46 replies to this topic

[alwyn96]

It was probably inevitable, but it sounds as if the Bard as a starting pitcher era may have ended, at least for now. Sadly, it comes at a time when the Red Sox are more in need of good starting pitching than bullpen help, but whatcha gonna do? Everyone seems pretty happy with the decision. Hopefully Bard can regain his excellent bullpen form again and step up into a set-up/closing/fireman type role, ensuring an obscene number of Red Sox wins in this and future Red Sox seasons.

Edited by alwyn96, 22 June 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[AcevesSaves]

Oh! The Daniel Bard In The Rotation Era didn't work out?!! I'm so surprised!! No one could have seen this one coming!

[Sprowl]

Oh! The Daniel Bard In The Rotation Era didn't work out?!! I'm so surprised!! No one could have seen this one coming!

That's heavy on the sarcasm, light on the content. Do you have anything substantive to add to the thread?

[NoMaRRaMoN]

It was always a long-term move, so I'm pretty disappointed they're giving up on it so quickly.

I wish he had a bit more luck earlier this season and think he could have been a good starter if he figures out his current mechanical issues. He certainly has enough quality pitches. Even if it ended up as a complete failure, it was worth a shot. Good relievers aren't terribly rare or valuable, but good starters are. It's a pretty simple low-risk:high-reward situation. What might they have lost?... a guy who might pitch as well as Matt Albers or Scott Atchison have. What might they gain?... in the long run, the sky was the limit. I understand that Boston sports journalists and talk radio hosts would have you believe otherwise, but it was smart to convert him. I only wish the Sox hadn't given up so easily on something that was so obviously a long-run move.

[AcevesSaves]

Yes. The fact that this project didn't work out is not a huge issue (WITHOUT him in the bullpen, the ERA's been down under 3 since the middle of May, and the rotation has clearly been better without his additions). He's going to be an effective setup guy, and hopefully being down in the minors will help him regain his form in relief, as he ended the season last year with some bumpy outings.

This does bring up a chemistry issue of sorts; once Bailey gets back, we'll have three guys who will all have legitimate claims at the closer spot. Aceves, who has been relatively effective so far this year; Bard, who certainly has the stuff to be a closer if he's on form; and Bailey, who was an effective closer in Oakland, and obviously the frontrunner, but a guy who hasn't been able to prove himself. Regarding Bailey, it's hard to know how well he'll perform with the Sox, as the pressure of performing in Boston is entirely different from what he's seen in Oakland, a team which spawned an entire major motion picture when it made the ALDS. Ideally, Aceves would go back to the role he excelled in last year (long relief), while Bard becomes the 8th inning guy, and Bailey takes over the ninth, but we have no idea a) how well Bailey will do in Boston, and b) how willing Aceves will be to leave the most glamorous position in the bullpen.

[Double X]

I am surprised by this in light of the Sox bullpen's success. Though they don't currently have a true shutdown reliever, Aceves, Padilla, Atchison, Miller, and Morales have all pitched well, and Tazawa looks like he can be solid too. Melancon probably has the highest ceiling, in my opinion; his numbers in the past (and in Pawtucket this year) point to that. And, of course, Bailey looks like he'll be back soon. As NoMaRRaMoN pointed out, starters are simply more valuable, and especially given that the Sox could use another starter, this is an odd move.

[alwyn96]

Yes. The fact that this project didn't work out is not a huge issue (WITHOUT him in the bullpen, the ERA's been down under 3 since the middle of May, and the rotation has clearly been better without his additions). He's going to be an effective setup guy, and hopefully being down in the minors will help him regain his form in relief, as he ended the season last year with some bumpy outings.

