giving up the tying run in the 8th with a 1-0 lead and KC went on to lose in 10.

 

[simplicio]

We didn't learn... to maybe wait a little to see?

You new here?

 

[burstnbloom]

Everyone has piled on so I'll resist the urge to do so and add a couple of additional points. Sandlin's offseason "stuff" upgrades appear to have stuck and no one really cares about ERA for A ball pitchers. He's getting a good amount of whiffs and it bodes well for his future. On top of that, Schreiber's open roster spot left one for either Weisert or Slaten, both of whom have similar success to Scheiber this year but significantly more evidence that they can continue to perform than he does.

That trade still feels like a clear win for me even if Sandlin's development stalls. The chance at a legit starting pitcher is worth more than a fungible middle reliver you were about to DFA.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

On top of everything else, Schreiber blew the game today, giving up the tying run in the 8th with a 1-0 lead and KC went on to lose in 10.

I've been out all day and started reading the thread before I even checked today's scores. Seeing that this thread was bumped and the post that did it, I just assumed that the impetus was that the Sox pen blew the game today and bumper though Schreiber was the missing link. Oh the irony that the post was made pre-game and then Schreiber blew his game while the Sox won handily (and haven't had the pen blow many at all). One month into the season might just be a bit soon to judge any off-season trade. Who knew?

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

On top of that, Schreiber's open roster spot left one for either Weisert or Slaten, both of whom have similar success to Scheiber this year but significantly more evidence that they can continue to perform than he does.

That trade still feels like a clear win for me even if Sandlin's development stalls. The chance at a legit starting pitcher is worth more than a fungible middle reliver you were about to DFA.

Edited down just to say that I can't agree more with this type of assessment.

Many bullpen arms tend to be so volatile not only from season to season, but from seemingly month to month and a smart baseball organization can cycle through guys enough until something sticks in a given year that any time you can trade something that isn't an established closer for a legitimate return, I think it should be done. If Bernardino, Weissert, Kelly, Uwasawa or any such player can be moved for the equivalent of "David Sandlin" this off-season, I hope Breslow does that also. It's also why I spent most of the off-season trying to get rid of Martin and Winckowski in the "moves I'd make" thread.

 

[Rasputin]

I will never understand the obsession with "winning" trades. It's silly enough with big trades and absolutely absurd for small ones.

A piece you need is worth more than a piece you either don't need or can't keep.

 

[dynomite]

Edited down just to say that I can't agree more with this type of assessment.

Many bullpen arms tend to be so volatile not only from season to season, but from seemingly month to month and a smart baseball organization can cycle through guys enough until something sticks in a given year that any time you can trade something that isn't an established closer for a legitimate return, I think it should be done. If Bernardino, Weissert, Kelly, Uwasawa or any such player can be moved for the equivalent of "David Sandlin" this off-season, I hope Breslow does that also. It's also why I spent most of the off-season trying to get rid of Martin and Winckowski in the "moves I'd make" thread.

Yes, this is definitely true and -- to me -- it's telling that one of Bloom's consensus "best" trades was a similar swap, giving Brandon Workman and Hembree getting back Pivetta and Seabold.

I didn't even realize there was negative feedback on here about trading Schreiber. By all accounts from the radio guys he's a great guy I'm rooting for in real life, but last season his fastball was down 1 mph, his xFIP ballooned to 4.46, and he was about to be on the wrong side of 30. To get something of value in return for him was a triumph.

It's been said elsewhere, but worth saying again: I'm not sure I've ever seen the equivalent of what Breslow and Bailey have pulled off in one offseason and a month of games.

They've turned an organization that seemed to be perennially bereft of starting pitching and notoriously struggled to develop SPs (aside from the occasional Lester and Buchholz and ERod) into an organization loaded with young starting pitching talent. Houck, Bello, Crawford, Whitlock, Pivetta, even Criswell have been great, and Fitts and Sandlin are now both top 10 prospects per SoxProspects. Have the Red Sox ever had this many promising young arms on the roster at the same time?

 

[Rovin Romine]

I will never understand the obsession with "winning" trades. It's silly enough with big trades and absolutely absurd for small ones.

A piece you need is worth more than a piece you either don't need or can't keep.

That's quite true.

