193 replies to this topic

[bosockboy]

Makes sense in theory.....but then you just have to overpay on relievers to compensate for those two gaping holes in the bullpen. I think Aceves is given the #5 slot....but Bard would cause too much damage to the pen.

[erfus]

Getting starters from the A's feels like getting OF from the Rockies in 1999. Gio might turn out to be a great pitcher, but he's walked 90+ guys each of his two complete seasons. The league hits like .230 against him because that stadium is a cricket field and every ball hit in the air stays in the park, fair or foul. I feel like we'd give up several prospects, bring him to the AL East, and watch him walk 120 guys in 200 innings.

Yeah. Even quickly glancing at his 2011 road splits indicates a noticeable drop in performance. He still has been successful on the road, but not near as successful as he has in Oakland.

2011 Split  W L W-L%  ERA  G GS  IP  H HR BB  SO  WHIP SO/9 SO/BB
     Home 10 5 .667 2.70 17 17 110.0 89  8 46 110 1.227  9.0  2.39
     Away  6 7 .462 3.62 15 15  92.0 86  9 45  87 1.424  8.5  1.93

2010 Split W L  ERA GS  IP  H HR BB SO  WHIP SO/9 SO/BB
     Home 8 3 2.56 16 102.0 73  7 49 79 1.196  7.0  1.61
     Away 7 6 3.92 17  98.2 98  8 43 92 1.429  8.4  2.14

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 11/25/2011.

[Kid T]

I think converting Bard is a no-brainer.

Not that you don't have a compelling argument, I just question whether the decision really is a no-brainer. While his splits may not show any difference, there is also no evidence to show that Bard can repeat his delivery over 5-7 innings per outing. The only information we have on this comes from his first season in A ball, and the results were Lackey-like. I know he's a different pitcher now, but that doesn't mean that he can translate his success from being a "maximum effort" approach over a several batters to one where he needs to pace himself over several innings. In fact, we don't know how well his stuff will play out if he did pace himself. His fastball may rival Verlander's over one inning, but what will it look like over 5?

Beyond that, there is still the issue of how barren that leaves our bullpen. We went from having confidence in two relievers to none. I know it's easier to find good relief pitching in this market than starters - but there is something to be said for knowing what you have. What's to say that any relievers we sign won't have a Crawford-like slump in his first year, or suffer from the volatility common in reliever performances from year-to-year? If the #4 and #5 slots pitched as poorly as you stated, it would be hard to do much worse with just about anyone. In my opinion, signing Bedard should be the most logical first step. He would come (relatively) cheap and provides upside with a short term commitment. I'm all for converting Aceves. He seems like an inexpensive low-risk, high return opportunity that could always be moved back into the bullpen if ineffective in the rotation.

[Savin Hillbilly]

What's to say that any relievers we sign won't have a Crawford-like slump in his first year, or suffer from the volatility common in reliever performances from year-to-year?

If it's really going to be a Crawford-like slump, it will come out of nowhere, which means it's as likely to happen to Bard as to any free agent we might sign. You can't build your strategy around the possibility of wholly unexpected suckage, because by definition, that could happen to anybody.

[Eric Van]

Makes sense in theory.....but then you just have to overpay on relievers to compensate for those two gaping holes in the bullpen. I think Aceves is given the #5 slot....but Bard would cause too much damage to the pen.

Not a personal attack -- but I think this rebuttal translates to "logically and rationally it makes sense, but my gut tells me you can't afford to convert Bard." The gut is often wrong (see below).

You can sign someone like Mike Gonzalez to replace Bard. That's about a 1-win downgrade (assuming Jenks takes up none of the slack, and you're hoping he will). Can you sign a FA pitcher who can come within 1 win of Bard's expected performance, for the same kind of money? I sure don't think so. Jonathan Papelbon was just overpaid, but I don't think Joe Nathan was. As has been pointed out, starters make much more money than relievers because they are correct valued more. Bard's fWAR would have ranked him 85th among SP last year and 100-something the year before. That's an elite set-up guy having the value of a #4 starter. When we were going to convert Papelbon to the rotation, I looked into it in much more detail than that and came to essentially the same conclusion: at his best, he had the same value as a borderline #3 / #4 starter.

Not that you don't have a compelling argument, I just question whether the decision really is a no-brainer. While his splits may not show any difference, there is also no evidence to show that Bard can repeat his delivery over 5-7 innings per outing.

Actually, there's no evidence that he can't. As has been pointed out, he had no trouble sustaining velocity as a starter in college.

The only information we have on this comes from his first season in A ball, and the results were Lackey-like. I know he's a different pitcher now, but that doesn't mean that he can translate his success from being a "maximum effort" approach over a several batters to one where he needs to pace himself over several innings. In fact, we don't know how well his stuff will play out if he did pace himself. His fastball may rival Verlander's over one inning, but what will it look like over 5?

Bard's a maximum effort guy? Not to my eyes. To me he seems to be a guy who throws 99 effortlessly.

