Bard to Rotation a Mistake?

[FredLynn]

Bard was going to be in the rotation regardless. Thats the FO's plan. Thats been the plan from day 1 regardless of whether or not you agree with it. The problem was not replacing him in the bullpen.

 

I am saying that I disagree with that plan. I think it is misguided. And as you say, if Bard is in the rotation, then he has to be replaced with a reliable arm in the bullpen, and that wasn't done. I am not convinced that Melancon is a failure yet; he could still perform well. But adding him does not cover for the loss of both Bard and Papelbon. Those losses leave us with a weak bullpen, a conclusion that is logical by looking at the parts out there, independent of today's debacle.

[FredLynn]

Pretty good? I think he's a better reliever than Bard and on par with good Papelbon' date=' because while Papelbon's FB is better, Bailey has more consistent secondary pitches he can mix in.[/quote']

 

Bailey's numbers compare well with Papelbon's numbers. His problem is that he cannot seem to stay healthy.

Cherington should have seen that.

[ORS]

Bailey's numbers compare well with Papelbon's numbers. His problem is that he cannot seem to stay healthy.

Cherington should have seen that.

How do we know they didn't? We are are in the first week following the diagnosis and one game into the season. The contingency plan doesn't have to be somebody already on the roster. Let's see what happens from here and then pass judgment. If the plan is to go with what they've got and it doesn't work, then, yeah, it's a s***** contingency plan.

[a700hitter]

Pretty good? I think he's a better reliever than Bard and on par with good Papelbon' date=' because while Papelbon's FB is better, Bailey has more consistent secondary pitches he can mix in.[/quote']I disagree. I remember going to Fenway to see the Rays on a Sunday night in 2008 or 9. Paps walked Iwamura to lead off the 9th inning. He stole second and Bartlett hit a hump back liner to center for a single. Iwamura got a very bad read and only made it to 3rd. I looked at my son and said "that might have been their last chance to score." The next 3 batters were Carlos Pena, BJ Upton and Carl Crawford. He struck out all 3 all on swinging strikes, no called strikes, and I think only Crawford managed a foul tip. He just flat out blew them away. I've seen a lot of Bailey and I never saw that kind of fastball dominance from him. Plus, let's face it, the guy doesn't throw more than 40 innings in a season. His durability was and still a serious issue.

[a700hitter]

Bailey's numbers compare well with Papelbon's numbers. His problem is that he cannot seem to stay healthy.

Cherington should have seen that.

Let's not forget that bailey was pitching in a home ballpark that could fit a good sized parking lot in foul territory and that the ball carries horribly in Oakland at night too. It's a much different situation.

[FredLynn]

How do we know they didn't? We are are in the first week following the diagnosis and one game into the season. The contingency plan doesn't have to be somebody already on the roster. Let's see what happens from here and then pass judgment. If the plan is to go with what they've got and it doesn't work' date=' then, yeah, it's a s***** contingency plan.[/quote']

 

I am not sure that seeing Bailey's durability problems and ignoring them is any better than not seeing them to begin with. Lets face it: it weakens our bullpen a great deal. I don't think that it was that good to begin with. There were way too many things that had to break our way as regards our pitching to get comfortable....and now we are without a closer. I think our pen is going to be an issue unless something is done to upgrade it.

[a700hitter]

My friend, iortiz has used the expression when comparing Mo and Papelbon. He said that they drive on the same highway. I like that expression. Bailey hasn't done anything to prove that he is on that highway. He just has not.

[example1]

The love for Papelbon continues. He was a very good closer. He's gone now. The Phillies paid more than any reasonable team could have been expected to pay. The Sox got a very good option in Bailey, who is now hurt. That doesn't mean that they made the wrong decision on Papelbon.

 

One game down.

[FredLynn]

My friend' date=' iortiz has used the expression when comparing Mo and Papelbon. He said that they drive on the same highway. I like that expression. Bailey hasn't done anything to prove that he is on that highway. He just has not.[/quote']

 

His production numbers are similar to Papelbon's numbers. IMO a healthy Papelbon is no better than a healthy Bailey. Problem is, Bailey cannot stay healthy. Thats his track record.

[a700hitter]

The love for Papelbon continues. He was a very good closer. He's gone now. The Phillies paid more than any reasonable team could have been expected to pay. The Sox got a very good option in Bailey, who is now hurt. That doesn't mean that they made the wrong decision on Papelbon.

 

One game down.

You criticize people for being haters, and now you criticize them for showing the love. My, you are hard to please.

