730 replies to this topic

[Doctor G]

Another awful job leaving a starter in too long. Why let Buchholz walk two batters and leave him in for the inevitable homer which ruins his outing and makes the game a lot closer? Honestly, mind boggling. When Buchholz issues his first walk of the 7th, why not call it a night?

Buchholz was left in to try to pitch his way out of a jam that wasn't totally his own fault. Being able to do this is a meaningful step in his return to being the very good pitcher he was pre back troubles.
His pitch count wasn't that high.
As a fan we like to see the good outing end successfully, in that it justifies our optimism about the comeback. But for real progress it is necessary to pitch through the tough innings also.
It is progress simply to see Clay's anger after getting the hook. He knew how close he was. I'm sure he was pissed that he couldnt close it out even with the men on base. I bet his focus after 90 pitches will be better next time out.

Edited by Doctor G, 01 May 2012 - 10:38 AM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Fair points...given the score of the game and the importance of getting Buchholz right, I can get on board with that line of thinking,

[Doctor G]

I think Valentine has decided to make a conscious effort to toughen up the starting staff in light of their performance last September.
Sort of the opposite of Tito's tendency to take them out" feeling good about themselves".
This might explain the recent pitch counts and last night.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I think Valentine has decided to make a conscious effort to toughen up the starting staff in light of their performance last September.
Sort of the opposite of Tito's tendency to take them out" feeling good about themselves".
This might explain the recent pitch counts and last night.

We'll see how their elbows feel about that later this season.

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

Not sure exactly where to post this, but because much of the criticism and/or defense of Bobby V in this thread centers around the issue of pitch counts, here seemed as good as any. This is from the abstract of new research paper on the correlation between pitch counts and future performance. Short version: it is small, but real and negative:

We examined performances of major-league baseball starting pitchers from 1988 to 2009 using fractional polynomial multiple regression to estimate the immediate and cumulative impact of pitches thrown and the days of rest on performance, while controlling for other factors that likely affect pitcher effectiveness. Estimates indicate each pitch thrown in the preceding game increased earned run average (ERA) by 0.007 in the following game. Each pitch averaged in the preceding 5 and 10 games increased the ERA by 0.014 and 0.022, respectively. Older pitchers were more sensitive to cumulative pitching loads than younger pitchers were, but they were less affected by pitches thrown in the preceding game. Rest days were weakly associated with performance. In summary, we found that there is a negative relationship between past pitches thrown and future performance that is virtually linear. The impact of the cumulative pitching load is larger than the impact of a single game. Rest days do not appear to have a large impact on performance. This study supports the popular notion that high pitching loads can dampen future performance; however, because the effect is small, pitch-count benchmarks have limited use for maintaining performance and possibly preventing injury.

Found the bolded sentence partcularly interesting. Suggests that a younger pitcher like Buchholz or Bard can handle higher pitch counts over than long haul better than a veteran such as Beckett. But their next-game performance is more likely to be affected by a high pitch count in the previous game than the veteran's will.

[Plympton91]

Your snippet quoted:

"Estimates indicate each pitch thrown in the preceding game increased earned run average (ERA) by 0.007 in the following game. Each pitch averaged in the preceding 5 and 10 games increased the ERA by 0.014 and 0.022, respectively."

What this says is that the most effective pitchers are those who've never pitched before. I think they may want to rethink their specification.

[trekfan55]

Jimy Williams would have one or two guys up at the start of the seventh. Some here remember Jimy's pitchng manuevers as I do -- he consistently got guys out of the game before it was a lost cause. It always seemed he had a knack for (at least) taking pitchers out, if not for bringing in the right guys.

But the unclear cost of that was a bullpen with a lot more innings pitched than the stats showed. Guys would warm up, but not come into the game. I can't remember what he did in blow-outs, but unless V wanted to see how a few guys looked on back-to-back days, Padilla, Albers and Morales were the right guys to get the call last night. Since Padilla may still be the "long" man, I think it would have been sensible to have him start warmng up in the seventh -- in case he was needed there, and then to come in during the eighth and/or ninth to finish the game. After what happened against the MFYs, I can't blame V for getting a second guy up, but using five relievers, including Aceves, seemed excessive.

