279 replies to this topic

[Foulkey Reese]

Since it looks like Bard to the rotation is fairly likely, how do we think he's going to handle his move to the rotation?

The last time he started professionally was in 2007 where he put up a 7.08 ERA in 22 games started in A ball. Since it looks like there isn't any more pitching help on the way, Bard's going to be a pretty important piece of the rotation. What are people expecting from him assuming he starts?

Edited by Foulkey Reese, 02 February 2012 - 02:10 PM.

[Jed Zeppelin]

At least for this season, I expect a lot of starts in which he's pretty good but only lasts five because of his pitch count. It all depends on how his secondary stuff develops and how well he maintains velocity.

[rembrat]

I expect nothing. There is nothing that says he can be an average starter but I think there is great incentive to find out if he can.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

18-20 starts, 100-120 innings, ~4.50 ERA, and an Ogando-ish move to the bullpen in the second half for the stretch drive and hopefully the post-season.

[dynomite]

Player A's last season as a reliever: 73.2 IP, 2.81 ERA (166 ERA+), 1.33 WHIP, 10.3 K/9
Player B's last season as a reliever: 75.1 IP, 2.27 ERA (171 ERA+), 1.07 WHIP, 7.2 K/9
Player C's last season as a reliever: 41.2 IP, 1.30 ERA (348 ERA+), 1.13 WHIP, 8.4 K/9
Player D's last season as a reliever: 73 IP, 3.33 ERA (128 ERA+), 0.96 WHIP, 9.1 K/9

Player A's first season as a starter: 204 IP, 3.35 ERA (134 ERA+), 1.24 WHIP, 7.5 K/9
Player B's first season as a starter: 141 IP, 4.19 ERA (87 ERA+), 1.31 WHIP, 4.8 K/9 (only 17 GS, 43 GP)
Player C's first season as a starter: 169 IP, 3.51 ERA (127 ERA+), 1.14 WHIP, 6.7 K/9
Player D's first season as a starter: ?

Based upon the ?, you can tell that Player D is Daniel Bard. Player A is CJ Wilson, Player B is Kyle McClellan, and Player C is Alexei Ogando. All had been a reliever both in the minors and at the ML level.

While Wilson's clearly the outlier, I don't think Bard will necessarily be limited to 120-140 IP -- obviously every pitcher is different, but all 3 broke the 140 IP barrier, and Wilson broke the 200 IP barrier. Of these candidates, only McClellan was a "failure," and even his version of failure (4.21 ERA in 17 GS) would be a dramatic improvement upon, say, 2011 John Lackey or Tim Wakefield.

[TheRooster]

160IP, 12-8, 3.95ERA

[Buzzkill Pauley]

20 GS, 120 IP, 7-6, 4.25 ERA

[soxfan121]

I fear a reversion to the guy who could not throw strikes in the minors. As an avid minor league follower, I still recall the mounting horror of Bard's time as a starter and that he was nearly written off when he was relegated to the bullpen. He obviously has great talent and immense value in the majors. If he can replicate his delivery and build his stamina to a reasonable level, I'd hope for ~140 innings this season, with the last month + playoffs (if necessary) in the bullpen and then ~170 next year. I really hope this works out because it's a huge risk to mess with something that was working very well, but it was his choice, so fingers-crossed.

[Sprowl]

24 GS, 160 IP (as both starter and reliever), 13-5, 3.75 ERA.

Will BABIP continue to be kind to Bard when he pitches to contact with fastballs instead of trying to strike them out with sliders? I think it will, but not at the .230 of 2010-11 -- more likely .270. As a starter, Bard should produce a high GB% and plenty of Ks, reducing the number of home runs he gives up. Basically, I am expecting a #2 starter. It will be real challenge not to let him throw too many innings.

[aron7awol]

Dominance! 200+ IP, 3.50 ERA

[ngruz25]

I don't want to make this comparison, but...

I think Joba Chamberlain's 2008 to 2009 run as a starter is a pretty decent guess for what we'll get from Bard. He was pretty dominant for stretches in 2008, suffered a predictable loss of command and stuff, and settled into a league average-ish starter in 2009. Joba threw 157 innings in his first full season as a starter after throwing 100 in the year prior.

