A Realistic View at 2019: Part II

[Nick]

“It’s not a luxury tax issue, it’s a question of how much money do we want to lose. We’re already over budget and we were substantially over our budget last year and this year. We’re not going to be looking to add a lot of payroll. And it’s hard to imagine fielding a better team. If we play up to our capabilities we’ll be fine. That’s the question: Will we? We’re halfway through and we haven’t.

 

“It’s a worthy team because we invested. Two years in a row we have the highest payroll. It’s not a matter of investment, it’s a matter of playing well. If we play up to our capabilities we will easily make the playoffs. That’s how I see it.”

 

HENRY HAS SPOKEN AND I AGREE WITH HIM.

 

These kinds of things just kind of happen or they don't. I'm not sure there's anything management can do, except to hope the players pull together and bring on the transformation.

 

AND MOON HAS SPOKEN.

 

I'm really not in the mood to give up on this bunch. We really need Eovaldi back. If we don't play well, we can't beat good teams, simple as that.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Nick

[a700hitter]

ERod and Porcello are pitching worse than last year. Both are not past prime, so that is a decline in my book.

 

Sale and Price have done better after the first couple weeks, but they have still been inconsistent, and Sale's recent ERA is still higher than last year.

 

Our 5th starter, alone, has killed our pen with overuse, and we have often started a pen arm in the 5 slot.

ERod for the months of May and June is pitching slightly better than his career norms. In those 2 months he pitched 6 or more innings 7 times. He did that only 9 times in all of 2018. Twice he has pitched 7 innings. He did not do that in a single game in 2018. In the May and June, Sales ERA is under 2.8 which is better than his career norm, and I will take that from any pitcher at any juncture in his career. Their under-performance in April was an anomaly directly attributable to a really dumb decision by Cora and his coaching staff.

[moonslav59]

ERod for the months of May and June is pitching slightly better than his career norms. In those 2 months he pitched 6 or more innings 7 times. He did that only 9 times in all of 2018. Twice he has pitched 7 innings. He did not do that in a single game in 2018. In the May and June, Sales ERA is under 2.8 which is better than his career norm, and I will take that from any pitcher at any juncture in his career. Their under-performance in April was an anomaly directly attributable to a really dumb decision by Cora and his coaching staff.

 

ERod: 5.30 ERA last 3 starts (5.00 last 9 starts)

 

I guess one can find a sample size that suits any argument.

 

Why hasn't all that rest helped with this?

 

Sale: 5.29 ERA last 3 starts (3.30 last 9 starts)

Price: 6.57 ERA last 3 starts (4.38 last 5 starts)

Porcello: 7.43 ERA last 3 starts (6.03 last 7 starts)

ERod: 5.30 ERA last 3 starts (5.00 last 9 starts)

 

[moonslav59]

“It’s not a luxury tax issue, it’s a question of how much money do we want to lose. We’re already over budget and we were substantially over our budget last year and this year. We’re not going to be looking to add a lot of payroll. And it’s hard to imagine fielding a better team. If we play up to our capabilities we’ll be fine. That’s the question: Will we? We’re halfway through and we haven’t.

 

“It’s a worthy team because we invested. Two years in a row we have the highest payroll. It’s not a matter of investment, it’s a matter of playing well. If we play up to our capabilities we will easily make the playoffs. That’s how I see it.”

 

HENRY HAS SPOKEN AND I AGREE WITH HIM.

 

These kinds of things just kind of happen or they don't. I'm not sure there's anything management can do, except to hope the players pull together and bring on the transformation.

 

AND MOON HAS SPOKEN.

 

I'm really not in the mood to give up on this bunch. We really need Eovaldi back. If we don't play well, we can't beat good teams, simple as that.

 

Thus Spoke Henrithustra!

[a700hitter]

ERod: 5.30 ERA last 3 starts (5.00 last 9 starts)

 

I guess one can find a sample size that suits any argument.

 

Why hasn't all that rest helped with this?

