Building a Bullpen, 2019 edition

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,774
Here’s a take on the pen that I tend to share.

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/3/20/18272417/red-sox-opening-day-lineup-bullpen-projections-world-series-winner

As grateful as I am for last year, I don’t think I’ve ever been this concerned about a possible fatal flaw plaguing a defending champion on opening day in any sport.

I recognize that DD can recover from a bad beginning, if it happens. He can augment. And that the team outside the pen is stacked.
This. It's a bullpen game now, starters are preserved with lower pitch counts and it is essential to have good weapons coming out of the pen, especially in the regular season.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
108 win seasons don’t grow on trees. You can win 95-100 and still be incredibly formidable. Can’t assume that happens again.
Thirteen games is a MASSIVE swing, and you attributed that to the assumption they'd only get there because of bottom feeders. Based off what, exactly?

You really think Kimbrel and Kelly are worth that?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
Really guys? I’d sign up for 95 wins in a heartbeat.
Yeah, as much as I loved last year's squad and know they were a dominant team, 108 wins was an overachievement. They were a 103 win team by pythagorean W-L. The loses in the pen might not be worth more than a win or two but I could see the overall offense take a slight step back and drop the win expectancy down a couple. I don't see 95-98 wins as pessimistic at all.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
Yeah, as much as I loved last year's squad and know they were a dominant team, 108 wins was an overachievement. They were a 103 win team by pythagorean W-L. The loses in the pen might not be worth more than a win or two but I could see the overall offense take a slight step back and drop the win expectancy down a couple. I don't see 95-98 wins as pessimistic at all.
First off, the post I called out stated 95 wins and only that because of bottomfeeders. That's certifiable horseshit.

Past that, there still isn't a reasonable reason to expect them to drop eight games, let alone thirteen. Perhaps if Mookie snapped a leg in half and managed to somehow Beltre JBJ in the act of doing so or JD and Sale decided they'd rather retire and be traveling monks. This is a 100-win squad or better all day with neutral luck.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
First off, the post I called out stated 95 wins and only that because of bottomfeeders. That's certifiable horseshit.

Past that, there still isn't a reasonable reason to expect them to drop eight games, let alone thirteen. Perhaps if Mookie snapped a leg in half and managed to somehow Beltre JBJ in the act of doing so or JD and Sale decided they'd rather retire and be traveling monks. This is a 100-win squad or better all day with neutral luck.
I don’t see how it’s a 100 win team IF they don’t find a reliable closer and shore up the pen in general. Right now I see the weak spot on last year’s squad, which did over achieve, having gotten weaker. If 103 wins was the Pythagorean mark, then yeah, I think without a move or two they are more than 3 games worse. Now maybe DD will adjust. But he has sucked at bullpen forever, and he got bailed out in October by his starters and his Midas touch manager.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
First off, the post I called out stated 95 wins and only that because of bottomfeeders. That's certifiable horseshit.

Past that, there still isn't a reasonable reason to expect them to drop eight games, let alone thirteen. Perhaps if Mookie snapped a leg in half and managed to somehow Beltre JBJ in the act of doing so or JD and Sale decided they'd rather retire and be traveling monks. This is a 100-win squad or better all day with neutral luck.
The 1999 Yankees won 16 fewer games (98) than the 1998 version (114) with essentially the same roster. They had no catastrophic injuries or retirements. The only significant change was swapping David Wells for Roger Clemens. I don't think it's "horseshit" to suggest that the team can still be very very good but win 10-12 fewer games regardless of how we think they'll get there (via beating bottom feeders or not).
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
...I don't think it's "horseshit" to suggest that the team can still be very very good but win 10-12 fewer games...
I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation on 2018 AL data, specifically the correlation between OPS+ and wins for each team and ERA+ and wins for each team. Since the coefficient of correlation was high (over .9) in both cases, I then did a multiple linear regression analysis to see how well OPS+ and ERA+ predicted wins. That also produced various R values of over .9 with a standard error of ~4.969 and a formula of Wins = 1.075803864(OPS+) + 0.685798442(ERA+) - 96.86971953.

