279 replies to this topic

[twothousandone]

I don't expect him to have the endurance/IP range to be more than a 120+ IP guy,

How do you see them controlling for that? Even five innings/start means he gets there if he's in the rotation all year. It seems to me he has to start the season pitching regularly. Do they really just control his innings until Matsuzaka comes back, and then make him a middle reliever? Does he become the eighth-inning ace again?

I also don't see how he goes more than 150, tops. I just don't see how they manage that without really just jerking him around.

Edit: Maybe BK Kim's 2005 is a comparison, but in reverse. he started in the pen with spots starts through mid June -- 2 1/2 months. Then he was in the rotation through the end of the year -- 3/12 months. Totalled 148 innings.

Reverse it, and it means Bard starts through the All-Star break, then adds depth to the bullpen. I suppose it could work.

Edited by twothousandone, 07 February 2012 - 05:50 PM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

How do you see them controlling for that? Even five innings/start means he gets there if he's in the rotation all year. It seems to me he has to start the season pitching regularly. Do they really just control his innings until Matsuzaka comes back, and then make him a middle reliever? Does he become the eighth-inning ace again?

I also don't see how he goes more than 150, tops. I just don't see how they manage that without really just jerking him around.

I think they go with the Alexi Ogando model...he made 24 starts for 147.1 innings through mid-August, with only one abnormal period of rest (12 days around the all star break), then he appeared to run out of gas. His 25th and 26th starts were 4 innings and 2.2 innings respectively. They skipped his next start, letting him throw one inning of relief on the day he would have started. He made two more starts (5 and 6 innings respectively, under 100 pitches each time), skipped another start, then went just two innings in his final start. He totaled 167 innings as a starter and was arguably the Rangers most valuable reliever in the post-season in part because he was stretched out.

The way I see it, best case scenario is they let him start every five days for as long as he can remain effective, then transition him to the bullpen. Ideally, that transition happens somewhere around mid-August, and they've either acquired another starter at the deadline or elevated someone from within the system (Wilson? Tazawa?) to step in and gives them 6-10 starts through September. Worst case scenario is he pitches like 2008 Clay Buchholz for 8-10 starts and is replaced in late May/early June by a returning DiceK.

[Trautwein's Degree]

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.

Why?

[aksoxfan]

Hopeful because I always want the Sox to win. Skeptical because the starter role is so much different than what he has been doing; and my impression is that he often was less effective when he went out to pitch a 2nd inning of relief.
Aceves seems to an adaptable kind of pitcher, has had success going multiple innings, and srtikes me as a guy who would relish the challenge and opportunity. I know there is no substance to this response. I am not a stat guy and only occassionally see the games on TV. I don't pretend that this is analysis, simply my gut feeling.

[JMDurron]

How do you see them controlling for that? Even five innings/start means he gets there if he's in the rotation all year. It seems to me he has to start the season pitching regularly. Do they really just control his innings until Matsuzaka comes back, and then make him a middle reliever? Does he become the eighth-inning ace again?

I also don't see how he goes more than 150, tops. I just don't see how they manage that without really just jerking him around.

Edit: Maybe BK Kim's 2005 is a comparison, but in reverse. he started in the pen with spots starts through mid June -- 2 1/2 months. Then he was in the rotation through the end of the year -- 3/12 months. Totalled 148 innings.

Reverse it, and it means Bard starts through the All-Star break, then adds depth to the bullpen. I suppose it could work.

I was thinking just in terms of IP as a starter, but 120 IP would be 20 starts averaging 6 IP per start. I think it's more likely that Bard starts a few more games with a lower IP/Start, as he struggles to get his 3rd-4th pitches going to avoid getting thrashed the third time through lineups. Once he hits whatever the internal IP limit is and/or Matsuzaka returns, I think he returns to the bullpen to become (hopefully) a relief ace again. He should absolutely start the season pitching regularly as a starter, either at the MLB or AAA level, depending on how stretched-out he is by April. I don't think having him ready to start by April should be the problem, it will first be effectiveness, then season-long endurance that I see as the hurdles. They can keep him around 140-150 IP total without "jerking him around" if he's well aware of the plan going into the season. Start until X innings, then bullpen for Y appearances over the rest of the season. Then take off the training wheels in 2013.