The cover story in the next-to-last issue of New Scientist magazine was on "Making Your Mind Up." This is from the sidebar entitled "Mental Glitches That Make Fools of Us":

"[Nobel laureates] Kahneman and Tversky also revealed our peculiar attitudes towards risk. We tend to be more cautious than is logical when there is the possibility of making large gains or small losses. ... Then there's loss aversion: it feels worse to lose something than to gain the equivalent amount, making us protect what we have rather than take a chance to make a gain."

So these objections to converting Bard seem grounded entirely in our hard-wired cognitive biases. There's no logical argument against it; the arguments consist of emphasizing the possible losses and minimizing the potential gains, as we are naturally inclined to do.

Edited by Eric Van, 26 November 2011 - 01:55 AM.

[SMU_Sox]

I'm not sure it is illogical to value a potential loss more than a gain. If I need to feed my family tonight the value I place on losing $10 is a lot greater than the value of gaining an additional $10. If I am a billionaire and this is just for fun then I shouldn't care.
Applying this to baseball. If our goal is 95 wins and a playoff spot and our current roster (- Pap, Ortiz and without a starting RF, humor me there) is currently at or around 94-95 wins than any potential loss in expected win total is huge. When we have crossed that 95 win threshold and estimate that anything less might result in not making it but any more might just be overkill you can bet people are going to value the risk of loss higher than the gain of reward. And they probably should. Wins are not as important after you have 95 of them. But if you don't meet that threshold they increase in value.

That being said I still favor converting Bard. He has breaking pitches, and excellent command. It's a pretty simple argument to me really: he has a repertoire of pitches. He was a starter in college. Why not give him another shot at it? EV and others have mentioned other far more complex rationales for why we should convert him, or why it is ok to convert him. It just seems the evidence in favor of giving it another try and the reward from that outweigh the harm. Relief pitchers are not scarce. Even good ones are not scarce. Cost controlled starters are rare. If we factor in scarcity it should tip the scales here.

[Toe Nash]

If it's really going to be a Crawford-like slump, it will come out of nowhere, which means it's as likely to happen to Bard as to any free agent we might sign. You can't build your strategy around the possibility of wholly unexpected suckage, because by definition, that could happen to anybody.

Except it's far more likely for a reliever to have a Crawford-like slump than it was for Crawford, or any position player or even starting pitcher to unexpectedly slump. If Bard has an unexpected bad year, it's not good but we're not paying him that much. If we sign Madson and he sucks, that's a bigger waste of resources.

[Kid T]

Actually, there's no evidence that he can't. As has been pointed out, he had no trouble sustaining velocity as a starter in college.

That doesn't mean that his stuff played up over the course of the game. As we all know, there's a big difference projecting between pitching to college hitters and pro hitters.

Bard's a maximum effort guy? Not to my eyes. To me he seems to be a guy who throws 99 effortlessly.

I'm not suggesting he is a maximum effort guy in short stints. However, that might change if he had to pace himself over the course of several innings.

[Rough Carrigan]

That doesn't mean that his stuff played up over the course of the game. As we all know, there's a big difference projecting between pitching to college hitters and pro hitters.


I'm not suggesting he is a maximum effort guy in short stints. However, that might change if he had to pace himself over the course of several innings.

That would be very odd. The almost universal expectation is that guys who might pace themselves and throw 95-98% fastballs when starting will crank it up a few percent more and go all out when only expecting to throw 15-20 pitches. If you want to argue that fatigue will be a problem, that's a different debate. But the guy's delivery's been smooth and seemingly without tremendous effort effort when one would expect him to be going balls to the wall. It's not gonna become violent when he has to pace himself a bit.

For the record, I'm completely in the camp that wants Bard to be made a starter. We've got the richest free agent pool of relievers from which to choose in the last several years and slim pickings for starters. Bard wants to be a starter.

[Kid T]

Except it's far more likely for a reliever to have a Crawford-like slump than it was for Crawford, or any position player or even starting pitcher to unexpectedly slump. If Bard has an unexpected bad year, it's not good but we're not paying him that much. If we sign Madson and he sucks, that's a bigger waste of resources.

I agree, but I don't think of Bard that way. I value Bard and Papelbon similarly in that they were especially valuable for not displaying that type of volatility in performance. By removing Bard from the Bullpen, we'd be forced to trust the new pieces.

That would be very odd. The almost universal expectation is that guys who might pace themselves and throw 95-98% fastballs when starting will crank it up a few percent more and go all out when only expecting to throw 15-20 pitches. If you want to argue that fatigue will be a problem, that's a different debate. But the guy's delivery's been smooth and seemingly without tremendous effort effort when one would expect him to be going balls to the wall. It's not gonna become violent when he has to pace himself a bit.

I think fatigue certainly factors in - but my point is that many pitchers who convert to the rotation seem to "pace" themselves by easing up on their fastball. Will Bard's fastball be as effective at 92-95mph as it is at 96-99? How will he adjust to batters the second time around? These are things he hasn't had to deal with in 5 years. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think the conversion carries great risk. We would be removing the only other sure thing from our bullpen (after Papelbon) from 2011, in hopes that he will be able to contribute 150-175 innings at replacement level.

Edited by Kid T, 26 November 2011 - 02:09 PM.

