Will Joe Kelly Ever Fulfill His Potential?

[Adrian's Dome]

But those 400+ innings aren't all relevant to what we're dealing with at this exact moment.

Since Kelly has arrived here, he's put up a 4.20 and 4.82 ERA. 1.35 and 1.44 WHIP. OPS against of .693 and .769.

2015 is really all we have to work with as far as Wright as a major league starter, but he posted a 4.09 ERA, 1.29 WHIP, and .722 OPS against. Better across the board than Kelly's 2015. Not significantly so, but enough where the question of who to bump from the rotation when Rodriguez returns is a real, legitimate one. Does no one think Kelly would be better suited in the bullpen, or are we all going to sit here and wishcast that his velocity will someday morph him into something he's not?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

However, I don't think how they pitch over the next 4-5 weeks is going to be the only factor in this decision. One of the main frustrations with keeping Kelly in the rotation (aside from the results when he pitches like he did in the opener), is that literally everything about his make-up as a pitcher suggests he would be better suited for a bullpen role. Some people simply aren't cut out to be starters, and I feel Kelly has been given a much longer leash to try out the starter role than a lot of others have been (because of the obviously higher upside). So why not just move him a spot where he's likely to be better and more likely to succeed? It's only a matter of time at this point.

And just to bring it back to the conversation at hand, there are no such illusions about the possibility of using Wright in a bullpen role. He's either in the rotation or in AAA, which makes the decision over who to bump from the rotation not solely performance based.

Wright can't be sent to AAA. He's out of options. Either he's in the rotation, in the bullpen, or DFA. So yes, I think the decision will have to be based on their performance. If one is significantly outpitching the other, or one is significantly underperforming (and this arguably goes for Buchholz and Porcello as well), then the decision is easy. If there's no significant difference in performance, then other factors get weighed and I have to think Kelly's longer track record will be a factor.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

And just to bring it back to the conversation at hand, there are no such illusions about the possibility of using Wright in a bullpen role. He's either in the rotation or in AAA, which makes the decision over who to bump from the rotation not solely performance based.

What makes you say that? He's had more appearances in the majors in relief than as a starter, and performance-wise it's been about a wash. I don't see much evidence that using him in the bullpen is not a perfectly valid option.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

What makes you say that? He's had more appearances in the majors in relief than as a starter, and performance-wise it's been about a wash. I don't see much evidence that using him in the bullpen is not a perfectly valid option.

It's more that Kelly can be a legitimate 1-inning power arm out of the bullpen, whereas Wright's skillset is more suited towards back-end starter. You're not going to get a ton of use out of him as a mop-up man. If you can get the same (or slightly better) numbers out of Wright starting than Kelly, and Kelly could be a more useful asset out of the pen, that's the logical move to make.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

It's more that Kelly can be a legitimate 1-inning power arm out of the bullpen, whereas Wright's skillset is more suited towards back-end starter. You're not going to get a ton of use out of him as a mop-up man. If you can get the same (or slightly better) numbers out of Wright starting than Kelly, and Kelly could be a more useful asset out of the pen, that's the logical move to make.

It may be true that given Wright and Kelly, and the need for one to start and the other to relieve, starting Wright and relieving with Kelly is the way to go. But that's a very different thing from saying that using Wright as a reliever is inherently not an option, which is what semsox seemed to be saying.

 

[Rovin Romine]

It's more that Kelly can be a legitimate 1-inning power arm out of the bullpen, whereas Wright's skillset is more suited towards back-end starter. You're not going to get a ton of use out of him as a mop-up man. If you can get the same (or slightly better) numbers out of Wright starting than Kelly, and Kelly could be a more useful asset out of the pen, that's the logical move to make.

Of course - but as Savin pointed out, it's not like Kelly has shown himself to be a true lights-out bullpen option, no matter how powerful his arm is. His career numbers are actually slightly worse as a reliever (but basically it's a wash.)

I think Kelly might be a feast or famine type guy, in the sense that when he puts it together, he can give you 90+ excellent pitches every 5 days, or he's mediocre/inconsistent. I don't know how that translates to the bullpen, beyond that if he can be consistent/effective in his pitching, then one would prefer him as a starter, but if he's inconsistent, he can't be trusted with high leverage BP situations anyway.