 

Sale: 5.29 ERA last 3 starts (3.30 last 9 starts)

Price: 6.57 ERA last 3 starts (4.38 last 5 starts)

Porcello: 7.43 ERA last 3 starts (6.03 last 7 starts)

ERod: 5.30 ERA last 3 starts (5.00 last 9 starts)

 

I think it is pretty fair to exclude the month of April since that was their Spring Training. When you exclude that, Sale, Price and ERod are doing just fine. There really is no justification for taking 3 game or other sample sizes unless you are making an apologist argument for Cora’s dumbass decision.

[moonslav59]

I think it is pretty fair to exclude the month of April since that was their Spring Training. When you exclude that, Sale, Price and ERod are doing just fine. There really is no justification for taking 3 game or other sample sizes unless you are making an apologist argument for Cora’s dumbass decision.

 

Um, I also listed some pretty bad 5-9 game sample sizes.

 

My original point was about the pen imploding but that not being the only thing going south the last 3-4 weeks.

 

[a700hitter]

Um, I also listed some pretty bad 5-9 game sample sizes.

 

My original point was about the pen imploding but that not being the only thing going south the last 3-4 weeks.

 

Since there was the a change in the preparation of the pitchers delaying them from building their arm strength and stamina, it seems more reasonable to pull out the first month as an aberration. If you pull out April, the remaining 2 full months look quite normal from a performance standpoint for Price, Sale and ERod.

[moonslav59]

Since there was the a change in the preparation of the pitchers delaying them from building their arm strength and stamina, it seems more reasonable to pull out the first month as an aberration. If you pull out April, the remaining 2 full months look quite normal from a performance standpoint for Price, Sale and ERod.

 

I totally agree, but again, my point is about how the rest should have helped them do better of late, and all 4 have bad numbers their last 5-9 starts.

[moonslav59]

Since there was the a change in the preparation of the pitchers delaying them from building their arm strength and stamina, it seems more reasonable to pull out the first month as an aberration. If you pull out April, the remaining 2 full months look quite normal from a performance standpoint for Price, Sale and ERod.

 

Is this sample size big enough?

 

Starter ERA since May 11th:

 

2.97 Price (8 GS)

3.30 Sale (9 GS)

5.00 ERod (9)

5.05 Porcello (10)

 

ERA 2016-2018

2.56 Sale (0.74 lower than above sample)

3.81 Price (0.84 higher)

3.99 Porcello (1.06 lower)

4.22 ERod (0.78 lower)

 

 

[OH FOY]

Looking at it wrong look at inning pitched by all the starters. All of them are killing the BP.

Sale averages 5.9 innings a start this year.

Price averages 5.1 innings a start.

Porcello 5.5 innings a start.

E-Rod. 5.7 innings a start.

ALL the Starters are killing the Bullpen.

Get the Bullpen ready in the 6th inning. Now your talking about 12 outs a game the Bullpen needs to get. That adds up quickly, to a lot of work for the BP.

Edited July 2, 2019 by OH FOY!

[moonslav59]

Looking at it wrong look at inning pitched by all the starters. All of them are killing the BP.

Sale averages 5.9 innings a start this year.

Price averages 5.1 innings a start.

Porcello 5.5 innings a start.

E-Rod. 5.7 innings a start.

ALL the Starters are killing the Bullpen.

Get the Bullpen ready in the 6th inning. Now your talking about 12 outs a game the Bullpen needs to get. That adds up quickly, to a lot of work for the BP.

 

I think we've had 13 pitchers not 12 all season long. That helps a little but when 2-3 of those 13 are scrubs we are suffering the affects in the middle of games. Also, too often our starters are putting us in deep holes- sometimes very early in games.

 

Adding Eovaldi to the closer role could help a lot, if he is effective, but we still need to acquire another quality set-up man or two, and soon. Push Workman, Barnes and Brasier to the 7th and 8th innings, and Brewer, Walden? and Wright to the 5th and 6th innings. Johnson or Velazquez, whoever is not starting, will have to be the long man.