Plugging in the Red Sox values of OPS+ of 112 and ERA+ of 117, the predicted wins was approximately 103.9, which is close to the pythagorean prediction. Reducing the OPS+ to 100 (roughly 10%), shrunk the win total to about 91 while reducing the ERA+ to 105 (again roughly 10%), shrunk the win total to roughly 95.6. Dropping each by 5 points reduces the win total to about 95 wins.

A long-term injury to a premium player, failure of top players to equal 2018 production could easily cut the team's winning percentage enough to keep them out of post season.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
The following is not measurable and I can’t back it up. But I think that part of why the Sox did better than their expected 103 was down to stuff like karma, energy and good morale. Cora deserves a lot of credit for that in my view. But one thing that can put a dent in that is a bunch of blown leads/saves. Clearly, that happens every year. To wit, opening day in 2018. But if it happens repeatedly, it can affect all that.

If that’s accurate, and I think it is but obviously can’t prove it, the gap in results could be wider than what the numbers might suggest.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Here’s a take on the pen that I tend to share.

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/3/20/18272417/red-sox-opening-day-lineup-bullpen-projections-world-series-winner

As grateful as I am for last year, I don’t think I’ve ever been this concerned about a possible fatal flaw plaguing a defending champion on opening day in any sport.

I recognize that DD can recover from a bad beginning, if it happens. He can augment. And that the team outside the pen is stacked.
The post-WS Marlin teams probably had more concerns.
(EDITED for plurals)

But one thing that can put a dent in that is a bunch of blown leads/saves. Clearly, that happens every year. To wit, opening day in 2018. But if it happens repeatedly, it can affect all that.
If that’s accurate, and I think it is but obviously can’t prove it, the gap in results could be wider than what the numbers might suggest.
Its not a question of proof of the affect on karma. The fact is that, if the bullpen sucks, a team is unlikely to have success because they will lose lots of games. A bunch of blown leads usually mean a bunch of losses. If a nut-punch loss is the first one in a 10 game losing streak or some other bad stretch, its not the nut-punch that caused the streak.
 
Last edited:

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,461
Somewhere
There may be more bullpen emphasis these days but at the end of the day, there’s not a lot of spread among relievers once you get past the first tier. And plenty of teams get burned by paying for prior performance in the bullpen. My guess is that the Sox are going to buy later, once early injuries, underperformance, etc are sorted.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
I don’t see how it’s a 100 win team IF they don’t find a reliable closer and shore up the pen in general. Right now I see the weak spot on last year’s squad, which did over achieve, having gotten weaker. If 103 wins was the Pythagorean mark, then yeah, I think without a move or two they are more than 3 games worse. Now maybe DD will adjust. But he has sucked at bullpen forever, and he got bailed out in October by his starters and his Midas touch manager.
This is some serious post hoc bullshit.
It was a "weak spot that overachieved last year." Maybe it wasn't a weak spot.
DD got "bailed out."? Really? The only reliever that sucked in the playoffs last year was Kimbrel. Do you really think getting him was yet another DD bullpen failure? If he had been his regular-season self in October, there probably would have been considerably less use of starters. Or, use of starters was Cora's intentional "strategy," not some panicked cover-up for his suck-ass GM.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
I don't think the pen overachieved last year. I think it performed kind of average. I think they won 108 games because the offense opened up a lot of close games in the 6th-8th innings and prevented some losses that a lot of normal teams and seasons would have.

There's a reason no Sox team had won 100 games in most of our lifetime. It's really fucking hard. To expect them to do it again is crazy IMO. Again, I'd take 95 wins today if I had the chance.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,084
I'd absolutely take 95 wins today. You'd be crazy not too. We just saw the BEST TEAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE FRANCHISE. That isn't really a baseline. You also have 2 teams in your division who are hunting for 95+ wins.