 

[semsox]

It may be true that given Wright and Kelly, and the need for one to start and the other to relieve, starting Wright and relieving with Kelly is the way to go. But that's a very different thing from saying that using Wright as a reliever is inherently not an option, which is what semsox seemed to be saying.

I didn't mean to say it as in Wright could never close, but in terms of optimization of roles and roster spots, I'd sure rather have Wright as the back-end rotation guy and try to see if Kelly's stuff plays up in the pen vs. running Kelly out there every 5th day and using Wright as a long-man out of the pen.

 

[Mookies Lip Curl]

And just to bring it back to the conversation at hand, there are no such illusions about the possibility of using Wright in a bullpen role. He's either in the rotation or in AAA, which makes the decision over who to bump from the rotation not solely performance based.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but there definitely exists the possibility of using Wright in the bullpen, mostly because Wrights out of options and can't be put in AAA. Agan, I might be reading you wrong.

 

[Sprowl]

Of course - but as Savin pointed out, it's not like Kelly has shown himself to be a true lights-out bullpen option, no matter how powerful his arm is. His career numbers are actually slightly worse as a reliever (but basically it's a wash.)

I think Kelly might be a feast or famine type guy, in the sense that when he puts it together, he can give you 90+ excellent pitches every 5 days, or he's mediocre/inconsistent. I don't know how that translates to the bullpen, beyond that if he can be consistent/effective in his pitching, then one would prefer him as a starter, but if he's inconsistent, he can't be trusted with high leverage BP situations anyway.

That's my fear with Kelly: his ability to spot the fastball will always be in question. If he's going to throw 97 mph at the knees, but only every second outing, I'd rather have the outing be 6 innings long.

Also, for the 2016 team at least, the bullpen is deep in high-leverage assets, while starters are scarce.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

If he's going to throw 97 mph at the knees, but only every second outing, I'd rather have the outing be 6 innings long.

Genuinely curious...let's assume for a second that good/bad Kelly is exactly a 50/50 proposition. You'd rather torpedo every other start than every other relief appearance? I don't agree, the damage would be mitigated a lot more easily out of the pen as the leash would be a lot shorter.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Well, yesterday's outing was 3 innings long...

 

[phenweigh]

nm

 

[smastroyin]

Understanding the headline and relationship to the analysis, I do think we also have to prepare for the very real possibility that Joe Kelly HAS reached his potential, and this is it.

Again, not trying to pooh-pooh any analysis, but there is a general feeling of "catch teach fastball velocity" which implies that everything else can be taught. This is simply untrue, many guys with 95+ fastballs don't ever sniff the majors. Obviously the idea with Kelly is that he was a converted position player, learning how to pitch. But, he's an 8 year pro now.

I think there may be some untapped potential here, but I don't think it is a huge given, and I guess I kind of hate the implication (and mention it only because it seems to be driving some of the discussion here) that he is somehow wasting top half of rotation starter potential.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Understanding the headline and relationship to the analysis, I do think we also have to prepare for the very real possibility that Joe Kelly HAS reached his potential, and this is it.

Again, not trying to pooh-pooh any analysis, but there is a general feeling of "catch teach fastball velocity" which implies that everything else can be taught. This is simply untrue, many guys with 95+ fastballs don't ever sniff the majors. Obviously the idea with Kelly is that he was a converted position player, learning how to pitch. But, he's an 8 year pro now.

I think there may be some untapped potential here, but I don't think it is a huge given, and I guess I kind of hate the implication (and mention it only because it seems to be driving some of the discussion here) that he is somehow wasting top half of rotation starter potential.

I think what makes this hard to accept is that he can be dominant for extended periods, for instance the 7-start stretch last year when he had a 1.85 ERA and a .665 OPS allowed over 43 innings, or the 80-inning stretch in 2013 when those numbers were 1.90, .649. If he were just mediocre all the time, it would be pretty straightforward to say "velocity be damned, this guy is just not good at pitching." But a pattern of dominant stretches interspersed with horrific stretches makes it really tempting to think "if he could just figure out how to be that guy consistently....."

But I agree that at a certain point you have to say "OK, he's had a chance to figure it out, and he hasn't done it. Time to move on." The question is, have we reached that point in the first week of 2016, or should we give him at least a couple of starts more rope?

