Yeah, it seems like they kind of backed themselves into a bit of a corner with the suspicious injury narrative. If his velocity and control are both just as bad as when he was put on the DL, it would suggest that he is still "hurt," so why would you activate him? However, since you did start his rehab clock, the number of things you can do is really starting to drop. Maybe you can try to see if he can throw a little harder in short bursts, but my guess would be that he is already giving it all he's got. He might not be not be physically injured, but he sure appears broken.radsoxfan said:I guess that "shoulder tendinitis" isn't healed yet….
Let's just hope he is WAY down the list of potential starting options. If Masterson isn't showing significantly better stuff than that, he shouldn't make another start for the Red Sox this year (or any other year).
pokey_reese said:Yeah, it seems like they kind of backed themselves into a bit of a corner with the suspicious injury narrative. If his velocity and control are both just as bad as when he was put on the DL, it would suggest that he is still "hurt," so why would you activate him? However, since you did start his rehab clock, the number of things you can do is really starting to drop. Maybe you can try to see if he can throw a little harder in short bursts, but my guess would be that he is already giving it all he's got. He might not be not be physically injured, but he sure appears broken.
Corsi said:
Jason Mastrodonato @JMastrodonato 49s49 seconds ago
John Farrell says Justin Masterson has proved he's ready to come back to the Red Sox, but it may be in bullpen role. Masterson open to it.
No, not really.kieckeredinthehead said:
Does anybody here think that Masterson is going to be more effective than Barnes or Light would be?
dynomite said:I think the real question you could ask was why the front office thought he was worth signing in the first place.
Rasputin said:
I seem to remember sreaming that at the time.
If he turns out to be an effective roogy maybe he'll bring something in trade.
The Mort Report said:
Yeah but unless he somehow goes back to the guy from a few years ago that 9 million dollar contract will hinder any return unless the Sox want to eat most of it. I'd still imagine he'd be only worth the equivalent what we gave up for De Aza and is that worth 4 million dollars? I know people were pissed we gave up a RP with little value for De Aza, what will happen to this board if we pay 4 million dollars for one?
Good (being in the pen)Corsi said:
I've stopped talking about him because I'm a softie and he just had a kid.jasail said:And Craig Breslow some how seems to live another day.
Rudy Pemberton said:It's kind of amazing to see how much money is being spent on guys like Masterson, Craig, Mujica, Castillo, Victorino, Breslow, etc who have no role of significance on the roster. Is Pedroia the only non minimum salaried guy actually outperforming his contract? Staggering (and they had nearly the complete opposite in 2013). Baseball is a funny game.
Rudy Pemberton said:It's kind of amazing to see how much money is being spent on guys like Masterson, Craig, Mujica, Castillo, Victorino, Breslow, etc who have no role of significance on the roster. Is Pedroia the only non minimum salaried guy actually outperforming his contract? Staggering (and they had nearly the complete opposite in 2013). Baseball is a funny game.
I'm pretty sure the decision to play him is a combination of keeping the most assets and trying to get a few good weeks out of him so they can get a little something at the trade deadline.KillerBs said:The decision to give Masterson more innings in the pen, at the expense of Wright (or Johnson or Barnes or Hinojosa or Aro) is another one which deserves to be assessed post facto when passing judgement on the front office. Do they really think Masterson is better than Wright? If they do, demerits to those who make these decisions if he comes up and gets lit up again with his 85 MPH "fastball". Or is the decision better explained by taking the course of least resistance and sticking with the dead ender vet you are overpaying rather than making the harder decision to cut bait and give a chance to players who have some plausible post 2015 future as MLB players.
That move would be indefensible.Rudy Pemberton said:Masterson may be taking Kelly's slot before we know it.
AB in DC said:Red Sox philosophy has always been "keep your options open" -- i.e. when in doubt, any player with options is kept at AAA, and anyone without options stays on the big league roster unless they are a lost cause.
soxhop411 said:“@TimBritton: You guys probably won’t like this, but Masterson is the likely starter Sunday. Johnson wouldn’t go on three days. http://t.co/JWE6cGtJtp”
Rudy Pemberton said:Masterson may be taking Kelly's slot before we know it.
And here we go. I don't know how far he can go with that flat 85 MPH fastball.Rasputin said:That move would be indefensible.
