Jalen Beeks to start on Thursday, Alex Cora said

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
So I didnt get to watch this game, I was watching the Caps. How bad was the start? I saw someone in the game thread say he was throwing 88-92 4 seamers and bad off speed stuff with no location? Any reason to hope here? Or did he look as bad as his final line?
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
He didn't look good but the first inning HR and double were pop flys that are outs in any other stadium. On the flip side there were a couple of hard line drives that were caught as well.

His stuff isn't impressive but it could have just been a bad night with location/movement. The results in AAA can't be ignored and now he'll go back down and we'll see how he does.
He won't be an ace, I don't think anyone ever expected that, but he could potentially be a back end starter.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
He also turned it around a bit when he started throwing more offspsed stuff, which helped his fastball. It seemed that way anyway. I haven't looked at any charts.
Could have been nerves. "Lemme stick with the fastball so I don't hang a curve...."
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
He also turned it around a bit when he started throwing more offspsed stuff, which helped his fastball. It seemed that way anyway. I haven't looked at any charts.
Could have been nerves. "Lemme stick with the fastball so I don't hang a curve...."
Could have been Swihart, too. The pitch selection, anyway. Beeks also only got 8 swinging strikes on 88 pitches. He wasn't fooling anyone.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
Could have been Swihart, too. The pitch selection, anyway. Beeks also only got 8 swinging strikes on 88 pitches. He wasn't fooling anyone.
I have no idea whether that played into it at all, but I was really surprised when I turned the game on (already 5-1 in the 2nd...) and saw that Swihart was catching. I realize the two have some familiarity from AAA last year, but it seems like a really odd time to have Swihart catch his first game of the year. Now, Johnson and Velazquez pitched really well after Beeks, who settled in a bit himself. So, I think you'd be hard pressed to support a claim that it was Swihart's "fault." Nonetheless, it struck me as a strange decision.

Edit to add: On another note, I was pretty impressed with the show of support Cora and the rest of the dugout gave Beeks when he came out. ESPN showed Cora talking to him for a moment, followed by a hug, and all his teammates clapping. Despite disappointing results, dude just made his MLB debut.
 

luckysox

Indiana Jones
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2009
8,077
S.E. Pennsylvania
That home run looked like a can or corn off the bat and the double was just Fenway being Fenway. And he was amped up, sailing a ton of FB very high. I’d bet if he had another chance he’s do better.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I have no idea whether that played into it at all, but I was really surprised when I turned the game on (already 5-1 in the 2nd...) and saw that Swihart was catching. I realize the two have some familiarity from AAA last year, but it seems like a really odd time to have Swihart catch his first game of the year. Now, Johnson and Velazquez pitched really well after Beeks, who settled in a bit himself. So, I think you'd be hard pressed to support a claim that it was Swihart's "fault." Nonetheless, it struck me as a strange decision.
The timing doesn't seem that odd to me. There had been talk that Cora wanted to give Swihart a start over the weekend anyway (my guess is to catch Price) so using him last night with Beeks rather than breaking the rhythm of another battery seems as good an opportunity as any to let him knock some rust off. I didn't see anything that would throw out the idea of him getting more starts down the road.

I think we're well into the phase of getting Swihart more playing time in general to see what he can do with regular work. He rotted on the bench for the first 6-8 weeks of the season, now he'll get his chance whether it's to showcase for a trade or to see if he can be a solid contributor to the team.
 

jtn46

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
9,757
Norwalk, CT
He was clearly amped up and couldn’t locate his fastball, so I wouldn’t read very much into the results. If he’s with the big league club again this year or next year after the expected demotion after the spot start, I think he could get a lot from Price as he has a similar fastball-cutter repertoire (Beeks looks to use his curve a lot more than Price).
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Could have been Swihart, too. The pitch selection, anyway. Beeks also only got 8 swinging strikes on 88 pitches. He wasn't fooling anyone.
That's a 9.1% swinging strike rate, below the MLB average of 10.7%, but not eyebrow-raisingly bad. It's the same as Price's, only 0.1% worse than Porcello's, and would put him in about the 30th percentile among starting pitchers with 30 or more IP so far this year.
 