I think that mentality comes in because you generally don't want to give away disproportionate future value, or obtain zero value. Sometimes that's just blurred by injury/development risk, and yes, sometimes it's worth more to trade for a piece you need, regardless of what the cost is. But generally the more Slocumb/Lowe&Varitek trades, and the fewer Anderson/Bagwells you make, the more likely you are to have the assets to push for a title. Most trades are not those, of course.

 

[jmcc5400]

Yes, this is definitely true and -- to me -- it's telling that one of Bloom's consensus "best" trades was a similar swap, giving Brandon Workman and Hembree getting back Pivetta and Seabold.

I didn't even realize there was negative feedback on here about trading Schreiber. By all accounts from the radio guys he's a great guy I'm rooting for in real life, but last season his fastball was down 1 mph, his xFIP ballooned to 4.46, and he was about to be on the wrong side of 30. To get something of value in return for him was a triumph.

It's been said elsewhere, but worth saying again: I'm not sure I've ever seen the equivalent of what Breslow and Bailey have pulled off in one offseason and a month of games.

They've turned an organization that seemed to be perennially bereft of starting pitching and notoriously struggled to develop SPs (aside from the occasional Lester and Buchholz and ERod) into an organization loaded with young starting pitching talent. Houck, Bello, Crawford, Whitlock, Pivetta, even Criswell have been great, and Fitts and Sandlin are now both top 10 prospects per SoxProspects. Have the Red Sox ever had this many promising young arms on the roster at the same time?

1983-1984 offseason: Clemens, Tudor, Hurst, Ojeda, Boyd, uhhhh . . . Nipper?

 

[Rasputin]

That's quite true.

I think that mentality comes in because you generally don't want to give away disproportionate future value, or obtain zero value. Sometimes that's just blurred by injury/development risk, and yes, sometimes it's worth more to trade for a piece you need, regardless of what the cost is. But generally the more Slocumb/Lowe&Varitek trades, and the fewer Anderson/Bagwells you make, the more likely you are to have the assets to push for a title. Most trades are not those, of course.

One thing I think a lot of people forget is that assessments of players--even established major leaguers who aren't that old--have significant error bars, and that the error bars are wider for new players and older players.

 

[Rovin Romine]

One thing I think a lot of people forget is that assessments of players--even established major leaguers who aren't that old--have significant error bars, and that the error bars are wider for new players and older players.

Yep - I think if you want to understand and evaluate the reasonableness of a trade, you have to look at the pieces (and the situations of the teams) at the moment of the trade. 20-20 hindsight is not the way to do it.

 

[chrisfont9]

Yep - I think if you want to understand and evaluate the reasonableness of a trade, you have to look at the pieces (and the situations of the teams) at the moment of the trade. 20-20 hindsight is not the way to do it.

Heh, well a perfect example, since his name just came up, would be John Tudor. I would have *killed* for Tudor to have his peak years in Boston, but a) he was there long enough for the Sox to see him as a #3 type, and b) his FIP shows that maybe his peaks in St. Louis had to do with the context (park effects, defense etc.) on those great teams. Getting Mike Easler wasn't amazing, but he was excellent for a year, consistent with his time in Pittsburgh (and also was flipped for Don Baylor if you do want some hindsight). Finally, maybe the Sox felt like they had enough LHPs with Hurst and Ojeda. I don't know what they were saying over at Dads of Sam Horn on the day of the trade but guessing nobody was too bothered by it.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Heh, well a perfect example, since his name just came up, would be John Tudor. I would have *killed* for Tudor to have his peak years in Boston, but a) he was there long enough for the Sox to see him as a #3 type, and b) his FIP shows that maybe his peaks in St. Louis had to do with the context (park effects, defense etc.) on those great teams. Getting Mike Easler wasn't amazing, but he was excellent for a year, consistent with his time in Pittsburgh (and also was flipped for Don Baylor if you do want some hindsight). Finally, maybe the Sox felt like they had enough LHPs with Hurst and Ojeda. I don't know what they were saying over at Dads of Sam Horn on the day of the trade but guessing nobody was too bothered by it.

heh heh

Interestingly, this trade could trigger more deals. Boston's starting pitching (4.34 team ERA) was weak before the trade; now, the Red Sox cannot possibly prosper without another right-handed starter. That is, unless minor league phenom Roger Clements blossoms ahead of schedule.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1983/12/07/tudor-traded-for-easler/971c010d-dd38-437f-b965-0bc078b59485/

 

[Bergs]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1983/12/07/tudor-traded-for-easler/971c010d-dd38-437f-b965-0bc078b59485/

Too bad that Clements guy never worked out.