[gammoseditor]

I think fatigue certainly factors in - but my point is that many pitchers who convert to the rotation seem to "pace" themselves by easing up on their fastball. Will Bard's fastball be as effective at 92-95mph as it is at 96-99? How will he adjust to batters the second time around? These are things he hasn't had to deal with in 5 years. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think the conversion carries great risk. We would be removing the only other sure thing from our bullpen (after Papelbon) from 2011, in hopes that he will be able to contribute 150-175 innings at replacement level.

All of these are good points but are the opposite, or have nothing to do with, being a maximum effort guy.

The only thing I'd say in response to your points made here is that a dropoff is expected in moving Bard to the rotation. If it wasn't you'd have an ace. If Bard can be a league average pitcher after the dropoff in stuff and batters adjusting to him multiple times through the order than it's a move you want to make as others have already pointed out.

[Eric Van]

I think fatigue certainly factors in - but my point is that many pitchers who convert to the rotation seem to "pace" themselves by easing up on their fastball. Will Bard's fastball be as effective at 92-95mph as it is at 96-99?

Find me a guy who lost 4 MPH off his fastball when he was converted.

I haven't looked at everybody yet, and I will. But (based on BIS Pitch Type data) the range appears to be 1 (Ogando) to 3 (Wilson).

If Bard loses 2 MPH off his FB .... he'd be the hardest throwing starter in MLB. If he loses 2.5, he'd be more or less tied with Ogando, Felipe Paulino, and Verlander. If he loses 3, than he's with Price, Pineda, Edwin Jackson, and Alfredo Simon in the 4th to 8th best range.

Edit of potential awesomeness: you can't easily get it from a player's page, but BIS does keep track of separate pitch type data for start and relief appearances in the same season. You have to go to FanGraphs Leaderboards and ask for just starters and relievers, and what gets reported for a pitcher in a given year is different. For instance, the Cards' Kyle McClellan last year averaged 90.0 in his 26 relief outings, 88.8 in his 17 starts.

Edited by Eric Van, 26 November 2011 - 03:58 PM.

[Div School Sox Fan]

there is also no evidence to show that Bard can repeat his delivery over 5-7 innings per outing.

Actually, there's no evidence that he can't. As has been pointed out, he had no trouble sustaining velocity as a starter in college.

...

So these objections to converting Bard seem grounded entirely in our hard-wired cognitive biases. There's no logical argument against it; the arguments consist of emphasizing the possible losses and minimizing the potential gains, as we are naturally inclined to do.

Of course there's a logical argument against it. The estimation of the risk and reward of converting Bard is deeply speculative. It is entirely possible that the risks of converting Bard outweigh the rewards. How can it possibly be a logical certainty that converting one particular pitcher from relieving to starting bears a determinate level of risk and a determinate level of reward? The ranges on both of those are vast.

Bard might bear a higher level of injury risk in the rotation, Bard might struggle to command three pitches over a longer outing, or to maintain his delivery. In college, Bard was a one-pitch pitcher. Maintaining your delivery while throwing just about nothing but fastballs is not the same as maintaining it while mixing a fastball, slider, and change. Bard's secondary pitches might not be consistent enough for him to rely on both of them every time out. He might lose a lot of velocity in the conversion. All of these are entirely possible, and we simply lack the necessary information to judge. It can't be argued that the only "logical" weighing of risks and benefits calls for converting Bard.

I think that I, and we, lack the necessary information and the necessary expertise to judge whether it's a good idea to convert Bard. It all depends on how consistent his stuff will be, how well his shoulder and elbow can carry the load, how well he can repeat his delivery and adjust over a full game, and so on. These are questions that the Red Sox coaches and scouts, as well as Bard himself, are best positioned to judge. I'd really like it if Bard were the sort of pitcher who would be a good bet for conversion - converting a reliever to starting can add a couple wins to a pitcher's projection - but only a certain subset of relievers are a good bet for conversion, and we lack the information to make a clear judgment on that.

I'm not saying that whatever the Sox choose is best - they could choose wrong - but it's going to be incredibly difficult for us to really know one way or the other.

Find me a guy who lost 4 MPH off his fastball when he was converted.

There's a huge selection bias issue here. The only pitchers who have been converted are those pitchers whose teams determined they were good bets to handle the conversion well.

Edited by Div School Sox Fan, 26 November 2011 - 04:14 PM.

[Div School Sox Fan]

I was interested, so I looked it up. Velocity loss for starter-reliever conversions in the BIS era:

0.5 mph (92.7 to 92.2) - Miguel Batista, 2005-2006
0.9 mph (92.0 to 91.1) - Ryan Dempster, 2007-2008
4.1 mph (91.0 to 86.9) - Shawn Chacon, 2004-2005
2.7 mph (92.0 to 89.3) - Danny Graves, 2002-2003
2.0 mph (92.1 to 90.1) - Brett Myers, 2007-2008
3.0 mph (95.3 to 92.3) - John Smoltz, 2004-2005
2.9 mph (93.4 to 90.5) - CJ Wilson, 2009-2010

I don't really have any conclusions to draw - the sample is tiny, and as I said, selection bias issues are huge. But there it is. (And there is a guy who lost four miles off his fastball - Shawn Chacon.)