I think BobbyV was not taking anything for granted after the Saturday massacre to the bullpen.

When Tazawa loaded the bases (and it was not his fault, as he had induced the necessary popup) He immediately went with Padilla. Why didn't Padilla start the next inning is a good question, I'll give you that. Atchison went single, single, walk, K (to Coco Crisp) so he was useless that inning, he then had to go to Morales in another save situation to face the lefty and he got the DP (well it was more Pedey), and finally used Aceves.

So overall, the questions are: Why not have Padilla start the 7th? Why use Aceves?

Padilla I have no idea. Aceves had warmed up already and since he had to go to Morales to finish the 8th, he put him in.

Overall it was well managed IMO. We have to consider that despite the score, this was a game where the tying run got to the on deck circle several times so it had to be managed like this and like the usual blowout.

Edited by trekfan55, 01 May 2012 - 02:14 PM.

[Pumpsie]

I think it was a no-brainer to keep Clay in that long. First, he's pitching against the worst hitting team in the AL. Second, he only had about 90 pitches when he started to get into trouble. Third, you have to see what Clay is really about as soon as possible since decisions regarding Cook, Miller and Dice-K are looming on the horizon and you want to get these right. Fourth, the 7th inning began with an 11-1 lead.

The bottom line is that we DO know a bit more about Clay now than if he would have been pulled earlier and his stat line would have been deceptively good. He's still not where he needs to be. And neither is the bullpen.

[rembrat]

Beckett unable to make his next start after throwing 126 pitches in 47 degree (start time) weather. So, Valentine's fault or file it under 'shit happens?'

I'm not sure either way.

[lexrageorge]

It was 113 pitches until the last batter, which is far from excessive. For some reason, I doubt one extra batter is the cause of Beckett's troubles. I believe today was probably Beckett's day to throw, and based on how he felt it was probably a precautionary move, especially with Cook waiting in the wings.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Beckett unable to make his next start after throwing 126 pitches in 47 degree (start time) weather. So, Valentine's fault or file it under 'shit happens?'

I'm not sure either way.

I'm not sure either. He did allow Lester and Beckett to throw a lot of pitches on back to back nights in cold weather early in the season. No word about Lester being sore, though. Could be another conditioning issue for Beckett.

[trekfan55]

Beckett unable to make his next start after throwing 126 pitches in 47 degree (start time) weather. So, Valentine's fault or file it under 'shit happens?'

I'm not sure either way.

It was the 7th inning, Beckett was going very well after the 3 run 1st. But again it seems like BobbyV is leaving his starters for one batter too many. After a pop out, a single (3 pitches) and a 5 pitch walk to DeAza, didn't he have someone ready who could retire Lillibridge? Again, no one could have predicted a 12 pitch AB with 5 straight foul balls.

[rembrat]

I'm not sure either. He did allow Lester and Beckett to throw a lot of pitches on back to back nights in cold weather early in the season. No word about Lester being sore, though. Could be another conditioning issue for Beckett.

I don't think it's a conditioning issue. He probably isn't use to a 126 PC.* It's like when you go to the gym and push pass what you normally would do which leads to some extra soreness/stiffness on top of the usual soreness for that week.

Checking 2011's gamelogs, he threw 125 pitches on April 21st and his following starts were 92 pitches in 6IP and 68 pitches in 4.1. Which suggest there might be some lingering effects when his PC climbs into the 120's.

*Or simply can't handle that amount of work anymore.

EDIT: I'm not blaming Valentine just to be clear.

Edited by rembrat, 02 May 2012 - 02:57 PM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I don't think it's a conditioning issue. He probably isn't use to a 126 PC.* It's like when you go to the gym and push pass what you normally would do which leads to some extra soreness/stiffness on top of the usual soreness for that week.