 

[chrisfont9]

heh heh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1983/12/07/tudor-traded-for-easler/971c010d-dd38-437f-b965-0bc078b59485/

Wow, thanks! Quite the example of mutually beneficial roster balancing. As to Tudor's next trade... woof! Basically sent to StLoo for George Hendrick, a year *after* mid-30s Hendrick's stats fell off a cliff.

 

[Rovin Romine]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1983/12/07/tudor-traded-for-easler/971c010d-dd38-437f-b965-0bc078b59485/

That's a great pull, and a perfect example @chrisfont9.

 

[nighthob]

It's been said elsewhere, but worth saying again: I'm not sure I've ever seen the equivalent of what Breslow and Bailey have pulled off in one offseason and a month of games.

They've turned an organization that seemed to be perennially bereft of starting pitching and notoriously struggled to develop SPs (aside from the occasional Lester and Buchholz and ERod) into an organization loaded with young starting pitching talent. Houck, Bello, Crawford, Whitlock, Pivetta, even Criswell have been great, and Fitts and Sandlin are now both top 10 prospects per SoxProspects. Have the Red Sox ever had this many promising young arms on the roster at the same time?

Don’t forget Justin Willard, the new Director of Pitching. The scouting department has turned up a lot of live arms, but the development has been mediocre to bad for a long time now. Dobbins, Perales and Gonzalez seem to have made some actual improvement in the new regime. I have hopes that Boston might start pushing out some competent arms to fill the rotation.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Heh, well a perfect example, since his name just came up, would be John Tudor. I would have *killed* for Tudor to have his peak years in Boston, but a) he was there long enough for the Sox to see him as a #3 type, and b) his FIP shows that maybe his peaks in St. Louis had to do with the context (park effects, defense etc.) on those great teams. Getting Mike Easler wasn't amazing, but he was excellent for a year, consistent with his time in Pittsburgh (and also was flipped for Don Baylor if you do want some hindsight). Finally, maybe the Sox felt like they had enough LHPs with Hurst and Ojeda. I don't know what they were saying over at Dads of Sam Horn on the day of the trade but guessing nobody was too bothered by it.

The Dads were not happy at all - at least the ones familiar with early Bill James. General knowledge of park effects was nonexistent in the 80s -and particularly nonexistent on the RedSox. Fenway was an extreme hitters park at the time (before the press box expansion) resulting in constantly undervaluing their pitchers and overvaluing their hitters.

So John Tudor went from a great hitters park with bad OF defense* - in a hitters league and ended up in a great pitchers park with stellar OF defense in a pitchers league and became a star.

* Dwight Evans notwithstanding.

 

[BringBackMo]

Yes, this is definitely true and -- to me -- it's telling that one of Bloom's consensus "best" trades was a similar swap, giving Brandon Workman and Hembree getting back Pivetta and Seabold.

I didn't even realize there was negative feedback on here about trading Schreiber. By all accounts from the radio guys he's a great guy I'm rooting for in real life, but last season his fastball was down 1 mph, his xFIP ballooned to 4.46, and he was about to be on the wrong side of 30. To get something of value in return for him was a triumph.

It's been said elsewhere, but worth saying again: I'm not sure I've ever seen the equivalent of what Breslow and Bailey have pulled off in one offseason and a month of games.

They've turned an organization that seemed to be perennially bereft of starting pitching and notoriously struggled to develop SPs (aside from the occasional Lester and Buchholz and ERod) into an organization loaded with young starting pitching talent. Houck, Bello, Crawford, Whitlock, Pivetta, even Criswell have been great, and Fitts and Sandlin are now both top 10 prospects per SoxProspects. Have the Red Sox ever had this many promising young arms on the roster at the same time?

This is a good post and I agree with pretty much everything you are saying. Couldn’t be happier to have Breslow and Bailey in the organization!

But Bello, Houck, Whitlock, Pivetta, and Crawford were all good/promising pitchers who were putting up encouraging results before Breslow and Bailey got here. In fact, it was the prior regime that identified the last three and brought them into the organization (edit below), and that provided the bulk of the development to the first two. That is *not* to say that the new regime gets no credit for their continued development and improvements (Houck probably most dramatically). As today’s Alex Speier article demonstrates, they have been all we could have hoped for, and absolutely do appear to be better than their predecessors at maximizing pitching performance. But it *is* to say that Bloom and his team were well on their way to beginning the organization’s pitching transformation.