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Seems pretty obvious that he's going to be starting at least 5 more times until Rodriguez is ready. I would love for him, as I'm sure all of us do, to prove he belongs there during this time.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Seems pretty obvious that he's going to be starting at least 5 more times until Rodriguez is ready.

Not necessarily. They could bring up Owens, move Kelly to the pen and option Ramirez.

 

[smastroyin]

Well, he's going to get chances, I just think you have to kind of accept that he is what he is, and ask the question of whether that is good enough. For the 2016 Red Sox, I think the answer is "probably." They aren't holding back better options, and they have equal questions from the rest of the non-Price rotation.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Not necessarily. They could bring up Owens, move Kelly to the pen and option Ramirez.

True... They could. I just don't think they will. I'm very confident he and Clay will get at least 5 more starts each.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

It's more that Kelly can be a legitimate 1-inning power arm out of the bullpen, whereas Wright's skillset is more suited towards back-end starter. You're not going to get a ton of use out of him as a mop-up man. If you can get the same (or slightly better) numbers out of Wright starting than Kelly, and Kelly could be a more useful asset out of the pen, that's the logical move to make.

Without getting into the debate of whether Kelly or Wright will perform better as a starter going forward, Wright could be a very valuable piece in the bullpen since (I presume) he has the ability to pitch multiple innings multiple times a week. Given that Buchholz, Kelly, and Porcello are all wildcards in terms from outing to outing, Wright could be a tremendously valuable as the guy who picks up after an implosion.

Without that kind of guy in the pen, trying to figure out innings 3 or 4 through 6 on a regular basis can really wreck a bullpen.

 

[Just a bit outside]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/sunday-notes-nyy-yates-fields-hinch-wright-nola-more/

Steve Sparks and I talked about this a few days ago. The Astros broadcaster threw a knuckleball in his playing days, and he agrees with my idea of using Wright as a multiple-times-a-week bridge between the starter and late-inning relievers.
Wright feels he could go multiple innings, multiple times a week.

“I don’t see why not,” Wright told me earlier in the spring. “I do get tired — I’m still throwing a baseball — but it’s easier for me to bounce back than a conventional pitcher. I’d just need to stay under control. I might not be throwing my harder one, my 75-78 (mph) — I might only be 72 — but as long as I throw it with conviction, it should be a quality pitch. Being able to throw my knuckleball two different speeds gives me the flexibility to go out there and throw multiple times a week.”

Supports the thought of using Wright out of he bullpen because of the lack of innings from so many of the starters.

 

[Sprowl]

Genuinely curious...let's assume for a second that good/bad Kelly is exactly a 50/50 proposition. You'd rather torpedo every other start than every other relief appearance? I don't agree, the damage would be mitigated a lot more easily out of the pen as the leash would be a lot shorter.

Yes, absolutely. If he's on, he produces 7 innings of ace-level pitch-to-contact heat. If he's off, he heads to the showers after 2-1/3 innings of grooveball. As a reliever, he produces 1 inning of ace-reliever pitch-to-contact heat, or 1/3 inning of grooveball. Pitching as a starter maximizes the benefit from his good days. If Farrell can learn to recognize Bad Kelly and take him out earlier than 2.1 innings of grooveball, it's all gravy.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Yes, absolutely. If he's on, he produces 7 innings of ace-level pitch-to-contact heat. If he's off, he heads to the showers after 2-1/3 innings of grooveball. As a reliever, he produces 1 inning of ace-reliever pitch-to-contact heat, or 1/3 inning of grooveball. Pitching as a starter maximizes the benefit from his good days. If Farrell can learn to recognize Bad Kelly and take him out earlier than 2.1 innings of grooveball, it's all gravy.

I can't say I agree with that. Sure, it maximizes the benefit, but look at the cost: every other start is essentially 15 games every season you're willing to more or less concede and torch the bullpen on top of it. There's a very small chance a single reliever can blow 15 games on his own with any kind of competent managing, that's Gagneian levels of suck.

 

[keninten]

Yes, absolutely. If he's on, he produces 7 innings of ace-level pitch-to-contact heat. If he's off, he heads to the showers after 2-1/3 innings of grooveball. As a reliever, he produces 1 inning of ace-reliever pitch-to-contact heat, or 1/3 inning of grooveball. Pitching as a starter maximizes the benefit from his good days. If Farrell can learn to recognize Bad Kelly and take him out earlier than 2.1 innings of grooveball, it's all gravy.

