'23 AL Playoff Picture

chawson · Aug 31, 2023

RedOctober3829 said:
Which year since 2019 is the outlier?

2020 of course, which happens to be the year no one in their right mind gave a shit about baseball.

Look, I’ve been annoyed that the rebuild has taken longer than I’ve liked, too. I’ve wanted them, at various times, to sign Springer, Semien, Ozuna, Stroman, Correa and Schwarber. In each case, it was probably smarter not to have done so, and 2024 looks brighter with them not on the books.

In a different world, Dalbec would have settled in as a 2.5 to 3-win 1B a year or two before Casas did. Seabold or Darwinzon or Cordero or Chavis or Peraza or Mondesi or Springs would have stuck with the team as productive contributor. Maybe everything breaks right and Bloom signs Ha-Seong Kim and Kevin Gausman, the two gold star free agents amid a sea of whammies, and we sneak into the postseason last year. None of that happened. But a lot of promising stuff has.

We’ve also been looking at a much tougher division, even than usual. The Orioles have not fucked up their rebuild, and will be tough going forward. On the other hand, the Jays went all in on their Guerrero/Bichette core and their window is beginning to close a bit. The Yankees are in disaster mode, and the Rays just lost a franchise superstar and an ace to TJS. I think we’re in a good spot.

Midnight Ryder Jones · Aug 31, 2023

JM3 said:
In Houck's career as a starter he has a 3.99 ERA & 3.63 xFIP (as a reliever it's 2.68 & 3.58).

He turned 27 two months ago.

What about Houck's career indicates that he would need to improve a lot to be a useful starter?

Wonderful, he has two somewhat promising stats. He also has only completed six innings four times all season, still only has two reliable pitches, doesn't have an out pitch to use against lefties, and is in the bottom third in all of baseball in hard hit percentage and exit velocity and doesn't strike out enough hitters. He's not someone a serious team should count on as a mid-rotation starter.

tims4wins · Aug 31, 2023

Midnight Ryder Jones said:
Wonderful, he has two somewhat promising stats. He also has only completed six innings four times all season, still only has two reliable pitches, doesn't have an out pitch to use against lefties, and is in the bottom third in all of baseball in hard hit percentage and exit velocity and doesn't strike out enough hitters. He's not someone a serious team should count on as a mid-rotation starter.

Moreover, he has only gotten more than 15 outs 5 times, out of 15 starts. A guy who can't go more than 5 innings 2 out of every 3 times he pitches actively hurts the entire team, even if he is pitching those innings somewhat effectively from a run-prevention perspective.

jteders1 · Aug 31, 2023

If Houck was penciled in as the #5 starter next year, I could get behind it. As noted he does have some statistics that say he might be a decent pitcher, but the problem is he's probably our #3 going into next year as we sit right now, with Whitlock and Crawford behind him. That's a problem.

Sandy Leon Trotsky · Aug 31, 2023

JM3 said:
In Houck's career as a starter he has a 3.99 ERA & 3.63 xFIP (as a reliever it's 2.68 & 3.58).

He turned 27 two months ago.

What about Houck's career indicates that he would need to improve a lot to be a useful starter?

Getting deeper into games? And without turning into a pumpkin the 3rd time he faces a lineup? Granted, probably ALL pitchers do consecutively worse through a lineup, but both he and Crawford seem extreme and not being able to consistently get through the 5th inning (preferably the 6th on average) is problematic as a starter, no?

8slim · Aug 31, 2023

JM3 said:
In Houck's career as a starter he has a 3.99 ERA & 3.63 xFIP (as a reliever it's 2.68 & 3.58).

He turned 27 two months ago.

What about Houck's career indicates that he would need to improve a lot to be a useful starter?

As others said, he’s a 4 1/2 inning pitcher. I’ve been rooting hard for Houck since his great 3 start debut 4 years ago. It’s just that in 4 years he has yet to prove he’s more than a 4 1/2 inning pitcher.

Maybe the Sox are fine with that? But I think he’s yet another starter that can’t be counted on. And we’re staring down a 2024 where we have many of those.

Fishy1 · Aug 31, 2023

Sandy Leon Trotsky said:
Getting deeper into games? And without turning into a pumpkin the 3rd time he faces a lineup? Granted, probably ALL pitchers do consecutively worse through a lineup, but both he and Crawford seem extreme and not being able to consistently get through the 5th inning (preferably the 6th on average) is problematic as a starter, no?