This does bring up a chemistry issue of sorts; once Bailey gets back, we'll have three guys who will all have legitimate claims at the closer spot. Aceves, who has been relatively effective so far this year; Bard, who certainly has the stuff to be a closer if he's on form; and Bailey, who was an effective closer in Oakland, and obviously the frontrunner, but a guy who hasn't been able to prove himself. Regarding Bailey, it's hard to know how well he'll perform with the Sox, as the pressure of performing in Boston is entirely different from what he's seen in Oakland, a team which spawned an entire major motion picture when it made the ALDS. Ideally, Aceves would go back to the role he excelled in last year (long relief), while Bard becomes the 8th inning guy, and Bailey takes over the ninth, but we have no idea a) how well Bailey will do in Boston, and b) how willing Aceves will be to leave the most glamorous position in the bullpen.

Aceves has done a non-terrible job closing, and my guess is he'll keep the job until he a) gets hurt or b) sucks. No one else has a strong claim to it yet, since Bard/Melancon/Bailey have all recently been lousy or hurt. Also, Aceves seems kind of insane and I wouldn't want to make him mad.

[Sampo Gida]

I don't think this means the Bard as starter era is over at all. It is not unusual for such a transition to take a couple of years. I think the experience this year will play huge dividends should they have him start in 2013. Now with Daisuke back, it makes sense to let him get back to where he was before September last year and then decide if they want him to start next year.

There were some folks who expected he would be a #1-#2 right away and pitch over 160 innings (some said 180 or more). That was obviously unrealistic. However, up until his last start, he pitched as well if not better than Daisuke has in his 3 starts (against 3 of the worst offenses in baseball with a 6.06 ERA which is said to be encouraging).

The main problem with Bard and probably the reason for the switch was the obvious decline in his velocity (and command) from start to start after he was asked to throw 111 pitches in his 2nd career start against the Rays (maybe no relation, but who knows). Hopefully we see the guy who reached 100 mph in the pen again and there is nothing wrong with his arm.

Edited by Sampo Gida, 22 June 2012 - 06:44 PM.

[AcevesSaves]

Aceves has done a non-terrible job closing, and my guess is he'll keep the job until he a) gets hurt or b) sucks. No one else has a strong claim to it yet, since Bard/Melancon/Bailey have all recently been lousy or hurt. Also, Aceves seems kind of insane and I wouldn't want to make him mad.

Oh I wasn't counting Melancon. I think he so far has clearly fallen into the category of "Could Not Handle Playing In A City Where More Than 20,000 People Go To Every Game."

Aceves does strike me as crazy - possibly a Red Sox version of KG, what with the pre-outing rituals and the talking to himself. But considering he plays for the Red Sox, I'd say the likelihood of him getting injured is pretty high.

[Sampo Gida]

I am surprised by this in light of the Sox bullpen's success. Though they don't currently have a true shutdown reliever, Aceves, Padilla, Atchison, Miller, and Morales have all pitched well, and Tazawa looks like he can be solid too. Melancon probably has the highest ceiling, in my opinion; his numbers in the past (and in Pawtucket this year) point to that. And, of course, Bailey looks like he'll be back soon. As NoMaRRaMoN pointed out, starters are simply more valuable, and especially given that the Sox could use another starter, this is an odd move.

You assume the bullpen will stay healthy, and the rotation as well.

Morales may be used more as a starter than we expect, especially if Becketts shoulder problems are real and not just an excuse to keep his innings down so he finishes strong in September.

Also, the BP usage, especially before the starters got their act together, and having relievers warming up in the first few innings at the first sign of trouble for a starter may result in some problems as we get deeper into the season. .

[alwyn96]

You assume the bullpen will stay healthy, and the rotation as well.

Morales may be used more as a starter than we expect, especially if Becketts shoulder problems are real and not just an excuse to keep his innings down so he finishes strong in September.

Also, the BP usage, especially before the starters got their act together, and having relievers warming up in the first few innings at the first sign of trouble for a starter may result in some problems as we get deeper into the season. .

I think Beckett's shoulder problems are very real, and I'm actually concerned they may linger. The team is certainly downplaying it (maybe in efforts to keep the price down on a trade for another SP, who knows?), but pitchers with shoulder problems are pretty scary.

Oh I wasn't counting Melancon. I think he so far has clearly fallen into the category of "Could Not Handle Playing In A City Where More Than 20,000 People Go To Every Game."