This is were I`d like to see the Sox give Pandas roster spot. The versatility of the bench is fine right now with Panda doing nothing. You have 4 of the SP questionable every start. If we had Kelly and Wright in the bullpen, Farrell could pull the SP fast.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Yes, absolutely. If he's on, he produces 7 innings of ace-level pitch-to-contact heat. If he's off, he heads to the showers after 2-1/3 innings of grooveball. As a reliever, he produces 1 inning of ace-reliever pitch-to-contact heat, or 1/3 inning of grooveball. Pitching as a starter maximizes the benefit from his good days. If Farrell can learn to recognize Bad Kelly and take him out earlier than 2.1 innings of grooveball, it's all gravy.

This would be easier to imagine if MLB bullpens still had a role for a true long reliever. Ryan Franklin did this pretty effectively in Seattle 15 years ago, but that's a long time in dog (or MLB) years.

 

[Sampo Gida]

Ok start by Kelly tonight. Not very pitch efficient though.

This would be easier to imagine if MLB bullpens still had a role for a true long reliever. Ryan Franklin did this pretty effectively in Seattle 15 years ago, but that's a long time in dog (or MLB) years.

If you have a couple of guys with options who could fill this role you could put them on the Pawtucket shuttle and simply replace one with the other each time he was used for 3-4 innings. Back in the day of the 4 man rotation when every team had a spot starter who could also pitch long relief, starting pitchers were given rather shorter leashes. Today, the criteria for a early hook (4th inning or less) seems to be about 7 runs, and by then the game is usually out of hand.

 

[whatittakes]

The problem is that the long reliver role isn't particularly easy for pitchers to adjust to. If being able to be on call for 2-3 innings on any given night (you never know when the long man is going to be called upon, could be nothing for 2 weeks than twice over a weekend) was that easy, you wouldn't see teams crowding failed AAAA tier starters into the role, you'd see specialists for that role on every team.

I think the science and skill of hitting has just advanced to the point that it's going to be rare to find a guy who can really take that multi inning swing/stretch role and make it his own for multiple seasons, who is not also better served for himself and for his team by taking his turn in the rotation. I feel anyone who's able to go 3+ innings consnstently is more likely to be groomed to start, partially because of 5 man rotations, partially because of the expansion of the league, but mostly because bottom of the rotation starters are far more valuable than dime-a-dozen relief depth and a lot of team decisions are made on the basis of maximizing ROI. So the long role kind of devolves into a junk-innings role because that's who's available for it, and a starter that gets chased while the game is still in reach will be replaced by the middle relief.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

The problem is that the long reliver role isn't particularly easy for pitchers to adjust to. If being able to be on call for 2-3 innings on any given night (you never know when the long man is going to be called upon, could be nothing for 2 weeks than twice over a weekend) was that easy, you wouldn't see teams crowding failed AAAA tier starters into the role, you'd see specialists for that role on every team.

This seems backwards. It's precisely the easy roles that you slot "failed AAAA tier starters" into; it's the difficult roles that you need more talent for. Also, the fact that demand for a long reliever is so unpredictable is why teams rarely keep specialists for that role on their roster any more. It makes no sense using up a roster slot for a need that is so sporadic (and, when it does come, usually comes in low-leverage situations).

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

In Weaver's day, the long man FINISHED the game. 15 years ago, he got you to the 8th inning if you were winning, then you handed the game to your best relief pitchers. If you were losing, he likely finished the game and was unavailable the next few days. And when a guy in your rotation went down, he became your #5 starter.

Obviously, this usage pattern doesn't play to the strengths and weaknesses (mostly the latter) of the 2016 Sox rotation.

 

[iayork]

It was still inconsistent, but to my eye (I haven't looked at the numbers yet) Kelly's slider last night was the best I've ever seen it. Some of them were just devastating.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

The 1 walk per inning wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't also coupled with more than a hit per inning.....
Without having time to look this morning, at almost 2 times through the entire rotation, how many other teams are averaging less than 5 innings per starter?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

The 1 walk per inning wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't also coupled with more than a hit per inning.....
Without having time to look this morning, at almost 2 times through the entire rotation, how many other teams are averaging less than 5 innings per starter?

Miami (4.76), Baltimore (4.83), Cincinnati (4.88), and Milwaukee (4.95) are under 5 IP per start. The Red Sox are actually above 5 innings per start so far, but barely (5.08).