[example1]

My friend' date=' iortiz has used the expression when comparing Mo and Papelbon. He said that they drive on the same highway. I like that expression. Bailey hasn't done anything to prove that he is on that highway. He just has not.[/quote']

 

I don't think it's useful to debate the nuances of performance with you, but I would just say that there isn't only one highway that reflects being a good closer. Is Jose Valverde on the same highway? How about Brian Wilson? Do the Rays even have a closer?

 

It isn't necessary to have one of the best closers in the game to be a good team. Neither Rivera nor Papelbon closed out the World Series last year.

[iortiz]

I disagree. I remember going to Fenway to see the Rays on a Sunday night in 2008 or 9. Paps walked Iwamura to lead off the 9th inning. He stole second and Bartlett hit a hump back liner to center for a single. Iwamura got a very bad read and only made it to 3rd. I looked at my son and said "that might have been their last chance to score." The next 3 batters were Carlos Pena' date=' BJ Upton and Carl Crawford. He struck out all 3 all on swinging strikes, no called strikes, and I think only Crawford managed a foul tip. He just flat out blew them away. I've seen a lot of Bailey and I never saw that kind of fastball dominance from him. Plus, let's face it, the guy doesn't throw more than 40 innings in a season. [b']His durability was and still a serious issue[/b].

 

I am not sure that seeing Bailey's durability problems and ignoring them is any better than not seeing them to begin with. Lets face it: it weakens our bullpen a great deal. I don't think that it was that good to begin with. There were way too many things that had to break our way as regards our pitching to get comfortable....and now we are without a closer. I think our pen is going to be an issue unless something is done to upgrade it.

 

I thought that our FO was going to learn from this. They did not. Hell, what did drive us to last collapse?: Injuries.

 

We let Pap walk, a healthy/solid/proved closer, I would say the cream in that department; instead, we brought this guy who was/is injury prone. I do not get it.

[a700hitter]

His production numbers are similar to Papelbon's numbers. IMO a healthy Papelbon is no better than a healthy Bailey. Problem is' date=' Bailey cannot stay healthy. Thats his track record.[/quote']Numbers shmumbers. I like closers that have that quality that make batters legs tremble in the 9th inning. Papelbon has that. Bailey does not. That's just my opinion. In the end, even if Bailey stays healthy for the remainder of his career, IMO the numbers will show Papelbon to have had a far superior career. Just my opinion. I like Bailey's stuff. He really could have helped this 2012 team, and losing him is devastating, but I am not willing to compare him to Papelbon. You can compare them all you want. That's your prerogative, but they are not on the same list for me-- just one man's opinion.

[ORS]

I disagree. I remember going to Fenway to see the Rays on a Sunday night in 2008 or 9. Paps walked Iwamura to lead off the 9th inning. He stole second and Bartlett hit a hump back liner to center for a single. Iwamura got a very bad read and only made it to 3rd. I looked at my son and said "that might have been their last chance to score." The next 3 batters were Carlos Pena' date=' BJ Upton and Carl Crawford. He struck out all 3 all on swinging strikes, no called strikes, and I think only Crawford managed a foul tip. He just flat out blew them away. I've seen a lot of Bailey and I never saw that kind of fastball dominance from him. Plus, let's face it, the guy doesn't throw more than 40 innings in a season. His durability was and still a serious issue.[/quote']

Nice story. It captures one inning of a 6 year career. I wonder what we should do to fill in the gaps? Project this story onto the rest of it? If only they kept records of what happened in the ball games so we make a more complete comparison.

[iortiz]

The love for Papelbon continues. He is a very good closer. He's gone now. The Phillies paid more than any reasonable team could have been expected to pay. The Sox got a very good option in Bailey, who is now hurt. That doesn't mean that they made the wrong decision on Papelbon.

 

One game down.

 

Fixed.

 

I think that he deserved each penny of that contract, but that is just me, some around here and the Phillis, of course.

[a700hitter]

I don't think it's useful to debate the nuances of performance with you' date=' but I would just say that there isn't only [i']one[/i] highway that reflects being a good closer. Is Jose Valverde on the same highway? How about Brian Wilson? Do the Rays even have a closer?

 

It isn't necessary to have one of the best closers in the game to be a good team. Neither Rivera nor Papelbon closed out the World Series last year.

I'm not saying anything to the contrary. As I said earlier, Bailey could have really been a big asset to this team. Now, he is a non-factor, and frankly our pitching staff has no more room for additional injuries or under-performance. We don't have the depth to withstand further inury. We didn't have the depth last year, and we didn't add much to last year's staff. We added Melancon and Bailey, and now Bailey is hurt.

