Gosh, that's a real shame.And the winner is... Kutter Crawford.
Gosh, that's a real shame.And the winner is... Kutter Crawford.
Yes, let us hope the impact remains low and that the Sox do well in Toronto over the course of the season.Only two players, and only one of any significance, not able to go to Toronto is better than expected. Hopefully that's the highest such numbers for the remainder of the season.
Not that they are players but I guess Ecjk and O'Brien are not vaxxed either since they are broadcasting from the NESN studios and not the Toronto ballpark. What a shame. I am particularly upset by Eck a Hall of Famer who could set a good example for the younger players by getting vaxxed. What an idiot for not getting vaxxedIt's the service time part that gets me. The season is 187 days long and to get credit for a full season, one needs to accrue 172 days. Subtract the 10 days lost (maybe 11 depending on whether the player is re-activated on the off-day in June) and the most one can accrue is 177 (or 176). One quick trip to Worcester because of an unexpected roster crunch and you're putting free agency off by a year, not to mention potentially changing arbitration eligibility. For optionable players like Houck and Crawford, that could have an outsized impact on their future earnings. The team is likely to manipulate service time as much as they can anyway (especially a guy who has a bright future like Houck) so why do them any favors?
Are you concussed?Not that they are players but I guess Ecjk and O'Brien are not vaxxed either since they are broadcasting from the NESN studios and not the Toronto ballpark. What a shame. I am particularly upset by Eck a Hall of Famer who could set a good example for the younger players by getting vaxxed. What an idiot for not getting vaxxed
Are you sure about that? Before the season NESN planned to do a limited amount of road trips in studio ostensibly as a cost saving measure. They're so cheap they didn't travel with the Bruins at all.Not that they are players but I guess Ecjk and O'Brien are not vaxxed either since they are broadcasting from the NESN studios and not the Toronto ballpark. What a shame. I am particularly upset by Eck a Hall of Famer who could set a good example for the younger players by getting vaxxed. What an idiot for not getting vaxxed
Nice try.Not that they are players but I guess Ecjk and O'Brien are not vaxxed either since they are broadcasting from the NESN studios and not the Toronto ballpark. What a shame. I am particularly upset by Eck a Hall of Famer who could set a good example for the younger players by getting vaxxed. What an idiot for not getting vaxxed
You could have done without the first sentenceAre you concussed?
NESN is too cheap to send them on the road.
Kutter and Tanner. JFC.I mean, he's named Kutter.
Are we that surprised?
Up until a few days ago, it was Kutter, Tanner, and Xander. The -er names were getting a lot of run.Kutter and Tanner. JFC.
"Personal" in that it affects only one's self? Not so much.I'm so disgusted with Houck I'd demote him to Worcester right now until he grows up. His "personal decision" has directly led to three losses on the trip.
I believe they can call up a non 40 for co-vid IL replacement.By the way, I hope the Mods/Dopes would let us know if we're getting too close to any sort of line.
That said, IMO, Kutter/Tanner's decisions and their impact on the team are fair game for this thread.
While many of the impacts are going to be speculative in nature, they're no more speculative than what would happen if they both were on the IL for different reason. So I think it's pefectly legitimate to note that Whitlock, being pressed into a starter's role, is now not available out of the bullpen.
I do have to wonder if the Sox shouldn't have called up a AAA starter instead. If there's a 40 man concern, they probably should have set things in place awhile ago, knowing who could and couldn't make the trip.
As time passes and we see this team consistently struggle to plug pieces into its bullpen, I have become convinced that as illogical as it is, having set roles for pitchers in the pen is by far the best way of maximizing their effectiveness. Baseball players are still irrational human beings and we have to accept that we have to use them in a non-optimized way in order to maximize their effectiveness.Sure but I don’t care who is out. You have a 5-2 lead going into the ninth facing the bottom of their lineup - and a 5-3 lead with two outs - and you have to win that game, period, full stop. If your bullpen can’t hold a three run lead in the ninth you can’t just blame one guy who isn’t even there for that. That’s absolutely a lead that should be held by a competent MLB bullpen. Period, end of story.