 

[StupendousMan]

A quick peek at Kelly's pitches' properties on BrooksBaseball.net shows that his fastball speed increased throughout the game: it started at about 92 mph in the first inning, and ended at 97 mph in his last inning of work (the fifth). His slider was pretty hard, averaging about 89 mph with about 3 inches of horizontal movement.

Is this pattern of increasing speed common to Kelly's games? My first (and naive) thought is that I'd rather see a pitcher slightly increase in velocity over the course of a game than decrease, just because I've seen several cases in which the decrease is the sign of an imminent injury.

 

[JimBoSox9]

Is this pattern of increasing speed common to Kelly's games? My first (and naive) thought is that I'd rather see a pitcher slightly increase in velocity over the course of a game than decrease, just because I've seen several cases in which the decrease is the sign of an imminent injury.

I'll be honest: I could give a hoot about the velocity with Kelly at this point. He needs to figure out how he's going to spot the damn fastball, and I don't care if he has to drop down to 88 to do it.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Eckersley on NESN was frustrated with him because he couldn't finish off hitters. He'd get ahead and then get too cute, ergo far too many pitches for, what, 5.1 innings?

 

[joe dokes]

Eckersley on NESN was frustrated with him because he couldn't finish off hitters. He'd get ahead and then get too cute, ergo far too many pitches for, what, 5.1 innings?

"Too cute" is what guys who had among the best control in MLB history (Eckersley) call a guy who has trouble throwing strikes. It would be like Rickey Henderson saying "Ortiz would steal 75 bases if he would just run faster." And if "trying to finish him off" means throwing a straight-as-a-string 97MPH fastball down Broadway , then "cute" might be the better strategy.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

Without having time to look this morning, at almost 2 times through the entire rotation, how many other teams are averaging less than 5 innings per starter?

Can't find that stat, but it is unlikely many if any at all are below the Sox in that category. That said only 2 teams in the AL and 6 in MLB are averaging more than 5.5 runs/game. Also,I bet our BP pitching stats are among the top in the AL and MLB.

The short SP outings issue will right itself eventually with ERod and Owens as potential remedies and I believe Wright, Porcello and especially Price will be solid 6/7 inning/game guys going forward. Clay and Joe are the big wild cards but we knew that before opening day and now 8 games in. They may both be out of the rotation soon if they can't get it together.

The way I see it, even in this SSS the team on the field looks like the team we expected on paper. Strong hitting, RP and defense, weak SP exacerbated by ERod's injury. That makes me optimistic for the year, because the SP will almost certainly improve, while the other aspects aren't going to fall off a cliff. The one concern is JF's managing lineups and in game, but we new that already too.

 

[koufax37]

So I have watched Kelly's two starts very carefully, and commented a lot in the game threads.

I remain incredibly frustrated by his (and Hannigan's) refusal to realize how important the low fastball strike is to his success. Everybody has been focusing on how much offspeed he has been using overall, but watching every pitch, the calls from Hannigan and the execution, it is worse than the results and aggregate data.

Very very very few low fastballs are called. I'm not expecting him to be Maddux, but I'm pretty sure a healthy dose of Leo Mazzone try to throw low away fastballs when in doubt would not only improve the overall results, but also improve his ABILITY TO THROW LOW AWAY FASTBALLS FOR STRIKES. He is not good at this at all, and I get the sense that Hannigan is trying to win a game of RBI baseball with a broken controller, rather than figure out a way for Kelly to take a step forward.

Of his fastballs, nearly all missed their spots, so it can be difficult to judge based on PitchFX data alone, but many were called up in the zone with Hannigan getting his glove out of the zone intentionally. He got some good results at the top of the zone, both on called strikes and swings, but he also got deeper into counts, and relied on balls he didn't want to throw in the strike zone sometimes sneaking close.

Mechanically he is a wreck rotationally and directionally, with many of his low fastballs missing by more than a foot and being non-competitive pitches. He actually improved those mechanics on his changeups which really show it is an approach issue and not just an "Oh well, I guess that is who he is" like Shaq free throws. And he is into the wild high schooler mind set which is no confidence in a wild fastball, so resorting to an aimed slider that he manages to slow down his motion and get over the plate, but also works to really get in the way of his potentially great slider.