This shit isn't going to be easy.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
This is some serious post hoc bullshit.
It was a "weak spot that overachieved last year." Maybe it wasn't a weak spot.
DD got "bailed out."? Really? The only reliever that sucked in the playoffs last year was Kimbrel. Do you really think getting him was yet another DD bullpen failure? If he had been his regular-season self in October, there probably would have been considerably less use of starters. Or, use of starters was Cora's intentional "strategy," not some panicked cover-up for his suck-ass GM.
This is kind of misleading. The Sox basically used only four relievers at all. Workman was bombed in his one appearance, and Hembree, though he didn't allow a run, was hardly trustworthy and walked a third of the guys he faced.

To me, the starters stepped in because they were clearly better than the back end of the bullpen, even if they were already pretty gassed.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,273
London, England
To me I think that every year that you expect to have a contender you target 95 wins as your goal. Since MLB went to the 2 WC team format in 2012 no team has won as many as 92 games and failed to make the playoffs. Actually, if you extend back to 1996 (the first full year following the strike) and apply current playoff rules, the only teams who would have missed the playoffs with more than 90 wins were the 2013 Rangers (91-61) and whomever would have lost a 1-game play-in between the 2002 Red Sox and Mariners (93-69).

So a 95-win team who gets unlucky and drops a few below their pythag should still make the playoffs pretty much every year. Granted, in the AL East they'd miss the Division title more often than you'd win it and falling into the WC game is not where you'd like to be, but it wouldn't be a disaster either and in most years a 95-win team is in the hunt for the Division pretty much right until the end. That's what I'm after in a baseball season and everything else is the gravy that you hope for but can't 'expect'.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,273
London, England
Of course this is the bullpen thread and I've gone off piste. Suffice it to say my opinion is despite the importance of bullpen usage in the current evolution of the game, I believe that reliever performance year-on-year is inherently less predictable than hitting, fielding and starting pitching and so therefore should not be the focus of spending. Yes, you have to be a bit lucky to get a couple of Ryan Brasier seasons or to spend $8.25mm on the open market for 2 years of a 38-year old setup man and suddenly realise you bought Koji Freakin' Uehara, but these things seem to happen with relievers fairly often as do the sudden implosions of Eric Gagnes and Zach Brittons (projecting here - he hasn't imploded yet but merely declined).

edit: typo
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
There's a reason no Sox team had won 100 games in most of our lifetime. It's really fucking hard. To expect them to do it again is crazy IMO. Again, I'd take 95 wins today if I had the chance.
100% this. I think anyone expecting a regression to 100+ wins is going to be disappointed and that doesn’t mean I don’t think they will be a very, very good team
 

Coachster

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2009
8,945
New Hampshire
Interesting conversation, but let's be realistic, we're a week from opening day. Who are the bullpen guys going to be as we break camp? Seven-man pen? Eight?

Barnes, Brasier (is his foot OK?) Hembree, and Colten Brewer seem to be locks.

And then what? Workman has been awful. Thornburg has been awful. Velazquez has been awful (and has options.) Johnson has been bad. Do they keep Johnson, Hernandez and Poyner, and have three situational lefties? What about the minor league invitees? Do they keep Jenrry Mejia from the get-go?

I'm not worried about any of our out-of-options guys being claimed, except maybe Johnson. Who the hell would want them?

What do you all think? I'm out of ideas.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Of course this is the bullpen thread and I've gone off piste. Suffice it to say my opinion is despite the importance of bullpen usage in the current evolution of the game, I believe that reliever performance year-on-year is inherently less predictable than hitting, fielding and starting pitching and so therefore should not be the focus of spending. Yes, you have to be a bit lucky to get a couple of Ryan Brasier seasons or to spend $8.25mm on the open market for 2 years of a 38-year old setup man and suddenly realise you bought Koji Freakin' Uehara, but these things seem to happen with relievers fairly often as do the sudden implosions of Eric Gagnes and Zach Brittons (projecting here - he hasn't imploded yet but merely declined).

edit: typo
That’s all very true from a cursory look at the data and it’s interesting to go further in thinking about what the strategy should be.

