Daniel Bard

[ORS]

Go team, Go!

 

*waves pom-poms*

No team, ever, is a lock to have a top-anything bullpen, not with the amount of volatility in reliver performance from year to year.

[Dojji]

Yeah, but that's true of mediocre pens too. You'd be hard pressed to deny that we have depth at a near unprecedented level-- 4-5 different pitchers need to fail -- hard -- for us not to have a quality setup corps and an elite closer.

 

I definitely like having a guy like Hunter Jones or Daniel Bard in reserve too. Bard isn't ready yet and whether he's worth a callup depends on whether he can harness his command, but Hunter Jones was probably ready last year, is an innings horse, and while his stuff isn't Dan Bard caliber he's got enough to get by at the big league level. If I had to pick who the next Masterson level pleasant surprise would be it'd probably be Jones.

 

Add to that the fact that Masterson himself might be in the wings as a reserve starter and that's 7 different pitchers that need to blow it bigtime before we're even in trouble.

 

There's reason for a certain optimism.

[riverside sluggers]

Lol at my post being criticized. But yet no one had countered other posters who have said that this bullpen will be stuff of legend, or historically good. If the rotation is good as it is on paper, they will eat up innings and allow the bullpen not be overworked. Heck Kyle Snyder had a career year in 2007

[jacksonianmarch]

The sox have the makings of a solid pen. But there are two guys they cannot live without (just like we have one guy we can absolutely not lose). You lose Papelbon or Oki for an extended period of time and that pen drops to mediocre quickly. ORS is right. Bullpens are notorious for having waxing and waning success over the yrs. Those with marquee players typically disband quickly.

[TheKilo]

Lol at my post being criticized. But yet no one had countered other posters who have said that this bullpen will be stuff of legend' date=' or historically good. If the rotation is good as it is on paper, they will eat up innings and allow the bullpen not be overworked. Heck Kyle Snyder had a career year in 2007[/quote']

 

I'm not criticized because I RULE THIS PLACE

[ORS]

Lol at my post being criticized. But yet no one had countered other posters who have said that this bullpen will be stuff of legend' date=' or historically good. If the rotation is good as it is on paper, they will eat up innings and allow the bullpen not be overworked. Heck Kyle Snyder had a career year in 2007[/quote']

I read those posts, and my recollection of them is that they had the good sense to qualify the optimism with phrases like "could be" or "a chance to be". They did not reek of hubris and call anything a "lock".

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Not until he gets his walks down it isn't. You can fault Joba for a lot of things but spotty command isn't one of them and while Jenks used to be a bit wild he settled WAAAAY down over the last couple years and had an impressive 1.8 bb/9 this last season.

 

Zumaya's probably a fair comp but not a beneficial one for Bard -- he had a 1:1 BB/K ratio -- over 8k/9, over 8 bb/9. That's pretty Aardsma-like.

 

Right now the best big league comparison for Bard is probably Brian Bruney, Juan Cruz, or Carlos Marmol. Guys who walk a lot of batters but are overpowering enough to get away with it.

 

My comparison was based on pitch type and velocity. Not stats since Bard has never pitched in the big leagues. Once that begins we can make a comparison based on stats.

 

I don't particularly care if a guy is injury prone. You can work around that given adequate depth as long as a guy isn't Glass Carl. If a pitcher cannot command his pitches' date=' throw strikes, find the holes in a hitter's swing, and make adjustments to the hitter as he adjusts to the pitcher, all of which require a big league level of command and control that Bard doesn't have yet, he isn't going to thrive at the big league level for very long.[/quote']

 

I'll have to disagree to some degree. Injury prone pitchers are an issue. The more injuries you have the less effective you become, especially as a pitcher. It doesn't take much to lose a few MPH from your fastball and suddenly you don't have the edge you once had. I agree with your assesment on what it takes to be a major league pitcher but Daniel Bard has all the talent to become that player. He was a star pitcher at North Carolina, a 1st round pick that dropped farther than he was supposed to, and is making large strides to fullfilling his potential. Lets not be all doom and gloom already on the kid....lets watch him pitch in a big situation and continue this conversation.

