How many times do you think a team's confidence "shot up" at the time and then they lost anyway? That statement means less than nothing.
It’s baseball - of course anything can happen. But surely even you can agree that players can get an emotional lift from something (as the example from the World Series shows).
That example doesn't show anything unless you also know the hundreds of other times they also thought they got that same emotional lift and then they lost anyway.
The most obvious way that I can think of is opening for 2ip every other game with an extra game off every week or two. I don't know if that is a realistic workload though. The total ip shouldn't be a problem but the rigors of pitching every other day could be a challenge.
I also wonder about the nexus of third time through/pitch count. Of course pitch count has some correlation with how well a guy is pitching generally. But if a pitcher is cruising, low pitch count by the time he gets to a third time through the order, maybe the numbers aren't as troubling. That is ... corroding effectiveness might be a combination of hitters getting a sense of a pitcher's stuff + fatigue. If the fatigue isn't there, maybe the risk is smaller to keep a pitcher in third time through ... Houck had gotten through 4 innings on less than 15 pitches per inning.
Or, he did look at all the factors, made a decision you disagree with, and it didn't pay off. I suspect that the decision to lift Houck in the fifth inning has less to do with Houck specifically than the last four days of debate here have factored in. Cora was also weighing the percentages of a fresh Whitlock getting through the top of the order and a fresh Taylor getting the LHH middle of the order as the most efficient mode of attack. The wildcard in that decision versus a typical decision to get the final nine outs of a game with a one-run lead was that it was a seven inning game and the starter was obviously not as stressed/fatigued as he'd have been in a nine inning game.
Maybe, yes, sure. Though virtually every other factor suggested he should keep him in. So, yeah, if Cora was weighing all of the factors and considering the full circumstance (especially 3 games in 30 hours) and still pulled him, I'm critical of his judgement.
That was a different GM group and If I remember correctly, Papelbon was moved to the bullpen out of injury concerns and because he really liked the role of closer.
Just pushing back on this for fun - but doesn't the principle still stand even if the front office personnel is entirely different? He's excellent the first time through the order consistently in the big leagues. Given his numbers the first time through the order (.207/.263/.272 against, 1.09 ERA innings 1-3) couldn't he potentially be dominant in 3-6 out stints? It might be more productive for the team to have him come out of the bullpen and I don't understand the speculation that the Sox should find a role that nets him significant usage (~150 IP mentioned up thread) as a reliever. Trying to push him into territory where he'd face hitters multiple times seems like a mistake to me given the numbers in the middle innings and in the 2nd and 3rd PA.
One could also easily say it's naive to expect a 25 year old with a 4+ ERA and ~1.4 WHIP in the minors to improve much further beyond what he is right now.
Jon Lester was 22 years old one year removed from having a dominant AA season as a 21 year old. Tanner Houck's minor league career stats consist of...
I was at that game against the Angels. He certainly made up for lost time in that game. He was TERRIBLE.
Just thinking out loud and adding my 2 cents... IMO 3 innings would be an opener if you get 4-5 innings perhaps he's you bulk innings guy to follow the opener. Now's not exactly the time to experiment, but Richards and Houck might be interesting. The question would be which one do you trust more going 4+ innings.
Seems like a really interesting point in there that I haven't seen mentioned before, about how it's not just about having more pitches to go deep, it's also about command and hitting different spots in the zone. Like if he a starting pitcher gets a guy out twice in a game by attacking a certain part of the zone, most hitters are good enough that they know that is what is happening and won't let themselves be beaten the same way again.
Given all of the praise that Varitek was given for his preparation and game calling as a catcher, I'm curious about his relationship with Vazquez.
I don’t think we can really count on that; we all thought tax thresholds would go up in this CBA, and they didn’t rise appreciably. The owners initial proposal is aimed at suppressing player salaries, and the CBT looks to remain the league’s prime tool for keeping big market teams in line.
I agree.... and think Seabold should take the starts that were slated to be Houck's (if any) from here on out.
In essence, isn't that what his starts are at this point in the season? I get that you might rather spread those innings over two or three games if the opportunity arises, but ATM each game is pretty much a must win game unless Toronto or the MFY lose bigly the rest of the way.
With four off-days over the next ten days, they can conceivably use a 4-man rotation until the final weekend, allowing them to use Houck in relief AND have him make one more start as well (on that final weekend). Leaving Seabold where he is to finish the season with Worcester without any more disruption in his routine.