[OttoC]

If Bard gets 20 starts/120 IP, that's equivalent to about 2/3-rds of a season, which leaves about 54 games for him as a reliever. In the past two seasons, he has made 73 (2010) and 70 (2011) appearances as the set-up man. That works out to roughly one appearance every 2.25 games, which means he would have about 24 appearances in his old role. Is it really a good idea? Plus, you have the factor of his trying to adapt back to the set-up role after he had been trying to change to a starter's role. Will he be effective in set-up. Will that mess up his conversion to full-time starter? What if he pitches 140 innings as a starter; should he then go to the pen?

[Snodgrass'Muff]

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.

But again, he's going into his age 27 season. Guys don't start losing velocity that early, generally speaking. What makes you think Bard is going to at such a young age?

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 08 February 2012 - 11:24 AM.

[JMDurron]

If Bard gets 20 starts/120 IP, that's equivalent to about 2/3-rds of a season, which leaves about 54 games for him as a reliever. In the past two seasons, he has made 73 (2010) and 70 (2011) appearances as the set-up man. That works out to roughly one appearance every 2.25 games, which means he would have about 24 appearances in his old role. Is it really a good idea? Plus, you have the factor of his trying to adapt back to the set-up role after he had been trying to change to a starter's role. Will he be effective in set-up. Will that mess up his conversion to full-time starter? What if he pitches 140 innings as a starter; should he then go to the pen?

I think it's safe to assume, partly because of the adpation factor that you mention later on in the post, that he would appear in fewer games as a reliever down the stretch as he transitioned back to the bullpen than he has historically, as a bullpen-only pitcher. I would not bet on 20 starts followed by 24 appearances, that second number would presumably drop.

As for the 120 IP vs 140 IP distinction, that's more a matter of what the club considers his rough innings cap to be for the season, assuming that they have one. I used 120 as a rough estimate of what I would expect his effectiveness and the team's IP requirements to tend towards, but if they let him throw 140IP or more as a starter before moving him to the bullpen (assuming that they move him at all), then I would just think that their innings cap for him is non-existent, or just higher than my rough estimate at this time. I think the basic idea holds regardless of the specific number, barring something crazy like 210+ IP has a starter, or awful like 60 IP of horrible starting pitching before being sent down to AAA fto let Doubront start. I'd expect a reasonable range of 80-160 IP of starting pitching, and within that window, I think 120IP is the most likely single point if I was forced to pick one. The specific point within that range may have as much to do with the rest of the rotation as it does with Bard's effectiveness alone.

Edited by JMDurron, 08 February 2012 - 11:30 AM.

[rembrat]

But again, he's going into his age 27 season. Guys don't start losing velocity that early, generally speaking. What makes you think Bard is going to at such a young age?

He is getting close to the "drop-off zone."

Read up. Fun stuff.

http://www.insidethe...rse_every_year/
http://www.fangraphs...-as-good-again/
http://www.hardballt...fastball-speed/

[Toe Nash]

He is getting close to the "drop-off zone."

Read up. Fun stuff.

http://www.insidethe...rse_every_year/
http://www.fangraphs...-as-good-again/
http://www.hardballt...fastball-speed/

The only one of those articles that talks specifically about velocity says:
"It appears that until pitchers reach 28 or 29, they increase the speed on their fastball by about 1.5 mph. After 29, there is a rather sharp decline in fastball speed."

The others focus on K% and then you have Tangotiger talking about a bunch of stuff but not velocity.

So with what little data we have, Bard should be good for another couple years w/r/t his velocity. From the other graphs, his overall evectiveness isn't likely to see a precipitous age-related decline before he reaches his FA years. And we don't necessarily care about those.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

He is getting close to the "drop-off zone."

Read up. Fun stuff.

http://www.insidethe...rse_every_year/
http://www.fangraphs...-as-good-again/
http://www.hardballt...fastball-speed/

Thanks for the links. They're quite illuminating... and startling. Of course, there are some caveats in each of the articles, such as:

But, of course, there’s true talent and then there are results. Someone like Mike Minor, in particular, could see a true-talent decline and still have better results in the future. No one is is suggesting that every pitcher in the league last year will show worse overall results going forward. The bouncing ball knows no master.

It is especially true for pitchers who have had long careers that they aged well.

I hope that soon the aging curves created using PITCHf/x data will be good enough to help predict things like ERA and strikeouts per game.