Checking 2011's gamelogs, he threw 125 pitches on April 25th and his following starts were 92 pitches in 6IP and 68 pitches in 4.1. Which suggest there might be some lingering effects when his PC climbs into the 120's.

*Or simply can't handle that amount of work anymore.

He'd never thrown that many pitches in a game. 126 is his career high.

It's probably a "shit happens" deal, much as I detest Valentine. He was at a pretty reasonable number going into his final batter, who proceeded to work a 13 pitch AB off of him.

[Plympton91]

I assume that Kelly Shoppach injured himself walking to the dugout in the top 10th, because there's absolutely no other justification for using Saltalamacchia to hit for him against a lefthander.

[budcrew08]

Why?

Confidence. There's no metric for it but letting a starting pitcher try to work his way out of a mess can be the boost he needs going forward.

[CSteinhardt]

What this says is that the most effective pitchers are those who've never pitched before. I think they may want to rethink their specification.

No, it says that every pitch you throw decreases your effectiveness in your upcoming outings. Which is something that anybody who's ever thrown a baseball hard will tell you from experience.

If anything, it's an argument for removing your ace in the fourth inning up 9-0.

[SoxScout]

I assume that Kelly Shoppach injured himself walking to the dugout in the top 10th, because there's absolutely no other justification for using Saltalamacchia to hit for him against a lefthander.

Nothing on google news explaining this, I wish someone asked.

[BosRedSox5]

My biggest concern from last night's game was asking Shoppach to bunt. It's the bottom of the 9th, Sweeney leads off with a single, and Bobby takes the bat out of Kelly's hands. He lays down a bunt, completely wasting and out and we lose our momentum. Aviles and Middlebrooks follow it up with a pair of groundouts.

It's been proven that a sac bunt that moves a runner from 1st to 2nd is a bad move. It's not a valid reason to give up an out. Why wouldn't the manager of a big league club understand this?

[Rudy Pemberton]

Look at Shoppach's numbers va RH pitchers, he cannot hit them. I think a bunt is acceptable, it's better than a K or DP. But, why not PH Salty there? Was there a LHP warming? Or the desire to save Salty's bat for later?

The whole "3 man bench" is a joke that has potentially cost the team a game or two.

[rembrat]

Asking Shop to bunt vs a RHP is fine. Pinch hitting fire him vs a LHP is not. My geuss is Valentine had a "feeling."

[In my lifetime]

My biggest concern from last night's game was asking Shoppach to bunt. It's the bottom of the 9th, Sweeney leads off with a single, and Bobby takes the bat out of Kelly's hands. He lays down a bunt, completely wasting and out and we lose our momentum. Aviles and Middlebrooks follow it up with a pair of groundouts.

It's been proven that a sac bunt that moves a runner from 1st to 2nd is a bad move. It's not a valid reason to give up an out. Why wouldn't the manager of a big league club understand this?

That is not true in this case. Bunting in the AL almost never makes sense when you are concerned about the total number of runs a team wants to score. However, when the issue is scoring one run as the case last night in the bottom of the 9th, the probabilities change. This depends on the exact batting averages of the players involved. In general, it can make sense to bunt when dealing with the very bottom of the order.

See article by Dan Levitt http://baseballanaly...cal_analy_1.php

Table 5 indicates a number of cases in which a successful bunt increases the probability of scoring a run. In the AL, when the ninth place batter bunts with a runner on first and no outs, the probability of scoring at least one run moves from .423 up to .441.


Now pinch hitting Salty for Shoppach was a head scratcher to me when originally announced. I initially thought that maybe Salty had good stats against the Lefty ---- but nooooo. 0-2 with 2 strike outs. Really made no sense unless Shoppach asked out of the game or something else happened which we are not privvy to.

Edited by In my lifetime, 05 May 2012 - 07:49 AM.

[BosRedSox5]

Sure, Shop can't hit righties, but a wasted out is still a wasted out. Either let him swing away or put in Salty. Giving up an out in the bottom of the ninth after a leadoff single was a bad move.