First, variation in reliever outcomes breaks down into variation in heath, variation in execution, and variation in small samples. You can’t control the first or third, but you can control the second. That is why we can observe that closers are much less volatile than middle relievers. This suggests that underlying talent is still the best way to limit the overall variation in relief pitcher outcomes and the key commodity you should purchase. Hence, the trend toward paying for a “second” closer (or, if you’re on the Yankees budget, 4 closers).

The other aspect of the “let’s wait and fix it later” approach to pens also can be analyzed by breaking down those three sources of relief pitcher variation. By “fix it later” teams seem to imply that within season variation is lower than cross season variation. Is that true?

If you know someone is healthy on July 31st trade deadline does that mean he’s a better bet to still be healthy in October than the guy you signed the previous winter? Depending on your assumptions of the injury distribution I guess.

Small sample size will create more volatility in a deadline acquisition than over a full season. That could go for you or against you, but in this decomposition you can’t predict it. And, the “success stories” that were really just good luck combined with confirmation biases that cause teams to attribute success to their brilliance and failure to bad luck may be biasing teams toward the fix it later approach.

That brings us to “variation in execution.” Do we think there’s a real “hot hand” component to relievers distinct from small sample size? That’s essentially what the “fox it later because relievers are volatile” argument boils down to. We know “hot hand” doesn’t hold in basketball. Has there been a study in baseball relievers?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Interesting conversation, but let's be realistic, we're a week from opening day. Who are the bullpen guys going to be as we break camp? Seven-man pen? Eight?

Barnes, Brasier (is his foot OK?) Hembree, and Colten Brewer seem to be locks.

And then what? Workman has been awful. Thornburg has been awful. Velazquez has been awful (and has options.) Johnson has been bad. Do they keep Johnson, Hernandez and Poyner, and have three situational lefties? What about the minor league invitees? Do they keep Jenrry Mejia from the get-go?

I'm not worried about any of our out-of-options guys being claimed, except maybe Johnson. Who the hell would want them?

What do you all think? I'm out of ideas.
I think they keep Workman, he has 2 years of successful middle relief under his belt. The big decision is whether they keep Hernandez, who’s been great, over one of the guys they’ll have to expose to waivers.

Does Thornburg have enough service time to opt for free agency if he clears waivers? I doubt he’d get claimed, so if they can outright him to Pawtucket that would be a good outcome, just in case he rallies later in the year the way Harvey did late last season for Cincy.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
Interesting conversation, but let's be realistic, we're a week from opening day. Who are the bullpen guys going to be as we break camp? Seven-man pen? Eight?

Barnes, Brasier (is his foot OK?) Hembree, and Colten Brewer seem to be locks.

And then what? Workman has been awful. Thornburg has been awful. Velazquez has been awful (and has options.) Johnson has been bad. Do they keep Johnson, Hernandez and Poyner, and have three situational lefties? What about the minor league invitees? Do they keep Jenrry Mejia from the get-go?

I'm not worried about any of our out-of-options guys being claimed, except maybe Johnson. Who the hell would want them?

What do you all think? I'm out of ideas.
It's an 7 man pen out of the gate. Johnson will be in the rotation (6-man) the first time through.

My guess:
Barnes
Brasier
Hembree
Workman
Thornburg
Velazquez
Brewer
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
The post-WS Marlin teams probably had more concerns.
(EDITED for plurals)



Its not a question of proof of the affect on karma. The fact is that, if the bullpen sucks, a team is unlikely to have success because they will lose lots of games. A bunch of blown leads usually mean a bunch of losses. If a nut-punch loss is the first one in a 10 game losing streak or some other bad stretch, its not the nut-punch that caused the streak.
I don’t see it as either/or. Of course losing games is most important. But I think one of the many things the 2018 Sox had going for them was, for lack of a better term, good karma. That wide category can be adversely affected by blown games, and if the pen doesn’t get fixed, they will indeed lose some games late and possibly stress the clubhouse if it becomes a trend.
 