TimScribble

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,474
I was listening on the radio but it sounded like a few times the umpire was squeezing him and not giving him anything close?
 

3_games_down

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2007
137
Coastal NC
SSS applies, but I think there is cause for another start. Beeks was able to paint the corners of the plate with movement on his two seams. The four seams and off speed pitches were mostly terrible, with a few flashes of filth. I liked that he battled back for a bit after the disastrous first inning. A lefty with movement in the low 90's is intriguing.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
That's a 9.1% swinging strike rate, below the MLB average of 10.7%, but not eyebrow-raisingly bad. It's the same as Price's, only 0.1% worse than Porcello's, and would put him in about the 30th percentile among starting pitchers with 30 or more IP so far this year.
Sure, but qualitatively to my eye, this number includes more than a usual amount of young hitters “swinging for the downs” against him, and I would expect that number to go way down from 9.1% as more teams build their video scouting files.

Beeks was fine as a spot starter, but his stuff didn’t look (to my eyes) anywhere near as good as EdRo’s back in 2015. And without that raw stuff, Beeks appears to need to more time in AAA learning how to pitch inside effectively, before he’s a legitimate MLB option that’s higher on the depth chart than #8.

For the remainder of this season, I would much rather see Velazquez and/or Johnson get the nod for a spot start, even if you have to piggyback them together.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Were the expectations really that Beeks would show something special last night and thus earn more starts? Because I saw it as a one-off spot start to preserve the rest schedule of the rotation and nothing more. He's already on the 40-man, he's stretched out, he was more or less on the right schedule, and they didn't want to push anyone up to fill Pomeranz's turn. An opportunity of convenience more than anything else. Had he started on Monday night before Pomeranz went on the DL, they'd have used Velazquez/Johnson or they'd have pushed everyone up a day.

Regardless of how well or poorly he did last night, Beeks shouldn't be back to make another start unless there is a double header type situation or there are a bunch of injuries. He was the #8 guy going in, he remains the #8 guy going forward.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
Maybe not expect but there seemed to be a good deal of excitement to see what he could do at the big league level. First game up, shouldn’t knock him too hard.
 

EllisTheRimMan

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2007
4,560
Csmbridge
Were the expectations really that Beeks would show something special last night and thus earn more starts? Because I saw it as a one-off spot start to preserve the rest schedule of the rotation and nothing more. He's already on the 40-man, he's stretched out, he was more or less on the right schedule, and they didn't want to push anyone up to fill Pomeranz's turn. An opportunity of convenience more than anything else. Had he started on Monday night before Pomeranz went on the DL, they'd have used Velazquez/Johnson or they'd have pushed everyone up a day.

Regardless of how well or poorly he did last night, Beeks shouldn't be back to make another start unless there is a double header type situation or there are a bunch of injuries. He was the #8 guy going in, he remains the #8 guy going forward.
I couldn’t agree more. He wasn’t as bad as that 5 run first, but he in no way moved up the pecking order based on his stuff or the results.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
And without that raw stuff, Beeks appears to need to more time in AAA learning how to pitch inside effectively, before he’s a legitimate MLB option that’s higher on the depth chart than #8.
He was the #8 guy going in, he remains the #8 guy going forward.
Isn't Beeks the #9 starter with Wright, Velazquez, and Johnson being 6, 7, and 8?
 

normstalls

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 15, 2004
4,486
The timing doesn't seem that odd to me. There had been talk that Cora wanted to give Swihart a start over the weekend anyway (my guess is to catch Price) so using him last night with Beeks rather than breaking the rhythm of another battery seems as good an opportunity as any to let him knock some rust off. I didn't see anything that would throw out the idea of him getting more starts down the road.