 

THat's not half of what made Rivera' date=' Hoffman, and Papelbon so dominant. All three of these pitchers have superb command and control, enough to compensate for a lack of overpowering stuff in any given outing. .[/quote']

 

Whats the difference between command and control in terms of pitching? I apologize I said "consistency around the plate" hence...control...sorry for the confusion but I'm agreeing with you.

 

Papelbon might top out at 98 can get big league hitters out even when he's only hitting 91 on the radar gun -- we've seen it several times. Rivera and Hoffmann don't regularly top out above 92 anymore. Bard is going to have to be at his best just to get people out' date=' if he doesn't have his 100 in a given outing he has a far better chance of being lit up. That's why he belongs in the minors. If he's walking 4 batters per 9 innings in AA he's walking a whole HECK of a lot more than that if he comes to the big leagues now and giving up HR's when he has to overpitch the fastall too.[/quote']

 

How many walks does Bard have this spring training? How many Ks does he have or hell how many innings (I don't have the stats). I'm sure they are good and he only has a couple walks....its only spring training but this is why we are all talking about him. It's exciting to watch and to think he quite possibly could continue to improve. I don't think anyone disputes he should start this season in the minors but we are watching a young pitcher grow into the player he is supposed to be....good times

[Cocos Disciples]

I'm not criticized because I RULE THIS PLACE

 

Yeah, that's essentially true.

[Dojji]

My comparison was based on pitch type and velocity. Not stats since Bard has never pitched in the big leagues. Once that begins we can make a comparison based on stats.

 

Alright, but command is part of makeup just like selection, break and velocity is. It doesn't matter how good his stuff is if he doesn't know where it's going.

 

 

I'll have to disagree to some degree. Injury prone pitchers are an issue. The more injuries you have the less effective you become, especially as a pitcher. It doesn't take much to lose a few MPH from your fastball and suddenly you don't have the edge you once had.

 

That's why it's important to have more than one pitching "tool." You need to have good command and control, good deception, and good stuff to last a long time in the big leagues. Right now Bard has fantastic stuff and above average deception but the command is just not there. My fear is that he gets away with not developing his command working against AAA and AAAA hitters and it bites him in the backside when he debuts.

 

I agree with your assesment on what it takes to be a major league pitcher but Daniel Bard has all the talent to become that player. He was a star pitcher at North Carolina, a 1st round pick that dropped farther than he was supposed to, and is making large strides to fullfilling his potential. Lets not be all doom and gloom already on the kid....lets watch him pitch in a big situation and continue this conversation.

 

You won't hear me bashing Bard's potential, but the guy's 23 and still hasn't developed even average command at the AA level. He's very, very volatile right now, and could just as easily take a step backwards as another step forward. If he fulfils his potential he's going to be dominant, and even in his downside he'll probably get major league innings to pitch. But his window is shrinking to really be that guy we're seeing right now for an entire career.

 

 

How many walks does Bard have this spring training? How many Ks does he have or hell how many innings (I don't have the stats).

 

Who cares? it's Spring Training. The ultimate celebration of the small sample size.

 

I'm sure they are good and he only has a couple walks....its only spring training but this is why we are all talking about him. It's exciting to watch and to think he quite possibly could continue to improve. I don't think anyone disputes he should start this season in the minors but we are watching a young pitcher grow into the player he is supposed to be....good times

 

There's a fair few other pitchers in this system that I think are more likely to reach their potential than Dan Bard. But then, I was never as wowed by velocity as some. Maybe Bard proves me wrong. I hope so.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Who cares? it's Spring Training. The ultimate celebration of the small sample size.

 

There's a fair few other pitchers in this system that I think are more likely to reach their potential than Dan Bard. But then, I was never as wowed by velocity as some. Maybe Bard proves me wrong. I hope so.