He hasn't given up a hit in 4 appearances since he got back, so I'm not sure how clear that is. I think it was more of a case of "Wasn't ready coming out of Spring Training."

Edited by alwyn96, 22 June 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[AcevesSaves]

[/size][/font][/color]
He hasn't given up a hit in 4 appearances since he got back, so I'm not sure how clear that is. I think it was more of a case of "Wasn't ready coming out of Spring Training."

Perhaps he got used to playing in front of crowds in Pawtucket; I'm sure their crowds are far more loud than those at Minute Maid Park.

[jnlevetoncnmt]

I'm really glad to hear that Bard has a positive outlook on this going forward. Losing confidence is as bad as a physical injury for young athletes, so hearing that Bard said "It felt like that's where I'm supposed to be. I knew then that its something that I wanted to do moving forward." gives me hope that he can come back and be a 7th/8th inning type guy for a team that is looking to make a run at the playoffs.

I still see Aceves, and later Bailey in the 9th inning closer role.

I am curious to see Morales pitch against an AL opponent. Keeping my fingers crossed for Franklin, but Cook presents another option as well.

[AcevesSaves]

I'm really glad to hear that Bard has a positive outlook on this going forward. Losing confidence is as bad as a physical injury for young athletes, so hearing that Bard said "It felt like that's where I'm supposed to be. I knew then that its something that I wanted to do moving forward." gives me hope that he can come back and be a 7th/8th inning type guy for a team that is looking to make a run at the playoffs.

I still see Aceves, and later Bailey in the 9th inning closer role.

I am curious to see Morales pitch against an AL opponent. Keeping my fingers crossed for Franklin, but Cook presents another option as well.

Morales is an interesting case; it's rare to see a guy come out of the bullpen and start and be successful; sort of like Aceves last year. Perhaps Morales could temporarily fulfill that Aceves role while he stays in the closing role when Beckett returns. I strongly agree that losing confidence is a horrible, horrible turn of events for a young player, especially one playing in such a pressure filled environment where a slump can lead to a 10,000 word rant about how horrible you are by Dan Shaughnessy.

[Double X]

You assume the bullpen will stay healthy, and the rotation as well.

I don't think there was anything in my post that made that assumption. There are only so many innings for relievers to pitch. Even if Morales doesn't pitch another inning in relief, there are a number of relievers who have pitched well. I don't see having Bard in the bullpen as a significant upgrade from what they have now.

Pitchers get hurt, that's definitely true. But starters are more valuable than relievers, and I think this team's bigger weakness is with their starters, not their relievers. Beyond that, as you point out, if someone from the rotation is hurt (as Beckett may be), it would be useful to have Bard figure out how to pitch as a starter.

Of course, if he's decided he'd rather be a reliever, that may indicate he wouldn't be particularly successful as a starter.

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Count me as one of the unrealistic few who thought that Bard would be a good/great starter, not to say the experiment is over completely but it had hit the proverbial wall this year. He has the tools to start but couldn't seem to put it together. In his more recent outings he looked as if he'd forgotten how to pitch altogether. Hopefully the mindset that he's going to be relieving again allows him to shake whatever mechanical and psychological issues he was having and we see the velocity and movement he had in the past. That's really the only thing I'm concerned about at this point.

The pen, on paper, is looking to get very strong with the return of Bard and Bailey, let's hope it translates to actual performances. No matter how crazy Aceves is he's more suited for a setup/longman role and a 7,8,9 of Aceves, Bard, Bailey looks pretty lethal. I like Aceves as closer but I still don't trust him fully. I don't think Bailey should have the closer job handed to him either, he's an unknown quantity at this point, but I'd think Bailey would at least get the opportunity when he returns.

[Sampo Gida]

I think Beckett's shoulder problems are very real, and I'm actually concerned they may linger. The team is certainly downplaying it (maybe in efforts to keep the price down on a trade for another SP, who knows?), but pitchers with shoulder problems are pretty scary.