[Sprowl]

Regarding Bard's chances of maintaining his consistency of delivery -- during the last two months of the 2011 season, Bard was inconsistent batter-by-batter, not to mention inning-to-inning. That is the first problem that the new pitching coach needs to grapple with: figuring out how to get Bard to use the same arm slot for his slider to RHB. Letting Bard's delivery wander was one of Curt Young's signal failures last summer. Compared to maintaining a consistent arm slot, the other Bard issues -- maintaining stamina, velocity reduction as a starter, reviving his changeup and sinker, differentiating his slider and curve -- are child's play.

I don't see Bard as rising to the occasion in high-leverage innings, a characteristic a team wants in its closer. When he was good, he was very very good (May-August 2010; June-July 2011), and when he was bad, he was horrid.

He's got the stuff, the variety, the mindset, and (from 3/4) the effortless delivery of a starter. Start Bard.

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

I find it a bit stunning to see how common the attitude is that loosing Bard from the bullpen will doom us, after such a perfect illustration all September of what happens when the starting staff collapses. Even with an offense that's recognized as elite to fuel come-backs, when a team is down three or more runs within the first few innings, it gets daunting even if that's in even half a team's games. If Bard can be average, many of those games would have been opportunities to bury teams early instead, where an average bullpen could be trusted to keep the door closed enough to sew up wins much of the time.

The pool of even league average pitchers to be had at a decent value is thin. Rebuilding a bullpen from what is available will be much easier. And Bard has the stuff, the physical stature and delivery, and the personality, to grind his way through 5-6 innings in 28-30 starts, enough to make him much more valuable than he has been as a bullpen ace. He's got no history of injury and is 26 years old. It will test his stamina, but he's shown good toughness so far, is a good age to push his envelope a bit - he should be pushed. That's how to get the most value from him, and that's the bottom line with any team's best talent. He profiles as a 180-200 IP <4 FIP guy or better eventually, something the Sox payed Lackey $82M to be; why waste that volume of good innings when there are 80% replacements in relief, but only 60% among starters - at least ones the Sox can afford right now, or have the talent to get. Gio Gonzales might work out great, but the cost to get him or someone like him would be prohibitive, whereas it won't be vaguely as high for someone like Street, and even much less so for one or more of the other mediocre substitutes for Bard on the FA market.

[Eric Van]

Of course there's a logical argument against it. The estimation of the risk and reward of converting Bard is deeply speculative. It is entirely possible that the risks of converting Bard outweigh the rewards. How can it possibly be a logical certainty that converting one particular pitcher from relieving to starting bears a determinate level of risk and a determinate level of reward? The ranges on both of those are vast.

Is all this really true, though?

We have a real good idea of what we're losing from the bullpen and what it will cost to replace that, and a fairly good idea of how good the replacement might be. We have a real good idea of what it will cost to obtain a league-average starter. The biggest area of uncertainty is how good Bard will be as a starter, and even there we can pretty much draw the bell curve of likely outcomes, given the knowledge we possess.

And where that bell curve lies makes it obvious that the conversion is a good idea. The only logical argument against it requires you to refine the bell curve with additional, very inside information ....

Bard might bear a higher level of injury risk in the rotation, Bard might struggle to command three pitches over a longer outing, or to maintain his delivery. In college, Bard was a one-pitch pitcher. Maintaining your delivery while throwing just about nothing but fastballs is not the same as maintaining it while mixing a fastball, slider, and change. Bard's secondary pitches might not be consistent enough for him to rely on both of them every time out. He might lose a lot of velocity in the conversion. All of these are entirely possible, and we simply lack the necessary information to judge. It can't be argued that the only "logical" weighing of risks and benefits calls for converting Bard.

Well, you've pretty much made my point for me. Because when I said there was no logical argument against the conversion, I hope it was clear that I wasn't talking about the arguments happening at Yawkey Way, but the arguments happening here. We here don't have any knowledge that would move the bell curve from where it appears to be now, where it's a massively good idea in terms of risk and reward. No one has made a good argument that Bard is or will be a particularly bad candidate for conversion (while the opposite is somewhat true) -- they've just pointed out, as you are doing in more detail, the obvious fact that he might be a bad candidate. Their opposition to the move does not come from an argument that moves the bell curve, but from the standard hard-wired biases that make us irrationally fear that the outcome will be off towards the bad tail. That's the point I was trying to make. You've made a wonderful argument for the possibility of an argument against Bard as a starter -- but it doubles as an argument that no one here could make that argument. Which was my point.

I think that I, and we, lack the necessary information and the necessary expertise to judge whether it's a good idea to convert Bard. It all depends on how consistent his stuff will be, how well his shoulder and elbow can carry the load, how well he can repeat his delivery and adjust over a full game, and so on. These are questions that the Red Sox coaches and scouts, as well as Bard himself, are best positioned to judge. I'd really like it if Bard were the sort of pitcher who would be a good bet for conversion - converting a reliever to starting can add a couple wins to a pitcher's projection - but only a certain subset of relievers are a good bet for conversion, and we lack the information to make a clear judgment on that.

I'm not saying that whatever the Sox choose is best - they could choose wrong - but it's going to be incredibly difficult for us to really know one way or the other.