 

True its spring training but that being said his performance is what has spawned this thread to pick up steam and writers commenting on his performance. His stat line from what I found:

7 IP, 3 H, 0 ER, 2 BB, 10 K, 0.00 ERA

 

Daniel Bard was drafted over Justin Masterson in 2006 and although Masterson developed faster and has had more success to this point at the MLB level, Bard has the higher ceiling. Just for comparison last season in AA:

 

Masterson = 41.0 IP / 2.31 K/BB / 4.23 ERA

Bard = 49.2 IP / 2.46 K/BB / 1.99 ERA

[Dojji]

Masterson >>>>> Bard.

 

It. Is. Not. Close.

 

Masterson is a starter, or has the ability to be one. Bard does not.

 

To my view, an above average starter > a great reliever unless that reliever is currently an elite closer. If Masterson has the ceiling of a #2 starter, I consider that a higher ceiling than an elite setup man, which is the most you cn ask of Bard right now. So I say that as far as ceilings go, Bard's is flashier, but Masterson's is more useful to the team -- and anway, Masterson is closer to his ceiling at a younger age.

 

Masterson is the same age as Bard. He has been an effective starter. He has been an effective setup man. SOmeday, 2-3 years from now, Bard MIGHT be doing what Masterson did LAST YEAR.

 

I don't think you can just say that Bard has more potential than Masterson just because he throws 100 and was higher on the draft slot. What they've done in the meantime is a huge advantage for Masterson, ERA in 8 Portland starts notwithstanding. Besides that, Bard's ceiling has dropped since the draft thanks to his headcase fiasco in 2007, and Justin Masterson's has only gone up. since he was seen as a reliever on draft day and sbubsequently proved that he could start too.

 

Bard might have a plus-plus fastball because of velocity. Masterson's sinker is plus-plus too, because of its movement and his ability to command it. If you had to ask me point black which was a better main offering for a relief pitcher, I take Masterson's power sinker every day of the week and twice on Sunday's over a generic 100.

 

Think of it this way: Bard's job is to make sure you don't hit the ball. If you hit it, he's already failed in his primary objective as a pitcher. Masterson's job as a power sinkerballer is to make sure that even if you do hit it, it's on his terms. Even if you make contact you haven't necessarily beaten him. That's a more complete strategy.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Masterson >>>>> Bard.

 

It. Is. Not. Close.

 

Masterson is a starter, or has the ability to be one. Bard does not.

 

To my view, an above average starter > a great reliever unless that reliever is currently an elite closer. If Masterson has the ceiling of a #2 starter, I consider that a higher ceiling than an elite setup man, which is the most you cn ask of Bard right now. So I say that as far as ceilings go, Bard's is flashier, but Masterson's is more useful to the team -- and anway, Masterson is closer to his ceiling at a younger age.

 

Masterson is the same age as Bard. He has been an effective starter. He has been an effective setup man. SOmeday, 2-3 years from now, Bard MIGHT be doing what Masterson did LAST YEAR.

 

I don't think you can just say that Bard has more potential than Masterson just because he throws 100 and was higher on the draft slot. What they've done in the meantime is a huge advantage for Masterson, ERA in 8 Portland starts notwithstanding. Besides that, Bard's ceiling has dropped since the draft thanks to his headcase fiasco in 2007, and Justin Masterson's has only gone up. since he was seen as a reliever on draft day and sbubsequently proved that he could start too.

 

Bard might have a plus-plus fastball because of velocity. Masterson's sinker is plus-plus too, because of its movement and his ability to command it. If you had to ask me point black which was a better main offering for a relief pitcher, I take Masterson's power sinker every day of the week and twice on Sunday's over a generic 100.

 

Yikes I don't think much of this response because you are contradicting the hell out of yourself. Justin Masterson had a 1.70 K/BB ratio last season at the MLB level and you are preaching control. Daniel Bard had a better K/BB ratio than Masterson in AA. Which is it? Masterson got the jump to the MLB level but thats because Bard was still discovering himself in A-ball the year before and needed more time. Just because you are the fastest to reach the MLB level does not necessarily mean you will be the better player in the long run. Is there such a thing as a generic 100 mph fastball?