[BosRedSox5]

Table 5 indicates a number of cases in which a successful bunt increases the probability of scoring a run. In the AL, when the ninth place batter bunts with a runner on first and no outs, the probability of scoring at least one run moves from .423 up to .441.

Okay, I see that, but Aviles and Middlebrooks aren't exactly our normal 1-2. I still see this as a wasted out.

[OttoC]

...
It's been proven that a sac bunt that moves a runner from 1st to 2nd is a bad move. It's not a valid reason to give up an out. Why wouldn't the manager of a big league club understand this?

I don't think that's not exactly true. There are a few situations when playing for one run that the run expectation actually improves with a successful sacrifice (see Dan Levitt's article, Empirical Analysis of Bunting, on the Baseball Analysts site, especially Tables 5 & 6 and associated discussion).

One typical action following a successful sacrifice with a runner on first and no outs in the late innings of a tied-game is intentionally walking the next batter. That may be a worse move than the sacrifice.

added: I see someone types faster than I do.

Edited by OttoC, 05 May 2012 - 08:04 AM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Asking Shop to bunt vs a RHP is fine. Pinch hitting fire him vs a LHP is not. My guess is Valentine had a "feeling."

This. And then swapping Salty for Shoppach the next time through the order was asinine.

To say nothing of batting Middlebrooks 2nd after Aviles. I was listening to the Salem game last night, and it was pretty amusing to have Evan Lepler -- announcer for the high-A affiliate -- even call him out for doing that.

But I can hardly muster the energy to care any more -- this team clearly isn't going anywhere with BobbyV as its manager. The team isn't good enough to win in spite of his ill-advised tactical moves and strategies, and the AL East isn't a forgiving place.

I hope that Ben acts decisively to fix this "fatal flaw" by July, at the latest.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I hope that Ben acts decisively to fix this "fatal flaw" by July, at the latest.

If it was up to Ben, I don't think Bobby would be here in the first place, in spite of all the pretty things said at press conferences. Bobby is Larry's baby, and he'll go when Larry says it's time for him to go.

[Hyde Park Factor]

If it was up to Ben, I don't think Bobby would be here in the first place, in spite of all the pretty things said at press conferences. Bobby is Larry's baby, and he'll go when Larry says it's time for him to go.

Is it safe to say that Larry Lucchino is morphing into some version of George Steinbrenner right before our eyes?

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

No, it says that every pitch you throw decreases your effectiveness in your upcoming outings. Which is something that anybody who's ever thrown a baseball hard will tell you from experience.

If anything, it's an argument for removing your ace in the fourth inning up 9-0.

Actually, I don't think it's an argument for or against anything. It's data that a manager should evaluate in making a decision, along with a lot of other factors. If you've got a rested middle relief corps whom you trust not to give up 9 runs in 5 innings, then yeah, you probably should pull your starter after 4 (or 5) in a 9-0 game. It could have a notable effect on his chances of winning his next start (note that very few managers will do that). But if you have a legitimate concern that your bullpen can't hold a 9-0 lead, or that your bullpen is not well rested and needs to be preserved, then a manager has to balance that consideration against the likelihood that he's giving his starter a slight handicap in his subsequent outing.

All of these decisions are extremely complex. I'm sure most managers oversimplify them, and that's what so many poor pitching decisions are made (not only by "our" manager, but by all managers to varying degrees).

Of course, most fans oversimplify these decisions even worse. The decision whether to pull a pitcher doesn't always come down to, "He looks tired, yank him!" Or, "only an idiot leaves him into face a lefty!" There are multiple, varied factors that we rarely take into account.

[budcrew08]

If it was up to Ben, I don't think Bobby would be here in the first place, in spite of all the pretty things said at press conferences. Bobby is Larry's baby, and he'll go when Larry says it's time for him to go.

Which means after next season.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Which means after next season.

I don't really think that's true.

His leash gets shorter pretty fast -- as gate receipts plummet, as the Sox look ready to miss the postseason for a third straight year, and as Cherington collects more ammo to point out how BobbyV was neither prepared with contingency plans for key injuries, nor bothering to do his job according to the reams of data provided him by baseball ops.