They've been extremely cautious with Crawford's pitch counts, generally keeping him in the 70-80 range. I wonder if that's because of the struggle the third time through the lineup, or a conscious decision to protect some of the young pitchers? My sense is that it's more of the former, as Bello is regularly allowed to touch 100 pitches.

8slim · Aug 31, 2023

JM3 said:
Yes, I totally said we should rely on Houck as a mid-rotation starter. Good catch & good job putting me in my place by all of you.

Tempted to retire from the main board until the '24 playoffs.

How’s the view from that cross?

Fine, if the stars align, he figures out how to get into the 6th inning occasionally, and miraculously manages to start 25+ games, he could be a “useful starter”.

My initial point was that simply rolling Houck, Whitlock and Crawford out to start in 2024 is not a good approach. The rotation is simply not nearly good enough.

tims4wins · Aug 31, 2023

He's never thrown 100 IP in a season. That's the first threshold to be a useful starter. And that's not very useful. Let's see him get to 150 IP.

8slim · Aug 31, 2023

JM3 said:
I have said we should get 2 top of the rotation pitchers.

I'm just tired of repeating myself 1000s of times in 1000s of different ways. People are going to be grumpy af & it doesn't matter what I say, so me making myself grumpy trying to make other people less grumpy is a massive waste of time.

Some people have a difference of opinion. And just posting an advanced ERA stat doesn’t mean you win the discussion. Stats are awesome. I love stats. But too many people drop an fWAR and walk away with their hands raised, as if that’s all there is to it.

Fishy1 · Aug 31, 2023

JM3 said:
I guess 3 things real quick:

1) I expect Houck would have a higher average innings per start this year if he hadn't been hit by a line drive & missed significant time, leaving his season somewhat skewed by the beginning of the season ramp up period & post face battering ramp up.

2) I expect he would be pitching deeper into games if we had a competent defense (as I explained at some length).

3) He's been better the 2nd time through this year than last year & while it's still not great, it's a positive sign.

Yeah, Houck hasn't been given a very long leash, only throwing 90 or more pitches five times, and I think that's in large part because he ramped up late due to injuries to Paxton/Bello (could be wrong there) and then got hit in the face with a line drive, which necessitated him ramping up again.

Despite all that, he's gone 5 or more innings in 11 of his 15 starts, reaching 5 innings in less than 80 pitches in many cases. That may be because of a fear he'll explode the third time through the lineup, but at least in several cases it's been because he was ramping back up.

8slim said:
Some people have a difference of opinion. And just posting an advanced ERA stat doesn’t mean you win the discussion. Stats are awesome. I love stats. But too many people drop an fWAR and walk away with their hands raised, as if that’s all there is to it.

That's not what @JM3 did and it's not fair to say he did. The standards should also be higher than saying "he's a 4 2/3rds" inning guy without any evidence to back up what you're saying.

Houck has only pitched less than 5 innings in four starts, two of those coming since the line drive to the face, which were clearly starts where they were trying to ramp him up. In the other two earlier in the season, he managed to limit the damage to 4 and 2 runs, so while definitely not ideal that he was pitching less than five, they weren't disastrous starts. He's gone more than 5 innings 5 times, and 5 innings exactly in 6. This despite averaging 80 pitches a start.

Nonetheless, the results on the year have been mediocre. I'd like to see him get another shot at starting, but only as the 5th starter or as a backup for when someone goes down. I think he's had some horrible injury luck, and I agree with, uh, almost everybody else that the team needs to acquire reliable starting pitching.

Also "some people have a difference of opinion" is the kind of empty, meaningless phrasing that would go well in a Flannery O'Connor short story.

Rovin Romine · Aug 31, 2023

8slim said:
As others said, he’s a 4 1/2 inning pitcher. I’ve been rooting hard for Houck since his great 3 start debut 4 years ago. It’s just that in 4 years he has yet to prove he’s more than a 4 1/2 inning pitcher.