Last edited:

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
This is some serious post hoc bullshit.
It was a "weak spot that overachieved last year." Maybe it wasn't a weak spot.
DD got "bailed out."? Really? The only reliever that sucked in the playoffs last year was Kimbrel. Do you really think getting him was yet another DD bullpen failure? If he had been his regular-season self in October, there probably would have been considerably less use of starters. Or, use of starters was Cora's intentional "strategy," not some panicked cover-up for his suck-ass GM.
Yes, really. Sorry if it eludes you but the 2018 pen was not particularly strong. The numbers back that up, and the article I attached makes what I think most Sox fans knew going into October clear.

That Cora had to use starters to get so many playoff reliever outs, many of which were high leverage, screams that the pen was deficient. Sure it became a strategy, out of necessity, but it was high risk. Would it have been at all surprising if one or more of the starters suffered adverse affects in subsequent starts from their pen innings? That it all worked out was glorious...but it was a bit fortuitous, too.

Damn right that the starters and deft management by Cora effectively covered up DD’s failure to better augment the pen during the season.

That’s not post hoc and it’s not bullshit. Before the playoffs began many of us noted that the pen was a concern and that the only path forward was to use starters. Great, it worked, but that not a regular season path, and as noted, it carried some risk.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
@bradfo: Alex Cora says there are three spots up for grabs in Red Sox bullpen

@PeteAbe: Alex Cora said Jenrry Mejia has a chance to make the #RedSox out of minor league camp.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
I have a major problem with someone who has been suspended for life from the game for using performance enhancing drugs being reinstated a couple of years later when some of baseball,s truly great players have been excluded from the Hall of Fame for the same reason (be it factual or rumored). I realize that MLB doesn't elect players to the Hall but they also have not done anything to help those players achieve the status they deserve.
 

flymrfreakjar

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
2,915
Brooklyn
Not sure if I heard it right but the broadcast mentioned that Barnes had been tipping. He looked dominant today while striking out the side in order- minimal pitches and a bunch of swinging strikes.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
I have a major problem with someone who has been suspended for life from the game for using performance enhancing drugs being reinstated a couple of years later when some of baseball,s truly great players have been excluded from the Hall of Fame for the same reason (be it factual or rumored). I realize that MLB doesn't elect players to the Hall but they also have not done anything to help those players achieve the status they deserve.
Those players got to play their whole careers without even getting suspended.
 

flymrfreakjar

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
2,915
Brooklyn
Brewer looked fantastic again, also striking out the side (with a weak infield hit). Nice to see the pen string together a bunch of zeroes.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Not sure if I heard it right but the broadcast mentioned that Barnes had been tipping. He looked dominant today while striking out the side in order- minimal pitches and a bunch of swinging strikes.
Globe had this a few days ago. Dana "Don't call me Hersey" LeVangie came out and fixed him in the middle of an inning. I think it was the Braves game?
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Thornburg walked three batters in one inning yesterday. He should not be on the opening day roster.
He’s been bad.

But so has Brian Johnson. And the other candidates are Colten Brewer, Darwinzon Hernandez, Bobby Poyner, Hector Velazquez, Marcus Walden and Brandon Workman.

Other than Hernandez, that’s not a group that generates a lot of high upside optimism. And he walked three in his inning against the Rays on Thursday.

There’s also Jenrry Mejia. He’s allowed four runs over seven innings but also struck out nine.

If you want to be optimistic, or even just even keeled, you say that despite what we’ve seen, Thornburg has upside and they are smartly showing patience. If you want to go the other way, you note that he isn’t exactly competing with a group of heavy weights so you may as well let it ride a bit.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
That Cora had to use starters to get so many playoff reliever outs, many of which were high leverage, screams that the pen was deficient. Sure it became a strategy, out of necessity, but it was high risk. Would it have been at all surprising if one or more of the starters suffered adverse affects in subsequent starts from their pen innings? That it all worked out was glorious...but it was a bit fortuitous, too.