[Rudy Pemberton]

At what point does baseball ops feel pressure, though? There's two big problems here- a lousy roster, and a lousy job managing it. This isn't a good team being ruined by a terrible manager, it's a mediocre group of talent being poorly managed. The fact that Bobby wasn't "prepared with a contingency plan for key injuries" is largely because of the roster Cherington saddled him with. I know the idea, for years, has been baseball ops good, manager bad...but jeez, did the "reams of data provided by baseball ops" tell them to acquire all these guys, to go with a 13-man staff, to sign Crawford / Lackey / Jenks, etc, that Melancon would be effective, etc? I mean, before we rip Valentine for ignoring baseball ops it would be good to know that he is doing so, but more importantly, that baseball ops has a clue.

[rembrat]

The 'this roster is horrible' meme needs to stop. Go to mlbdepthcharts.com and look at the rest of the league. Sure they're not as good as the Rangers or Yankees but they are closer to them than the absolute dregs.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The 'this roster is horrible' meme needs to stop. Go to mlbdepthcharts.com and look at the rest of the league. Sure they're not as good as the Rangers or Yankees but they are closer to them than the absolute dregs.

Agree to disagree, I think the bullpen and outfield are among the least talented in the league. Awful bench. You are right in that the league is relatively weak and there is a lot of parity; if the Sox can start getting some decent pitching (the awful starters should be a bigger story than it has been) they can get back into it.

At this point, I think the team is mediocre, and the manager is too.

[reggiecleveland]

Well shouldn't they considering the money spent? All things considered the roster isn't that good. The team is a slightly sub .500 team with one of the highest payrolls. That is a horrible result for the money.The Of consist of 4th ofers, one oft injured star and a complete bust that was given a horrible contract, the infield is very good, especially the right side, the starters feature an injured big money bust, a guy that alternated good years with weak years, Jon Lester, and castoffs, rehabs and projects. The pen is a mish mash of castoffs, has beens, and AAAA guys that can maybe get out one side of the platoon split. It is pretty lousy team.

Aceves looks pretty good. But after that they are all 4th fifth guy in your half decent pen at best.

Morales was picked up for nothing because he is wild. Like many lefties that can top 95 he has to consistently prove he can't pitch, and he is proving it again.

Please for the love of Pedro do not mention injuries. It is a shocker that Jacoby DLsbury and Bandaid Bailey are hurt? I was unforeseen after last year that Crawford may give nothing?

[Doctor G]

The 'this roster is horrible' meme needs to stop. Go to mlbdepthcharts.com and look at the rest of the league. Sure they're not as good as the Rangers or Yankees but they are closer to them than the absolute dregs.

Compare their roster to the other teams in the AL east at this point in the season. Even the Orioles are putting out a starting nine that is compettitive with the Red sox current starting nine offensively. It isn't about the Rangers and the Yanks, its about the teams playing .500 ball or better.

[rembrat]

Unfair to call him DLsbury, funny, but unfair since his two major injuries have come at the hands, or bodies, of opposing and teammates.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Agree to disagree, I think the bullpen and outfield are among the least talented in the league. Awful bench. You are right in that the league is relatively weak and there is a lot of parity; if the Sox can start getting some decent pitching (the awful starters should be a bigger story than it has been) they can get back into it.

At this point, I think the team is mediocre, and the manager is too.

Sweeney is currently 11th in OPS among qualified MLB outfielders; Ross is 18th. They certainly are likely to return to earth, but over the last month neither has been a problem.

And don't deceive yourself -- except for Punto and Shoppach, BobbyV is obviously the one deciding who's on the bench. The don't-make-any-sense roster moves since Byrd came aboard are evidence enough of that.

Tazawa sent down to make room for Iglesias instead of Middlebrooks? Do you really think Ben was the driver of that one?