So while pitchers will see their true talent level and overall stuff decline from year to year, results don't necessarily decline with them. That's due, in large part, to the fact that pitching is a very cerebral skill. And the rate of decline in things like pitch speed isn't generally alarmingly steep unless someone is injured. Here's what THT had to say on it...

It appears that until pitchers reach 28 or 29, they increase the speed on their fastball by about 1.5 mph. After 29, there is a rather sharp decline in fastball speed.

During the next five years, pitchers lose just over four mph. I am a little surprised that the peak is as old as it is. By the time pitchers are in their late 20s, they have thrown a huge number of pitches and have a lot of wear on their arms. The drop when pitchers turn 30 seems very rapid to me. Because pitchers' aging curves tend to be much flatter than hitters', this rapid decrease must be compensated for by some other factor.

So we're looking at him probably not losing any real velocity in the next three years, and about four mph between in the following five years. In the short term, there isn't much to be concerned about and he likely won't start declining rapidly until he hits the age range we would expect that to happen in anyway. I don't see anything in those three articles to suggest that moving him to the rotation is a bad idea either next year or in the next four or five years.

Sure, he'll decline in his 30's. But so does every other pitcher on the planet.

Edit: Toe Nash was faster with the same point.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 08 February 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[Sprowl]

Thanks for the links. They're quite illuminating... and startling. Of course, there are some caveats in each of the articles, such as:
...

So while pitchers will see their true talent level and overall stuff decline from year to year, results don't necessarily decline with them. That's due, in large part, to the fact that pitching is a very cerebral skill. And the rate of decline in things like pitch speed isn't generally alarmingly steep unless someone is injured. Here's what THT had to say on it...

So we're looking at him probably not losing any real velocity in the next three years, and about four mph between in the following five years. In the short term, there isn't much to be concerned about and he likely won't start declining rapidly until he hits the age range we would expect that to happen in anyway. I don't see anything in those three articles to suggest that moving him to the rotation is a bad idea either next year or in the next four or five years.

I think that there is some danger in using fastball velocity as a proxy for pitcher quality, mostly because fastball command peaks later and stays longer than velocity. Measuring fastball command is still a black box where PitchFX is concerned. It's easy to imagine a young fireballer missing bats with 98 mph heat, and then grooving the same fastball down the middle of the plate, whence it leaves the park. The same pitcher five years later won't miss as many bats or make as many mistakes, and the net result will be a less dominant but more consistent pitcher, and arguably a better one. Consequently, a pitcher can lose "stuff" while still improving his true talent level. Buchholz 2010 would be a classic case in point: he got better not because he threw harder but because he avoided mistakes.

I agree that the aging curves suggest that Bard has at least a few more years left with peak velocity, so it's too early to worry about him losing stuff because of age.

[Savin Hillbilly]

It's easy to imagine a young fireballer missing bats with 98 mph heat, and then grooving the same fastball down the middle of the plate, whence it leaves the park. The same pitcher five years later won't miss as many bats or make as many mistakes

And if he does make as many mistakes, he may be out of the game by then. I wonder if these results are inherently skewed in that pitchers with dicey command are more likely to get a shot at the big leagues if they have outstanding stuff, often in the form of overpowering velocity. But if they can't refine their command at the MLB level, they won't last. So the younger age group will be skewed toward higher velocity because of the presence of guys who don't have the skills or mindset required for a long career, but haven't been weeded out yet. Guys with the same deficiencies, but less heat, get weeded out before MLB even sees them.

At least, it's a theory.

[aron7awol]

FWIW, PECOTA projects Bard at 42 G, 19 GS, 132.2 IP, 3.49 ERA

Edit: I wanted to get an idea of where it would project him as only a starter, so I subtracted 23.2 IP (the 23 non-starting appearances at his career rate of IP/G) at 2.90 ERA (just about his career ERA) and that left 19 GS, 109 IP, 3.62 ERA as a starter. That also comes out to about 5.74 IP/GS. Obviously, this isn't perfect, but is a good enough rough estimate of where PECOTA projects him as a starter.

Edited by aron7awol, 08 February 2012 - 03:29 PM.

[aron7awol]

Bard's thoughts...