 

Some Numbers as RP'ers only:

IP Pitcher ERA

21 Velazquez 4.29

19 Thornburg 7.71

13 Taylor 5.68

13 Shawaryn 8.53

11 Smith 2.45

9 Lakins 5.79

8 Weber 1.13

6 Johnson 13.50

4 Poyner 15.75

4 Wright 4.50

3 Ramirez 12.00

2 DHern 0.00

 

Granted, these guys have not pitched all that much, but even if you take away Velazquez, Johnson & Wright, it's over 80 IP.

 

That's 80 too many.

 

Last 28 days:

13 Shawaryn 8.53

11 Walden 8.18

11 Barnes 9.00

11 Taylor 5.91

3 Poyner 15.00

3 DHern 9.00

1 Weber 13.50

 

12 Brewer 0.73

10 Workman 0.93

10 Brasier 1.86

8 Johnson 2.16

6 Velazquez 1.50

4 Wright 4.50

3 Hembree 0.00 (IL)

 

[moonslav59]

These 3 days off sandwiched around 2 horrific games is killing me!

[a700hitter]

Is this sample size big enough?

 

Starter ERA since May 11th:

 

2.97 Price (8 GS)

3.30 Sale (9 GS)

5.00 ERod (9)

5.05 Porcello (10)

 

ERA 2016-2018

2.56 Sale (0.74 lower than above sample)

3.81 Price (0.84 higher)

3.99 Porcello (1.06 lower)

4.22 ERod (0.78 lower)

 

 

I’m not sure of the relevance of May 11th. I think that at the end of the season that Sale, Price and ERod and hopefully Porcello will have numbers representative of their career norms when you disregard April. Cora’s April will mess up their season numbers.

[moonslav59]

I’m not sure of the relevance of May 11th. I think that at the end of the season that Sale, Price and ERod and hopefully Porcello will have numbers representative of their career norms when you disregard April. Cora’s April will mess up their season numbers.

 

How is May 11th any less relevant than May 1st? You arbitrarily chose a number based on the neatness of a month's ending, despite the fact that we played 4 games in March.

 

That being said, here are the May1>> numbers:

 

ERA Pitcher IP/GS

2.78 Sale (6.48)

3.19 Price (4.70)

4.16 ERod (5.72)

4.86 Porcello (6.09)

 

ERA 2016-2018

2.56 Sale (0.22 lower than above sample)

3.81 Price (0.62 higher)

3.99 Porcello (0.87 lower)

4.22 ERod (0.08 lower)

 

The starter numbers look better from May 1st than from May 11th, but that just emphasizes the fact that they are doing worse more recently, when they should and need to be doing better.

 

That was my point.

 

Last 28 days shows the trend going the wrong way:

 

2.73 Sale (5GS)

4.60 ERod (5)

4.91 Price (4)

5.88 Porcello (5)

 

Last 14 days (Only Porcello had a start in London):

 

3.00 Price (1)

5.30 ERod (3)

6.55 Sale (2)

15.63 Porcello (2)

 

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by moonslav59

[a700hitter]

How is May 11th any less relevant than May 1st? You arbitrarily chose a number based on the neatness of a month's ending, despite the fact that we played 4 games in March.

 

That being said, here are the May1>> numbers:

 

ERA Pitcher IP/GS

2.78 Sale (6.48)

3.19 Price (4.70)

4.16 ERod (5.72)

4.86 Porcello (6.09)

 

ERA 2016-2018

2.56 Sale (0.22 lower than above sample)

3.81 Price (0.62 higher)

3.99 Porcello (0.87 lower)

4.22 ERod (0.08 lower)

 

The starter numbers look better from May 1st than from May 11th, but that just emphasizes the fact that they are doing worse more recently, when they should and need to be doing better.

 

That was my point.

 

Only Price is doing better.

 

Sale & ERod are close but worse.

 

Porcello is worse.