[a700hitter]

Nice story. It captures one inning of a 6 year career. I wonder what we should do to fill in the gaps? Project this story onto the rest of it? If only they kept records of what happened in the ball games so we make a more complete comparison.

I saw that kind of fastball dominance on several occasions from Papelbon. Never saw it from Bailey. If I ever see it, and I don't think I will, he'll go up in my estimation. So, you don't like the story. Am I surprised? Oh well.

[jung]

to be honest I think "elite" closers if you want to put a few in that category are a luxury, not a necessity. By that I mean that if you think you have all the other pieces in place and think that an elite closer is the final touch then maybe you should pay for one. If you have holes elsewhere and a closer wants your first born child.....look elsewhere. Of course if you ask me there is only one truly elite closer in baseball and he ain't Paps.

 

Heck the Phils may well be a team that could convince itself that it had all the other pieces to go all the way and everybody thinks that is why they signed Paps but all of those everybody's.... hell every everybody even thinks the Phis paid to much money over wayyyyyy to much time for him.

[ORS]

I am not sure that seeing Bailey's durability problems and ignoring them is any better than not seeing them to begin with. Lets face it: it weakens our bullpen a great deal. I don't think that it was that good to begin with. There were way too many things that had to break our way as regards our pitching to get comfortable....and now we are without a closer. I think our pen is going to be an issue unless something is done to upgrade it.

I don't think you got what I was saying. We are to close to the event to know what their contingency plan is. We only know what it is not. They did not bring in an extra arm as contingency for a Bailey injury, so that's not the plan. If they sign someone, like a Mike Gonzalez, or use some talent resources to acquire a pitcher to bridge the gap the arms that come back in the 2nd half, then this is their contingency plan. If the ride it out with what they have, again, that is the plan. Time needs to pass to reveal what their plan is. Bringing in another pitcher is a viable and acceptable plan, IMO. Doing nothing, is a bold and risky plan that is likely to fail.

 

In other words, I don't think they failed create a contingency plan for an injury to their oft injured closer. Given time to see what they do will reveal that plan.

[jung]

If in fact Bailey's injury was as a result of that collision at first with an outfielder in ST I have a suggestion for the Sox whatever their "plan". Find a closer that does not have two left feet!

[a700hitter]

Nice story. It captures one inning of a 6 year career. I wonder what we should do to fill in the gaps? Project this story onto the rest of it? If only they kept records of what happened in the ball games so we make a more complete comparison.

I realize that you are being snide, but before the internet and fangraphs and so forth, a scout that went to look at Bobby Doerr noticed a gangly kid that could hit the everloving stuffing out of a baseball. He didn't need to see him a second time and recommended that the Sox sign him. He only saw few ABs from the skinny kid. Ted Williams filled in the rest of the gaps over the next 22 years. The point of my story is that some players are special when you see them. You can't get that from numbers or GameCast and maybe not even from TV. Now you may not like my story and you will surely denigrate the story and my ability to spot special talent. Go right ahead. It's just my opinion. The funny thing is that all the numbers that you look at don't prove that he (Papelbon) isn't a special talent. In fact, to a great extent they support it. It's like the great Vin Scully said about stats: they should be used the same way that a drunk uses a lampost-- for support, not illumination. I paraphrase.

[ORS]

I saw that kind of fastball dominance on several occasions from Papelbon. Never saw it from Bailey. If I ever see it' date=' and I don't think I will, he'll go up in my estimation. So, you don't like the story. Am I surprised? Oh well.[/quote']

I said it was a nice story, didn't I?

 

I didn't realize we were talking about dominance. I thought we were talking about effectiveness. I agree, Papelbon is much more impressive at the apex of his game. When I said I thought Bailey was on par with good Papelbon, I wasn't referring to those nights when the stars are aligned and he's "feeling it". I was comparing him to recent years excluding the 2010 outlier.

[a700hitter]

I said it was a nice story, didn't I?

 

I didn't realize we were talking about dominance. I thought we were talking about effectiveness. I agree, Papelbon is much more impressive at the apex of his game. When I said I thought Bailey was on par with good Papelbon, I wasn't referring to those nights when the stars are aligned and he's "feeling it". I was comparing him to recent years excluding the 2010 outlier.

When a guy has produced for many years leaves, the next guy has to prove himself. Bailey has some nice numbers. Nothing to make me think he belongs on any list with Papelbon. That's my opinion. If he had stepped up and earned that respect in Boston, it would have been great for us. Now, we will not get the chance. Maybe next year he will get his chance. I'm just not ready to put him on par with Papelbon until he proves deserving in Boston. If he does, he'll be in some elite company. It would be great if it happens, but although very good, I just don't see a lot special about Bailey. Hopefully, I am wrong.