I respectfully disagree with your doubtless very well sourced factual argument:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=houckta01&t=p&year=2023#pitching_gamelogs::11

Fishy1 · Aug 31, 2023

Rovin Romine said:
I respectfully disagree with your doubtless very well sourced factual argument:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=houckta01&t=p&year=2023#pitching_gamelogs::11

Beat you to it. The irony of the guy saying "I don't trust stats" not being able to get right the one fact about the pitcher he's slagging is off the charts.

Rovin Romine · Aug 31, 2023

Fishy1 said:
Beat you to it. The irony of the guy saying "I don't trust stats" not being able to get right the one fact about the pitcher he's slagging is off the charts.

At least he does not come across as dismissive when he's telling people to get off a cross.

8slim · Aug 31, 2023

That’s fine, he’s a 5 inning pitcher. My mistake, all good.

Does anyone want to address the guy who seems excited to run back Houck, Whitlock and Crawford in the rotation next year? Because that’s what started this.

8slim · Aug 31, 2023

Archer1979 · Aug 31, 2023

8slim said:
Fine, if the stars align, he figures out how to get into the 6th inning occasionally, and miraculously manages to start 25+ games, he could be a “useful starter”.

My initial point was that simply rolling Houck, Whitlock and Crawford out to start in 2024 is not a good approach. The rotation is simply not nearly good enough.

Here's where I am with the pitching staff... these three listed have a lot of potential. Bello could be a top of the rotation starter capable of going head to head with the league's best... but none of them are there yet.

I keep coming back to coaching, the Sox's organizational approach, and the uneasy feeling that any one of these guys could be so much better in another organization's hands, especially one with a proven ability to develop pitchers. Exhibit A: Ryan Brasier... the Dodgers quickly turned him into a valued arm in their bullpen.

8slim · Aug 31, 2023

JM3 said:
Are we talking about me? The guy who a couple days ago said he thought Crawford should probably be a reliever & has stated for a long time that I think we need to acquire 2 high-end starters this off season, including in a post you quoted a few minutes ago?

No, not you. The guy I initially replied to, before others jumped in.

And I apologize for the cross comment. I was trying to make a joke but it wasn’t cool.

Heating up in the bullpen · Aug 31, 2023

Realistic hope is now lost. What's left is "we need a miracle" hope. Unless that miracle starts happening, this will be the last update.

Assuming it takes a minimum of 90 wins to get in. So how do the Sox get to 90 wins? They needed to go 28-16 (.636), +12, over the last 44 games, when I started this. After being swept by the Astros they now need to go 21-7 (.750) over the final 28 games. I'm not going to bother gaming it out. If they can win 9 in a row, they'll get back on track.

after 8/13 (62-56)
8/14 off
8/15-17 ... 3 @ Nats ... ~~2-1 (64-57)~~ ... 1-2 (63-58)
8/18-20 ... 3 @ Yankees ... ~~2-1 (66-58)~~ ... 3-0 (66-58) Back on track sweep!
8/21-24 ... 4 @ Astros ... 2-2 (68-60) ... On track
8/25-27 ... 3 vs Dodgers ... 1-2 (69-62) ... I'm not happy it turned out this way, but still on track
8/28-30 ... 3 vs Astros ... ~~2-1 (71-63)~~ ... 0-3 (69-65) The end of hope
8/31 off day
9/1-3 ... 3 @ Royals ... 3-0 (74-63) {changed from original 2-1 in order to get to 90 wins}
9/4-6 ... 3 @ Rays ... 2-1 (76-64)
9/7 off day
9/8-10 ... 3 vs Orioles ... 2-1 (78-65)
9/11-14 ... 4 vs Yankees ... 3-1 (81-66)
9/15-17 ... 3 @ Blue Jays ... 2-1 (83-67)
9/18-20 ... 3 @ Rangers ... 1-2 (84-69)
9/21 off day
9/22-24 ... 3 vs White Sox ... 3-0 (87-69)
9/25 off day
9/26-27 ... 2 vs Rays ... 1-1 (88-70)
9/28-10/1 ... 4 @ Orioles ... 2-2 (90-72)

Fishy1 · Aug 31, 2023

Archer1979 said:
Here's where I am with the pitching staff... these three listed have a lot of potential. Bello could be a top of the rotation starter capable of going head to head with the league's best... but none of them are there yet.