I think these are good points but rather overstate the case. I think we can say that it is very likely a good idea. We do know a lot about what it takes to be more valuable as a starter, and we know that Bard has those attributes. He seems to have the intelligence to work with his catcher to work through a lineup multiple times, he's not a max effort guy, he doesn't rely on deception, he has two plus pitches and a decent third, he has accrued nearly a win less of WPA than expected given his stats, he has struggled a bit more than expected against good hitters rather than dominating them like Papelbon or Jenks. That's what we do know, and I think that easily constitutes the majority of the profile of the subset of relievers that are good candidates for conversion. Whereas all the unknown factors you've listed so well, while hardly footnotes, are a lesser part of it (largely because there's just not that much variance in those traits).

[Eric Van]

I was interested, so I looked it up. Velocity loss for starter-reliever conversions in the BIS era:

0.5 mph (92.7 to 92.2) - Miguel Batista, 2005-2006
0.9 mph (92.0 to 91.1) - Ryan Dempster, 2007-2008
4.1 mph (91.0 to 86.9) - Shawn Chacon, 2004-2005
2.7 mph (92.0 to 89.3) - Danny Graves, 2002-2003
2.0 mph (92.1 to 90.1) - Brett Myers, 2007-2008
3.0 mph (95.3 to 92.3) - John Smoltz, 2004-2005
2.9 mph (93.4 to 90.5) - CJ Wilson, 2009-2010

I don't really have any conclusions to draw - the sample is tiny, and as I said, selection bias issues are huge. But there it is. (And there is a guy who lost four miles off his fastball - Shawn Chacon.)

In fact, there are 89 guys in the BIS era* who have had 80 IP as a starter after (or in the same year as) having had 30 IP as a reliever. And 69 who have gone the other way (where there is less of a selection bias). Plenty of data to explore. Tomorrow!

.. and Chacon didn't lose 4 MPH of his fastball because he switched to the rotation -- he was at 89.5 and 89.6 as a starter in '02 and '03 and only gained 1.4 moving to the pen in '04. So it looks like 2.7 of the loss was due to injury. After falling to 86.9 as a starter, he gained 1.1 back the next year, and then went back to the pen at 90.9, which looks like full recovery.

* Aaron Cook, Adam Bernero, Adam Wainwright, Alexi Ogando, Alfredo Simon, Brad Thompson, Braden Looper, Brandon Backe, Brandon McCarthy, Brandon Morrow, Brett Myers, Brian Burres, Brian Duensing, Brian Moehler, Brian Tallet, Bruce Chen, Byung-Hyun Kim, C.J. Wilson, Carlos Silva, Casey Fossum, Chad Billingsley, Chad Gaudin, Claudio Vargas, Clay Hensley, Colby Lewis, Cory Luebke, D.J. Carrasco, Dana Eveland, Danny Graves, David Hernandez, Dustin Hermanson, Dustin Moseley, Fausto Carmona, Gary Knotts, James McDonald, Jaret Wright, Jason Bergmann, Jason Hammel, Jason Marquis, Jeff Karstens, Jeremy Affeldt, Joba Chamberlain, Joe Kennedy, Joel Pineiro, Joey Hamilton, Johan Santana, John Smoltz, Jonathan Sanchez, Jorge de la Rosa, Jorge Sosa, Julian Tavarez, Justin Duchscherer, Justin Masterson, Kameron Loe, Kelvim Escobar, Kevin Correia, Kirk Saarloos, Kris Medlen, Kyle McClellan, Lenny DiNardo, Mark Hendrickson, Matt Belisle, Matt Harrison, Miguel Batista, Pete Munro, Phil Hughes, R.A. Dickey, Ramon Ortiz, Rodrigo Lopez, Ron Villone, Ross Ohlendorf, Ryan Dempster, Ryan Franklin, Ryan Madson, Ryan Rowland-Smith, Ryan Vogelsong, Scott Feldman, Scott Schoeneweis, Shawn Chacon, Steve Sparks, Sun-Woo Kim, Terry Mulholland, Tim Stauffer, Tim Wakefield, Todd Wellemeyer, Travis Driskill, Victor Santos, Victor Zambrano, Zack Greinke

Edited by Eric Van, 27 November 2011 - 05:14 AM.

[Div School Sox Fan]

Well, you've pretty much made my point for me. Because when I said there was no logical argument against the conversion, I hope it was clear that I wasn't talking about the arguments happening at Yawkey Way, but the arguments happening here. We here don't have any knowledge that would move the bell curve from where it appears to be now, where it's a massively good idea in terms of risk and reward. No one has made a good argument that Bard is or will be a particularly bad candidate for conversion (while the opposite is somewhat true) -- they've just pointed out, as you are doing in more detail, the obvious fact that he might be a bad candidate. Their opposition to the move does not come from an argument that moves the bell curve, but from the standard hard-wired biases that make us irrationally fear that the outcome will be off towards the bad tail. That's the point I was trying to make. You've made a wonderful argument for the possibility of an argument against Bard as a starter -- but it doubles as an argument that no one here could make that argument. Which was my point.