I think that probably would have been the right short term move but if they're going to give Whitlock a shot at being a starter what they're doing is probably the right medium to long term move. Houck and Crawford forced them into doing it at a time when they're short on length and depth on the pitching staff which has led to some predictable results but Whitlock deserves his shot and the team deserves to see if he can translate his success to longer outings and starting. I think Houck (and, to a lesser degree, Crawford) are to blame for the state of the bullpen for this series*.By the way, I hope the Mods/Dopes would let us know if we're getting too close to any sort of line.
That said, IMO, Kutter/Tanner's decisions and their impact on the team are fair game for this thread.
While many of the impacts are going to be speculative in nature, they're no more speculative than what would happen if they both were on the IL for different reason. So I think it's pefectly legitimate to note that Whitlock, being pressed into a starter's role, is now not available out of the bullpen.
I do have to wonder if the Sox shouldn't have called up a AAA starter instead. If there's a 40 man concern, they probably should have set things in place awhile ago, knowing who could and couldn't make the trip.
I would have preferred them to leverage Whitlock into an old school 120 IP kickass multi-inning reliever, that's where he's been effective and I suspect given the way starting pitchers pitch fewer and fewer innings that's where his value will be the highest. Houck and Crawford borked those plans, but this talk about turning Whitlock into a starter makes me uneasy. A great reliever who can go 2-3 innings per game is almost priceless.I think that probably would have been the right short term move but if they're going to give Whitlock a shot at being a starter what they're doing is probably the right medium to long term move. Houck and Crawford forced them into doing it at a time when they're short on length and depth on the pitching staff which has led to some predictable results but Whitlock deserves his shot and the team deserves to see if he can translate his success to longer outings and starting. I think Houck (and, to a lesser degree, Crawford) are to blame for the state of the bullpen for this series.
I'd personally trade Houck for a bag of Big League Chew at this point.You could kill two birds with one stone by trading Houck for a couple righty relievers. Is there any non-contending team that has a good bullpen? Houck can start games and still has 5 years of control remaining, so he's a pretty valuable trade chip.
I know professional athletes, at least contemporary ones, don't seem to be wired to criticize/get on teammates. They've usually got their Bros backs. But I don't know how Houck could look any of them in the eye. His stupidity and selfishness is costing them games, period. To the best team in the division. And he seems to be facing virtually no meaningful public criticism or accountability for it, other than a mild tweet from Pete Abe.I'm so disgusted with Houck I'd demote him to Worcester right now until he grows up. His "personal decision" has directly led to three losses on the trip.
Well do you want Whitlock to be a closer or a “stud fireman”? Because those aren’t the same things. Pick one.As time passes and we see this team consistently struggle to plug pieces into its bullpen, I have become convinced that as illogical as it is, having set roles for pitchers in the pen is by far the best way of maximizing their effectiveness. Baseball players are still irrational human beings and we have to accept that we have to use them in a non-optimized way in order to maximize their effectiveness.
Whitlock is the stud fireman and everyone in that pen knows it. When he's out, the other guys are suddenly put into that position and time and again they have shown they can't handle it. It's not an ability issue. It's a comfort issue because they aren't robots. Everyone laughed when Diekman said he didn't give a shit about being a closer but last night he imploded so maybe he should.
If I were a MLB manager I would absolutely have a set closer because these guys are comfortable with it.
I can't speak for SJH, and it may be a thread in its own right. But Whitlock's talent would be absolutely wasted as guy that comes in the 9th with a 2 run lead to get 3 outs. And the Sox brass knows this.Well do you want Whitlock to be a closer or a “stud fireman”? Because those aren’t the same things. Pick one.
Multi-inning closer. Come in during the 7th or 8th and close out the game. Every time. Shut the damn door. That would be his EXPECTED role and he'd be consistently used in that role.Well do you want Whitlock to be a closer or a “stud fireman”? Because those aren’t the same things. Pick one.
Simple answer to this: most professional baseball players are goddamn idiots. Or if not dumb, then incredibly unsophisticated and unworldly.I know professional athletes, at least contemporary ones, don't seem to be wired to criticize/get on teammates. They've usually got their Bros backs. But I don't know how Houck could look any of them in the eye. His stupidity and selfishness is costing them games, period. To the best team in the division. And he seems to be facing virtually no meaningful public criticism or accountability for it, other than a mild tweet from Pete Abe.