I don't know whether he needs a kick in the pants, to have his turn skipped so he can work on things, or what, but understanding that he will go absolutely nowhere if he can't reliably throw his fastball in the lower half of the zone out of the middle, and making this his number one priority in between starts and when he takes the mound is crucial.

I don't know how much work Farrell is doing with pitchers between starts and discussing goals and approach, but I am very disappointed with the results, and had expected him to make a bigger difference. When Bud Black went from pitching coach to manager in San Diego, the new pitching coach slid in transparently and the core philosophy and approach stayed in place.

All of the elite pitching coaches (currently highlighted by Ray Searage in Pittsburgh) would be pulling out their hair on Kelly and making some substantial adjustments to his approach, and I really want to see that happen in Boston before throwing in the towel and dumping him somewhere.

 

[shaggydog2000]

So I have watched Kelly's two starts very carefully, and commented a lot in the game threads.

I remain incredibly frustrated by his (and Hannigan's) refusal to realize how important the low fastball strike is to his success. Everybody has been focusing on how much offspeed he has been using overall, but watching every pitch, the calls from Hannigan and the execution, it is worse than the results and aggregate data.

Very very very few low fastballs are called. I'm not expecting him to be Maddux, but I'm pretty sure a healthy dose of Leo Mazzone try to throw low away fastballs when in doubt would not only improve the overall results, but also improve his ABILITY TO THROW LOW AWAY FASTBALLS FOR STRIKES. He is not good at this at all, and I get the sense that Hannigan is trying to win a game of RBI baseball with a broken controller, rather than figure out a way for Kelly to take a step forward.

Of his fastballs, nearly all missed their spots, so it can be difficult to judge based on PitchFX data alone, but many were called up in the zone with Hannigan getting his glove out of the zone intentionally. He got some good results at the top of the zone, both on called strikes and swings, but he also got deeper into counts, and relied on balls he didn't want to throw in the strike zone sometimes sneaking close.

Mechanically he is a wreck rotationally and directionally, with many of his low fastballs missing by more than a foot and being non-competitive pitches. He actually improved those mechanics on his changeups which really show it is an approach issue and not just an "Oh well, I guess that is who he is" like Shaq free throws. And he is into the wild high schooler mind set which is no confidence in a wild fastball, so resorting to an aimed slider that he manages to slow down his motion and get over the plate, but also works to really get in the way of his potentially great slider.

I don't know whether he needs a kick in the pants, to have his turn skipped so he can work on things, or what, but understanding that he will go absolutely nowhere if he can't reliably throw his fastball in the lower half of the zone out of the middle, and making this his number one priority in between starts and when he takes the mound is crucial.

I don't know how much work Farrell is doing with pitchers between starts and discussing goals and approach, but I am very disappointed with the results, and had expected him to make a bigger difference. When Bud Black went from pitching coach to manager in San Diego, the new pitching coach slid in transparently and the core philosophy and approach stayed in place.

All of the elite pitching coaches (currently highlighted by Ray Searage in Pittsburgh) would be pulling out their hair on Kelly and making some substantial adjustments to his approach, and I really want to see that happen in Boston before throwing in the towel and dumping him somewhere.

I liked the high fastball he got a strikeout on that missed by the whole plate+. Hannigan set up beyond the outside edge, and whoever it was swung through the ball off the plate inside. He got the height and velocity right though.

 

[Rovin Romine]

So I have watched Kelly's two starts very carefully, and commented a lot in the game threads.

I remain incredibly frustrated by his (and Hannigan's) refusal to realize how important the low fastball strike is to his success. Everybody has been focusing on how much offspeed he has been using overall, but watching every pitch, the calls from Hannigan and the execution, it is worse than the results and aggregate data.

Very very very few low fastballs are called. I'm not expecting him to be Maddux, but I'm pretty sure a healthy dose of Leo Mazzone try to throw low away fastballs when in doubt would not only improve the overall results, but also improve his ABILITY TO THROW LOW AWAY FASTBALLS FOR STRIKES. He is not good at this at all, and I get the sense that Hannigan is trying to win a game of RBI baseball with a broken controller, rather than figure out a way for Kelly to take a step forward.

Of his fastballs, nearly all missed their spots, so it can be difficult to judge based on PitchFX data alone, but many were called up in the zone with Hannigan getting his glove out of the zone intentionally. He got some good results at the top of the zone, both on called strikes and swings, but he also got deeper into counts, and relied on balls he didn't want to throw in the strike zone sometimes sneaking close.