I'm thinking Bard should be able to avoid Chamberlain's injury problems given that the Sox probably won't be changing his role mid-season, and then back again later in the season. Plus Bard seems to be a in slightly better shape.

[Rasputin]

I think we'll be looking at a guy averaging a little less than six innings per start with maybe 25 starts. That probably puts us in the 140-160 inning range and I think he'll end up with a slightly better than average ERA+.

[geoduck no quahog]

I still think the smart money's on Bard as the closer in one hell of a good bullpen. Clever to make him a stalking horse for the back of the rotation competition, but a deep bullpen with effective Bard becoming an elite stopper covers a lot of high leverage innings. I wish I had some statistics to back this up...just an impression that Bard can do a lot more good for the team in his proven role than as a middling starter. If there's reason to believe he can become a top of the rotation type, than I'll change my tune.

[BucketOBalls]

Player A's last season as a reliever: 73.2 IP, 2.81 ERA (166 ERA+), 1.33 WHIP, 10.3 K/9
Player B's last season as a reliever: 75.1 IP, 2.27 ERA (171 ERA+), 1.07 WHIP, 7.2 K/9
Player C's last season as a reliever: 41.2 IP, 1.30 ERA (348 ERA+), 1.13 WHIP, 8.4 K/9
Player D's last season as a reliever: 73 IP, 3.33 ERA (128 ERA+), 0.96 WHIP, 9.1 K/9

Player A's first season as a starter: 204 IP, 3.35 ERA (134 ERA+), 1.24 WHIP, 7.5 K/9
Player B's first season as a starter: 141 IP, 4.19 ERA (87 ERA+), 1.31 WHIP, 4.8 K/9 (only 17 GS, 43 GP)
Player C's first season as a starter: 169 IP, 3.51 ERA (127 ERA+), 1.14 WHIP, 6.7 K/9
Player D's first season as a starter: ?

Based upon the ?, you can tell that Player D is Daniel Bard. Player A is CJ Wilson, Player B is Kyle McClellan, and Player C is Alexei Ogando. All had been a reliever both in the minors and at the ML level.

While Wilson's clearly the outlier, I don't think Bard will necessarily be limited to 120-140 IP -- obviously every pitcher is different, but all 3 broke the 140 IP barrier, and Wilson broke the 200 IP barrier. Of these candidates, only McClellan was a "failure," and even his version of failure (4.21 ERA in 17 GS) would be a dramatic improvement upon, say, 2011 John Lackey or Tim Wakefield.

Well, most of the guys who "fail" do it pretty quickly and get sent back to the bullpen. Of course, given the alternatives, they may give Bard more rope than most.
The real worrysome comp would be Joba Chamberlain.

Edited by BucketOBalls, 02 February 2012 - 05:02 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

As a starter, I expect about 140 IP, and an ERA of about 4.50 with a tailing off in effectiveness over the last 30 IP or so before being put back in the pen where he'll bring his overall ERA down a bit and provide some stability late in games.

[TomRicardo]

Well, most of the guys who "fail" do it pretty quickly and get sent back to the bullpen. Of course, given the alternatives, they may give Bard more rope than most.
The real worrysome comp would be Joba Chamberlain.

Mostly because Joba is not really an applicable comp

[The Boomer]

I still think the smart money's on Bard as the closer in one hell of a good bullpen. Clever to make him a stalking horse for the back of the rotation competition, but a deep bullpen with effective Bard becoming an elite stopper covers a lot of high leverage innings. I wish I had some statistics to back this up...just an impression that Bard can do a lot more good for the team in his proven role than as a middling starter. If there's reason to believe he can become a top of the rotation type, than I'll change my tune.

This makes sense if you are trying to keep pressure off Bard by making him the closer in waiting for all those months after last season's collapse. Stretch him out in the Spring and return him to the bullpen (maybe even beginning as the 8th inning guy again) if you can adequately fill the #4 and #5 starters with others.