It wasn't starting that was the problem then -- it was me as a pitcher and my mechanics. If you can find video of me throwing in '07, my mechanics were so messed up, and it's not a surprise that I couldn't throw strikes on a somewhat regular basis. The next year I moved to the bullpen and made a lot of tweaks to my mechanics to get back to where I was comfortable. That's the reason the results got better -- it had nothing [to do] with the role change. It just happened to be the role I was in when everything kind of clicked for me. I think it was a good thing -- it got me to the big leagues faster. If I had stayed a starter -- we pretty much hit every level for a year -- but I got hot as a reliever and was in the big leagues a year later. Pretty much I've learned how to pitch at this level. I'm not going to face any situations that I haven't faced before.

Hopefully I don't have to hear about how Bard will suck as a starter because he sucked as a 22 year old in single A anymore.

He also agrees with me that you shouldn't apply the normal inning limit rules to a guy who is converting from a reliever:

I haven't thrown this many innings in my whole life, but then again, I think 75 innings out of the bullpen to me -- and the guys I've talked to that made the transition before -- it's just as much wear and tear on your arm and body as 200 in the rotation. I don't want an innings limit. If [my arm is] hanging in August, I'll say something to them, but I don't see that happening. I think my delivery is pretty fluid to where the wear and tear on my arm will be a whole lot different than it has been in past years.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

He also agrees with me that you shouldn't apply the normal inning limit rules to a guy who is converting from a reliever:

It's not really this year that most of us advocating for an IP limit are worried about. It's 2013 and beyond. Sure, he might feel good enough to pitch through the end of the year, but an increase of that many innings could lead to an injury in the following season, even if nothing seems obviously wrong in 2012. I'm not 100% on board with the Verducci Effect premise, but I think a bit of caution with an asset like Bard is warranted.

[aron7awol]

It's not really this year that most of us advocating for an IP limit are worried about. It's 2013 and beyond. Sure, he might feel good enough to pitch through the end of the year, but an increase of that many innings could lead to an injury in the following season, even if nothing seems obviously wrong in 2012. I'm not 100% on board with the Verducci Effect premise, but I think a bit of caution with an asset like Bard is warranted.

I agree, and that's why I don't think they should let him throw 220+ innings this season. My point is that the "normal" inning limit which is applied to guys who have been starting exclusively should not apply to a guy who is converting from relief. Relief innings and starter innings should be considered equal. I'm all for skipping his starts a few times during the year to keep him fresh from the stretch run and potential playoff games.

[SoxScout]

Bard's first game: 6 K, 1 BB, 0 HR, 11 GB, 2 FB, 1 LD, 2 IF Hits

.471 BABIP, 44.4 % LOB%, 9.00 ERA, 1.80 WHIP

It'll be very interesting IMO to read the different takes tomorrow by Sox media on this performance.

Edited by SoxScout, 10 April 2012 - 09:13 PM.

[Sprowl]

Bard pitched very well, keeping the ball out of the heart of the plate



and using his slider to great effect. He had awful luck on groundballs, but kept his cool. I am worried about several things:

-overdependence on the slider (35 sliders per game can mean a lot of stress on the elbow)
-not much trust in his sinker or changeup
-declining velocity over his innings:



But overall, an excellent performance, his pitching line notwithstanding.

[Pumpsie]

I'm not as hopeful about this start as most. Great stuff, but we knew that already. But that's never been the issue with Bard. The big disappointment for me is that he's still, basically, a two-pitch pitcher. And, as Sprowl says above, if he needs 35 sliders to get through 5 innings every time, it's going to affect his elbow sooner or later. At any rate, if he doesn't develop a good change-up or curve that he uses regularly, he's never going to be that effective of a starter. Also, he made a lot of pitches to get through five although he didn't walk anyone. He has to become more economical or he's not going to be a good fit for this staff which wore out the bullpen last year by failing to get past the fifth inning all too often. And he lost velocity as he went on. I see the glass as half-empty at the moment.

Bottom line: This start seems to be just further proof that Bard's best spot is as a one or two inning reliever near or at the end of a game rather than as a starter. There is no light at the end of this tunnel quite yet.

[aron7awol]

I'm not as hopeful about this start as most. Great stuff, but we knew that already. But that's never been the issue with Bard. The big disappointment for me is that he's still, basically, a two-pitch pitcher. And, as Sprowl says above, if he needs 35 sliders to get through 5 innings every time, it's going to affect his elbow sooner or later. At any rate, if he doesn't develop a good change-up or curve that he uses regularly, he's never going to be that effective of a starter. Also, he made a lot of pitches to get through five although he didn't walk anyone. He has to become more economical or he's not going to be a good fit for this staff which wore out the bullpen last year by failing to get past the fifth inning all too often. And he lost velocity as he went on. I see the glass as half-empty at the moment.