Ben has no reason not to give the manager who he wants, because -- as Tazawa already proved -- he will just bury the options that he doesn't really want. All talk about his pre-2003 days aside, BobbyV appears to have no idea how to manage anymore. Not his roster, or his in-game moves.

[Van Everyman]

The 'this roster is horrible' meme needs to stop. Go to mlbdepthcharts.com and look at the rest of the league. Sure they're not as good as the Rangers or Yankees but they are closer to them than the absolute dregs.

I agree. A third of the team's anchors are injured -- and another third are underperforming. That's left Bobby having to spend way too much time "seeing what he has" rather than using his guys strategically. As a result, it's been awfully hard for even his defenders to determine what his strategy is, if there's any at all. Is it as simple as the game has just passed him by? Or does he just have an in-game approach that doesn't gel with the construction of the team? Honestly, the roster situation makes it hard to really know for sure.

But a month into it, all the Bobby frustration seems to me to be less about his shortcomings as a manager and more of a proxy for a larger anxiety about the future of the team -- from how they construct their roster and the philosophy behind it, to whether ownership is willing to invest in the team's success. The latter point, of course, has drifted into wilder speculation -- whether the ownership of the team is really going to be here for the long haul -- a point raised directly by McAdam recently on 'EEI (suggesting they had "one more run in them over the next 5 or 6 years) and behind Shaughnessy's relentless focus on Henry's "Liverpool distraction."

Personally, coming less than 18 months after the spending orgy of 2011, I have a hard time getting too worked up about much of it myself. But I do think the team could do a better job--from Bobby, to Ben, to Henry/Werner/Lucchino--of explaining what they see are the challenges and what their philosophy for addressing them is (which is what they did in 2010). This isn't to suggest that the problem is (exclusively) one of PR -- but rather that in a town where the press can spin stories that become self-fulfilling prophecies, it would be to their advantage to be on offense here.

[Plympton91]

No, it says that every pitch you throw decreases your effectiveness in your upcoming outings.

Which is an assinine result. A starter who throws 50 pitches in a game on Monday is more likely to be effective on Saturday than a starter who skipped his last two starts.

[CSteinhardt]

Which is an assinine result. A starter who throws 50 pitches in a game on Monday is more likely to be effective on Saturday than a starter who skipped his last two starts.

I'm going to hope you're being intentionally obtuse here rather than actually not understanding what they're reporting. Please don't prove me wrong.

[Pumpsie]

Basically, what happened to this team was this...the season began...and in rapid succession the team lost Carl Crawford, Jacoby Ellsbury, their new closer, and their new setup man right out of the box. They're still reeling from all this and the ineffectiveness of keystones like Kevin Youkilis who has played so far as if he's been playing from the DL and may, indeed, be fated to join 2/3 of the outfield on the DL for a long period of time this season. Almost all the team's problems stem from these injuries plus a surprising mediocrity from the rotation. The bullpen looks as if everyone has been asked to step up into higher leverage situations...which is what has happened. And a lot of the manager criticism ignores that 1) there are a lot of new players on this team and 2) a lot of them have to be tried out in roles that were not part of the original plan because of the injuries. There's still some experimentation going on to see who can fill what role. I mean, Aaron Cook is starting today. All in all, it's unfair to expect the team to be much different than this record so far. The question is how far back will this team be when these key players return? Right now, it's looking like it could be pretty far. We'll see how players respond. But the starters have to step up, and right now, that's for sure.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Look at today's roster, from the lineup to the SP and the available relievers, and tell me there's a lot of talent here.

That being said, theres not a lot of great teams in the league, and an extra wild card, so get to .500 and hope for reinforcements.

[BelgianSoxFan]

Look at today's roster, from the lineup to the SP and the available relievers, and tell me there's a lot of talent here.

That being said, theres not a lot of great teams in the league, and an extra wild card, so get to .500 and hope for reinforcements.

Everything which goes wrong is BV's fault. It could also be LL's fault too. Folks are even rooting here for the Sox to stop selling out...