[The Boomer]

Player A's last season as a reliever: 73.2 IP, 2.81 ERA (166 ERA+), 1.33 WHIP, 10.3 K/9
Player B's last season as a reliever: 75.1 IP, 2.27 ERA (171 ERA+), 1.07 WHIP, 7.2 K/9
Player C's last season as a reliever: 41.2 IP, 1.30 ERA (348 ERA+), 1.13 WHIP, 8.4 K/9
Player D's last season as a reliever: 73 IP, 3.33 ERA (128 ERA+), 0.96 WHIP, 9.1 K/9

Player A's first season as a starter: 204 IP, 3.35 ERA (134 ERA+), 1.24 WHIP, 7.5 K/9
Player B's first season as a starter: 141 IP, 4.19 ERA (87 ERA+), 1.31 WHIP, 4.8 K/9 (only 17 GS, 43 GP)
Player C's first season as a starter: 169 IP, 3.51 ERA (127 ERA+), 1.14 WHIP, 6.7 K/9
Player D's first season as a starter: ?

Based upon the ?, you can tell that Player D is Daniel Bard. Player A is CJ Wilson, Player B is Kyle McClellan, and Player C is Alexei Ogando. All had been a reliever both in the minors and at the ML level.

While Wilson's clearly the outlier, I don't think Bard will necessarily be limited to 120-140 IP -- obviously every pitcher is different, but all 3 broke the 140 IP barrier, and Wilson broke the 200 IP barrier. Of these candidates, only McClellan was a "failure," and even his version of failure (4.21 ERA in 17 GS) would be a dramatic improvement upon, say, 2011 John Lackey or Tim Wakefield.

I reached the same conclusion about McClellan who might be a decent trade target for the end of the rotation if Oswalt ends up with the Cardinals.

[Toe Nash]

As an avid minor league follower, I still recall the mounting horror of Bard's time as a starter and that he was nearly written off when he was relegated to the bullpen.

As an avid minor league follower, did you miss that his time starting in the minors was with different mechanics from those he used in college, which caused him to throw much slower than normal? When they let him revert to his old mechanics and simultaneously moved him to the pen he began pitching well.

I feel like I repeat this once a day. There's almost nothing predictive about his first year of pro ball because he was using different pitching mechanics than he had at any other time in his life. Those numbers were terrible but they mean nothing.

[Rasputin]

This makes sense if you are trying to keep pressure off Bard by making him the closer in waiting for all those months after last season's collapse. Stretch him out in the Spring and return him to the bullpen (maybe even beginning as the 8th inning guy again) if you can adequately fill the #4 and #5 starters with others.

Do you really think you can get 400 decent innings from Aceves, Tazawa, Bowden, Doubront and the passle of retreads and rejects that we sign every year? I am infinitely more comfortable with Bailey and Melancon finishing off games than I am with getting sixty starts out of this crew.

[OttoC]

...There's almost nothing predictive about his first year of pro ball because he was using different pitching mechanics than he had at any other time in his life....

Why did they try to change his mechanics? I don't know and I wonder if any of us do, but an hypothesis could be a feeling that his arm would not survive as a starter unless he changed, which could also explain why he ended up in the bullpen.

I was in the outfield during "spring: training as a high school freshman. I was a terrible fielder but I could throw. The coach called me in and asked if a wanted to pitch. Sure. He then told me that I didn;t throw right and he tried to transform my pitching motion to use a lot of leg and hip drive. I was very long and very skinny and it just did not work for me. I pitched batting practice and went back to the way I had be throwing since I was in the second grade. I was back in the outfield the next practice. There was no way I was ever going to have a delivery like Seaver of Clemens; I just wasn't built that way. Sometimes a change in mechanics works for a pitcher; sometimes it doesn't, and there certainly can be other hypotheses,

My biggest fear with Bard converting to a starter is his throwing out his arm.

[rembrat]

Wilson, Ogando, and McClellan really does nothing to change my mind. Wilson was able to maintain a great K/9 because he possess multiple pitches that are above average something Bard doesn't have. Ogando, Bard’s closes comp, saw his K/9 plummet to 6.71. And for someone who doesn’t get a ton of groundballs his HR/FB% was rather lucky. Adjust for that and his numbers probably aren’t as good. McClellan fucking sucks. His K/9 dropped to 4.83 and he plays in an inferior league and his FIP was shit.