[iortiz]

When a guy has produced for many years leaves' date=' the next guy has to prove himself. Bailey has some nice numbers. Nothing to make me think he belongs on any list with Papelbon. That's my opinion. If he had stepped up and earned that respect in Boston, it would have been great for us. Now, we will not get the chance. Maybe next year he will get his chance. I'm just not ready to put him on par with Papelbon until he proves deserving in Boston. If he does, he'll be in some elite company. It would be great if it happens, but although very good, I just don't see a lot special about Bailey. Hopefully, I am wrong.[/quote']

 

The difference I see between them is the #IP #SV, the seasons they played, the divisions where they played, the ballparks where they played, and the kind of atmosphere/spotlight (BOS vs. OAK) they faced/handled.

 

Notice that I'm not saying that Bailey will not make those numbers or handle those situations, but first, he needs to prove it; of course, if he can pitch at some point during his tenure in Boston.

 

This is the reason why I do not think they are in the same list or highway.

[ORS]

I realize that you are being snide' date=' but before the internet and fangraphs and so forth, a scout that went to look at Bobby Doerr noticed a gangly kid that could hit the everloving stuffing out of a baseball. He didn't need to see him a second time and recommended that the Sox sign him. He only saw few ABs from the skinny kid. Ted Williams filled in the rest of the gaps over the next 22 years. The point of my story is that some players are special when you see them. You can't get that from numbers or GameCast and maybe not even from TV. Now you may not like my story and you will surely denigrate the story and my ability to spot special talent. Go right ahead. It's just my opinion. The funny thing is that all the numbers that you look at don't prove that he isn't a special talent. In fact, to a great extent they support it. It's like the great Vin Scully said about stats: they should be used the same way that a drunk uses a lampost-- for support, not illumination. I paraphrase.[/quote']

Impressions are biased, though. Different people are impressed by different things. And no single set of eyes can see every moment from every player, there isn't enough time in the day. So, in the end, why are you so resistant to acknowledge equivalency when the statistical record, which requires no sleep and does not miss a play, suggests they were of similar effectiveness? And, I'm asking this in general terms. I think your point above goes beyond Papelbon/Bailey, and is talking about the evaluation of any player.

 

I'm not trying to rob you of the players that have made an impression on you, but the data is more complete than what your eyes see.

[a700hitter]

Impressions are biased, though. Different people are impressed by different things. And no single set of eyes can see every moment from every player, there isn't enough time in the day. So, in the end, why are you so resistant to acknowledge equivalency when the statistical record, which requires no sleep and does not miss a play, suggests they were of similar effectiveness? And, I'm asking this in general terms. I think your point above goes beyond Papelbon/Bailey, and is talking about the evaluation of any player.

 

I'm not trying to rob you of the players that have made an impression on you, but the data is more complete than what your eyes see.

I'm not resistant to it. I don't think numbers tell all of the story, because the indefinable stuff doesn't translate to the numbers much of the time. It's not a bias thing. I think it is just a matter of seeing it with eyes that I have seen a lot of baseball. I'm not a Yankee fan. I hate the pinstripes, and always have. I didn't see Mantle in his prime, but when you went to Yankee Stadium and watched him play, he had a special quality. The ball exploded off his bat. His numbers have been eclipsed and even in his day, his numbers were not the best. No, it is not a bias thing. I think the numbers merely support what my eyes have already told me. If it was a bias thing, I would think all the Sox were great and the numbers would expose my bias. There aren't a lot of stats on Bailey to make a very strong case. He's pitched more than 50 innings just once in his 3 seasons. Let's see how his numbers look when he gets 6 or 7 full seasons under his belt. I think those numbers will bear out my impression of him.

[ORS]

I'm not resistant to it. I don't think numbers tell all of the story' date=' because the indefinable stuff doesn't translate to the numbers much of the time. It's not a bias thing. I think it is just a matter of seeing it with eyes that I have seen a lot of baseball. I'm not a Yankee fan. I hate the pinstripes, and always have. I didn't see Mantle in his prime, but when you went to Yankee Stadium and watched him play, he had a special quality. The ball exploded off his bat. His numbers have been eclipsed and even in his day, his numbers were not the best. No, it is not a bias thing. I think the numbers merely support what my eyes have already told me. If it was a bias thing, I would think all the Sox were great and the numbers would expose my bias. There aren't a lot of stats on Bailey to make a very strong case. He's pitched more than 50 innings just once in his 3 seasons. Let's see how his numbers look when he gets 6 or 7 full seasons under his belt. I think those numbers will bear out my impression of him.[/quote']

Just to clear things up, I wasn't referring to bias in the context of rooting interest. I'm talking what specific things people find impressive. There are different paths to effectiveness, at the plate, in the field, on the mound, and people have subconscious preferences for which approach creates the greater impression.