[/size][/font][/color]
He hasn't given up a hit in 4 appearances since he got back, so I'm not sure how clear that is. I think it was more of a case of "Wasn't ready coming out of Spring Training."

I also fear his shoulder problems are real, especially given his history. It may well be that injuries attributed to other body parts over the past few years were secondary to his shoulder issues, which explains the loss of velocity which persisted even after the "back" problems went away. However, he has shown he can pitch effectively at a reduced velocity, and it may be the shoulder problem is more of a chronic condition that responds well to rest. Hopefully we don't see anymore 125 pitch games.

[Sampo Gida]

I don't think there was anything in my post that made that assumption. There are only so many innings for relievers to pitch. Even if Morales doesn't pitch another inning in relief, there are a number of relievers who have pitched well. I don't see having Bard in the bullpen as a significant upgrade from what they have now.

Pitchers get hurt, that's definitely true. But starters are more valuable than relievers, and I think this team's bigger weakness is with their starters, not their relievers. Beyond that, as you point out, if someone from the rotation is hurt (as Beckett may be), it would be useful to have Bard figure out how to pitch as a starter.

Of course, if he's decided he'd rather be a reliever, that may indicate he wouldn't be particularly successful as a starter.

Again, the implied assumption is that what they have now in terms of effectiveness is what they will have in August/September. At this time last year, Bard and Albers were fantastic. Come August/September, they were awful.

Bard has a proven track record out of the pen, not so as a starter. In order to get him in a position to start again, they have to get him back to where he was when he was effective, which was as a reliever.

If disaster strikes the rotation, and Bard is pitching well out of the pen and we have a surplus of relievers, there is no reason he could not be stretched out again to start. However, I would not recommend it, and the Red Sox could probably trade for a starter with a surplus of relievers (if that's the case) and Youk packaged together before the trading deadline

[OnBase]

I have a question for those who think the Bard as starter was a good idea: what evidence was there to make you think it would work?

Early on, I thought it would. I'd seen him use his secondary pitches very effectively in relief, and he has always seemed like a bright guy in his interviews, one who should be able to figure out how to get batters out the second or third time through a lineup.

As ST progressed, I figured Doubront was a lock for one rotation opening (even though I was still mad at him for showing up not ready last season), and I favored Aceves for the other spot, because he earned it with his performance last year and in the Grapefruit league, and because he has as many pitches as DiceK but throws them all effectively, and becasue he had some successful ML starts on his resume.

As the season progressed and Bard struggled, friends assured me the experiment deserved patience. But Bard wasn't using his secondary pitches effectively as a starter, and worse, his velocity disappeared along with his command, so he didn't even have a fastball to go to for outs.

If he can't locate 99mph, who is he? What made you want him to be a starting pitcher? Was it the velocity? the Verlander II possibility? Where's the evidence he can do the job? Why was he moved to relieving in the first place? Why wasn't the team patient with him after his single A disaster year? And if they weren't then, why should we be now?

I'm not arguing either side, just confessing that my reasons for thinking he could start weren't very good and wondering makes others thinks he can.

[alwyn96]

I have a question for those who think the Bard as starter was a good idea: what evidence was there to make you think it would work?

Early on, I thought it would. I'd seen him use his secondary pitches very effectively in relief, and he has always seemed like a bright guy in his interviews, one who should be able to figure out how to get batters out the second or third time through a lineup.

As ST progressed, I figured Doubront was a lock for one rotation opening (even though I was still mad at him for showing up not ready last season), and I favored Aceves for the other spot, because he earned it with his performance last year and in the Grapefruit league, and because he has as many pitches as DiceK but throws them all effectively, and becasue he had some successful ML starts on his resume.

As the season progressed and Bard struggled, friends assured me the experiment deserved patience. But Bard wasn't using his secondary pitches effectively as a starter, and worse, his velocity disappeared along with his command, so he didn't even have a fastball to go to for outs.

If he can't locate 99mph, who is he? What made you want him to be a starting pitcher? Was it the velocity? the Verlander II possibility? Where's the evidence he can do the job? Why was he moved to relieving in the first place? Why wasn't the team patient with him after his single A disaster year? And if they weren't then, why should we be now?