How is Bard going to fare when his stuff loses 2 to 3 MPH across the board? Bard has a fastball velocity average of 97MPH and a slider that averages about 84MPH. What kind of pitcher will he be once he is sitting 93-94 with a much slower and less devastating slider? And no pitch after that?

[Sprowl]

Wilson, Ogando, and McClellan really does nothing to change my mind. Wilson was able to maintain a great K/9 because he possess multiple pitches that are above average something Bard doesn't have. Ogando, Bard’s closes comp, saw his K/9 plummet to 6.71. And for someone who doesn’t get a ton of groundballs his HR/FB% was rather lucky. Adjust for that and his numbers probably aren’t as good. McClellan fucking sucks. His K/9 dropped to 4.83 and he plays in an inferior league and his FIP was shit.

How is Bard going to fare when his stuff loses 2 to 3 MPH across the board? Bard has a fastball velocity average of 97MPH and a slider that averages about 84MPH. What kind of pitcher will he be once he is sitting 93-94 with a much slower and less devastating slider? And no pitch after that?

Bard has a much higher GB% than Ogando (52% in 2011), and was close to league average in HR/FB. I expect both of those to continue as a starter. Bard should be throwing a lot more sinkers, pitching to contact in lower-leverage situations, so a simultaneous decline in both K% and BB% is not a bug, it's a feature. As a starter, it's easier to get away with being wild in the strike zone.

We've had upwards of three earlier threads on Bard-as-a-starter. I don't want to repeat each one, but the pitchfx evidence is quite strong that Bard has four pitches already (fastball, slider, sinker, changeup) and could develop a fifth if he wants to differentiate a slow curve to go along with his wipeout slider. He threw mostly fastballs and sliders during 2012, but has shown the ability to get excellent movement on his sinker and a big bend on the breaking ball. The changeup is just OK, but changeups do get better with practice.

[Rough Carrigan]

Why did they try to change his mechanics? I don't know and I wonder if any of us do, but an hypothesis could be a feeling that his arm would not survive as a starter unless he changed, which could also explain why he ended up in the bullpen.

I was in the outfield during "spring: training as a high school freshman. I was a terrible fielder but I could throw. The coach called me in and asked if a wanted to pitch. Sure. He then told me that I didn;t throw right and he tried to transform my pitching motion to use a lot of leg and hip drive. I was very long and very skinny and it just did not work for me. I pitched batting practice and went back to the way I had be throwing since I was in the second grade. I was back in the outfield the next practice. There was no way I was ever going to have a delivery like Seaver of Clemens; I just wasn't built that way. Sometimes a change in mechanics works for a pitcher; sometimes it doesn't, and there certainly can be other hypotheses,

My biggest fear with Bard converting to a starter is his throwing out his arm.

His last game in college he threw something like 90 straight fastballs (seriously) in the mid to upper 90's seemingly effortlessly. IIRC, the Sox tried to change Bard's motion because they thought it would make his breaking pitches better. His curve/slider is fine. And he's got a sometimes awesome 2 seamer.

I'm gonna guess 175 innings at an ERA of 3.70

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 02 February 2012 - 11:45 PM.

[OttoC]

His last game in college he threw something like 90 straight fastballs (seriously) in the mid to upper 90's seemingly effortlessly....

I saw him on television in a College World Series game where he threw one curve ball in the game and the rest, fastballs.

[mauidano]

24 GS, 160 IP (as both starter and reliever), 13-5, 3.75 ERA.

Will BABIP continue to be kind to Bard when he pitches to contact with fastballs instead of trying to strike them out with sliders? I think it will, but not at the .230 of 2010-11 -- more likely .270. As a starter, Bard should produce a high GB% and plenty of Ks, reducing the number of home runs he gives up. Basically, I am expecting a #2 starter. It will be real challenge not to let him throw too many innings.

Optimistic! I think we ALL would be pleased with the above numbers. #2, eh?

