When not making a move is the right move then John is your man.For all the people who have ever pointed out that the manager's in game decision making gets a disproporrionate amount of credit and blame relative to more big picture managerial decisions, this is exhibit A. John Farrell stuck with Doug Fister when few would have. This is a feather in his managerial cap.
Did he have another option? Not as in 'it was dictated from above' (though it may have been), but who was going to eat those innings otherwise? Maybe someone sent him a text on his Apple Watch.For all the people who have ever pointed out that the manager's in game decision making gets a disproporrionate amount of credit and blame relative to more big picture managerial decisions, this is exhibit A. John Farrell stuck with Doug Fister when few would have. This is a feather in his managerial cap.
Sorry but what kind of revisionist crap is this? For the other options see 90% of the posts here in the first two weeks after the ASB. The Farrell haters and Fister loathers could not comprehend why he was still on the roster when perfectly good options like Velasquez languished in AAA. Calls for Henry Owens were demanded (though they can't have seen his games in Portland much) and near-universal opinion was that with all the off days the Sox should go with a 4-man until Price comes back in a couple of weeks. Regardless, Fister was an incomprehensible choice.Did he have another option? Not as in 'it was dictated from above' (though it may have been), but who was going to eat those innings otherwise? Maybe someone sent him a text on his Apple Watch.
I think we all struck out on this one. Happily, of course.I never expected that this guy would be any good. Boy did I nail that one.
I think UK came across too strong in his response to you but there is no doubt that most people were calling for Velazquez. While he isn't "established" from what we had seen this year he was certainly better than Fister had been.Revisionist crap? Please quote when I loathed Fister. And if you or anyone else thought Owens or Velasquez were 'perfectly good options', I'm not sure what to tell you other than that we disagree and have since the need for another SP was established. I'm also going to need quotes on 'near universal opinion' for a 4 man rotation on the board. Not that that's in any way relevant. I'll give Farrell all the credit in the world if he had something to do with the reclamation (I tend to credit Bannister and Willis, but pitching is Farrell's forte), but when a SP was needed, Owens and Velasquez were not a better option. Fister's bullpen innings meant shit for various reasons.
This is a perfect example of "they have more information than we do".I don't know who gets the credit for fixing Fister but it isn't unreasonable to give manager John some credit for sticking with him when it was far from obvious that Fister had anything left at all.
Bingo.This is, finally, the Sox version of Aaron Small
It's a sliding scale of likelihood. I'd say this being the new normal is unlikely. Few pitchers are as good at 33 as they are at 28, especially for extended periods of time. It's not impossible though. It's much less likely to be a crappy pitcher and suddenly get good in your 30's. I'm pretty happy with what we're getting out of Fister, but I'm emotionally prepared for him turning back into a pumpkin. Hope he doesn't of course, but have to be prepared for that situation, because it is the most likely one.There really isn't much of a comparison. Aaron Small was a terrible pitcher who had one hot streak for one year with the MFY's. Doug Fister was a really good pitcher from 2011-2014. He had an injury plagued 2015 and a shitty 2016. It's not really that far-fetched that, at 33, he can return to being the type of pitcher he was a few years ago.
I agree that there's a chance that he regresses, but Fangraphs had an interesting article on him. It looks like he gained some velocity back from what he lost last year and now his velocities, while not nearly elite, are back to where they were when he was "good". They also noted an apparent mechanical tweak that has him throwing more like he did at 28 than when we saw him earlier this year as a horrific reliever. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/doug-fister-is-all-the-way-back-from-the-brink/It's a sliding scale of likelihood. I'd say this being the new normal is unlikely. Few pitchers are as good at 33 as they are at 28, especially for extended periods of time. It's not impossible though. It's much less likely to be a crappy pitcher and suddenly get good in your 30's. I'm pretty happy with what we're getting out of Fister, but I'm emotionally prepared for him turning back into a pumpkin. Hope he doesn't of course, but have to be prepared for that situation, because it is the most likely one.