I don't think this is a good way of articulating our level of knowledge. Say that there's an object which might cost between $5 and $50, and might be worth between $10 and $60. Is there a "logical" argument against buying it? You are saying there isn't, because the bell curve distribution of cost and return suggest it's a good idea. I'm saying there is a logical argument, and that logical argument is we don't know if it's a good idea or not. It's not irrational to be concerned it might be a bad idea, because in actual fact it might be a bad idea. We have no idea.

Edited by Div School Sox Fan, 27 November 2011 - 08:41 AM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm saying there is a logical argument, and that logical argument is we don't know if it's a good idea or not. It's not irrational to be concerned it might be a bad idea, because in actual fact it might be a bad idea. We have no idea.

To say that "we have no idea" = "a logical argument against" converting Bard doesn't make sense. A logical argument against it would have to show that it's more likely to go badly than well. If we really have no idea how it will go, then we can't make an argument for or against the conversion on those grounds, and must fall back on the potential value of the outcomes. Bard as successful starter would be significantly more valuable to the team than Bard as successful reliever. So in the absence of rational grounds for assuming that Bard will be less successful as a starter than a reliever, we should convert him. By your way of it, we have no such grounds (that's what "we have no idea" means). Therefore, we should convert him.

[Div School Sox Fan]

To say that "we have no idea" = "a logical argument against" converting Bard doesn't make sense. A logical argument against it would have to show that it's more likely to go badly than well. If we really have no idea how it will go, then we can't make an argument for or against the conversion on those grounds, and must fall back on the potential value of the outcomes. Bard as successful starter would be significantly more valuable to the team than Bard as successful reliever. So in the absence of rational grounds for assuming that Bard will be less successful as a starter than a reliever, we should convert him. By your way of it, we have no such grounds (that's what "we have no idea" means). Therefore, we should convert him.

Here's another way of stating my feelings. There are broadly four possible outcomes to this situation.

1) Bard is converted to starting and succeeds.
2) Bard is converted to starting and fails.
3) Bard is not converted to starting and the rotation is good anyway.
4) Bard is not converted to starting and the rotation isn't good.

What would you say in the aftermath of any of those outcomes? If Bard fails, would you continue to defend the decision, even though his failure was probably a function of those known-unknown factors? If the rotation is good and Bard pitches well as closer, would you argue that he should have been converted anyway, even though we can generally assume that the Sox made the decision not to convert him based again on those known-unknown factors?

Whether the Sox should or should not convert Bard rests mostly on information which we do not have. Whatever the Sox decide to do, we will have very little ground to criticize the move based on what we know now, since again they'll be making that decision based on information we don't have. (In the case of failure, case (2) or (4), the criticism of the team's decision would be based more on our after-the-fact knowledge.) It seems kind of pointless to me to say, "therefore we should convert him" unless you're willing to stand by that claim after the fact, even in the face of bad outcomes.

And, again, there are logical arguments. A scout or coach or evaluator or Bard himself could say "He or I doesn't have the shoulder strength / consistency of stuff / reliability of delivery / mindset / whatever to be a good bet for conversion." That would be a fully logical argument. I'm not making it because I don't know. You don't either. That doesn't mean that logical arguments don't exist, it means that we lack the information to make those arguments.

[Eric Van]

I don't think this is a good way of articulating our level of knowledge. Say that there's an object which might cost between $5 and $50, and might be worth between $10 and $60. Is there a "logical" argument against buying it? You are saying there isn't, because the bell curve distribution of cost and return suggest it's a good idea. I'm saying there is a logical argument, and that logical argument is we don't know if it's a good idea or not. It's not irrational to be concerned it might be a bad idea, because in actual fact it might be a bad idea. We have no idea.

If you have exercised all the expertise available to you and determined a cost of $27.50 +/- $7.50 (so that 3 standard deviations give you the range you cite) and a return of $35 +/- $8.33 -- of course, it is absolutely, positively irrational not to make the deal.*

Yes, there is a possibility that the information you lack alters the expected cost and return and makes the deal unfavorable. There is also a more or less equal and opposite possibility of the missing information making the deal more favorable. That's the nature of estimates made with the best available knowledge.

Your insistence that there is a good, logical reason not to make the deal -- that we may be underestimating the cost and / or overestimating the return -- is actually a perfect example of the irrational cognitive biases I initially cited. We are hard-wired to foreground that truth and ignore the opposite truth. "It's not irrational to be concerned it might be a bad idea, because in actual fact it might be a bad idea." You are right -- that is not irrational. What's irrational is ignoring the equal possibility that it might be not just a good idea but a great idea. It is that possibility which logically counterweighs and negates that rational concern.

Now, I think you're correct in saying that if they don't convert Bard we're not in a real good position to second-guess that decision. But what we're talking about here is whether we would convert him, given what we know. (And I want to stress again that it's not a pointless discussion, because the factors that we can know and analyze probably comprise 80% of the issue.) If "we have no idea what's right" is not an option --if someone put a gun to your head and made you either try it, or not -- what would you do? If you would refrain from the conversion, you are doing so irrationally.

*Assuming, of course, you can afford the loss -- but that assumption is part of the analogy, since the inability to absorb the loss of Bard from the bullpen has been included in the potential cost.

Edited by Eric Van, 28 November 2011 - 08:08 PM.