Bottom line: This start seems to be just further proof that Bard's best spot is as a one or two inning reliever near or at the end of a game rather than as a starter. There is no light at the end of this tunnel quite yet.

The negatives can also be looked at as positives:

• He needed 96 pitches to get through 5 innings, but he also faced more batters than he should have given the 6 K, 1 BB, 0 HR, 11 GB, 2 FB, 1 LD line.
• He produced that line without using the changeup or 2-seamer much. Those are both pitches that should induce even more ground balls and get him through the game using less pitches.

All in all, a very promising first start. I'm confident that he'll learn from it and get better, but BABIP was really not on his side tonight.

[rembrat]

"PeteAbe: Bard had 18 swings-and-misses. Beckett had 20 in one game last year. No other Sox pitcher had more than 16."

http://twitter.com/P...917631963332609

If you are looking at the boxscore to argue he belongs in the pen then you clearly dont get it. Velocity lost in the later innings shouldnt be an issue either since 94mph is faster than what the other starters average.

[JakeRae]

http://twitter.com/P...917631963332609

If you are looking at the boxscore to argue he belongs in the pen then you clearly dont get it. Velocity lost in the later innings shouldnt be an issue either since 94mph is faster than what the other starters average.

I agree that looking at the box score is silly. With normal BABIP luck, he has a 6 or 7 inning start with at most, a run or two scored against him. Over large samples, it is better to trust the numbers than your eyes. Over small samples, your eyes are frequently more accurate than the numbers. One start is a very small sample and, if you watched the game, it should've been clear that Bard pitched extremely well.

On the other hand, the velocity loss is somewhat troubling. But, it is certainly possible that the adrenaline of making his first start caused him to ramp up the velocity early leading to the downward trend. Given that, I'm not ready to worry about this until we see it extended over a larger sample of starts. And, even with the lost velocity, he should've had a great start. The combination of the turf, a weak left side of the infield, and bad luck caused Bard's stat line to be much worse than his performance.

[Rough Carrigan]

I agree that he was unlucky on BABIP.
It seemed that the Jays hitters were sitting completely on the fastball. Though, it's not like they did all that much with the ones they swung at. Still, I think he needs to respond to that, whether it be with more changeups, more 2 seamers or a "get me over" version of his slurve.

[Laser Show]

The over dependence on the slider is what worries me the most, because of the threat of injury. But if he consistently works in the changeup and the two-seamer, he should be able to reduce that with similar results.

I heard Remy saying that he didn't throw a changeup until around pitch 55 or so, which just so happened to be to the top of the order for the third time. I thought it was interesting he held that back until the third time through the order to keep them off-balance. It needs to show up more frequently though.

[Eric Van]

Depending on how you score various events (liner vs. fly, the Lind shot up the middle in the 3rd as liner or grounder), his SIERA for this start was somewhere between 1.75 and 2.24. Think of it as 1 run in 6.2, leaving with men on 1st and 2nd, and that's a fair BABIP normalization.

[NDame616]

I don't know how much the loss in velocity is concerning. I think he's still learning to pace himself a bit to last for 6-7 innings compared to what he's used to If he was sitting around 95 all game (which was pretty much what he averaged with his FB) no one would make an issue of it. But he started 97 and went to 94, which I guess concerns some people.

When was the last time we saw Beckett or Lester average 95 with their FB?

I'd be more concerned if he started at, say, 97 and dropped to 91 by the 3rd.....

[OttoC]

The over dependence on the slider is what worries me the most, because of the threat of injury....

Remy noted during the game that Bard throws two different types of sliders. That suggest sliders are an important part of his repertoire: 25.6%. 20.7% 24.7% sliders 2009-2011; 36.5% in this start. Fangraphs.

[Plympton91]

Thanks for the analysis folks.

I agree with the consensus generally. A lot of sliders and a decline in velocity are concerning. The drop in velocity, being relatively modest and this early in the year, is a little less so than the reluctance to use the changeup. Hopefully, as he starts more that pitch will develop more quickly.