Mechanically he is a wreck rotationally and directionally, with many of his low fastballs missing by more than a foot and being non-competitive pitches. He actually improved those mechanics on his changeups which really show it is an approach issue and not just an "Oh well, I guess that is who he is" like Shaq free throws. And he is into the wild high schooler mind set which is no confidence in a wild fastball, so resorting to an aimed slider that he manages to slow down his motion and get over the plate, but also works to really get in the way of his potentially great slider.

I don't know whether he needs a kick in the pants, to have his turn skipped so he can work on things, or what, but understanding that he will go absolutely nowhere if he can't reliably throw his fastball in the lower half of the zone out of the middle, and making this his number one priority in between starts and when he takes the mound is crucial.

I don't know how much work Farrell is doing with pitchers between starts and discussing goals and approach, but I am very disappointed with the results, and had expected him to make a bigger difference. When Bud Black went from pitching coach to manager in San Diego, the new pitching coach slid in transparently and the core philosophy and approach stayed in place.

All of the elite pitching coaches (currently highlighted by Ray Searage in Pittsburgh) would be pulling out their hair on Kelly and making some substantial adjustments to his approach, and I really want to see that happen in Boston before throwing in the towel and dumping him somewhere.

We can assume that Farrell knows when certain pitchers are having problems and what to do about it - for example, he's worked with Clay for a long time. However, based on pitcher performance, I think we can fairly ask what the coaching staff is doing. But unless they told Kelly to do something different than what he was doing during his excellent closing run, how much can be laid at the feet of coaching?

 

[E5 Yaz]

How do we know Kelly isn't fulfilling his true potential right now?

 

[Al Zarilla]

"Too cute" is what guys who had among the best control in MLB history (Eckersley) call a guy who has trouble throwing strikes. It would be like Rickey Henderson saying "Ortiz would steal 75 bases if he would just run faster." And if "trying to finish him off" means throwing a straight-as-a-string 97MPH fastball down Broadway , then "cute" might be the better strategy.

Watching the game I saw exactly what Eck said. He was often getting ahead in counts and with two strikes threw breaking stuff that ended up way out of the strike zone, making for a lot of easy takes for hitters. So, near 120 pitches in 5.1 innings. That doesn't do him or the bullpen any good. He has to trust his stuff more, which he was controlling better last night.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

How do we know Kelly isn't fulfilling his true potential right now?

You know, if it weren't for 2004, 2007 and 2013 I'd be right there with you. But then there was a Sox world championship with Julio Lugo at SS, and many other improbable pleasant surprises (Malphabet and Cabrera come to mind, along with the entire 2013 team). It's April. No need to be a buzzkill even if you're right. Turn the question around... How do you know he isn't the next Cy Young? Not saying he is, but I'd rather look on the bright side in the absence of data. Kind of the reason baseball is a distraction for me and not an obsession.

Your question is valid. I just think your timing is off. If he's floundering in July, then sure.

 

[iayork]

Watching the game I saw exactly what Eck said. He was often getting ahead in counts and with two strikes threw breaking stuff that ended up way out of the strike zone, making for a lot of easy takes for hitters. So, near 120 pitches in 5.1 innings. That doesn't do him or the bullpen any good. He has to trust his stuff more, which he was controlling better last night.

One of the things Kelly started doing in his good run that ended 2015 was throwing more off-speed stuff in traditional fastball counts. That was a good thing, I think, in that he was less predictable. Possibly batters have new scouting reports that make note of this, and he (and his catchers) will need to throw a few more strike-3 fastballs to reset expectations.

Pitching is hard.

 

[joe dokes]

One of the things Kelly started doing in his good run that ended 2015 was throwing more off-speed stuff in traditional fastball counts. That was a good thing, I think, in that he was less predictable. Possibly batters have new scouting reports that make note of this, and he (and his catchers) will need to throw a few more strike-3 fastballs to reset expectations.

Pitching is hard.

The old trope that "baseball is a game of adjustments" is real. And now its Kelly's turn. Its a pretty interesting microcosm of pitching.