I read that too, and it is a good explanation for his recent success. It's not smoke, mirrors, and BABIP. His stuff and performance has returned to a similar state to when he was previously successful. That's good. But the question is if a guy who was previously injured and had a long history of not performing like that is likely to stay in that current state (and by long I mean two years, which is decently long for a MLB pitcher). Will he get injured again, will he lose his current grasp on his mechanics, etc? I guess it's a good thing that he suceeds with a 90 mph fastball instead of a 99 mph one, in terms of wear and tear. So we may disagree on the exact level of likelihood that he regresses.I agree that there's a chance that he regresses, but Fangraphs had an interesting article on him. It looks like he gained some velocity back from what he lost last year and now his velocities, while not nearly elite, are back to where they were when he was "good". They also noted an apparent mechanical tweak that has him throwing more like he did at 28 than when we saw him earlier this year as a horrific reliever. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/doug-fister-is-all-the-way-back-from-the-brink/
It's true, especially because mechanics can be such a fickle thing. And since he lives at 90, as the article noted, he doesn't have much room for error. He needs everything to be crisp. Hopefully our pitching coaching staff recognize what mechanics he "needs" and can keep him in line.I read that too, and it is a good explanation for his recent success. It's not smoke, mirrors, and BABIP. His stuff and performance has returned to a similar state to when he was previously successful. That's good. But the question is if a guy who was previously injured and had a long history of not performing like that is likely to stay in that current state (and by long I mean two years, which is decently long for a MLB pitcher). Will he get injured again, will he lose his current grasp on his mechanics, etc? I guess it's a good thing that he suceeds with a 90 mph fastball instead of a 99 mph one, in terms of wear and tear. So we may disagree on the exact level of likelihood that he regresses.
Is this a thing that has been proven to be true? I recall Tim Wakefield vehemently rejecting this premise saying something about how he throws softer but he still throwing as hard as he can. I just imagine it has more to do with mechanics than the actual velocity, even if mechanics and velocity are often linked.I guess it's a good thing that he suceeds with a 90 mph fastball instead of a 99 mph one, in terms of wear and tear.
This article found evidence to support harder throwers going on the DL the following season:Is this a thing that has been proven to be true? I recall Tim Wakefield vehemently rejecting this premise saying something about how he throws softer but he still throwing as hard as he can. I just imagine it has more to do with mechanics than the actual velocity, even if mechanics and velocity are often linked.
What that it? Seems maybe some interesting field positioning might have contributed a couple of runs?Bad time for the clock to strike midnight.
He was bad.What that it? Seems maybe some interesting field positioning might have contributed a couple of runs?
Or was Fister-rella just bad / poor control / ineffective tonight? I didn't see the game...
Sure. I have been pretty excited by his renaissance, and hoping he is able to bounce back. Red Sox really need his contributions still, and will right through if there is to be any playoff run at all.He was bad.
It was one outing. Let's see what happens next time out before we going back to hating him.
Now it's two bad outings, neither of which, for various reasons, I've been able to watch. Anybody who did care to chime in with what's suddenly gone wrong again?It was one outing. Let's see what happens next time out before we going back to hating him.
Sadly, Fister is now looking like the Real Aaron Small.This is, finally, the Sox version of Aaron Small
I think Rodriguez is the third starter at this point. He's been the better pitcher over the course of the season. Fister's only chance, IMO, was to continue to streak of dominance he was on. Even if he was squeezed last night, his last two starts have pushed him to the edge of being left out. He's going to have to regain that dominant look to beat out Porcello for the fourth rotation spot now.Sadly, Fister is now looking like the Real Aaron Small.
Assuming the Sox hold on, JF will not have an obvious choice for the third starter role. If forced to choose right now, I would go with Porcello. I know there's some recency bias there with the last performances of Fister and Porcello in particular skewing my views. And Farrell does not have to choose right now. But between the consistent first inning suck and the overall numbers in the last two starts, it really is difficult to favor Fister. Regardless of who gets the ball, here's hoping that Sale and Pomeranz will be able to go deep enough to allow Farrell the luxury of using Price and perhaps one of the other starters if necessary in start number three.
Agree with RHF here. In a hypothetical 5 game series, the expectations are for Sale to go deep into a game and coming out with a Game one victory so that all bullpen options (IMO, all but Price) are on the table for the Pomeranz (likely a 5 inning... 6 inning if things go well) game.I think Rodriguez is the third starter at this point. He's been the better pitcher over the course of the season. Fister's only chance, IMO, was to continue to streak of dominance he was on. Even if he was squeezed last night, his last two starts have pushed him to the edge of being left out. He's going to have to regain that dominant look to beat out Porcello for the fourth rotation spot now.
Since then, 2 crappy starts. Mister Fister is clearly missing the SJH hate he was feeding off.I never expected that this guy would be any good. Boy did I nail that one.