The positives are the 6 k's and 1 bb, combined with lots of grounders. Also not noted yet is Justin Thomas' role in runs 4 and 5. It's very sad that they don't have someone better for a 3-1 game in the 6th.

[Pumpsie]

Bard either starts using his changeup more...and successfully...or it's back to the pen. It's really that simple. Bard will have no long-term success as a starter without some kind of really slow pitch to offset the hard stuff. That's just a fact of life in the major leagues and that's what's kept the Bobby Valentines of the baseball world from going ga-ga over this Bard as a starter stuff. He really does need that pitch. And he won't have an infinite amount of time to show it either. I say he's got until May 1st to prove he has that pitch and can use it the way it's supposed to be used.

[Toe Nash]

Thanks for the analysis folks.

I agree with the consensus generally. A lot of sliders and a decline in velocity are concerning. The drop in velocity, being relatively modest and this early in the year, is a little less so than the reluctance to use the changeup. Hopefully, as he starts more that pitch will develop more quickly.

The positives are the 6 k's and 1 bb, combined with lots of grounders. Also not noted yet is Justin Thomas' role in runs 4 and 5. It's very sad that they don't have someone better for a 3-1 game in the 6th.

They have better guys, Valentine just decided not to use them. Morales for one.

I don't understand everyone saying that he needs a good third (or fourth) pitch to be effective. His fastball and slider are both above-average, and both are often great. He needs his changeup to be respectable and he needs to be able to locate it, but that's it. It's not going to be an out pitch and it doesn't need to be.

What pitchers have more than two above-average pitches? Verlander and who else?

[Jnai]

Since I'm sure we'll have a bunch of PitchFXy posts this year (especially in this thread) and lots of people watched this start, I thought it would be good to post a labeled graph.



Here, Pitches in the big Black circle are fastball (with blue being tentative sinkers), yellow circle are changeups, and orange circle are sliders.

[Lefty on the Mound]

Who was responsible for pitch selection last night? Bard, Salty or the dugout (McClure?)?

It seems like an inordinate number of hits came with 2 strikes on the batter. In particular, the hit Arencibia got was on a fastball with 2 strikes. He seems susceptible to breaking stuff. Who decided to throw the fastball?

Is this seemingly poor selection of pitches something that we can continue to expect?

[Reverend]

Since I'm sure we'll have a bunch of PitchFXy posts this year (especially in this thread) and lots of people watched this start, I thought it would be good to post a labeled graph.



Here, Pitches in the big Black circle are fastball (with blue being tentative sinkers), yellow circle are changeups, and orange circle are sliders.

Nice. Fantastic really--this stuff is great.

And therein lies a problem--it appears he was using the slider because it was so successful as compared to the other pitches. I thought he looked pretty good and agree with most of the above.

And so it's easy to say he has to throw fewer sliders, but what happens then?

Edited by Reverend, 18 April 2012 - 08:51 PM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Who was responsible for pitch selection last night? Bard, Salty or the dugout (McClure?)?

It seems like an inordinate number of hits came with 2 strikes on the batter. In particular, the hit Arencibia got was on a fastball with 2 strikes. He seems susceptible to breaking stuff. Who decided to throw the fastball?

Is this seemingly poor selection of pitches something that we can continue to expect?

Yeah, well that's the big problem with a 2-pitch repertoire. It's not like he can only pitch fastball-slider as a starter.

Bard has two plus-plus pitches, but he needs a mediocre or better third one badly in order to become anything more than a 5-IP TJS candidate. The two pitches he has are so damn good, but last night showed how clearly Bard needs a lollipop curve or fading changeup to disrupt the batter's timing and eye-level.

[pokey_reese]

One start, but in terms of measuring his performance without looking at ERA and WHIP, I thought it would be worth posting his FIP and xFIP to go along with the SIERRA up-thread:

FIP: 0.87 xFIP: 1.74

Every grounder found a hole. 2 IF hits to Punto. It sucks, but it happens. Even with the worst possible luck, he was still in this game until he was lifted, and frankly I would rather have seen him stay in than see Thomas come in there.

Such a big part of the concern over the spring was the walks, and I was really encouraged that he came out and had a 6/1 K/BB ratio in that game. He allowed no HRs and 67% GBs. His career strand rate is 73%, last night it was 44%.

I think that the change-up will improve as he uses it in games, but even if not, that was a great start with lousy results. I don't want to see him in the pen until he is nearing his innings threshold for the year.