[rembrat]

Bard has a much higher GB% than Ogando (52% in 2011), and was close to league average in HR/FB. I expect both of those to continue as a starter. Bard should be throwing a lot more sinkers, pitching to contact in lower-leverage situations, so a simultaneous decline in both K% and BB% is not a bug, it's a feature. As a starter, it's easier to get away with being wild in the strike zone.

We've had upwards of three earlier threads on Bard-as-a-starter. I don't want to repeat each one, but the pitchfx evidence is quite strong that Bard has four pitches already (fastball, slider, sinker, changeup) and could develop a fifth if he wants to differentiate a slow curve to go along with his wipeout slider. He threw mostly fastballs and sliders during 2012, but has shown the ability to get excellent movement on his sinker and a big bend on the breaking ball. The changeup is just OK, but changeups do get better with practice.

I remember those threads. How would you grade those pitches coming out of a starters arm? My biggest concern is that as a starter he loses velo on the slider and it becomes an average pitch.

Some of the forecast here have been overlying optimistic. The best I can do is put him at Joba Chamberlain's 2009. 160IP 4.80+ FIP with a matching ERA.

[Rough Carrigan]

It's kind of odd that there's all this talk like going from the bullpen to the rotation is the equivalent of taking pre-med courses and then going to law school or something. This used to be how it was done by the Orioles from the late 60's to the 80's. A guy would be brought up from triple A. He'd pitch mostly long relief for a year. And then he'd move into the rotation. Yes, Bard was a setup guy not the Aceves of the pen. But this isn't a bizarre transition.

[Sprowl]

I remember those threads. How would you grade those pitches coming out of a starters arm? My biggest concern is that as a starter he loses velo on the slider and it becomes an average pitch.

Some of the forecast here have been overlying optimistic. The best I can do is put him at Joba Chamberlain's 2009. 160IP 4.80+ FIP with a matching ERA.

Bard's slider has lots of movement, but is not particularly hard (avg 84 mph). He's got plenty of horizontal movement on the bender, so I think that he could lose a little bit of that movement without losing effectiveness. Most of all, I expect that his fastball command will continue to mature, assuming that his pitching coach can keep him in a consistent arm slot. He may lose a little velocity, but gain better command of the edges of the plate.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

A good Chronological read, that gives you a ton of insight is to go back to the "Adopt a prospect" thread on Bard in the minor league section. Read it from begining to end and you begin to see why he failed as a starter the first time around and why those early outings have no predictive value on the pitcher he is now or the starter he may become.

http://sonsofsamhorn...76-daniel-bard/

It's also a great story (a guy who looked like he was on his way to being a bust turning it around and becoming a major league elite set-up man).

Edited by Carl Everetts Therapist, 03 February 2012 - 07:40 AM.

[soxfan121]

It's kind of odd that there's all this talk like going from the bullpen to the rotation is the equivalent of taking pre-med courses and then going to law school or something. This used to be how it was done by the Orioles from the late 60's to the 80's. A guy would be brought up from triple A. He'd pitch mostly long relief for a year. And then he'd move into the rotation. Yes, Bard was a setup guy not the Aceves of the pen. But this isn't a bizarre transition.

Transitions like you discuss - long reliever to starter - is a completely different thing for a guy who's been conditioned to throw 1+ inning for 5+ years.

[JMDurron]

I expect about 120 IP with an ERA around 4.00-4.50 as a starter, followed by a move to the bullpen to end the season.

[LoneWarrior1]

How about Adam Wainwright as a possible comp for Bard? Granted Wainwright was only a reliever for a year, but the season before he became a full time starter he was 75 ip, 3.12 ERA with a 1.147 WHIP and a 8.6 K/9. Bard's K/9 was a bit higher at 9.1 but Bard's GB/FB ratio was better at 1.12 vs Wainwright's .94.

It's not an apples to apples comparison, but Wainwright's innings jumped to 202(!) where he had a 3.70 ERA and a WHIP that increased to 1.36, but went down in subsequent years.

[rembrat]

Wainwright had success as a starter in the minor leagues and he has 4 quality pitches. I know Sprowl made the case for Bard's 4 pitches but until we see him mix them all together in a start he should be considered a 2 pitch pitcher with an OK changeup.