*EDIT: Bloom did not bring Crawford into the org. Was confusing with Winckowski trade. Leaving as written to own the mistake. Crawford did, however, receive significant development time under Bloom, making it all the way to the majors and pitching well there.

 

[BringBackMo]

Don’t forget Justin Willard, the new Director of Pitching. The scouting department has turned up a lot of live arms, but the development has been mediocre to bad for a long time now. Dobbins, Perales and Gonzalez seem to have made some actual improvement in the new regime. I have hopes that Boston might start pushing out some competent arms to fill the rotation.

Gonzalez made it to AA last year at 21, pitching his final 48 innings there. He had a 2.42 ERA, 11.73 k/9, and 1.14 whip. Walks were too high at 5.21/9 but they’re actually a tick higher this year at 5.74. His k/9 this year is even better than last year but his whip is about the same and his ERA is sitting at 5.74. But according to SoxProspects, his xERA is an excellent 1.89. Last year’s was 1.81 in AA. He’s a good prospect that we’re all rooting for and appears to be at exactly the same level as he was last year under the prior regime.

Perales had a good stretch in Salem last year as a 20 year old, then struggled after his promotion to Greenville. He’s pitched only 13 innings this season but his k/9 is sitting at 14.54, compared with 10.9 in Greenville last season. His bb/9 has dropped from 5.45 last year in Greenville to 3.46. His ERA in high-A last year was 4.95 versus 3.46 this season. His xERA last season was 6.06, compared with 4.82 this season. He’s a good prospect (maybe my favorite pitcher in the system) that we’re all rooting for and appears to have taken a noticeable but not extreme step forward this season. Perhaps that’s the influence of the new front office, perhaps it’s the normal progression of a 20 year old, perhaps is sss variance.

I am enraptured with the new Breslow team, just like everyone else here! But it is simply not true that the prior regime hadn’t already begun to transform the Sox pitching development woes. Besides bringing Pivetta, Whitlock, and Crawford (edit below) into the organization, and developing and promoting Bello and Houck, Bloom’s team added Winckowski, the two prospects mentioned here, and other interesting SP prospects in the lower minors, including Elmer Rodriguez Cruz, Angel Bastardo, and Yordanny Monegro.

I’m hoping Brez and co blow the doors off of what Bloom and his team ever did. And they’re off to a great start. But that doesn't in any way change the fact that Bloom was in the process of building a successful organizational pitching foundation.

*EDIT: Bloom did not bring Crawford into the org. Was confusing with Winckowski trade. Leaving as written to own the mistake. Crawford did, however, receive significant development time under Bloom, making it all the way to the majors and pitching well there.

 

[Rovin Romine]

This is a good post and I agree with pretty much everything you are saying. Couldn’t be happier to have Breslow and Bailey in the organization!

But Bello, Houck, Whitlock, Pivetta, and Crawford were all good/promising pitchers who were putting up encouraging results before Breslow and Bailey got here. In fact, it was the prior regime that identified the last three and brought them into the organization, and that provided the bulk of the development to the first two. That is *not* to say that the new regime gets no credit for their continued development and improvements (Houck probably most dramatically). As today’s Alex Speier article demonstrates, they have been all we could have hoped for, and absolutely do appear to be better than their predecessors at maximizing pitching performance. But it *is* to say that Bloom and his team were well on their way to beginning the organization’s pitching transformation.

Were they? Or had they maxed out? I don't say that to discount the positive things Bloom did. (I hope Breslow is as good as Bloom was in terms of acquiring talent.) But at the end of the day, Breslow/Bailey made significant changes that had a real effect. And *that* is the difference-maker.

Now we need the hitting analogue.

 

[nighthob]

I am enraptured with the new Breslow team, just like everyone else here! But it is simply not true that the prior regime hadn’t already begun to transform the Sox pitching development woes. Besides bringing Pivetta, Whitlock, and Crawford (edit below) into the organization, and developing and promoting Bello and Houck, Bloom’s team added Winckowski, the two prospects mentioned here, and other interesting SP prospects in the lower minors, including Elmer Rodriguez Cruz, Angel Bastardo, and Yordanny Monegro.

I’m hoping Brez and co blow the doors off of what Bloom and his team ever did. And they’re off to a great start. But that doesn't in any way change the fact that Bloom was in the process of building a successful organizational pitching foundation.