[Bellhorn04]

It's kind of difficult to put a value on the durability factor. But Papelbon has turned in 6 straight seasons of 58 or more innings, and all traces of any shoulder issues seem to be gone. Bailey's durability is very much in question. I was just looking at Bailey's stats-I didn't realize he pitched 83 innings in his first season. That seems like way too many. It might have contributed to his subsequent problems.

[ORS]

It's kind of difficult to put a value on the durability factor. But Papelbon has turned in 6 straight seasons of 58 or more innings' date=' and all traces of any shoulder issues seem to be gone. Bailey's durability is very much in question. I was just looking at Bailey's stats-I didn't realize he pitched 83 innings in his first season. That seems like way too many. It might have contributed to his subsequent problems.[/quote']

Doubtful. Those 83 innings were in 68 appearances. Just for reference, most of Papelbon's seasons he get mid-60's in numbers of appearances.

[a700hitter]

Just to clear things up' date=' I wasn't referring to bias in the context of rooting interest. I'm talking what specific things people find impressive. There are different paths to effectiveness, at the plate, in the field, on the mound, and people have subconscious preferences for which approach creates the greater impression.[/quote']Some teams are built on speed, pitching and defense. Others are built on slugging. A good talent evaluator can tell the difference between the skill sets and one is not necessarily better than the others. I am not declaring myself to be a good talent evaluator. I don't know how I would stack up against other people in that regard.

 

I have given some thought to better articulating my process in response to your question last night. I never really thought of it in terms of a process because I have been doing it for more than 40 years. It's like my grandmother's cooking. She had no recipes, no measuring cups, but her delicacies came out the same way every time whether she was cooking for 5 or 25. Not only didn't she use a recipe, she couldn't put one on paper that was very helpful. If you wanted to learn to make one of her dishes, you had to make them with her a couple of times to figure out her process. She wasn't without process. It was just second nature to her, so she never thought of it in those terms.

 

I really had to think about my process, because watching baseball is what I do more than anything else. First, I want to dispel the notion that some have that I disregard stats. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was pouring over stats long before most of the statheads at TalkSox were born. However, I have always gone to a lot of games. My dad and I went to at least 10 Yankee games and 10 Met games every year when I was a kid until my late teens. It's hard to believe today, but an MLB game was a relatively cheap form of entertainment. During those years, the most expensive ticket was $3.50 to $4-- an affordable price even for a factory worker. I went other games without my dad too.

 

I don't discount stats at all. Like everyone else, if I haven't seen a guy play, I am guided by the stats. If a player has a fairly large body of consistent work and when I see him in person the performance doesn't match the stats, I realize that I have seen a small sample size. If I see the guy play for a month in person or on TV and I still see a disconnect, I wonder what's going on. Sometimes the guy is old and he is just losing it. It's harder to come to that conclusion just by seeing a month of down stats than it is if you see the player. Sometimes there is something wrong with a guy. A downturn in command can be a sign that there is something wrong with a pitcher. Again, I believe that it is easier to come to that conclusion more quickly if you see the guy play everyday. On the break out side like with Ellsbury last year, people who were following his stats only were not coming to the conclusion as quickly as us that he had become a legitimate power threat.

 

If a guy doesn't have a large body of work, like with Melancon or Bailey, I'll trust my eyes and wait to see if the accumulated stats confirm or contradict my impressions. With Melancon, I looked at his stats and thought they were going in an encouraging direction. What I saw from him in the Spring was not impressive in the least. I am mindful that I haven't seen a lot of him yet, so I really don't know what I am looking at. Pitchers don't need to throw 95 to be good. His body of work is small so I don't think we can get a definitive answer from the stats either. Watching him everyday now will give us a more accurate impression of his value quicker than his stats will IMO. He's close to a clean slate, and eyes on him every day are more reliable than stats. Stats can help fill in the gaps if you only see a guy occasionally, but nothing is better than seeing a guy everyday, IMO. That's about the best I can describe or explain how I come to my conclusions. It's an art not a science, and I'll probably think of a better way to articulate it later or tomorrow. You can scoff at it if you want, but live scouting is still a very important component of baseball organizations. If numbers made them unnecessary, the scouts would be eliminated, because scouting is a far more expensive operation than statistical analysis..