[LoneWarrior1]

Wainwright had success as a starter in the minor leagues and he has 4 quality pitches. I know Sprowl made the case for Bard's 4 pitches but until we see him mix them all together in a start he should be considered a 2 pitch pitcher with an OK changeup.

I went back and looked at both of their minor league numbers after your post. I saw where Wainwright had success as a starter until he hit AAA ball where he was an average starter. I didn't realize that Bard's numbers were that bad as a starter in both Greenville and Lancaster.

[Super Nomario]

I went back and looked at both of their minor league numbers after your post. I saw where Wainwright had success as a starter until he hit AAA ball where he was an average starter. I didn't realize that Bard's numbers were that bad as a starter in both Greenville and Lancaster.

Bard was also not super-terrific at UNC. 3.64 ERA, 94 K / 37 BB in 101.1 IP his Junior year, and 3.90 ERA, 239 K / 111 BB in 286 IP overall. Those are decent numbers, but they're not special. His secondary pitches have improved since then, and his build and mechanics suggest he can start, but there's a pretty good chance converting him to the rotation doesn't work out and the Sox should be prepared for that.

[aron7awol]

Here's how I see Bard's career progression:
2004-2006 (NCAA) - He didn't have great control, and threw mostly fastballs, but his stuff was good enough that he could get away with it against this level of competition.

2007 (A/A+) - The Sox toyed with his mechanics after drafting him, and the results were disastrous. His already iffy control got much worse, his stuff became pedestrian, and suddenly batters had no reason to swing early in counts. He'd fall behind and have to groove fastballs in the low 90s, and hitters were taking their walks or jumping on the grooved fastballs. Here's a quote from Bard himself:

I was at 90 to 93 with a crappy curveball and a changeup I couldn't locate. There were times I went out there and felt like I was pitching with someone else's mechanics and someone else's repertoire.

2008 (A/AA) - He was converted to relief, but more importantly, allowed to go back to his old mechanics. His control got better, back to where it was in college. The strikeouts, however, starting coming by the truckload. It is typical for pitcher's K rate to increase in relief, and Bard was also feeling comfortable again, and getting better, which is also typical for a pitcher in their early 20s.

2009-2011 (MLB) - We all know this story. Dominant reliever from the start, but a guy who's learned how to pitch over the last few seasons. The control has been better each year, the groundball rate has been better each year. His slider has developed into a nasty pitch, and has started throwing the changeup to lefties as another weapon.

Bard has been good to great at every level, and in every role, except for 2007. He wasn't a bad starter in 2007, he was just a terrible pitcher, period. He was throwing in the low 90s and couldn't hit the side of a barn. Is there any surprise that he sucked? Can we please stop talking about 2007 as being any sort of evidence about how Bard will perform as a starter in 2012? He's a guy that has always had good stuff, but needed to hone his craft and learn to pitch. We saw a similar development with Jon Lester at similar ages, even if he never got converted to relief.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I remember those threads. How would you grade those pitches coming out of a starters arm? My biggest concern is that as a starter he loses velo on the slider and it becomes an average pitch.

Some of the forecast here have been overlying optimistic. The best I can do is put him at Joba Chamberlain's 2009. 160IP 4.80+ FIP with a matching ERA.

But again, as Rough pointed out, in college he had no problem throwing 7 innings and not losing any velocity. I don't see why this is such a huge concern. He has a history of maintaining high 90's heat through entire games, so I wouldn't be too worried about him keeping his mid 80's slider up to speed.

Sure, he hasn't done it in a few years, but the fact that he's done it at all separates him from other fireballer relievers who tried to convert and lost velocity on their pitches. There are certainly questions about his ability to succeed as a starter, but I don't think maintaining his velocity should be one of them.