*EDIT: Bloom did not bring Crawford into the org. Was confusing with Winckowski trade. Leaving as written to own the mistake.

I’m not talking about adding arms, Boston’s been good at that part of it. Where they’ve been mediocre to poor is in turning the live arms into good pitchers. They do seem to have made progress in that area very quickly.

 

[BringBackMo]

I’m not talking about adding arms, Boston’s been good at that part of it. Where they’ve been mediocre to poor is in turning the live arms into good pitchers. They do seem to have made progress in that area very quickly.

But even by that measure, they did very well under Bloom. Pivetta turned it around after years of disappointment. Whitlock struggled with injuries but had stretches of brilliance. Crawford and, especially, Winckowski, were terrific as rookies. You yourself have argued persuasively that Bello was one of the top 30 pitchers in baseball last year.

 

[BringBackMo]

Were they? Or had they maxed out? I don't say that to discount the positive things Bloom did. (I hope Breslow is as good as Bloom was in terms of acquiring talent.) But at the end of the day, Breslow/Bailey made significant changes that had a real effect. And *that* is the difference-maker.

Now we need the hitting analogue.

Repeating that I am in love with Breslow and Bailey and their work, and repeating that they do appear to be better than Bloom was at maximizing pitcher performance. But how can we say that Bello and Pivetta were maxed out? I will give you Houck. No question there. But Bello’s season last year was an unqualified success for a rookie, and exactly the kind that would lead us to expect a breakout second season. And Pivetta was basically taken off the junk heap (exaggerating for effect) by Bloom and turned into a successful mid-rotation starter. His results in his first two starts s season hinted at something more--and here’s hoping that Bailey has unlocked something potent—but that was a total of eleven innings, in April, which is probably much too small a sample size to draw any conclusions yet. He‘s been hurt since then, of course, leading up to last night’s poor start, for which he deserves a mulligan given rust, etc.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

As a Bloom defender... not an apologist, as I don't think he was great but I think he's unfairly maligned and basically followed out orders from the higher-ups. It's still going to be really difficult to parse out who was responsible for what... which of Bloom or Breslow was more responsible for success, and it's stupid early for us to be judging Breslow too. Bloom's first full season he brought an underperforming and injured team to the ALCS Finals. If Breslow does that this season we'd be happy as all hell and consider him to be a genius. Theo had some serious missteps in his later time here, IMO, but a lot of people brush those aside and lay those at the feet of those same "higher-ups" (make a splash!!!).
So far though the pitching staff really looks good. But as far as Houck goes, isn't it just as possible that he could have made a similar jump from his underperformance and potential we all saw to what he is looking to be? He was downright great when he first showed up (geez.... in 2020???) and was quite good in the following two seasons. (His xFIP was better than his ERA). His last season had struggles but also he took a pitch off the face. Maybe that doesn't happen and in mid-season he makes a jump to closer what he is right now (and what he is right now is unlikely to last but I do think he's a likely borderline ace).
I'm also not discounting whatsoever the pitch selection changes that Bailey seems to have implemented and that likely is a good reason why he's turned that corner, FWIW.

Also... can't believe this is his 5th season. Was looking, but can't find how much longer the Sox control him. He's still just 27. I'd love to see the Sox lock him up for another 5 seasons but I get the vibe that he will test FA.

 

[simplicio]

Houck is controlled through '27, which will be his age 31 season. I don't think we see an extension beyond that.

 

[chrisfont9]

Houck is controlled through '27, which will be his age 31 season. I don't think we see an extension beyond that.

It'd be perfect for the Sox to buy up 2-3 more years, though maybe you are saying he won't do that because that's his window to get Paid.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Repeating that I am in love with Breslow and Bailey and their work, and repeating that they do appear to be better than Bloom was at maximizing pitcher performance. But how can we say that Bello and Pivetta were maxed out? I will give you Houck. No question there. But Bello’s season last year was an unqualified success for a rookie, and exactly the kind that would lead us to expect a breakout second season. And Pivetta was basically taken off the junk heap (exaggerating for effect) by Bloom and turned into a successful mid-rotation starter. His results in his first two starts s season hinted at something more--and here’s hoping that Bailey has unlocked something potent—but that was a total of eleven innings, in April, which is probably much too small a sample size to draw any conclusions yet. He‘s been hurt since then, of course, leading up to last night’s poor start, for which he deserves a mulligan given rust, etc.