[aron7awol]

Yeah, well that's the big problem with a 2-pitch repertoire. It's not like he can only pitch fastball-slider as a starter.

Bard has two plus-plus pitches, but he needs a mediocre or better third one badly in order to become anything more than a 5-IP TJS candidate. The two pitches he has are so damn good, but last night showed how clearly Bard needs a lollipop curve or fading changeup to disrupt the batter's timing and eye-level.

He has a good enough changeup already. He threw it 7% of the time last season according to Fangraphs, and he should be able to get a better feel for it when he's throwing 5-10 of them per 100 pitch outing instead of 1 or 2 out of 20-30 pitches as a reliever. It's been around an average pitch for him the last 2 seasons according to Fangraphs' pitch type values. He will be dominant against RHB, that we know. Last season he was also very good against lefties with his improved changeup. We'll see if that carries into this season as well. I know one thing for sure, I want to see more of the 2-seamer. It's got ridiculous movement, and if he can get comfortable throwing it for strikes on the inside corner against lefties/outside corner against righties, or so it runs just off the plate against LHB, he will become unhittable.

[tims4wins]

It'll be very interesting IMO to read the different takes tomorrow by Sox media on this performance.

Thankfully we have Nick Cafardo:

The problem is, at some point you can’t ignore the results because the season has started.

He could end all speculation by dominating as a starter.

Right now, as good as he feels about himself, the results simply don’t warrant that commitment.

Because for a major league starter, it’s all about the results.

I fucking hate this man.

[pokey_reese]

Yeah, well that's the big problem with a 2-pitch repertoire. It's not like he can only pitch fastball-slider as a starter.

Bard has two plus-plus pitches, but he needs a mediocre or better third one badly in order to become anything more than a 5-IP TJS candidate. The two pitches he has are so damn good, but last night showed how clearly Bard needs a lollipop curve or fading changeup to disrupt the batter's timing and eye-level.

For what it's worth, last year Justin Masterson threw 216 innings with a FIP of 3.28 (almost the same as his actual ERA of 3.21) throwing just fastballs and sliders.

A third pitch would be great, but I wouldn't say that it's an absolute necessity, especially if he can get that 2-seamer/sinker really working for him.

[TomRicardo]

It is going to be awesome when he snaps his UCL in May and we lose him for the year. The Bard Starting Experience!

[Buzzkill Pauley]

For what it's worth, last year Justin Masterson threw 216 innings with a FIP of 3.28 (almost the same as his actual ERA of 3.21) throwing just fastballs and sliders.

A third pitch would be great, but I wouldn't say that it's an absolute necessity, especially if he can get that 2-seamer/sinker really working for him.

I would consider a sinker/2-seamer to be a third pitch, distinct from a 4-seam fastball and a slider. Fangraphs shows Masterson's 2011 as:

• 45% fastball
• 40% sinker
• 14% slider

If that trio of pitches can work for Bard, then super.

But no way should he be relying on a slider for 30%+ of his pitches. You might be able to get away with that for awhile as a reliever, because you're throwing 5-7 of them in total over the course of an appearance, but that cannot be healthy on a starter's workload.

Edited by Buzzkill Pauley, 11 April 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[TomRicardo]

For what it's worth, last year Justin Masterson threw 216 innings with a FIP of 3.28 (almost the same as his actual ERA of 3.21) throwing just fastballs and sliders.

A third pitch would be great, but I wouldn't say that it's an absolute necessity, especially if he can get that 2-seamer/sinker really working for him.

For what it is worth, Masterson is a true sinkerball pitcher making your post worth about as much as Bard in the rotation. HEYOOOOOOO!!!!

[rembrat]

Wait a minute. Where did this you can't get by with just a fastball-slider combo or your arm will explode meme start?

[rembrat]

Ervin Santana
FB%58.4 SL%38.4 CH%3.2

Edwin Jackson
FB%55.0 SL%33.7 CH%8.7

Madison Bumgarner
FB%58.4 SL%38.4 CH%3.2

Micheal Pineda
FB%62.2 SL%31.5 CH%6.3

Alexi Ogando
FB%67.5 SL%27.7 CH%4.9

Colby Lewis
FB%57.9 SL%26.8 CH%6.8

Brandon Morrow
FB%61.6 SL%26.6 CH%6.2

2011 season

Just to name a few and the list literally goes on and on.