 

Think of it this way: Bard's job is to make sure you don't hit the ball. If you hit it' date=' he's already failed in his primary objective as a pitcher. Masterson's job as a power sinkerballer is to make sure that even if you do hit it, it's on his terms. Even if you make contact you haven't necessarily beaten him. That's a more complete strategy.[/quote']

 

Thats not just Daniel Bard or Justin Masterson....thats every pitcher. Every pitcher is trying to get to the point where the dictate the game and make there pitches so the opposing team doesn't hit it out of the park.

[Dojji]

Yikes I don't think much of this response because you are contradicting the hell out of yourself. Justin Masterson had a 1.70 K/BB ratio last season at the MLB level and you are preaching control. Daniel Bard had a better K/BB ratio than Masterson in AA. Which is it? Masterson got the jump to the MLB level but thats because Bard was still discovering himself in A-ball the year before and needed more time. Just because you are the fastest to reach the MLB level does not necessarily mean you will be the better player in the long run. Is there such a thing as a generic 100 mph fastball?

 

There is indeed such a thing as a generic 100 MPH fastball. Just ask Kyle Farnsworth who used to throw one before he tried to refine his style and sacrificed a bit of velocity for movement. Throwing hard should not be considered a tool in its own right. You an be a power pitcher and "only" throw 93 or 94. 100 only helps you depending on what you do with it.

 

Am I contradicting myself by praising Masterson despite his walks total at the big league level? Maybe I am, but three points.

 

First: Masterson has demonstrated very good command in the minors, so it's easier to dismiss his 4 bb/9 in the big leagues as a blip related to him adjusting to the league.

 

Second: a ground ball pitcher can tolerate more walks than a power pitcher because of the potential for double plays. We saw that at work more than a few times especially when Masterson started.

 

Finally: Masterson got most of his walks when he was pitching to lefthanders, and he got them because he didn't give in and give the lefthanded pitcher something to kill him with. Once again, that's just a matter of Masterson adjusting to the league and mastering the ability to pitch to lefthanded hitters. It doesn't affect my perception of the tool called "control" as much as a guy who's dominating AA hitters with a 100 MPH fastball and an elite slide piece and still can't avoid the walks. (if there was ever a time to fear NO one...)

 

 

Thats not just Daniel Bard or Justin Masterson....thats every pitcher. Every pitcher is trying to get to the point where the dictate the game and make there pitches so the opposing team doesn't hit it out of the park.

 

Yeah but it's hard to deny that the sinkerballers have an edge there.

[a700hitter]

Bard has done nothing but throw strikes all Spring. He has not struggled with command at all. He has had quite a few outings thus far and in my recollection, he hasn't struggled with command in one of them.

[BSN07]

Bard is going to force someone in the BP to become expendable. Kid has been great so far. But I still think he starts in the Minors. It is ST, the most optimistic time of year.

[a700hitter]

Bard is going to force someone in the BP to become expendable. Kid has been great so far. But I still think he starts in the Minors. It is ST' date=' the most optimistic time of year.[/quote']If Penny or Wakefield start the season on the DL, Masterson could be in the rotation. That would open a bull pen spot for Bard.

[Dojji]

Bard will not break camp with Boston no matter what. I have to think that they'd try to keep hold of Littleton if a spot opens, or failing that promote Hunter Jones, who's due a chance to prove himself..

[a700hitter]

Bard will not break camp with Boston no matter what. I have to think that they'd try to keep hold of Littleton if a spot opens' date=' or failing that promote Hunter Jones, who's due a chance to prove himself..[/quote']Littleton just flat out sucks.

[BoSox21]

Yea, but they aren't gonna risk ruining Bard just because Wes Littleton sucks

 

They should keep Masterson in the bullpen and go with Buchholz if any starter can't go

[Dojji]

Noce to have some quality depth isn't it? A lot of teams would probably be in no position to quibble about it if a guy that threw 100 looked close to ready. In half the teams in baseball Bard would probably finish his training on the job.

[a700hitter]

Yea, but they aren't gonna risk ruining Bard just because Wes Littleton sucks

 

They should keep Masterson in the bullpen and go with Buchholz if any starter can't go

Risk of what? I don't see how letting him get a few outings at the ML level would put him at "risk". It think it would be a good learning opportunity. If he were to flop, it would help him to identify the adjustments that he will have to make in order to be successful in the majors. If he were to succeed, there is nothing bad about that.