I think we're well into the phase of getting Swihart more playing time in general to see what he can do with regular work. He rotted on the bench for the first 6-8 weeks of the season, now he'll get his chance whether it's to showcase for a trade or to see if he can be a solid contributor to the team.
Per broadcast last night Cora said he didn't want Vaz sitting three straight days (Fri - Sun) with Leon catching Fri and Sun...so he slotted Swihart in Thursday as opposed to Saturday.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Isn't that the whole point of this list? There is no such thing as #6, 7, 8, 9 when #1-#5 are healthy
Sure there is. Sometimes you have a double-header or need a spot-start whether it’s because of a lingering pain of bereavement leave or other issue you can’t plan around. Ideally you’d use the #6 guy, but that’s not always possible.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I wasn’t considering Pom, because he’s on the DL and not presently an option at all.
Funny, I wasn't counting Johnson because he's been in the bullpen since his one start back in the first week of the season. Given their workloads, he and Velazquez basically comprise a single starter at this point.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
Isn't that the whole point of this list? There is no such thing as #6, 7, 8, 9 when #1-#5 are healthy
Semantics. I tend to think of the numbers as a depth chart, lot a list of who is currently starting. If your #5 is temporarily hurt, then #6 is next in line. I'd only reassign numbers if a starter is out for the season or "permanently" reassigned to the pen. To Red(s)' point, assigning numbers to Johnson and Velazquez is tricky as they aren't stretched out right now. I haven't heard they've been "permanently" reassigned to the pen, but depending on needs maybe Beeks is ahead of Johnson and/or Velazquez.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Funny, I wasn't counting Johnson because he's been in the bullpen since his one start back in the first week of the season. Given their workloads, he and Velazquez basically comprise a single starter at this point.
This is what they should have done last night. You may have been able to get 4 innings out of one and 3 innings out of another, and if you need a long-man over the next couple days you can still use Workman for 3 as well. If it didn't work, and you ended up having to burn all three of Workman, Velazquez, and Johnson for multiple innings, you send Workman back down and call up Poyner for long relief. No reason to start Beeks.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Poyner was already up as they sent him down to bring up Beeks. So if there was a need for innings like you describe, Beeks might have been the call anyway. Except without the start last night, he'd have started Tuesday or Wednesday for Pawtucket and probably unavailable until Saturday anyway which might have left them up shit creek tonight.

I don't see what the issue is with starting Beeks last night. They had a plan of giving all the starters a couple extra days rest by inserting Wright on Tuesday which they weren't ready to abandon, so clearly they were comfortable with potentially punting one of the games against Detroit.

Best case scenario using Beeks is they don't burn out the pen,or at least the long man portion of it, because he goes 6+ (something you absolutely won't get from Johnson or Velazquez individually). Worst case is you burn those guys anyway because he can't get out of the second or something. Ended up in the middle...he went four, Johnson is burned for a couple days but the rest of the staff is intact for the weekend.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
This is what they should have done last night. You may have been able to get 4 innings out of one and 3 innings out of another, and if you need a long-man over the next couple days you can still use Workman for 3 as well. If it didn't work, and you ended up having to burn all three of Workman, Velazquez, and Johnson for multiple innings, you send Workman back down and call up Poyner for long relief. No reason to start Beeks.
captain-hindsight.jpg

I mean, seriously, there was no reason not to start Beeks. He's a 24-year-old who's been very good for a year-plus now and most recently has been dominating Triple-A hitters. That's exactly the kind of guy you give a midseason spot start to. The fact that he shit the bed for his first inning is not shocking, but neither was it at all inevitable; those are the risks you take over the course of a season.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
He’s the kind of guy that Devers should be facing in order to get better against the Porcellos and Prices of the league!!!!
*sarcasm*
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
View attachment 21398

I mean, seriously, there was no reason not to start Beeks. He's a 24-year-old who's been very good for a year-plus now and most recently has been dominating Triple-A hitters. That's exactly the kind of guy you give a midseason spot start to. The fact that he shit the bed for his first inning is not shocking, but neither was it at all inevitable; those are the risks you take over the course of a season.
I'm saving that picture and don't think I won't use it.