I keep coming back to coaching, the Sox's organizational approach, and the uneasy feeling that any one of these guys could be so much better in another organization's hands, especially one with a proven ability to develop pitchers. Exhibit A: Ryan Brasier... the Dodgers quickly turned him into a valued arm in their bullpen.

This is a fair concern, but then, the Red Sox have also shown the ability to find these diamonds in the rough. Schreiber is one example, so is Bernardino. I think you could also argue the same for Winck. I also think Kutter, Houck and Whitlock were all guys without all that much pedigree and for them to all hit, even if it's just as relievers, would be kind of impressive.

It's tough to say what's coaching and what's a pitcher just finally making an adjustment. Maybe the Sox were pushing Brasier to add a cutter and he didn't try it until he'd been released and was looking down the barrel of the end of his career. You just don't know.

Rovin Romine · Aug 31, 2023

League wide SP stats by team: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2023-starter-pitching.shtml

You can see the SP is a weakness. You can also see the average SP length for the league is 5.2 innings.

Houck has averaged 5.08 innings. If you take out his hit-in-the-face game, he's at 5.16.

Whether that's something you want in the rotation is another issue. But while Houck's ability to go though the line-up a third time is his biggest vulnerability, it's not as though he's drastically falling short of what other starters do in terms of the innings he's giving you.

8slim · Aug 31, 2023

JM3 said:
Eh, I deserved that part. Maybe you could have made a different joke, but I don't begrudge you that.

I spend a ton of time in this forum laying out my thoughts & opinions on things, some of which are fairly controversial, but most of which I think are fairly common sense & not deserving of vitriol, including what little I said about Houck being an option for a back of the rotation role... so dismissing me as someone who cites fWAR & then drops the mic & walks off declaring victory is a bit absurd & offensive to me.

That’s fair. Honestly I bop into the main board sporadically so I don’t know a lot of posters patterns. If you’re not the “advanced stat, drop mic” type then I was wrong.

Midnight Ryder Jones · Aug 31, 2023

The discussion of whether Houck has pitched 4.2 innings or 5 innings more frequently is really besides the point. The issue with Houck right now is he simply doesn't have the arsenal to be an effective starter. Check out this breakdown of one of his recent outings from Over The Monster, which highlights just how much trouble he has with limited offerings. Maybe he'll develop next year, but it's not like he's a kid out there, and it's not like this is a new problem.

Side note: that Over The Monster writer is great and has been providing pitch-by-pitch breakdowns of Sox starters all season long. If youre interested in how pitchers attack hitters, it's well worth your time. Better on-field analysis of the Sox than you'll find in the Globe.

jteders1 · Aug 31, 2023

I think we all agree is that the issue isn't Houck, Whitlock, or Crawford in a vacuum, any one of the three is a decent option for the back end of a rotation. It's just where we stand right now, we're going to need all three to start and I think we all agree, that ain't going to get the job done. I'm interested to see what the front office does this winter. It's really a reflection point. They've proven they can build the mL system, can they now build the big league club? I remain dubious, but it should be a fun ride.

moondog80 · Aug 31, 2023

Rovin Romine said:
League wide SP stats by team: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2023-starter-pitching.shtml

You can see the SP is a weakness. You can also see the average SP length for the league is 5.2 innings.

Houck has averaged 5.08 innings. If you take out his hit-in-the-face game, he's at 5.16.

Whether that's something you want in the rotation is another issue. But while Houck's ability to go though the line-up a third time is his biggest vulnerability, it's not as though he's drastically falling short of what other starters do in terms of the innings he's giving you.

I have been all aboard the "starters need to go deeper" train, and I still am. But it's notable that Tampa is only marginally ahead of Boston, 4.8 to 4.7. And the league leader is only at 5.6 (Houston). Which is a big difference -- Houston needs about 144 fewer bullpen innings than Boston. But this is also just the way MLB is now, for better or for worse. 40 years ago, Houston's 5.6 would have been last in the league.

EDIT: I imagine those stats are skewed by Boston and Tampa's use of the "opener"?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/1983-starter-pitching.shtml

Rovin Romine · Aug 31, 2023

jteders1 said:
I think we all agree is that the issue isn't Houck, Whitlock, or Crawford in a vacuum, any one of the three is a decent option for the back end of a rotation. It's just where we stand right now, we're going to need all three to start and I think we all agree, that ain't going to get the job done.