[CrespoBlows]

Risk of what? I don't see how letting him get a few outings at the ML level would put him at "risk". It think it would be a good learning opportunity. If he were to flop' date=' it would help him to identify the adjustments that he will have to make in order to be successful in the majors. If he were to succeed, there is nothing bad about that.[/quote']

 

I am tired of hearing how the slightest bad outing causing a prospect to be RUINED.

 

We must draft the biggest douchebags every year for this explanation to keep coming up. If Bard manages to have a bad couple of outings, and is "ruined" by it, then how did anyone expect anything from him?

 

I don't want these pussies on our team, if they can't handle allowing a base hit early in their career.

[a700hitter]

I am tired of hearing how the slightest bad outing causing a prospect to be RUINED.

 

We must draft the biggest douchebags every year for this explanation to keep coming up. If Bard manages to have a bad couple of outings, and is "ruined" by it, then how did anyone expect anything from him?

 

I don't want these pussies on our team, if they can't handle allowing a base hit early in their career.

I agree completely. IMO Hansen didn't get ruined by getting rushed to the majors. The kid just can't repeat his delivery, and he has never been able to correct that flaw. He's still young, so time has not completely run out on him. If he can't make the necessary adjustments, he will be a failure of his own accord. It will have nothing to do with getting rushed.

[BoSox21]

A big part of pitching is based on mentality and confidence. A lot guys can't sack up and get their s*** together if they stumble out of the gate. Homer Bailey might be becoming one those cases.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Masterson >>>>> Bard.

 

It. Is. Not. Close.

 

Masterson is a starter, or has the ability to be one. Bard does not.

 

This is your reasoning? Wow, definitely wouldn't want a guy who can hit high velocity and has been having no command trouble to be a possible future closer (you know, in event that Papelbon's demands are too high).

[a700hitter]

A big part of pitching is based on mentality and confidence. A lot guys can't sack up and get their s*** together if they stumble out of the gate. Homer Bailey might be becoming one those cases.

Pressure situations that can destroy a pitcher's psyche to the point that he cannot succeed are rare... maybe the Bobby Thompson Shot Heard Around the World, the Joel Carter World Series winning home run or Hendu's HR off Donnie Moore.

[Dojji]

This is your reasoning? Wow' date=' definitely wouldn't want a guy who can hit high velocity and has been having no command trouble to be a possible future closer (you know, in event that Papelbon's demands are too high).[/quote']

 

Who says I don't want Bard? I just think he needs a lot of work in the minors still, and that Masterson is way better right now.

 

It's not like my position isn't based on a reasonable evaluation of the facts, after all Masterson was in the big leagues last year in the role Bard projects to take over in 2 years. and they're the same age.

 

Sure, Bard's got a plus-plus fastball, and Masterson's got a plus-plus sinker so that's a wash. Secondary stuff favors Masterson, or is at worst a wash. That 3 digit number on the radar gun is excellent and Bard might excel in his role, but Masterson has all the tools he needs to succeed in a much more important (IMHO) role to the team. And most importantly of all, he already has a year of MLB experience under his belt in which he put up quality numbers.

 

Also, while Bard was drafted ahead of Masterson, Masterson moved up in the prospect rankings with his work in the minors while Bard moved down for the most part especially in 2007.

 

I'm glad Bard is having a great spring, but I definitely want to see him demonstrate good command over at least a 20-30 inning sample size before I'm comfortable calling for him to be promoted to the big leagues.

[BoSox21]

To follow up on the posts above, Wes Littleton won't be an option anyway cause he was claimed off waivers today by Milwaukee

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Masterson >>>>> Bard.

 

It. Is. Not. Close.

 

I believe Daniel Bard has proved he is a better reliever than Justin Masterson. Clay Buchholz has more upside and is ready to explode in a starter role. Now the question is what to do with Masterson?

 

I think he is too good as a long-reliever type but not sure he is good enough to be in the Red Sox rotation. I wonder what he could net the Sox in a trade this offseason?

[BoSox21]

A simple lolwut would've sufficed