 

[shaggydog2000]

Watching the game I saw exactly what Eck said. He was often getting ahead in counts and with two strikes threw breaking stuff that ended up way out of the strike zone, making for a lot of easy takes for hitters. So, near 120 pitches in 5.1 innings. That doesn't do him or the bullpen any good. He has to trust his stuff more, which he was controlling better last night.

So is that him trying to be cute, or just not having the command to hit the spots he needs to in order to get swinging strikes, or even called strikes?

 

[iayork]

So is that him trying to be cute, or just not having the command to hit the spots he needs to in order to get swinging strikes, or even called strikes?

Without reviewing the data yet, I actually thought Kelly was doing a much better job of hitting the edges/avoiding the middle of the plate than usual. I thought I saw more fastballs right on the edge of the zone than I'd ever seen with him before, actually.

Edit: Yeah, actually he did a really good job of placing his fastball. Here are his fastball locations:

Spoiler: Fastballs

That's as nice a doughnut hole as I've seen for a long time. Notice also that his misses up were mostly intentional, clearly called by Hanigan, and effective since several turned into swings, fouls, or outs. His misses outside were less clearly intentional, but at least some were intentionally placed there too.

Here are all his pitches:

Spoiler: Kelly pitches 4-13-16

Really only a few curves were in the center of the zone, everything hugged the edges nicely. Notice the sliders below the zone -- swinging strikes, fouls, and an out. That's a very effective pitch when he can place it there.

(Not sure if those two pitches called balls in the center of the RHB zone are real. I don't remember any such egregious misses, but Brooks shows the same balls so either they're PITCHf/x errors or they're real. I'm guessing PITCHf/x?)

(The bizarre called ball was the first pitch of the 5th inning, to Mark Trumbo, which genuinely was called a ball, so PITCHf/x has that much right. Someone could check video to see if it was really that bad a call.)

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Did that dead-center cutter called a ball have a 17 foot break? (actually, there's another one against the LHB almost as bad a call)

 

[shaggydog2000]

Without reviewing the data yet, I actually thought Kelly was doing a much better job of hitting the edges/avoiding the middle of the plate than usual. I thought I saw more fastballs right on the edge of the zone than I'd ever seen with him before, actually.

Edit: Yeah, actually he did a really good job of placing his fastball. Here are his fastball locations:

Spoiler: Fastballs

That's as nice a doughnut hole as I've seen for a long time. Notice also that his misses up were mostly intentional, clearly called by Hanigan, and effective since several turned into swings, fouls, or outs. His misses outside were less clearly intentional, but at least some were intentionally placed there too.

Here are all his pitches:

Spoiler: Kelly pitches 4-13-16

Really only a few curves were in the center of the zone, everything hugged the edges nicely. Notice the sliders below the zone -- swinging strikes, fouls, and an out. That's a very effective pitch when he can place it there.

(Not sure if those two pitches called balls in the center of the RHB zone are real. I don't remember any such egregious misses, but Brooks shows the same balls so either they're PITCHf/x errors or they're real. I'm guessing PITCHf/x?)

(The bizarre called ball was the first pitch of the 5th inning, to Mark Trumbo, which genuinely was called a ball, so PITCHf/x has that much right. Someone could check video to see if it was really that bad a call.)

I'm kind of not surprised by that. His swinging strike rate has been much better so far this year, and that has always been a shortcoming in the past. I was just trying to make a point about confusing outcome with intent. People always like to blame a shortcoming of a physical process in sports on a mental fault. If Joe Kelly could hit the black every time he wanted to, we'd think he was nothing but killer instinct. But when he aims for the black and misses by a foot, we think he's trying to be "cute." Same intent, completely different outcome, and people blame the attitude and not the fact that Joe Kelly isn't physically capable of hitting an exact spot whenever he feels like it. Because almost nobody can.

 

[Vegas Sox Fan]

(The bizarre called ball was the first pitch of the 5th inning, to Mark Trumbo, which genuinely was called a ball, so PITCHf/x has that much right. Someone could check video to see if it was really that bad a call.)

Looked like a breaking ball that was clearly low. Must be PITCHf/x.

 

[iayork]

Looked like a breaking ball that was clearly low. Must be PITCHf/x.

Yes, the first release of PITCHf/x often has errors that get corrected after a couple days. The data there now don't show those funky called balls. These are (probably) correct now:

Spoiler: Joe Kelly pitch location, 4-13-16

Still looks pretty doughnut-shaped.