I'm not arguing either side, just confessing that my reasons for thinking he could start weren't very good and wondering makes others thinks he can.

I guess I'd say, starters are more valuable than relievers. That's why they make way more money. If Bard could be a decent starter, he'd bring a lot more value to the team, particularly with the team bumping up against the luxury tax. He expressed an interest in doing it, and it fit in with the Red Sox plans, so why not? Plenty of great starters have started as relievers. It's how pitchers used to be broken in to the majors, and there have been plenty of high profile successes with that approach lately. It's possible Bard could figure his stuff out and would have eventually become a great starter this year or still might in the future. He was using his secondary pitches fine - he just couldn't locate anything. For whatever reason, he just wasn't able to keep his mechanics together when starting. There's really no way of knowing that that would happen without giving it a try, which I think was worth it. If it had worked out, the payoff could have been enormous.

[OnBase]

I guess I'd say, starters are more valuable than relievers. That's why they make way more money. If Bard could be a decent starter, he'd bring a lot more value to the team, particularly with the team bumping up against the luxury tax. He expressed an interest in doing it, and it fit in with the Red Sox plans, so why not? Plenty of great starters have started as relievers. It's how pitchers used to be broken in to the majors, and there have been plenty of high profile successes with that approach lately. It's possible Bard could figure his stuff out and would have eventually become a great starter this year or still might in the future. He was using his secondary pitches fine - he just couldn't locate anything. For whatever reason, he just wasn't able to keep his mechanics together when starting. There's really no way of knowing that that would happen without giving it a try, which I think was worth it. If it had worked out, the payoff could have been enormous.

I looked at it that way for a while, but I question your last sentence. There was a way to know it could, if not would, happen, because it did happen in 2007. He started 22 games, pitched 75 innings with 78 walks and 47 K's. In 2008, as a reliever, he pitched 77 innings with 107 K's and 30 walks. Until the strikeouts and velocity are back, I'm going to hope that the price of trying wasn't too high.

[alwyn96]

I looked at it that way for a while, but I question your last sentence. There was a way to know it could, if not would, happen, because it did happen in 2007. He started 22 games, pitched 75 innings with 78 walks and 47 K's. In 2008, as a reliever, he pitched 77 innings with 107 K's and 30 walks. Until the strikeouts and velocity are back, I'm going to hope that the price of trying wasn't too high.

Of course, that was 6 years ago in Bard's first professional season. An argument could be made that Bard is a different, more mature pitcher than the one he was that long ago, and that it certainly was not a given that he would struggle. Obviously everyone knew he could have difficulty - it was not a move without risk. You go back far enough into most pitchers who made the the reliever to starter conversion, and you'll see a time when they struggled. It's usually why they were converted to relievers in the first place. CJ Wilson struggled as a starter, so did Johan Santana and Ryan Dempster. The shape of Bard's struggles - the crazy number of walks - makes me think it was a mental thing, and one that he possibly could have gotten over as he matured.

[Sprowl]

Of course, that was 6 years ago in Bard's first professional season. An argument could be made that Bard is a different, more mature pitcher than the one he was that long ago, and that it certainly was not a given that he would struggle. Obviously everyone knew he could have difficulty - it was not a move without risk. You go back far enough into most pitchers who made the the reliever to starter conversion, and you'll see a time when they struggled. It's usually why they were converted to relievers in the first place. CJ Wilson struggled as a starter, so did Johan Santana and Ryan Dempster. The shape of Bard's struggles - the crazy number of walks - makes me think it was a mental thing, and one that he possibly could have gotten over as he matured.

Both the 2007 and the 2012 disasters for Bard were associated with mechanical changes, but the faulty mechanics were not comparable.

Bard's mechanics were altered for his season as a starter in 2007. The Red Sox wanted him to throw more overhand and to add a 12-to-6 curve, which he tried to do. It failed quite dramatically. The next year he returned to a three-quarters delivery and the bullpen.