They certainly all have their issues. For various reasons, we haven't really seen a sustained run of work from any of these guys as a starter.

Houck is the most tempting to try to fix, since he's lights-out, then seems to fall of a cliff. He's had 35 starts in his career. This year was the longest we saw him go until the injury. He'll probably stay in the rotation and has the best chance of making a case to be one of the starters in 2024.

Whitlock has shown more of an ability to go deeper into games, but injuries have forced him out of a starting role for two years running. He's only had 19 ML starts in his career.

Crawford is the noisiest, IMO. He's made 31 starts. One of those was a callup in 2021. In 2022, he was pressed into service as an emergency starter, stretched out, showed flashes, then had a disastrous run of 3 late-August starts before being shelved with an injury. In 2023, he was again pressed and kept on a very short leash for whatever reasons (health, being only 1 of 3 starters?). He seemed to alternate good and bad starts.

simplicio · Aug 31, 2023

Fishy1 said:
This is a fair concern, but then, the Red Sox have also shown the ability to find these diamonds in the rough. Schreiber is one example, so is Bernardino. I think you could also argue the same for Winck. I also think Kutter, Houck and Whitlock were all guys without all that much pedigree and for them to all hit, even if it's just as relievers, would be kind of impressive.

It's tough to say what's coaching and what's a pitcher just finally making an adjustment. Maybe the Sox were pushing Brasier to add a cutter and he didn't try it until he'd been released and was looking down the barrel of the end of his career. You just don't know.

The recent Athletic article on Brasier touches on all this. https://theathletic.com/4808521/2023/08/27/red-sox-ryan-brasier-dodgers-cutter?source=user-shared-article

They're obviously always looking for new potential pitches for their guys, but they also can't just say "well try 12 different ones and see what works," especially in-season. They need to have a reason to introduce something, and with Brasier it seems like they just missed what the Dodgers saw.

But Brasier himself credits rest a lot in that article. The time off between teams and the addition of the new cutter got him throwing his old pitches better, and he's simply had more time between appearances in LA; even when he was performing terribly for us we were using him more than they have been.

So yes, it's time to buy some goddamn reliable goddamn starters, dammit. 2 of 3 of Yamamoto/Urias/Montgomery. Get it done, Bloom.

Rovin Romine · Aug 31, 2023

moondog80 said:
I have been all aboard the "starters need to go deeper" train, and I still am. But it's notable that Tampa is only marginally ahead of Boston, 4.8 to 4.7. And the league leader is only at 5.6 (Houston). Which is a big difference -- Houston needs about 144 fewer bullpen innings than Boston. But this is also just the way MLB is now, for better or for worse. 40 years ago, Houston's 5.6 would have been last in the league.

EDIT: I imagine those stats are skewed by Boston and Tampa's use of the "opener"?

I think that might be the case.

I don't know how to sort the stats to look at it, but I suspect even if you used an "opener" you'd still ideally want a couple of horses in the rotation that routinely go deep, taking pressure off the pen. In other words, I think the frequency of reliever usage is probably a real factor, in combination with the greater number of innings thrown. That is, you want those starting innings unevenly distributed.

moondog80 · Aug 31, 2023

Rovin Romine said:
I think that might be the case.

I don't know how to sort the stats to look at it, but I suspect even if you used an "opener" you'd still ideally want a couple of horses in the rotation that routinely go deep, taking pressure off the pen. In other words, I think the frequency of reliever usage is probably a real factor, in combination with the greater number of innings thrown. That is, you want those starting innings unevenly distributed.

Oh, sure. But if Bernadino pitches the 1st and then Pivetta then goes 6, it's misleading to credit the Sox with just 1 inning from their starter. There's probably a more precise (albiet more complicated) way to measure what we're to explain.

None of which is to say that the Sox couldn't use more innings from the...guy who is intended to throw the most innings on a given day. (Rolls right off the tongue!)

Red(s)HawksFan · Aug 31, 2023

Fishy1 said:
They've been extremely cautious with Crawford's pitch counts, generally keeping him in the 70-80 range. I wonder if that's because of the struggle the third time through the lineup, or a conscious decision to protect some of the young pitchers? My sense is that it's more of the former, as Bello is regularly allowed to touch 100 pitches.