This is a team with a high payroll but no payroll flexibility. I believe this made them take a lot of high risk-high reward gambles in the bullpen. Sometimes one focuses too much on the high reward. If Bailey was not an injury risk, he would have been much more expensive. If Melancon was proven, he would not have been traded. A lot of their payroll is wasted on injured players, while some of their key players are underperforming. Similarly, BV is asked to play chess with only rooks, it makes him look stupid at times as he feels he has to experiment to get this team to perform better.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Look at today's roster, from the lineup to the SP and the available relievers, and tell me there's a lot of talent here.

That being said, theres not a lot of great teams in the league, and an extra wild card, so get to .500 and hope for reinforcements.

Ok, from the lineup to the SP, there's a lot of talent. There's not a lot of talent in the bullpen without some folks coming off the DL, but if managed appropriately there's more than enough to be a .550 team.

Gonzalez has been slumping, the 1-2-3 starters have generally pitched just well enough to lose, and injuries have depleted the team.

Aside from that though, and taken separately, BobbyV's management has been quite poor. Just objectively bad.

[Plympton91]

Ok, from the lineup to the SP, there's a lot of talent. There's not a lot of talent in the bullpen without some folks coming off the DL, but if managed appropriately there's more than enough to be a .550 team.

If your current day job doesn't work out, there's always being a press secretary for a politician.

Aside from that though, and taken separately, BobbyV's management has been quite poor. Just objectively bad.

It is only possible to objectively manage a baseball team in a simulator game. When you have real people involved, everything is serially correlated and thus much more subjective.

[reggiecleveland]

Basically, what happened to this team was this...the season began...and in rapid succession the team lost Carl Crawford, Jacoby Ellsbury, their new closer, and their new setup man right out of the box.

Well anyone that was counting on all 4 of those guys to be above average contributors was dreaming. Melacon had a small sample of success in a weak division. Lets not get into Crawford again, but despite the statistical certainty that he would be polishing his 2011 MVP trophy before accepting April 2012 player of the month honors, he was at best a big question mark. Bailley was available on the cheap because of injury concerns. For example the 2004 team started the year without Nomar, Nixon, and soon lost a starter Kim and the setup guy Williamson. But that team was different from this team in that it was good. Even though they muddled along for a while once they got healthy they were awesome.

I don't see how Crawford and Youk and Ellsbury will help a team with an ERA north of 5.60. Melecon already did his best to get the Era into the6's.

Pumpsie you really need to read this book http://www.barbaraeh...brightsided.htm

[knucklecup]

Punto leading off? I thought Sweeney was?

[Reverend]

I'm going to hope you're being intentionally obtuse here rather than actually not understanding what they're reporting. Please don't prove me wrong.

It's probably more pointless than you think, considering that was just a poorly worded abstract he's indicting. Bradbury (who is a total stud in the world of the academic study of baseball, and Forman is, well... is this even necessary?) laid out his work in the NYTimes a couple of years ago:

After controlling for many factors, we found that single high-pitch-count games did appear to have a real but small negative impact on future performance. Every pitch over the average output increases a pitcher’s expected earned run average in the next game by about 0.007.

Emphasis added.

The real lesson of the reasearch, though, is that extra days of rest don't matter much, and that high individual game loads don't matter much, but regular high loads do:

Keep in mind we are analyzing this as an exceptional, one-time jump in pitching load. If Jackson continued to throw close to 150 pitches a game, his productivity would suffer to a much greater degree. Averaging a high pitch count over five games has double the impact of a single game, and a high pitch count over 10 games has triple the impact, potentially raising Jackson’s expected E.R.A. by nearly a run. Although we did not address injuries in this study, past analysis has not found a link between pitching loads and injuries.

So while allowing Jackson to stay on the mound might have been against his protective instincts, Hinch made the right call. The accolades and attention received probably outweigh the price that the team and Jackson will pay from extending him for a single game.

Edited by Reverend, 15 May 2012 - 09:55 PM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Punto leading off? I thought Sweeney was?

It was leadoff by committee.

Punto led off the game; Sweeney led off the 2nd, 5th, and 9th innings.