Bard's mechanics went haywire starting in August 2011, and he hasn't been able to stabilize his delivery since then, but the mechanical drift was in a different direction -- more sidearm. When he throws from a 10 o'clock release point, he can't command the fastball or keep it down in the strike zone. If he can simplify his repertoire, returning to the 4-seam fastball and slider, and repeat his delivery from the same three-quarters arm slot, I would be optimistic about his return to form as a relief ace.

[OnBase]

Alwyn, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

Sprowl, pitching mechanics are beyond my expertise, but I can appreciate the concepts. My question is - given his 2007 and late 2011 history, why did anybody think starting was the fix? It would seem to me that step one was getting the fastball command/velocity combo back before working on a pitch mix or a role change.

[Sprowl]

Alwyn, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

Sprowl, pitching mechanics are beyond my expertise, but I can appreciate the concepts. My question is - given his 2007 and late 2011 history, why did anybody think starting was the fix? It would seem to me that step one was getting the fastball command/velocity combo back before working on a pitch mix or a role change.

Starting wasn't a fix, but a promotion, for reasons alwyn already discussed. In my opinion, it was reasonable to think that Bard had his fastball command and velocity under control, and that his 2011 collapse was just part of the team's more general collapse. Further, Bard showed the movement on the 2-seamer and various reports praised his changeup as a legitimate pitch (although it hasn't looked so great in the major leagues). Certainly his sinker showed great movement (see the Swisher.gif), if he could have maintained his mid-season 2011 command with a four-pitch repertoire.

He couldn't. Now the fix is to recover mechanical consistency and fastball velocity along with the slider. Forget about the ancillary pitches.

[JWSpringfield]

With Bard returning to the bullpen and a possible overstock at the closer position does that open up the possibility of Aceves starting?

[Troy O'Lovely]

With Bard returning to the bullpen and a possible overstock at the closer position does that open up the possibility of Aceves starting?

I wondered this myself. Given that it looks as if we may be ending the Cook project sooner rather than later I wondered if they wouldn't give Aceves another shot, especially if they fade out of contention. He's really been a pretty effective pitcher, with his worst ERA+ year (2009) coming in a year where he only allowed 1.01 WHIP. This year seems to be his worst statistically, which would mean he'd make a better starter than reliever.
Not that I think they will, but if the Sox want to clean house how many short term pitching prospects are there? I count Tazawa, Aceves and Zach Stewart, with maybe Chris Hernandez towards the end of next year. They won't know how legitimate their prospects are unless they give them a chance to start.

Edited by Troy O'Lovely, 05 August 2012 - 01:37 PM.

[threecy]

His numbers in Pawtucket are still terrible - 6.41 ERA, 22 BB in 26.2 IP. Much worse than his 2012 MLB line in fact.

Interestingly enough, he has a 0.68 ERA with no runners on.

Post All Star Break, his ERA is down (4.38 vs 8.16). but he's still walked 12 in 12.1 innings (a higher rate than before the break).

On the bright side, opponents are only hitting .227 and are striking out on average once an inning.

Doesn't look like he's turning anything around, statistically.

[Chris12345]

Ben's tinkering turned a great set up guy into Mark Wolhers...

FIRE BEN!!!

[SamK]

Perhaps the "possible overstock" in the pen is a lead up to a waiver move?

[alwyn96]

EDIT: Nevermind.

Edited by alwyn96, 12 August 2012 - 01:59 PM.

[guido57]

I guess I'd say, starters are more valuable than relievers. That's why they make way more money. If Bard could be a decent starter, he'd bring a lot more value to the team, particularly with the team bumping up against the luxury tax. He expressed an interest in doing it, and it fit in with the Red Sox plans, so why not? Plenty of great starters have started as relievers. It's how pitchers used to be broken in to the majors, and there have been plenty of high profile successes with that approach lately. It's possible Bard could figure his stuff out and would have eventually become a great starter this year or still might in the future. He was using his secondary pitches fine - he just couldn't locate anything. For whatever reason, he just wasn't able to keep his mechanics together when starting. There's really no way of knowing that that would happen without giving it a try, which I think was worth it. If it had worked out, the payoff could have been enormous.

