Guess what month is Kluber's worst careerwise for k/9, bb/9, WHIP, BAA, FIP, and xFIP? That would be April. He's always been a slow starter. Hell, in 2017 he had a 5.06 ERA in the first week of May and went on to win the CYA. Methinks you're overreacting to a small sample size.
Whats your problem with Turner though? He's been smoking the ball and picked up the slack when Cora gave Casas some time off last week to clear his head. I don't know why you included Turner since he's not a pitcher and has been a good acquisition so far.
that’s just like, your opinion, man.
Apologies for not responding sooner, but seems what I was going to respond has been pretty well covered here by others.... both regarding what Henry wants to spend on player payroll and also regarding Kluber and the rotation.
Why should it be mentioned? Was anyone clamoring for the Sox to re-sign Strahm? Would he have been a starter here if he was re-signed?
So you're suggesting that a guy who contributes six starts in the first month of '23 (cost of $7.5 million in '23) and/or a guy who missed half of '22 (cost of $15 million in '23) are better rotation options than Kluber at a cost of $10 million with a team option? Please explain.
Matt Strahm was clamoring to start. The Red Sox believed he couldn't do it and didn't sign him. Thus far, it appears that they were wrong and that seems like a perfectly relevant point to bring up in a discussion about the Red Sox construction of a starting rotation.
He makes a couple good starts and suddenly the Sox were wrong to not give him a shot to start? Kind of a small sample size to be definitive about, isn't it? The Phillies didn't sign him to start either. He was moved into the rotation to fill in for an injury.
Note I didn't just say the Sox weren't going to pay him, I said they were correct to not pay him. Last year would have been a disaster for that contract. Great for him that he's turned himself around so far this season, but I still don't think he was a good bet for a five year deal. They got better value out of that ~$15M signing Wacha and Hill last year, and despite the polar opposite starts so far, it remains to be seen which pitcher will be the better value for this year, ERod or Kluber.
So based on six starts spanning 25.2 innings the Sox were "wrong" about Strahm?
Sometimes "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." IS the plan and at times it's the right plan when you have options and flexibility. And ATM winning eases the need to cross the bridge before you come to it. Popular or not, a couple of the young guys can be moved around. Bello can go back to Woostah knowing that it doesn't reflect on his performance. Let him go down, get that finger taken care of, stay on a regular schedule and be ready when he's called back to the bigs. As soon as a starter falters or is injured he'll be back. If Houck or Whitlock need to do a stint in the pen, so be it. Personally, I'd love for both of them to thrive as starters, but ATM they're not and both have been very successful in the pen. I'm not for retarding the growth of young talented players, but at the same time it's a team sport. You see what you have in Kluber and Paxton and if it's not working you've got help waiting in the wings.
Erod threw 91 innings of below average baseball last year. You seem to be leaving that part out of your argument.
Certainly it's reasonable for our lurker to believe that the Sox should sign only the very best free agents on the market; and all the other teams are simply not allowed to sign those free agents, because no team can outspend the Sox, or to have other reasons whatsoever for a player to prefer playing for that club. So it must be a failure of will. Like if Bloom just clenched up and wished hard enough, our lurker's dreams would come to pass.
He did catch on quick for a guy with only 25 posts though. https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?search/495305/
That would make the most sense and I expect that is exactly what they will do.
3 runs over 6 innings is considered a quality start. I don't see why 3 runs over five and two-thirds innings shouldn't be considered good. Sure, that's not ace quality, but it's league average. You take that nearly every time out of your fourth or fifth starter.
A Quality Start is a Quality Start no matter what the offense does. Much more useful stat than Wins.
Weird question. I’d always rather have the win. But I would judge the former pitcher’s outing better than the latter.
The Red Sox starters have an ERA of 5.89. That is exceptionally bad. Even if the Sox keep scoring the way they have, with that kind of pitching you would expect the Sox to get about ~85 wins.
In the short run, sure. But which pitcher would you rather have on a multi year contract?
FWIW, the team ERA during that stretch works out to 4.86.
It's a big F'in thing. If he can get up to averaging 6 innings and get his ERA more lined up with his FIP it'll really stabilize the rotation. Bello is looking like he's aaaaaaaallllllmost there to be a "no. 2" and then the rest of the rotation isn't an issue really- Pivetta being Pivetta, Houck/Paxton and Whitlock/Kluber are fine 3-5....
He's ineligible to return until Saturday at the earliest. Last update I saw was last week saying he was cleared to start throwing. Nothing since but I assume that's a good sign.
Which was the whole point of “Why Quality Starts Matter”. They are a much better reflection on good pitchers than Wins are.
Ultimately, the problem is the word "quality." Maybe it is, maybe it isnt quality. Maybe "competent" would be better. Or cromulent.
Anything I can do to show how foolish of a stat it is in as few characters as possible.
I will throw shit if this happens. The kid can pitch. Let him do it here. I don’t think I can watch three old men in Sale (he’s a whiny old shit now), Kluber (he’s hard to watch) and Paxton (I guess I won’t totally judge him yet, but expectations are “knee high to a grasshopper” level) take innings from a kid with elite potential. Especially when this team - fun as they are - will likely not be contending for much beyond a wild card spot, if that. They are fun, but I absolutely do not expect the bats of Duran, Verdugo, Vargas, and Wong/McGuire to carry as much weight as they will need to - consistently - behind Devers and Masa. There will come a time, probably soon, when the “bit players” stop hitting as well and we start missing Story and Duvall.
It's the one-stop solution to the active roster and rotation crunch. I know we want to bask in his emerging, exciting development, but if he goes down it probably won't be for very long. Guys will start having things come up, as Whitlock already has. Chaim would probably tell you that teams need 7 guys for the five jobs over the course of the season. Obviously continued development at his present rate will have him firmly in the rotation as soon as someone leaves for good, either at the deadline or the offseason.
What was the original rationale? Like at least in the higher scoring AL environment, if you are holding an opponent to 3 runs in 6 innings you are putting the pressure more on them than on your team? Certainly fewer innings is more pressure on your bullpen. Maybe it's just a line drawing exercise but I wouldn't be surprised if it had deeper meaning to players themselves.
From a Jay Jaffe piece for SI back in 2014:
Yup. If i remember correctly . Felix Hernández was screwed out of a few CY young awards as voters were still fixated on wins. Wins are still not a great stat in judging the career of a pitcher as if you spend a good portion of your career pitching for a team with a blackhole on offense you will not win many games. QS are not the best either, but still better than wins imo (because wins can go both ways: 7 IP 0 runs and still not get a win, or 5 ip 5er and get a win because your offense bailed you out.