I think it's the latter. Crawford threw 101 innings last year between minors and majors. He just hit 106 (including his rehab innings) with a month to go which puts him on pace to exceed his previous mark by 25 or so innings. Presumably if he hits, say, 135 innings (max 6 more starts at 5 apiece) this year, he'll probably be good for 150+ next season and the shackles will come off.

Meanwhile, Bello was at 157 innings last year and is only at 131 so far this year. He's got a lot more room in which to work before he hits any limit they might have set for him. I think that's a big reason he's far less limited in his pitch counts and innings total.

Rovin Romine · Aug 31, 2023

simplicio said:
But Brasier himself credits rest a lot in that article. The time off between teams and the addition of the new cutter got him throwing his old pitches better, and he's simply had more time between appearances in LA; even when he was performing terribly for us we were using him more than they have been.

Brasier was very uneven in 2022. Then after a summer of rest, he was pretty awful out of the gate in 2023. Most of his bad outings for the Sox simply didn't happen on back-to-back days, and LA has used him pretty much at the same frequency as the Sox did. 13 games in April for the Sox v. 12 games in July for LA, 11 games in August.

At the end of the day, they let a fixable pitcher go for nothing. And that's a fact. So it's hard to see why this situation shouldn't nominally sit on the shoulders of the pitching staff.

Now, they don't have to get everything 100% correct, and maybe there were some compelling reasons why they thought Brasier was toast. I'm sure they worked with him to try to get his performance to improve when he was here, but for whatever reason that didn't take. Maybe it was Brasier, maybe it was the staff, maybe it was just luck or circumstance.

Fishy1 · Aug 31, 2023

simplicio said:
The recent Athletic article on Brasier touches on all this. https://theathletic.com/4808521/2023/08/27/red-sox-ryan-brasier-dodgers-cutter?source=user-shared-article

They're obviously always looking for new potential pitches for their guys, but they also can't just say "well try 12 different ones and see what works," especially in-season. They need to have a reason to introduce something, and with Brasier it seems like they just missed what the Dodgers saw.

But Brasier himself credits rest a lot in that article. The time off between teams and the addition of the new cutter got him throwing his old pitches better, and he's simply had more time between appearances in LA; even when he was performing terribly for us we were using him more than they have been.

So yes, it's time to buy some goddamn reliable goddamn starters, dammit. 2 of 3 of Yamamoto/Urias/Montgomery. Get it done, Bloom.

Thanks for dredging this up for me. I don't have a sub but I trust your reading.

I agree those guys are good targets. I would love to have at least one of them, and two would be great. I think the Sox probably give Paxton a QO as well, and it's a toss-up if he takes it, given that in the past I believe he said he could have signed elsewhere for more money but chose the Sox because he liked it here. I would feel -- and I think everybody would feel -- more secure going into next season with Bello-Paxton-Urias-Sale-Houck/Crawford/Pivetta/Whitlock(ducks). That's seven guys if you don't count Whitlock for 5 spots. If you add Yamamoto or Urias too, you can push Houck/Crawford/Pivetta to the pen until one of the others breaks down.

And if Sale miraculously bounces back, you've got a pretty great staff.

Fishy1 · Aug 31, 2023

Red(s)HawksFan said:
I think it's the latter. Crawford threw 101 innings last year between minors and majors. He just hit 106 (including his rehab innings) with a month to go which puts him on pace to exceed his previous mark by 25 or so innings. Presumably if he hits, say, 135 innings (max 6 more starts at 5 apiece) this year, he'll probably be good for 150+ next season and the shackles will come off.

Meanwhile, Bello was at 157 innings last year and is only at 131 so far this year. He's got a lot more room in which to work before he hits any limit they might have set for him. I think that's a big reason he's far less limited in his pitch counts and innings total.

This is compelling, but I suspect it's a little of column A, little of column B. Crawford won't be a free agent till 2029, so they have every reason to protect him, but Cora also has a quick leash once you get to the 5th inning, and Crawford's stuff seems to diminish around then -- which doesn't mean it always will! he made a leap this year, cutting down on his walks, and he might have another leap in him.