Often these discussions have some kind of emotional validation to them - in the signaling sense. That it's OK to like or dislike the GM, the manager, the coaching, etc. I think that's interesting.

Anyway, you were pretty clear you weren't dunking on anyone, and your more detailed thoughts on how things fit together certainly convey the same.

FWIW, by "maxed out" I meant more that the 2023 Pitching Coaching Staff Writ Large (Bush, but also Cora, Bloom, Varitek, various unknown front office folks and bit-players) got what game-results they got out of their pitchers. They tried their best to do well, I am sure. But the results were the results.

It's worthwhile to remember that Pivetta, Bello, Winckowski, Crawford, Houck, Kelly, Whitlock and others were all on the 2022 club. Sure, there were some leaps forward from 22 to 23 (mostly Winckowski taking it on himself to retool his pitches, then Pivetta's mid-season improvement). There was also some slow progression. But there were also complete fucking disasters. Not to mince words, but Kluber, Pivetta's start, Houck's inability to get out of the 5th.

I mean, people scoured the data on Houck (and Whitlock) and thought their inability to go deep was psychological - that they were just yipped or weak-minded or something. The common perception, by and large, was they had hit their ceilings. That they (and Crawford perhaps) were at best long-men and the roster should be retooled accordingly. (So much so that people here almost had aneurysms when Breslow/Bailey said they could win with their in-house starters.)

Clearly it's unfair to expect a coaching staff to maximize everyone instantly, but what Bailey has done by "simply" changing pitch selection, hands-on-coaching, quick-feedback/corrections, and refining pitches is absolutely amazing. The in-game results are head-and-shoulders above what was done with largely the same pitchers in 2023. The talent was mostly there in 2023, but it was under-utilized. Or the talent was driven toward a particular philosophical end - everyone had to have a 4-seam fastball and use it in a particular way in a particular count.

Now we can't say for certain the Cora-Bush-Varitek-Bloom Pitching Group wouldn't have radically changed their philosophical approach and made the same stark changes Bailey did. . .but it seems pretty damn unlikely. That group had their hands on-staff for 3 years and the results. . .were the results. (I mean, they had successes, certainly, but nothing in the aggregate like this.)

And so "maxed-out." 2024 under the same Cora-Bush-Varitek-Bloom Pitching Group would have most likely been largely a similar approach with largely similar results to 2023, maybe with incremental improvement for some pitchers and regression elsewhere. Maybe a scrap-heap veteran starter or two that might or might not work out.

 

[dynomite]

But Bello, Houck, Whitlock, Pivetta, and Crawford were all good/promising pitchers who were putting up encouraging results before Breslow and Bailey got here. ... That is *not* to say that the new regime gets no credit for their continued development and improvements (Houck probably most dramatically). ... But it *is* to say that Bloom and his team were well on their way to beginning the organization’s pitching transformation.

Thanks for adding this -- I should have been clearer in my initial post that the "continued development" piece is what I meant when it came to Bello/Houck/Pivetta/Crawford. And RR hit exactly what I was getting at.

And we'll never know the answer, but this is the crux of the argument:

Were they? Or had they maxed out? I don't say that to discount the positive things Bloom did. (I hope Breslow is as good as Bloom was in terms of acquiring talent.) But at the end of the day, Breslow/Bailey made significant changes that had a real effect. And *that* is the difference-maker.

But as far as Houck goes, isn't it just as possible that he could have made a similar jump from his underperformance and potential we all saw to what he is looking to be? ... I'm also not discounting whatsoever the pitch selection changes that Bailey seems to have implemented and that likely is a good reason why he's turned that corner, FWIW.

I just agree that saying Bloom & co were "on their way" to transforming the organization's pitching feels too generous. We'll never know, of course, but the results speak for themselves. Of course, it's crazy early and a tiny sample to evaluate the front office, but...

2020 Red Sox ERA: 28th in MLB (5.52)
2021 Red Sox ERA: 15th in MLB (4.26)
2022 Red Sox ERA: 25th in MLB (4.53)
2023 Red Sox ERA: 21st in MLB (4.52)
2024 Red Sox ERA: 1st in MLB (2.72)

Again, even if it's a tiny sample, a jump that significant is hard to ignore. And as for "not discounting" the importance of pitch selection changes... I mean, it seems clear that Breslow, Bailey, and Willard (h/t @nighthob) have decided to organizationally direct starters to throw less fastballs. Bloom & co had something like 4 seasons to do whatever they wanted organizationally, and to borrow an expression from football: they were what their ERA said they were.