Super confused by this post, game 3 of this series is still to be played tonight.But, on to the point of this thread, yes, there are a lots of reasons the Sox got swept in Toronto. Some of that is that the Blue Jays are likely the better team right now; they did beat Boston 2 of 3 in Fenway. Still, in Houck's case, his presence may have helped, and perhaps they win one of 3 in the Sky Dome. That one could come in handy in September, especially as it was against a division opponent.
And it's a 4 game series...Super confused by this post, game 3 of this series is still to be played tonight.
So you'd have held him back last night until the 8th once they took a 5-2 lead? And then he would have finished the game? Are you sure you wouldn't have used him in, say, the 7th, when down 2-1 and very much still in the game, and then had someone else close it out?Multi-inning closer. Come in during the 7th or 8th and close out the game. Every time. Shut the damn door. That would be his EXPECTED role and he'd be consistently used in that role.
Last night I would have absolutely had him in there in the 8th to finish the game with a 5-2 lead. 100%.So you'd have held him back last night until the 8th once they took a 5-2 lead? And then he would have finished the game? Are you sure you wouldn't have used him in, say, the 7th, when down 2-1 and very much still in the game, and then had someone else close it out?
And the other day when they lost 3-2 to Tampa...Whitlock in the pen would have made no difference. You wouldn't have waited until the 10th to use him - that's a traditional closer spot and you've made it clear that you don't see Whitlock as a traditional closer. And so he would have been used up earlier, and yet...the Sox' pen already put up a bunch of zeroes so how could Whitlock have done any better than that? Plus, you probably would have already burned him the night before when they won 4-3, as Whitlock would have come in and pitched the last 2-3 innings of that game, so he wouldn't have even been available for the 3-2 loss in extras.
So okay, MAYBE having it your way maybe has them at 8-10 instead of 7-11. Maybe.
8 or more innings for a regular closer in 6 days. If only Venable was as committed to winning...Doing it my way that's 3 more wins. 3 wins out of 18 games. That's a huge swing.
That's not the situation they are in. The COVID IL is only for players unavailable due to an actual case of COVID and allows for those special circumstances.I believe they can call up a non 40 for co-vid IL replacement.
Thanks for that.That's not the situation they are in. The COVID IL is only for players unavailable due to an actual case of COVID and allows for those special circumstances.
Houck and Crawford are unavailable because they are unvaccinated and are placed on the restricted list. They don't count toward the 40-man roster during that time, but as far as I tell, there are no special exemptions for their replacements. Any transaction required to move the replacement on or off the 40-man roster is the same as always.
It's not easy figuring out the best use of Whitlock, to be honest. Obviously no MLB manager is going to use the SJH approach and have him close out every game pitching multiple innings. So to me the options really are:Whitlock is a great pitcher, and I understand why he only pitched in 46 games last year, but he’s only appeared in five games this season.
In his 4 relief appearances, his leverage index ranks 7th - behind Brasier, Robles, Diekman, Barnes, Strahm, and Danish..
I get that he’s in the rotation now (for how long, I’m not sure), but his usage so far has really not been optimal.
I think the ranking is skewed by the very short sample of the season, and the fact that the Sox have been consistently giving him 3 days rest between his multi-inning relief appearances:Whitlock is a great pitcher, and I understand why he only pitched in 46 games last year, but he’s only appeared in five games this season.
In his 4 relief appearances, his leverage index ranks 7th - behind Brasier, Robles, Diekman, Barnes, Strahm, and Danish..
I get that he’s in the rotation now (for how long, I’m not sure), but his usage so far has really not been optimal.
True, but misleading. Gives the impression that the bullpen has sucked. It hasn't. Over those same 7 games, here's what the bullpen has done:Mass with the rare good point (yes I feel dirty for saying this):
View: https://twitter.com/TonyMassarotti/status/1519297896528633857?s=20&t=KtAmSdLgEg4-Pif3lpQPFA