Worst In Game Pitching Decision In Red Sox History
- Thread starter Papo The Snow Tiger
- Start date
I saw RS manager rating in a post above. If we are going by essentially the last 50 ish years is the assumption that the top 2 are:
1. Tito
2. Cora
Is Cora not number 2? To round out the top 5, I would imagine some combo of Darrell Johnson, Dick Williams, and my favorite, Joe Morgan
1. Tito
2. Cora
Is Cora not number 2? To round out the top 5, I would imagine some combo of Darrell Johnson, Dick Williams, and my favorite, Joe Morgan
Dick Williams is 1 - 2. Tito the same. Personally, I'd take Tito because he lasted eight seasons, and led us to two World Series titles. Dick Williams lasted just three, took us to one WS. Cora third, probably falling behind Williams because of this year. All the rest? Mediocre or worse.
edit, maybe Joe Cronin was good?
Last edited:
You’re holding this year AGAINST Alex Cora? This team is aggressively mediocre and he’s got them on the precipice of the post season and close to 90 wins.
Dick Williams had Jesus Christ playing left field for him in 1967.
and the choice of Arroyo, a guy who has 1 hit in the past two months+ and clearly doesn’t have his timing back, as the PH was extremely curious.
I get that Houck may not be able to go the distance but he was at 53 pitches and, you know, was doing kinda well.
This is Cora’s philosophy taken to the extreme.
This is Cora’s philosophy taken to the extreme.
And, for full context, with a bullpen full of overworked / mediocre options...and for the sake of a pinch hitter, with no runners on base, who has barely played since the All-Star break...in a critically important game. But it worked, I guess!
Let's wait and see how these guys who have pitched 2, 3 or 4 days in a row do tomorrow.
Completely agree. I wrote that tongue-in-cheek...it was a terrible decision. Honestly, I'm stunned that the baseball gods didn't punish it they way they usually do in games like this. Maybe we'll all be grateful when Houck pitches the last 5 innings of extra innings during the Wild Card game.
Last edited:
I'd hope the ones out of the pen tomorrow are Whitlock, Pivetta, and Eddie.
I thought at the time that having Pedro start the inning was defensible, and I still do. (Though obviously, letting Pedro think he was done was bad). It was leaving him in after any and all of those hits that was unforgivable. Never bringing Williamson in to that game was rough too.
I agree with this. My brother and I were in his living room standing in front of the TV and one of us said exactly this when he came out for the 8th -- "Okay, it's Pedro with a 3-run lead. Pull him as soon as someone gets on base." As soon as Jeter was standing on 2nd base with 1 out we started talking about how good Williamson had been and felt like it had been a good gamble... and then I distinctly remember seeing the next hitter step into the box and both of us saying at the same time "Wait, WHAT?!?!"
The decision on pedro was a poor one from the start but would have been almost completely mitigated if Trot, a good defensive outfielder, didn’t break in on Jeter’s line drive with one out. I have forever maintained that he should have caught that ball. Imagine that inning with 2 out and nobody on?
I have had this argument before and curios how it plays here: which are you more comfortable with:
A. Trot should have caught that ball
B. Buckner would have beaten Mookie to the bag?
I have had this argument before and curios how it plays here: which are you more comfortable with:
A. Trot should have caught that ball
B. Buckner would have beaten Mookie to the bag?
Monaco mentioned that Houck in his previous outings had thrown 34 and 41 pitches so at 53 he‘s not going much longer and in a 1-0 game in an NL park pinch hitting makes plenty of sense. If he was stretched out to throw 100 it would be indefensible.
Yes, he followed up 5 no hit innings about a month ago with: Home Run, HBP, HBP and was pulled (both ended up scoring), those 3 runs ended up playing a big part in their losing that game.
Sure, but we also have a bullpen that implodes regularly and is beyond taxed. 53 pitches with 8 Ks through 5 is about as good as any pitcher can be pitching. If it’s not some edict from above, that would have a fireable offense we’s have talked about for years had things gone south. If this is indeed some organizational philosophy, it’s not a promising sign. There needs to be some context taken into consideration during gameplay.
The fact that he was great through 5 has little to no relevance on if he would have been good in the 6th, "dealing" as a predictor of the next inning isn't a real thing. Arguing that it would have been a fireable offense if they lost is beyond insanity.
I'm going to assume that no one in the thread is arguing to let him face Soto a third time in a one-run game. I'm also going to assume that we want to do our best to not face Soto with runners on.
So I guess what I would say is that I think there was a case for allowing Houck to start the sixth with the bottom of the order due. But we do not want him facing anyone a third time in a one-run game, because we don't want to risk a reliever needing to come in with men on base in front of Soto.
So we're really arguing over three hitters (i.e. whether we allow Houck to face Mercer, Kieboom, and the pitcher's spot). Given that Houck's spot in the order was due up next, it's an NL-rules no brainer to pull him when Cora did. If Cora had let Houck lead off an inning in a close game only to pull him the next inning — well, that's the sort of thing that gets NL managers fired.