[deconstruction]

Bard threw six changeups last night. As mentioned, the first didn't come until the 3rd inning. I went through the pitchfx batter logs to identify the situations in which he threw them, and then rewound the tape to see how they looked.

3rd

• 0-1 to Thames: 88mph, low in the zone but called a ball. Should've beed a called strike. Good fade. Really good pitch. Came back with a 94mph fb that Thames was very late on. Then dropped a slider in for a called strike, and dropped another in that Thames didn't know what to do with.

4th

• 0-0 to Rasmus: 86mph, in the dirt (ball). Not a good one. Next pitch was a SwStr slider.

5th

• 0-1 to Johnson: 85mph, low (ball). After getting a called strike with the slider. Looked to have good fade. Next pitch was a 94mph SwStr fb on inside corner.
• 2-2 to Johnson: 88mph, off the plate (foul): Johnson was very late and put a weak swing on it. Good pitch in that situation.
• 2-1 to Bautista: 87mph, in the dirt (ball). After blowing a fb by him, tried to change it up, Joey didn't bite. Remy noted it was the first change against a RH. Next two pitches were inside corner sliders for strikes (one called, one swinging).
• 1-2 to Lind: 88mph, outside corner that Lind grounded to short. This was after Lind was very late on a 94mph fb. Nice mix here, weak contact.

Out of the six thrown:

• two generated weak contact
• two were low in the zone with good fade that could've been called strikes
• two were in the dirt

All together, I think he had pretty good success with the change, and I don't see why he can't throw a few more at the expense of the slider. As aron noted, it's a good pitch and last night it showed.

Edited by deconstruction, 11 April 2012 - 10:18 AM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Wait a minute. Where did this you can't get by with just a fastball-slider combo or your arm will explode meme start?

Well, here's an excerpt taken from a statistical study last year in THT:

Results: Elbow Injuries


I identified 114 pitchers from 2008-2010 that suffered major elbow injuries that fit the criteria that I set forth above. Using the nine-factor model above, BMI and Slider/Cutter % were statistically significant at the alpha = 0.10 level, while vertical release point variance was statistically significant at the alpha = 0.05 level! Using this more specific three-factor model, the r-squared was 0.11 and both Slider/Cutter % and vertical release point variance had p-values < 0.05, while BMI was still just below 0.10.

The theories that a more varied vertical release point can lead to more elbow injuries may have some validity to it, as are the theories that increased use of sliders/cutters have the same detrimental effect. Increased BMI was weakly and negatively correlated with elbow injury - meaning if the effect is real, the bigger you are, the less likely you are to suffer an elbow injury.

To sum up:

Bard elbow injury detrimental factors
Variable release point factor = check
Significant use of slider factor = check
BMI (weak correlation) factor = check

Edited by Buzzkill Pauley, 11 April 2012 - 10:37 AM.

[Pumpsie]

Even the change-ups in the dirt accomplish something. He has to take 5-10 of those sliders and make them change-ups. Part of the problem last night may have been the strike zone, I'm not sure.

[TomRicardo]

Just to name a few and the list literally goes on and on.

So you are using Michael Pineda (on the DL), Ervin Santana (arm exploded in 2007 and 2009), Colby Lewis (arm exploded in a major way in 2004 and 2007), Brandon marrow (once moved to the bullpen due to shoulder issues) as examples of health?

Alexi Ogando's arm starting falling off last year and he has relatively few miles on his arm due to his involvement in the sex slavery industry. And Bumgarner is 22 and has relatively low miles on his arm.

So that leaves Edwin Jackson as your best case example...

[rembrat]

So you are using Michael Pineda (on the DL), Ervin Santana (arm exploded in 2007 and 2009), Colby Lewis (arm exploded in a major way in 2004 and 2007), Brandon marrow (once moved to the bullpen due to shoulder issues) as examples of health?

Alexi Ogando's arm starting falling off last year and he has relatively few miles on his arm due to his involvement in the sex slavery industry. And Bumgarner is 22 and has relatively low miles on his arm.

So that leaves Edwin Jackson as your best case example...

Sound the alarms. Pitchers get hurt!

[TomRicardo]

Sound the alarms. Pitchers get hurt!

Yes but pitchers that pitch 25% or greater sliders get hurt more often.