[ngruz25]

He has a history of maintaining his velocity when throwing mostly fastballs and not having to worry nearly as much about command. Admittedly I only watched a few of his starts when he was at UNC (I remember right after the Sox drafted him he pitched in a CWS game), but he looked like a thrower back then. I'm skeptical he'll still be sitting 97-98 when location is crucial and he's mixing in 3-4 other pitches. There are very, very, very few pitchers that have that ability. Maybe he'll be one of them, but I wouldn't count on it. Even Verlander's average fastball was around 95 MPH last season.

With that said, you don't need to be throwing 97 in the 7th inning, especially not when he already has two great pitches. If Bard is sitting 93-95 with a still-excellent slider, hard sinker, and a decent change-up he should still be an excellent pitcher. I am confident he can be that guy, I'm just hoping his arm holds up 'til Daisuke is ready.

Edited by ngruz25, 07 February 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[rembrat]

But again, as Rough pointed out, in college he had no problem throwing 7 innings and not losing any velocity. I don't see why this is such a huge concern. He has a history of maintaining high 90's heat through entire games, so I wouldn't be too worried about him keeping his mid 80's slider up to speed.

Sure, he hasn't done it in a few years, but the fact that he's done it at all separates him from other fireballer relievers who tried to convert and lost velocity on their pitches. There are certainly questions about his ability to succeed as a starter, but I don't think maintaining his velocity should be one of them.

That was 6 years ago and in college. Really. Anything he did in college should not matter when trying to project his chances at starting in the majors. I have yet to read anything from anyone outside of rabid Red Sox fans who think this has a shot at working and that adds to my concerns. But until ST arrives Bard Believers will keep screaming about his mechanics and non-believers, not having a counter argument to that, have to sit back and take it.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

That was 6 years ago and in college. Really. Anything he did in college should not matter when trying to project his chances at starting in the majors. I have yet to read anything from anyone outside of rabid Red Sox fans who think this has a shot at working and that adds to my concerns. But until ST arrives Bard Believers will keep screaming about his mechanics and non-believers, not having a counter argument to that, have to sit back and take it.

His success in college shouldn't be used, but why shouldn't we point to the fact that he was able to maintain his velocity through entire starts back then? Why is that not relevant? Because you say so? It's an example of him doing exactly what you think he might not be able to now. We're not using his college starts as examples of him being able to get major league hitters out. We're talking solely about his ability to keep throwing hard over entire starts. Why would that ability simply vanish?

As for ngruzz's point above, I'm not sure I've ever read that throwing more off speed pitches or needing to command better would make it harder to maintain velocity throughout a start. Where are you getting that idea from? Did you read it in an article somewhere? I'd agree that some guys have to take something off to keep command of their fastballs, but Bard has been spotting his at 97 as a reliever for a few years now. I'm not sure why starting would force him to slow down to keep locating his pitches.

He's demonstrated all of the things he needs to do to be successful as a starter in the majors. He just hasn't done them all at the same time yet. That means there is certainly room to question how good he'll be in that role, but I don't get some of the assumptions that are being made in this thread... especially in isolation.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 07 February 2012 - 01:36 PM.

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

I have yet to read anything from anyone outside of rabid Red Sox fans who think this has a shot at working and that adds to my concerns.

Really? Because the only people I see espousing doom-and-gloom scenarios are either on this board, or (via Google) from places like Bleacher Report and Yardbarker. Meanwhile, the BPro and Fangraphs write-ups of the Bailey deal and etc. all point toward a general view that Bard is high-risk/high-reward, and a worthwhile gamble to take, even if one that isn't guaranteed.

The latter seems like a perfectly reasonable stance, and one that most people on the board are within pissing distance of ...

[teddywingman]

I've said it before in other threads but I may as well say it here--just to be on record--hopefully so you can point to how wrong I was.

Bard is not going to be a good, or even league average starter. Are there any relevant numbers I can use to support this prediction? Not really. What we expect from Bard is little more than guesswork.

Declining velocity toward the end of last year is less of a concern than his wandering arm slot, which was significant enough to be noticable in many of his appearances last year. My feeling is that it's easier to get away with that in a one inning role. Hitters will be more patient against him early in games, and command will be his biggest problem.

I expect a return to the bullpen in mid May.

Edited by teddywingman, 07 February 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[aksoxfan]

I am hopeful, but not expecting that he will be very effective as a starter. I believe Aceves would be likely to have more success than Bard.