I wonder if he could generate some sort of trickle down effect though for the pitchers that follow him, the way that we theorize that knuckleballers do. I mean, after you've been hitting frozen ropes off of someone's 85 mph "heat", imagine how hard it will be to adjust to real pitching.Coachster said:
And here we go. I don't know how far he can go with that flat 85 MPH fastball.
radsoxfan said:On the positive side…. Masterson could have easily gotten out of that game giving up no runs. The 1 ER was an infield hit, a passed ball, and seeing eye grounder up the middle. His slider had much better movement than before, lots of ugly swings against it. Also gave up no walks, so definitely some improvement in his control. Was looking a little Darren O'Day-ish out there.
On the negative side…. seemed like only marginal velocity increase compared to the last Oakland start, still mostly living in the 86-88 mph range, with a couple up to 90 mph, and then a handful of poorly located 83-84 mph nothing balls (change ups I guess). No walks, but also pretty wild in the strike zone, not hitting Swihart's target often, to go along with a HBP and a WP. He's simply not he same guy he was when he was a successful starter. Very difficult to see this stuff playing against a LH heavy lineup 2 or 3 times through the order for the rest of the year.
Al Zarilla said:
This looks a little more encouraging than what you say WRT pitch speed.
Don't confuse Brooks' speed with PITCHf/x speed. PITCHf/x measures the speed 50 feet from home plate. Brooks uses that measurement to calculate the speed at 55 feet from the plate, which is closer to where it comes out of the pitcher's hand. Brooks' speed is therefore always slightly higher than PITCHf/x speed.radsoxfan said:
I was going off the NESN gun, and didn't notice anything above 90 mph, but I also probably didn't see every pitch. Just eyeballing pitchfx, it looks like his average FB was around 88 mph, which would be slower than every season in his career not including this one (87.0 mph). Last season he was at 88.9 mph, and he was awful.
I'm glad he was better today, especially with the slider, but he's not "fixed".
iayork said:Don't confuse Brooks' speed with PITCHf/x speed. PITCHf/x measures the speed 50 feet from home plate. Brooks uses that measurement to calculate the speed at 55 feet from the plate, which is closer to where it comes out of the pitcher's hand. Brooks' speed is therefore always slightly higher than PITCHf/x speed.
I'm confused. Brooks calls themselves this:iayork said:Don't confuse Brooks' speed with PITCHf/x speed. PITCHf/x measures the speed 50 feet from home plate. Brooks uses that measurement to calculate the speed at 55 feet from the plate, which is closer to where it comes out of the pitcher's hand. Brooks' speed is therefore always slightly higher than PITCHf/x speed.
Brooks chart is probably more accurate than PITCHf/x in that it's closer to what a scout with a radar gun would read the speed at. But I don't think NESN uses a radar gun; they get the speed off PITCHf/x directly, without doing the extra calculation step that Brooks does. If you're comparing speed between games, it doesn't matter which you use so long as you're consistent, but if you compare PITCHf/x directly to Brooks' calculated speed, that's not legit.radsoxfan said:
So the above chart is a little high then? I guess that means his PITCHf/x velo was mostly in the 86-88 range as the NESN readings suggested.
Yes, their numbers are all based on PITCHf/x, but they don't use the raw numbers, they add value by calculating back to make more realistic numbers. Here's what they explain (http://www.brooksbaseball.net/about.php):Al Zarilla said:
I'm confused. Brooks calls themselves this:
BrooksBaseball.net PITCHf/x Tool
Realistic Trajectory Data
Because the PITCHf/x dataset provides the details of each pitch's trajectory, we can slightly alter the default values to align better with reality than what is commonly reported. For example, we slightly shift our reported values back to a release distance of 55' - which more closely reflects the actual release distance of most pitchers - so that release points are more tightly clustered and velocities are slightly increased. We also provide options to visualize pitch movement with gravity added back into the equation or with the effects of air drag removed.
iayork said:Masterson was faster today than he's been for a few starts, but he's not even back to where he was at the beginning of the year, let alone to a couple years ago.
iayork said:
Lots of people don't realize this and have made embarrassing mistakes by comparing Brooks' numbers to raw PITCHf/x numbers.