I've been impressed by him. I think he's earned a shot at starting some more, but the Red Sox should probably plan to have him out of the bullpen next year as insurance against another Sale injury/whatever other injuries come along. We'll see.

simplicio · Aug 31, 2023

Rovin Romine said:
Brasier was very uneven in 2022. Then after a summer of rest, he was pretty awful out of the gate in 2023. Most of his bad outings for the Sox simply didn't happen on back-to-back days, and LA has used him pretty much at the same frequency as the Sox did. 13 games in April for the Sox v. 12 games in July for LA, 11 games in August.

Not sure if you were able to read the article but yes, rest has a lot to do with it.

“At the end, it was a grind (for him) here,” Red Sox manager Alex Cora said. “And the spot that he was in, we pitched him a lot. Right now, I think he’s in a better spot as far as that. He’s been able to get his rest. Usage-wise, yeah, the cutter’s part of it. But he’s still throwing strikes, something he did here (in the past). He feels that the fastball is kind of like back to ’18 and ’21. I think it’s just the body. He was able to reset.”

Petagine in a Bottle · Aug 31, 2023

What kind of deal do we expect Urias to get? Assuming Rodon as a base, but more years since he’s younger…something like 8/215?

simplicio · Aug 31, 2023

Depends how his September goes? He's been good again in August, but his first half was pretty bad.

LogansDad · Aug 31, 2023

Heating up in the bullpen said:
Realistic hope is now lost. What's left is "we need a miracle" hope. Unless that miracle starts happening, this will be the last update.

Shit, they got you, too. Thank you for keeping these updated over the last month plus I have appreciated your posts.

Fishy1 · Aug 31, 2023

simplicio said:
Depends how his September goes? He's been good again in August, but his first half was pretty bad.

Which makes him a nice buy-low candidate, I think/ As far as I can tell, the peripherals all look good, but he's had an spike in home runs - his home-run to fly-ball ratio is up to 15%, which is pretty crazy for a guy who's usually sat under 10%. Hard to tell what's going on there.

Rovin Romine · Aug 31, 2023

simplicio said:
Not sure if you were able to read the article but yes, rest has a lot to do with it.

“At the end, it was a grind (for him) here,” Red Sox manager Alex Cora said. “And the spot that he was in, we pitched him a lot. Right now, I think he’s in a better spot as far as that. He’s been able to get his rest. Usage-wise, yeah, the cutter’s part of it. But he’s still throwing strikes, something he did here (in the past). He feels that the fastball is kind of like back to ’18 and ’21. I think it’s just the body. He was able to reset.”

Cora's full of it as usual. Cora threw Brasier to the wolves in the final appearance before he was DFA'd. Counting down to that, his days-rest numbers were: 4, 3, 0, 2, 1, 2, 1.

Here's how he started with LA: 2, 0, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1.

The main difference seems to be that Cora left Brasier in for a couple of high pitch-count innings (and he got lit up.) It's a bit chicken-egg though, as throwing better pitches gets you through innings quicker.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=brasiry01&t=p&year=2023

Heating up in the bullpen · Aug 31, 2023

LogansDad said:
Shit, they got you, too. Thank you for keeping these updated over the last month plus I have appreciated your posts.

Ha! Yeah, they got me. Tough to come back from the Astros sweep. But if they go on a winning streak or a 9-1 or even an 8-2 I’ll be right back in it!

simplicio · Aug 31, 2023

Rovin Romine said:
Here's how he started with LA: 2, 0, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1.

Were you unaware that that 1, 1, 1 was leading up to the all star break or are you trying to get tricky with numbers to back up your argument?

I really don't know what to tell you here, everyone involved in that article, Brasier included, is saying his usage in LA is different. Are they all wrong?

'23 AL Playoff Picture

Member

often quoted

New Member

PN23's replacement

Member

Member

has trust issues

often quoted

Head Mason

has trust issues

often quoted

PN23's replacement

often quoted

has trust issues

often quoted

Head Mason

Johnny Rico

Head Mason

Johnny Rico

has trust issues

often quoted

has trust issues

often quoted

shazowies

has trust issues

Member

often quoted

Head Mason

Johnny Rico

has trust issues

New Member

Member

often quoted

heart is two sizes two small

Johnny Rico

Member

Johnny Rico

heart is two sizes two small

Member

Johnny Rico

Head Mason

Head Mason

Member

Member

Member

Member

Head Mason

Johnny Rico

Member

Member