[ScubaSteveAvery]

We've had upwards of three earlier threads on Bard-as-a-starter. I don't want to repeat each one, but the pitchfx evidence is quite strong that Bard has four pitches already (fastball, slider, sinker, changeup) and could develop a fifth if he wants to differentiate a slow curve to go along with his wipeout slider. He threw mostly fastballs and sliders during 2012, but has shown the ability to get excellent movement on his sinker and a big bend on the breaking ball. The changeup is just OK, but changeups do get better with practice.

The changeup also isn't a terrible pitch. Its just below average and produces a ton of ground balls. You have to wonder whether the Sox poor defense on the left side of the infield contributed to some of those poor numbers. The change can really morph into a pitch to get him out of long at bats. It gets put in play a lot, but on the ground most of the time. His sinker serves the same purpose, but just thrown harder. I think a lot of his success will depend not on the physical side as he has the stuff to make it as a starter, but more on the mental side. If works to develop strategies and use his pitches to his advantage, then he can last long into games and save his arm to throw harder fastballs and sliders. I think what Sprowl is trying to convey is that all the pieces are there for success. Bard throws 4 pitches, 3 of them above average and one slightly below average. Two of those pitches are perfect for allowing hitters to make contact and let the defense do the rest. He doesn't have to strike people out like he did as a set up guy. If Bard can develop a smart approach to hitters and work with the catcher and defense, then there are reasons to be optimistic. There are reasons to be a skeptic, but you don't have to be a fanboy to see that Bard has the stuff to be a legitimate starter.

[rembrat]

His success in college shouldn't be used, but why shouldn't we point to the fact that he was able to maintain his velocity through entire starts back then? Why is that not relevant? Because you say so? It's an example of him doing exactly what you think he might not be able to now. We're not using his college starts as examples of him being able to get major league hitters out. We're talking solely about his ability to keep throwing hard over entire starts. Why would that ability simply vanish?

Because pitchers lose velocity as they age.

[Toe Nash]

Because pitchers lose velocity as they age.

Do they lose the ability to maintain velocity in one outing as they age? Because that's what we're talking about, really.

Also, he's 26, not 36. His FB averaged 97.2 MPH last year which is the same as his rookie year.

[JimBoSox9]

Bard is not going to be a good, or even league average starter. Are there any relevant numbers I can use to support this prediction? Not really. What we expect from Bard is little more than guesswork.

If you're willing to wager against Bard putting up at least a 100 ERA+ in his innings pitched as a SP, I am most certainly your huckleberry.

http://sonsofsamhorn...y/page__st__450

[JMDurron]

Bard is not going to be a good, or even league average starter.

For what it's worth, I think it's meaningful to split out the Bard experiment into two separate sets of expectations.

1) What Bard will be as a starter in 2012, the first year of his conversion to the role

2) What Bard will be as a starter in the endgame, 2+ years down the road.

I'm actually reasonably optimistic about section #2, but for the purposes of the 2012 season, I don't expect him to have the endurance/IP range to be more than a 120+ IP guy, probably with some control/command issues as he tries to integrate his 3rd/4th pitches (4-seam, slider, sinker, changeup) into his repetoire while working through a lineup 3-4 times per game.

My expectation that Bard may not be counted on as a major factor in the rotation in 2012 does not make me less optimistic about Bard's long-term potential for becoming a dominant starter. If he survives the conversion at all, I'd bet on him being a solidly above-average starter in 2013, it's just that I think some fans are skipping straight over the conversion process and pretending that his 2012 performance will match what I think he should be capable of in 2013.

[rembrat]

Do they lose the ability to maintain velocity in one outing as they age? Because that's what we're talking about, really.

Also, he's 26, not 36. His FB averaged 97.2 MPH last year which is the same as his rookie year.

They lose velocity on their stuff across the board as they age.

Sure, he averaged 97.2MPH in a role that allows and actually encourages him to empty the gas tank every time he is out there. Can he do that as a starter? I mean I hope so. I would love it if Dan Bard turns into Michael Pineda this year.