Edit: @Rovin Romine, jinx.

Now we can't say for certain the Cora-Bush-Varitek-Bloom Pitching Group wouldn't have radically changed their philosophical approach and made the same stark changes Bailey did. . .but it seems pretty damn unlikely. That group had their hands on-staff for 3 years and the results. . .were the results. (I mean, they had successes, certainly, but nothing in the aggregate like this.)

And so "maxed-out." 2024 under the same Cora-Bush-Varitek-Bloom Pitching Group would have most likely been largely a similar approach with largely similar results to 2023, maybe with incremental improvement for some pitchers and regression elsewhere. Maybe a scrap-heap veteran starter or two that might or might not work out.

Speaking of scrap heap veteran starters, I've also been wondering how much of a role to consider for these additional two factors:

1) The veteran free agent SPs signings didn't pan out in 2023: Corey Kluber was a disaster (7.04 ERA), and while Paxton was cromulent (4.50, 102 ERA+) that's all he was. Giolito obviously didn't work out this season, and we'll never know how he would have pitched this year, but at a minimum staying away from the Kluber/Paxton types kept those rotation spots open for better performance from Houck/Whitlock/Crawford.

2) The bullpen isn't clogged with a series of back-end, journeyman types getting shelled. I picked an unfair sample, but look at some of the guys who pitched for the Red Sox in 2023, none of whom (as far as I can tell) have thrown a single pitch in the Majors in 2024 or are still with the organization: Bleier, Llovera, Ort, Barraclough, Jake Faria, Justin Garza. That's (by my count) 111 IP giving up 83 ER (an ERA ~6.72). Again, this is an intentionally unfair, unrepresentative sample of the worst results, but my point is that the Red Sox were signing, promoting, and pitching guys throughout the season who probably didn't belong in the Majors. Maybe you could do that for every team, and maybe Breslow & co will end up with a similar group in 2024, but the combination of their poor performance and all of them washing out of the Majors after last year stood out to me.

 

[chrisfont9]

Thanks for adding this -- I should have been clearer in my initial post that the "continued development" piece is what I meant when it came to Bello/Houck/Pivetta/Crawford. And RR hit exactly what I was getting at.

And we'll never know the answer, but this is the crux of the argument:





I just agree that saying Bloom & co were "on their way" to transforming the organization's pitching feels too generous. We'll never know, of course, but the results speak for themselves. Of course, it's crazy early and a tiny sample to evaluate the front office, but...

2020 Red Sox ERA: 28th in MLB (5.52)
2021 Red Sox ERA: 15th in MLB (4.26)
2022 Red Sox ERA: 25th in MLB (4.53)
2023 Red Sox ERA: 21st in MLB (4.52)
2024 Red Sox ERA: 1st in MLB (2.72)

Again, even if it's a tiny sample, a jump that significant is hard to ignore. And as for "not discounting" the importance of pitch selection changes... I mean, it seems clear that Breslow, Bailey, and Willard (h/t @nighthob) have decided to organizationally direct starters to throw less fastballs. Bloom & co had something like 4 seasons to do whatever they wanted organizationally, and to borrow an expression from football: they were what their ERA said they were.

Edit: @Rovin Romine, jinx.



Speaking of scrap heap veteran starters, I've also been wondering how much of a role to consider for these additional two factors:

1) The veteran free agent SPs signings didn't pan out in 2023: Corey Kluber was a disaster (7.04 ERA), and while Paxton was cromulent (4.50, 102 ERA+) that's all he was. Giolito obviously didn't work out this season, and we'll never know how he would have pitched this year, but at a minimum staying away from the Kluber/Paxton types kept those rotation spots open for better performance from Houck/Whitlock/Crawford.

2) The bullpen isn't clogged with a series of back-end, journeyman types getting shelled. I picked an unfair sample, but look at some of the guys who pitched for the Red Sox in 2023, none of whom (as far as I can tell) have thrown a single pitch in the Majors in 2024 or are still with the organization: Bleier, Llovera, Ort, Barraclough, Jake Faria, Justin Garza. That's (by my count) 111 IP giving up 83 ER (an ERA ~6.72). Again, this is an intentionally unfair, unrepresentative sample of the worst results, but my point is that the Red Sox were signing, promoting, and pitching guys throughout the season who probably didn't belong in the Majors. Maybe you could do that for every team, and maybe Breslow & co will end up with a similar group in 2024, but the combination of their poor performance and all of them washing out of the Majors after last year stood out to me.