I thought it was going to be hugely successful, and was surely worth the risk.
Do you think Bard has the tenacity to get his stuff together again?
When he was right as the setup guy for Paps, he was money.
I think over time and with the proper coaching he can come back and be
the pitcher he once was, maybe even a bit wiser. Time will tell.

[BoredViewer]

If Bard gets back to being a very effective ML pitcher, I'd definitely be open to moving him if his name comes up in trade talks. He just feels to fragile mechanically... maybe mentally... Not saying I'd give him away - but I'd certainly be willing to listen if another team was interested.

[Troy O'Lovely]

I also believed it would work and was worth the risk. Obviously it went as far south as it could have, but consider:
Starters are harder to come by and in spring training we essentially needed another one. The downside of losing a reliever is easier to fix than the downside of not having good starting pitching. Our year right now is proving that point. We essentially did the same thing with Morales as we did with Bard, and it's working out great.
Given those points, I'd have made the same decision with Bard. Because it didn't work out doesn't mean it was a bad decision.

[rglenmt]

After Beckett's and Lester's and, for that matter Bard's, disappointing September 2011, converting Bard to be a starter, his desire, it was worth a try. Not so uncommon, switching back and forth bullpen to starter, starter to bullpen, and so on. Wakefield, Lowe, John Stoltz had the same experience preceded many time, Dave Righetti being an example I first remember. It is really up to Daniel Bard, how successfully he returns to being an asset in the bullpen. If he is not so fragile so he overcomes mental and physical (mechanical) problems, he'll ultimately be a better ML pitcher and will get other opportunities to be a starter. If not, likely Daniel would have had further serious problems out of the bullpen this Season or in the next few.

respectully submitted,

rglenmt f/k/a pudgefick

[threecy]

We're seeing what the "risk" is now. He had past history of potential Steve Blass Disease. It looks like it's back, without much sign of improvement.

[BoredViewer]

Is this assumption that the cause is "pitching as a starter in 2012," correct?

As mentioned, Bard had a very miserable Sept. in 2011... 9 BB in 11IP... 1.82 WHIP... 10.64 ERA... - maybe "it" started then. Or, maybe his mechanics/concentration/whatever was always tenuous and he really IS our version of Daniel Cabrera, who just happened to have a nice run as a reliever before having his natural inconsistency exposed by starting.

[threecy]

Four bad appearances in a row, August 9-16:
4 IP, 9 R, 6 ER, 9 BB, 4K

[Back Bay]

I don't know if it would help, let him be a ROOGY.

[threecy]

So now Bard seems to think his struggles were related to a bad back:
http://bleacherrepor...asons-struggles

I probably didn't tell a lot of it to the trainers, and probably should have gotten treatment on it pretty regularly, but at the same time I was trying to make the rotation and I didn't want to miss a start, which would have hurt my chances. I just kind of pitched though it… I've had lower back stiffness throughout my whole career, this was just a little bit more.

Edited by threecy, 30 December 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[Sampo Gida]

So now Bard seems to think his struggles were related to a bad back:
http://bleacherrepor...asons-struggles

Earlier in the interview he said

It was bothering me in between most of my starts, just having to get treatment every day

If he had to get treatment every day the trainers, manager and GM knew what was going on.

His latter comments may have been damage control since my initial reaction which is probably typical was "WTF?!?!, they let Bard pitch an entire season at drastically reduced velocity and effectiveness with a bad back?"


Bards problems really started in September the previous year. You have to wonder if there is something going on with him we still don't know. Perhaps the back problems come from changing his mechanics to address some other injury, for example a shoulder problem (which may have prompted the move to starter much like they tried to do with Paps), I dunno, but seems we always learn about pitchers physical issues during a season in the offseason and not sure we get the full story even then.