[bakahump]

Not sure if the numbers work but couldnt the "Starters lose Velocity" problem be explained by the following:

Reliever:
Fastball
Fastball
Fastball
Slider
Fastball
Fastball
Slider
Fastball
Slider
Slider
(2 pitch types 60/40 split)

Starter
Fastball
Slider
Fastball
Change
Fastball
Change
Slider
Curve
Fastball
Change
(4 pitch types 40/30/20/10 Split)

If Change ups replace 2 fastballs and a slider and a curve replaces a slider wouldnt the avg speed for those 2 sets of 10 pitches go down dramatically?

in other words couldnt "avg velocity" be drastically changed by pitch selection mandated by role.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Not sure if the numbers work but couldnt the "Starters lose Velocity" problem be explained by the following:

When people talk about relievers losing velocity when converted to starters, I think they're usually talking specifically about fastball velocity, not velocity for all pitches.

[RedOctober3829]

#RedSox planning for Bard to take on starter's workload in spring training. Easy transition to relief if that's what he ends up doing.

http://twitter.com/T...852039204646912

[SoxScout]

From November 15:

Pete Abraham

Dice-K has said he'll throw off the mound in the bullpen shortly after New Year's. Way ahead of schedule.

Today:

Scott Miller

Bobby V on Daisuke expectations: can't let calendar dictate his recovery process. "I expect him to be healthy."

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

Granted it's hard to know what to expect even from a record timeline on Dice-K's return, but it really seems like his role on the team going forward is being overlooked. If he falls into the 83% of TJ patients who return to what they were beforehand (Science Daily), and even if he were to spend a month or two acclimating on the job to return to what he was his first year or two here, and was able to produce as he did in '07 and '08 by July, that would be a significant boon to the team. Getting nothing for his $10M salary is an albatross that, combined with a possible Ortiz arbitration award (rather than a lower AAV two year deal), could keep them from spending what's needed towards the bullpen, whereas his presence in the rotation for what sounds like half or more of the season would mean Acevez (or Bard if he flops in the rotation) could bolster the bullpen and mean the pitching staff could survive on the lower budget that appears to be at play - especially if someone like Bailey or Thornton can be acquired.

150 league average innings from him would make a colossal difference to the staff. Short of finding Madson gift wrapped under the tree, a heroic step forward from Tazawa and/or Doubront, or a return to '10 form by Crawford, I can't think of a bigger linchpin to the fortunes of the '12 Red Sox. And I think he has to be highly motivated to prove he is something closer to what he was touted as when he was originally posted. His progress to date demonstrates that desire, and I think Valentine's presence does nothing but help.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Speaking of Japanese pitchers coming back from TJ, I wonder what they envision Junichi Tazawa's role will be with the team this year? He threw just under 60 innings last year in his return from TJ surgery, and didn't start pitching until May 20th. They used him mostly as a long reliever in his minor league outings, logging multiple innings often. I think the long term plan is for him to end up in the starting rotation, though that seems unrealistic this year, coming off such a small IP total. Even still, perhaps they'll use him in the rotation for part of the year then move him back to the bullpen with the goal being getting his IP total up to 110 or maybe 120 by the end of the season?

He was a pretty exciting pick up when the Sox first grabbed him. Threw a lot of strikes, worked off of his fastball, and has had nothing but success in the minors. It's hard to speculate on what his IP limit should be since he's coming off of rehab, and not simply an IP total from the previous year, but with Bard being on an IP limit and Aceves also coming off a relatively low IP total, maybe they'll look to mix and match these three between bullpen and rotation work at various points in the season.

[The Boomer]

Speaking of Japanese pitchers coming back from TJ, I wonder what they envision Junichi Tazawa's role will be with the team this year? He threw just under 60 innings last year in his return from TJ surgery, and didn't start pitching until May 20th. They used him mostly as a long reliever in his minor league outings, logging multiple innings often. I think the long term plan is for him to end up in the starting rotation, though that seems unrealistic this year, coming off such a small IP total. Even still, perhaps they'll use him in the rotation for part of the year then move him back to the bullpen with the goal being getting his IP total up to 110 or maybe 120 by the end of the season?

He was a pretty exciting pick up when the Sox first grabbed him. Threw a lot of strikes, worked off of his fastball, and has had nothing but success in the minors. It's hard to speculate on what his IP limit should be since he's coming off of rehab, and not simply an IP total from the previous year, but with Bard being on an IP limit and Aceves also coming off a relatively low IP total, maybe they'll look to mix and match these three between bullpen and rotation work at various points in the season.

Valentine's ability to speak some Japanese and unique understanding of their culture (theoretically at least) gives the organization a chance to get the most out of Tazawa and Dice-K when they are fully recovered. I always had the sense that Japanese pitchers disappointed, in part at least, because something gets lost in translation. It will be interesting to see if Valentine's background turns those hurlers around once healthy.

[Rasputin]

Speaking of Japanese pitchers coming back from TJ, I wonder what they envision Junichi Tazawa's role will be with the team this year? He threw just under 60 innings last year in his return from TJ surgery, and didn't start pitching until May 20th. They used him mostly as a long reliever in his minor league outings, logging multiple innings often. I think the long term plan is for him to end up in the starting rotation, though that seems unrealistic this year, coming off such a small IP total. Even still, perhaps they'll use him in the rotation for part of the year then move him back to the bullpen with the goal being getting his IP total up to 110 or maybe 120 by the end of the season?