I mentioned this somewhere, maybe in this thread, but from Jen McCaffrey's article yesterday the delta here is partly pitch mix, but also a change in communication, from a lot of info delivered somewhat chaotically to a streamlined system of messaging to allow guys to focus more on a set plan. It's like the house was already mostly built but that didn't mean much until the new guy came in and put the roof on. Success vs league-average production is traceable to tiny margins, tiny changes, but implementing them is tricky, apparently, and requires a really thoughtful system being in place. So lots of credit to the Bloom folks, many of whom are still there, but the changes made by the new guys were critical and weren't happening without the change.

Edit: Just adding that two recent ML pitchers taking over feels significant. People who know what it's like to experience what the current pitchers are experiencing lately and how to improve it.

 

[Rovin Romine]

2) The bullpen isn't clogged with a series of back-end, journeyman types getting shelled. I picked an unfair sample, but look at some of the guys who pitched for the Red Sox in 2023, none of whom (as far as I can tell) have thrown a single pitch in the Majors in 2024 or are still with the organization: Bleier, Llovera, Ort, Barraclough, Jake Faria, Justin Garza. That's (by my count) 111 IP giving up 83 ER (an ERA ~6.72). Again, this is an intentionally unfair, unrepresentative sample of the worst results, but my point is that the Red Sox were signing, promoting, and pitching guys throughout the season who probably didn't belong in the Majors. Maybe you could do that for every team, and maybe Breslow & co will end up with a similar group in 2024, but the combination of their poor performance and all of them washing out of the Majors after last year stood out to me.

Yeah, I think this is massively significant. The performances of good (or great) players can be dragged down if the team is also running a bunch of drek out there. Maybe that's mitigated a bit if there's an A squad and a B squad (mop up guy).

I think it's also important to note that some of those guys were pitchers acquired during the season to be a possible improvement over what was on the roster. Inherently roll-the-dice stuff. And there, I think the Bush team (to simplify) had some success with reclamation projects. But none of them really lasted.

Either way, it seemed like there was a mismatch between acquisition (Bloom) and implementation (Bush.)

 

[dynomite]

I mentioned this somewhere, maybe in this thread, but from Jen McCaffrey's article yesterday the delta here is partly pitch mix, but also a change in communication, from a lot of info delivered somewhat chaotically to a streamlined system of messaging to allow guys to focus more on a set plan. It's like the house was already mostly built but that didn't mean much until the new guy came in and put the roof on. Success vs league-average production is traceable to tiny margins, tiny changes, but implementing them is tricky, apparently, and requires a really thoughtful system being in place. So lots of credit to the Bloom folks, many of whom are still there, but the changes made by the new guys were critical and weren't happening without the change.

Sure, I don't deny a lot of what you say. Bloom deserves some credit, absolutely. But I think that's often going to be the case.

For example, to use extreme analogies, almost all of us acknowledge Dan Duquette deserved some credit for the 2004-era Red Sox (Pedro, Manny, Varitek, Lowe, etc.), and Bobby Grier deserved some credit for the 2001-era Patriots (Milloy, Bruschi, Law, etc.). But there's a reason Theo and Belichick will be inducted into their respective Halls of Fame and Duquette and Grier won't.

As RR says, there's a gap here between acquisition and implementation. It's a cliche for a reason that pro sports is a bottom line business.

Yeah, I think this is massively significant. The performances of good (or great) players can be dragged down if the team is also running a bunch of drek out there. Maybe that's mitigated a bit if there's an A squad and a B squad (mop up guy). ...

Either way, it seemed like there was a mismatch between acquisition (Bloom) and implementation (Bush.)

Thanks for saying so! I wondered whether to post it because I could see the other side of the argument (every team has a mop up crew, etc.).

Take a guy like Barraclough: he was pitching in independent ball last June when they signed him. He had lost 2 mph off his fastball between '22 and '23 (from averaging ~93mph to ~91mph) and his AAA results weren't very good. I get taking a chance on that guy in AAA, but calling him up and pitching him in August when the team still had a remote chance of a playoff berth was an indictment not just of implementation but also of process.