Everything that works, in your view, seems to be "fortuitous" because fans who know shit (myself included), were "worried."
Perhaps its the result of planning. As I recall, about 17 seconds after the Sox acquired Eovaldi, Cora was talking about how effective he might be in post-season relief.
Maybe unlike pants-wetting fans, the team accurately figured that the bullpen was good enough for the team during the regular season and the staff as a whole was good enough for the playoffs.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Thornburg should be cut. One of those guys who can't pitch in Boston or just is cooked period. Damn shame he couldn't stay healthy. See if you can package him with Leon to get some type of value back. I would love to see Mejia and Hernandez break camp with the team
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
Everything that works, in your view, seems to be "fortuitous" because fans who know shit (myself included), were "worried."
Perhaps its the result of planning. As I recall, about 17 seconds after the Sox acquired Eovaldi, Cora was talking about how effective he might be in post-season relief.
Maybe unlike pants-wetting fans, the team accurately figured that the bullpen was good enough for the team during the regular season and the staff as a whole was good enough for the playoffs.
100% agree.
And there was no doubt this was a well-thought out premeditated strategy, which the RS will continue to employ for this coming year. In fact, I am sure it will end up becoming the league paradigm in playoff BP usage. Since most team's best pitchers are starters, using them in relief in the playoffs during their normal bullpen day makes sense in the playoffs when every game is critical. The playoffs just can't be approached the same way as the marathon of the regular season. If the RS make the playoffs, I am sure we will again see all of their starters pitch out of the BP. A area of relative weakness thus becomes an area of strength. I also would expect this paradigm shift (of course it was used frequently by many teams previously to the RS use last year, but without the same regularity) to effect relievers' and starters' salaries, by decreases in the former and increases in the latter.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
Thornburg should be cut. One of those guys who can't pitch in Boston or just is cooked period. Damn shame he couldn't stay healthy. See if you can package him with Leon to get some type of value back. I would love to see Mejia and Hernandez break camp with the team
I live in Boston and can confirm the entire city has not been relocated to Florida. Nor has the regular season been rescheduled to start a month early. So no, I don't think Thornburg's problems are dealing with pressure. He's just not physically capable of pitching well and may never be again.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
This is all so hard to assess. We don't know what's technically going on with the relievers. One thing I'm certain of is that pitching stats in Spring Training sit on the biggest grain of salt in Florida. I'm also certain that the coaching staff is looking at the pitcher, not the batter - because striking out some AA wanabee is as meaningless as giving up a hit to a major leaguer when the pitcher may be trying shit out at a coach's instruction.

I agree that Barnes' pitches looked good yesterday and that Thornburg was wild, but what I think isn't very useful - particularly since I'm watching on TV.

In short, I'd like to read more about what the insiders think...except that spring training is also a time for intense propaganda.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Thornburg should be cut. One of those guys who can't pitch in Boston or just is cooked period. Damn shame he couldn't stay healthy. See if you can package him with Leon to get some type of value back. I would love to see Mejia and Hernandez break camp with the team
I think cooked is more likely of the two, but its hard to tell from a few games on TV. Id rather see Hernandez and Feltman get some more run above A ball first, but could easily imagine both in Boston before September.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,991
Newton
Does Thornburg have options? If not, and the others do, I’d expect him to make the team out of ST based on Cora’s comments and for the other guys to start the season in the minors.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Everything that works, in your view, seems to be "fortuitous" because fans who know shit (myself included), were "worried."
Perhaps its the result of planning. As I recall, about 17 seconds after the Sox acquired Eovaldi, Cora was talking about how effective he might be in post-season relief.
Maybe unlike pants-wetting fans, the team accurately figured that the bullpen was good enough for the team during the regular season and the staff as a whole was good enough for the playoffs.
Hey man, I know you often write aggressive posts in general so I don’t actually give a fuck. But you’re just wrong and silly with the pants wetting stuff.

Whatever worked in October can be categorized however you like. But it’s irrelevant to the point about the pen in the 2019 regular season.

That’s because whatever worked in October, and whether it was by design, fortuitous or whatever else, is not a blue print for 162 games. The pen needed help in the playoffs, it got it and it won’t get it with any regularity in 2019.