Is it time to think a little more critically of Bailey?
He’s clearly helped Houck but Bello not so much.
Pivetta is about what anyone should have expected knowing his history. Crawford too. Maybe Criswell he was great for?
Critically - sure, that's always on the table. It's tough because the staff normally rolls over a bit, and much of that is Breslow. But he and Bailey seem to be much on the same wavelength on what they're looking to do. So this is Breslow/Bailey v. Bloom/Bush. Injuries being the wild-card.
In the big picture the staff had an ERA of 4.52 last year, with an ERA+ of 101. Pretty average. Lots of injuries though.
This year we're 3.54 with an ERA+ of 120. Also lots of injuries (15 replacement starts =s basically one slot in the rotation.) That's a pretty drastic improvement.
Looking at individual players there's progression and regression. . .and we're not nearly done with the season yet. Tonight will be the halfway mark.
But Houck, Kenley, Bernardino, Kelly, Whitlock, Weissart, and even Crawford are better than last year - or certainly no worse. Guys like Booser and Slaten don't really have a baseline, but they're doing very well this year and should be counted as successes. Even the placeholder/bulk guys are doing well: Anderson is having his best year since 2019. Criswell has also shaved off a run and a half from his ERA (SSS.) (I'm not sure where to put Keller - SSS, but seems close to his baseline.)
So I'll pause there. Of the guys who have improved, all of their pitch mixes have altered with the exception of Kenley, Weissart (and Anderson to an extent.). Some are throwing new pitches, or abandoning old ones.
To me, that's significant. It says there's a new approach in the games and sometimes a new approach in terms of what's coming out of the hand. For a pitching coach to change that much with a staff and get the improved results we have seems to be more than just "getting lucky on the timing with some guys."
Now, for regression (slight or major) there's: Pivetta, Bello, Winckowski, Martin, and Campbell. There's an injury factor for all of them.
-I'm willing to put Martin in a slightly special category, given the issues he's had, but it's not like he's ineffective at all.
-Winckowski is still pitching with bone chips in his ankle and will need off-season surgery, so I'm willing to call that a wash. Again, not ineffective, but not as good as last year.
-Pivetta did very well in his first two starts but has been pedestrian-Pivetta with flashes of brilliance since returning.
-Campbell pitched injured earlier in the year and has been not great since his recall.
In terms of guys who seem to be physically 100% there but need coaching, there's Bello, and maybe Pivetta/maybe Winckowski.
So the ratio of guys they haven't improved to guys they have: something like 4/9 making the most
uncharitable case? 3/13 for the most charitable look?
Complete washouts: Joely Rodriguez. Possibly Campbell. There's only 18 innings there also.
Overall, that's pretty remarkable in terms of cutting bait. To calibrate this: this year Bello has an ERA+ of 76, and Keller is at 80, and Anderson is at 92. Those are all guys you'd like to see improve significantly, but you can live with a long man like Anderson with a 92 on your staff.
In 2023, guys who were bad, say - an ERA+ of 90 or less? We had 15 of them: Whitlock, Bleier, Llovera, Robertson, Ort, Walter, Dermody, Joely, Kluber, Brasier, Garza, Littell, Lamet, Barraclough, Faria. Rough inning count: 310 innings or so.
This year: Keller, Bello, Joely, Campbell. About 100 innings, Bello with 70 of them.
So there's just no way I want to roll back the clock here.