He was a pretty exciting pick up when the Sox first grabbed him. Threw a lot of strikes, worked off of his fastball, and has had nothing but success in the minors. It's hard to speculate on what his IP limit should be since he's coming off of rehab, and not simply an IP total from the previous year, but with Bard being on an IP limit and Aceves also coming off a relatively low IP total, maybe they'll look to mix and match these three between bullpen and rotation work at various points in the season.

I am pretty much assuming he's going to be in the bullpen unless he can convince people he's a better option to start than Bard or Aceves. I absolutely think there is room to get a whole bunch of guys a bunch of starts.

[Kramerica Industries]

I dont mind the idea of Joe Saunders

Being told the Cahill acquisition isn't good for Joe Saunders' chances of sticking around and that he might be traded.

http://twitter.com/#!/nickpiecoro/status/145301474497400833

[SoxScout]

I dont mind the idea of Joe Saunders

http://twitter.com/#!/nickpiecoro/status/145301474497400833

What are his stats in the AL East?

3.5 K/9 ?
3.5 BB/9 ?
2.0 HR/9 ?

He would scare the shit out of me.

[Kramerica Industries]

What are his stats in the AL East?

3.5 K/9 ?
3.5 BB/9 ?
2.0 HR/9 ?

He would scare the shit out of me.

That actually sounds about right. The 3.69 ERA looks nice but the 4.78 FIP last year says a differnt story.

However, this team needs a pitcher who will eat innings. Saunders hasnt pitched less than 186 innings sinse 2007. He's not a horrible fit as the number 5 starter.

What would scare me is the projected salary of 8.7 million.

Edited by Kramerica Industries, 09 December 2011 - 08:40 PM.

[bosockboy]

Source says there are a few teams interested in Saunders, one of which is the Red Sox.

Nick Piecoro

[SoxScout]

He just played for 5.5m in his 2nd year in arbitration.

I would literally rather Weiland, Doubront and Miller combine to make 30 starts over Saunders.

-3, -1, 6, 7, 10, 14.... his six year xFIP- trend, meaning he was 14% worse than league average this year.

Edited by SoxScout, 09 December 2011 - 09:11 PM.

[rembrat]

Fuck that. He sucks and he'll probably make 7 or 8 million next year.

[Savin Hillbilly]

However, this team needs a pitcher who will eat innings.

Only if he can keep them down.

[Doctor G]

I would prefer they prepare Doubront as a starter, and sign a lefty reliever. Saunders is a ticking time bomb in the small ballparks in the AL East.

[RedOctober3829]

With Mark Melancon trade, #RedSox have more to spend on rotation. They are still interested in Roy Oswalt, sources say.

https://twitter.com/?lang=en&logged_out=1#!/jonmorosi/status/147067820281303040

[Bigpupp]

https://twitter.com/...067820281303040

They're back at the same dollar amount after they signed Punto

[bosockboy]

https://twitter.com/?lang=en&logged_out=1#!/jonmorosi/status/147067820281303040

My guess is Bard to the rotation is a bluff.......and the pen will be Bard/Melancon/Jenks/Albers/Morales......with Aceves as the 5th starter until Dice-K returns.....and they sign a starter like Oswalt.

[ElcaballitoMVP]

@JimBowdenESPNxmJIM BOWDENNick Punto signs with the Red Sox for 2-year $3m deal...Sox chasing Joe Saunders next

What a day to be a Sox fan, huh?

[Paradigm]

David Laurila interviewed Ben Cherington on Fangraphs today. Link: http://www.fangraphs...ton-red-sox-gm/

One section that I found particularly interesting:

Laurila: Daniel Bard is tentatively slated to move into the starting rotation this season. To what extent have you analyzed the history of similar pitchers making that transition?

Cherington: Some, but it’s difficult to find an appropriate sample. You can say that these guys have tried to transition from the bullpen to starting, and these guys worked out and this number didn’t work out, but how many of them looked exactly like Daniel Bard?

It’s hard when you start getting into specific player decisions and what a guy can and can’t do. You ultimately have to go back to, ’Who is this guy? What is specific to him that gives something a chance to work?”

In Daniel’s case, we know that he has three pitches. We know that he’s a really hard worker. We know he’s smart. We know that he’s pitched in high-leverage situations for a very good team against tough lineups. We also know that he really believes that he can do this. What we don’t know, for sure, is how it will turn out. Daniel doesn’t know exactly how it will turn out.

We feel that the right decision is to give him a chance, because he has some of the attributes that can allow him to do it. He wants a chance to do it, and if he can, we think it has a chance to really help the team.

Edited by Paradigm, 13 January 2012 - 09:54 AM.

[kieckeredinthehead]

In other words: "I'd rather try to project what he'll be able to do using mostly un-quantifiable skills rather than quantifiable ones."

We know that he’s pitched in high-leverage situations for a very good team against tough lineups.

"Note I didn't say he did it well"