[Hugh G Rection]

Bard is looking for any and every reason to explain his loss of command. This is a cruch. I'm not saying he didn't have a bad back, but I find it hard to believe that the back was an issue every single appearence at both the MLB and AAA.

But....... If he thinks it was because of his back, let him think that. Then when he gets treatment he'll believe he's better and hopefully pitch better. It's all a mental thing anyway and if that's what it takes to get him to believe that he can succeed then go with it.

I personally believe he has a shoulder injury that is not showing pain, but is inducing lack of control and loss in velocity. Either that or it's just the Steve Blass thing and he's a headcase, which would lead to it possibly being unfixable.

[sancap14]

Bard has been terrible since the 2nd half of 2011 with varying levels of suck. I'd be surprised to see him suddenly regain his velocity but here's hoping I'm wrong. Either way the bullpen should be set with or without him.

[keyalyn]

His control tanked in September 2011, but his average FB velocity in every appearance that month was 96 or over. His velocity didn't drop until last season, which would be expected from a transition to become a starting pitcher. It remained low even after the transition back to the bullpen, but again that isn't all that unexpected given that he prepared to be a starter in the off season, Spring Training and the first few months of the season. I'd expect it would be more likely for his velocity to return after an off season and ST preparing to be a reliever, rather than the situation he as in last year. This is not to say that I expect pre-2012 Bard to return in full force, but just that I don't believe the drop in velocity is an irreversible problem.

[Sampo Gida]

His control tanked in September 2011, but his average FB velocity in every appearance that month was 96 or over. His velocity didn't drop until last season, which would be expected from a transition to become a starting pitcher. It remained low even after the transition back to the bullpen, but again that isn't all that unexpected given that he prepared to be a starter in the off season, Spring Training and the first few months of the season. I'd expect it would be more likely for his velocity to return after an off season and ST preparing to be a reliever, rather than the situation he as in last year. This is not to say that I expect pre-2012 Bard to return in full force, but just that I don't believe the drop in velocity is an irreversible problem.

He had a couple of appearances under 96 in September where his max struggled to hit 97 but with arm problems command is sometimes the first to go sometimes with lower arm slots followed by velocity. Sometimes the problems are without pain making diagnosis difficult (Michael Pineda comes to mind). Pineda suffered performance issues in the 2nd half of 2011 due to command and a slight drop in velocity and then velocity drop of greater magnitude in ST of 2012 before experiencing some pain.


I would like to know another pitcher who suffered a reversible drop in velocity of this magnitude before getting too optimistic. I guess we shall see in ST.

[keyalyn]

I completely agree that injury potentially caused a great deal of his troubles last season, and if he was injured rather than just a headcase it speaks to a much higher chance of him improving. An injured pitcher moving from the bullpen to the rotation is going to see his velocity plummet. Other pitchers making the conversion from reliever to starter have seen their FB velocity drop by 3-4mph (Wilson, Sale), while Chamberlain who has made the transition from reliever to starter to reliever saw his velocity drop and regain 2-2.5mph. The same can be said about players who pitched while injured. Seeing a drop from Bard was expected, and if he was injured that makes it all the more likely.

[alwyn96]

I completely agree that injury potentially caused a great deal of his troubles last season, and if he was injured rather than just a headcase it speaks to a much higher chance of him improving. An injured pitcher moving from the bullpen to the rotation is going to see his velocity plummet. Other pitchers making the conversion from reliever to starter have seen their FB velocity drop by 3-4mph (Wilson, Sale), while Chamberlain who has made the transition from reliever to starter to reliever saw his velocity drop and regain 2-2.5mph. The same can be said about players who pitched while injured. Seeing a drop from Bard was expected, and if he was injured that makes it all the more likely.

Injury would certainly be the simplest explanation for Bard's crappy starter performance, although of course not every crappy performance is as a result of injury. Some pitchers are basically in constant pain for their entire careers but it doesn't really effect their performance. Others just fall apart for no obvious reason that may or may not be due to some subclinical injury.

Ultimately, as a fan, it doesn't really matter what the cause is, you just gotta hope Bard & Friends figure it out.