So I guess what I would say is that I think there was a case for allowing Houck to start the sixth with the bottom of the order due. But we do not want him facing anyone a third time in a one-run game, because we don't want to risk a reliever needing to come in with men on base in front of Soto.
So we're really arguing over three hitters (i.e. whether we allow Houck to face Mercer, Kieboom, and the pitcher's spot). Given that Houck's spot in the order was due up next, it's an NL-rules no brainer to pull him when Cora did. If Cora had let Houck lead off an inning in a close game only to pull him the next inning — well, that's the sort of thing that gets NL managers fired.
I’m not arguing against you at all I’m just curious because I haven’t seen it. Is there evidence that “dealing” as a predictor isn’t a real thing? Some nights guys have it more than on other nights. If it hadn’t worked out, it wouldn’t be a fireable offense, but I still think it was dumb to not let him start the 6th
I have a feeling that Houck's usage (tonight at least) goes above Cora's in-game decision making.
His usage seems regimented.
His usage seems regimented.
I'm not sure if the data itself has ever been published, but analytics writers have looked into it and referenced it. It comes up every time a manager pulls starter in the playoffs and the internet goes crazy. Russell Carlton recently wrote an article for BP that's behind a paywall about why the Blake Snell move was fine and will happen again and as part of his reasoning, in addition to the 3rd time through the order penalty which has been discussed a lot includes:
"I researched the issue and found that if a pitcher is absolutely dominant through 18 batters, it is a sign that he will actually perform better than his season averages… by a little bit. Being dominant tells us nothing about what to expect next. They are still the same pitchers as always."
Houck as a starter only made it into the 6th twice, he got a combined 1 out and gave up 6 runs after giving up 1 total run between those first 10 innings. He also hadn't thrown this many pitches in weeks, plus the increased odds of scoring with a pinch hitter. And Richards was very fresh, I was actually surprised he only went 1 inning.
I thought there were legitimate reasons to pull Houck. Richards only going 1 was the move that I could not understand.
Follow up, I tweeted Russell Carlton and the math is here, it's from a few years ago, but I doubt it's changed much since then.
https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/43230/baseball-therapy-what-craig-counsell-knew-about-wade-miley/
It's not exactly the same because he hadn't hit the 3rd time through the order yet, but somehow I doubt the people arguing that it was a fireable offense would have a different argument if instead of allowing 0 baserunners he had allowed a few soft singles and was still at 53 pitches and 0 runs
Last edited:
Having Brice hit for himself was also incredibly perplexing.
How many pitchers who aren't that good have thrown no-hitters, or near no-hitters and just thrown the game of their life? It happens all the time. Houck could have done that, continued to pitch great. We have no idea - but to me it's worth finding out. If he loses it, you pull him.
Loses it, he could've given up a worm-burner through the infield, followed by a bloop single. Neither of these are any indication that he's losing it so you don't pull him. 3 run blast. Game very likely over.
I was about to say "all of them" but I wasn't yet born when the Galehouse game took place. Witnessed three at the park, and one on TV.
I was kinda antsy today when Edo pitched the 8th but not the 9th - Pivetta did OK, so that's why I'm a retired computer geek and Cora's the manager.
Not many under the circumstances combining short rest and most recent short pitch counts. With the offense sucking, i dont think its worth the risk of "finding out." For me, anyway, it was defensible.People can disagree. But those who say it was obviously the wrong call are stuck on some other concern.
Getting out of that inning without more damage being done may turn out to be one of the key moments in the entire season.
We all know that Pedro was the worst in game decision. We also know that the Sale signing was the worst offseason signing. I’d argue it was worse than Matt Clement.
Matt Clement getting 3-24.5 is in the conversation for the worst offseason signing in Red Sox history?
Not sure anyone expected Clement, who pitched well enough in his first half season here to be named an All Star, to get hit off the head with a line drive. It's bad that his shoulder blew out the following season, but the contract was nowhere near the payroll killer that Sandoval's was, or Carl Crawford's could have been. His playoff start will obviously live in infamy, but the 2005 Sox weren't winning that series anyway, and Clement had nothing to do with David Wells giving up a huge home run the following game.
Yeah 3/24 was grocery money for the Sox anyway. Not even in the conversation.
It was indeed a terrible signing, not because they gave Sale an extension per se, but because they gave him an extension right after a season in which he couldn't really pitch the last two months (used very sparingly) because he was significantly hurt, AND he had another year left on his team-friendly contract (plenty of time to see what he could do coming off an injured season, and then decide), AND they knew they were staring down Mookie's free agency, and would only break the bank for so many bajillion dollar contracts.
That said, of course I hope Sale recovers. Like, by his next start. Or he has the wiles to become an effectively crafty pitcher for the rest of his career. But it was a terrible signing by virtue of its timing as much as anything else.