 

 

The relevance is quite simply that the down April was directly attributable to a managerial/coaching decision to hold back the build up of arm strength for a month. After that the remainder of the season thus far looks normal. That’s why May 1st is more relevant than May 11th. Cora set back the pitching ramp up by a month, not 6 weeks.

[a700hitter]

As for ERod, he is having a career year in that he is going deeper into games more often than in prior years.

[vegasbob]

Here's a key stat for you : 44-40, and 2 out of the #2 WC. The statistical debates are interesting to a point, but now the team must find a way to win 5 of the next 6, against 2 sub .400 teams, and be in better shape for the post A-S game run. From July 12 to 31, there are 19 games with one off day (July 29). 12 of those 19 games are the Dodgers, Yankees and Rays.

 

Any personnel changes will be final by then and you will be able to call the remainder of this season with a lot more clarity . The 2019 Red Sox will be in the hunt or they will have become baseball jerky, fully hung out to dry.

[moonslav59]

The relevance is quite simply that the down April was directly attributable to a managerial/coaching decision to hold back the build up of arm strength for a month. After that the remainder of the season thus far looks normal. That’s why May 1st is more relevant than May 11th. Cora set back the pitching ramp up by a month, not 6 weeks.

 

"Quite simple?" Because you say it is. What makes May 1st any more magical than May 11th or April 26th?

 

Again, May 1st is NOT a month. We played 4 games in March.

 

How is the fact that our SP'ers did well from May 1st to the 10th more meaningful than how they have done since May 11th, or the past 28 days or 14 days?

 

The rest should be making these guys stronger at the mid season point, and yet they have been doing worse than the end of April and early May.

 

Sure,most of our top 4 starter numbers might end up close to their recent numbers after throwing out April, but the idea of resting them in ST'ing was that they'd do better when we needed them.

 

Yes, they have done better than April & March, but they are not giving us anything extra recently and as far back as mid May.

 

Yes, it's good to see ERod going 1/3 or 2/3 more innings per start, but he pitched better last year, so that's a wash at best, IMO.

 

Price is better.

 

Sale was doing better before his recent slump.

 

Porcello is a mess.

[a700hitter]

"Quite simple?" Because you say it is. What makes May 1st any more magical than May 11th or April 26th?

 

Again, May 1st is NOT a month. We played 4 games in March.

 

And Spring Training started in the last week of February. Excluding the stats up to May 1st is equal to the period that the Starters were in Dry Dock from the beginning of Spring Training. I think that is a good way of measuring the effect of the layoff/delayed start date for the Starters. I don't know what your splits are meant to show.

[moonslav59]

And Spring Training started in the last week of February. Excluding the stats up to May 1st is equal to the period that the Starters were in Dry Dock from the beginning of Spring Training. I think that is a good way of measuring the effect of the layoff/delayed start date for the Starters. I don't know what your splits are meant to show.

 

You are still being as arbitrary with your sample size choice as I. Equalizing the time in ST'ing to the start of the ML season sounds fine, but holds no more special significance than my chosen May 11th date.

 

We played a minor league game on 30 days (I did not count days with 2 games.) Most of the top 4-5 starters got 2-3 starts.

 

By April 30th, most had 4-5 starts as we had played 30 games by 4/30/19.

 

It's not an equal sample size.It's just an equal calendar time.

 

My splits are meant to show "what have you done for us lately?" I showed 14 days, 28 days and from May 11th. All of those sample sizes show the staff doing worse than the end of April to mid May and worse than these pitcher's recent 3 year "norms", except for Price.

 

It doesn't seem too hard to understand the significance of using various recent sample sizes to counter the statement that our pitchers "are doing as well as their norms". The "are" means present tense and can be any variety of most recent sample sizes to choose from.

 

May first is a viable choice, but it is no better than May 11th or 22nd. The more recent you make the sample size (as long as it is large enough) the more in the present tense you get.

 

Our starters, other than Price who is not giving us the IP we need are doing worse in the past 2, 4 or 7 weeks than their 3 year norms.

 

If you count May 1 to now, 3 of the 4 are doing worse- not as bad as later sample sizes but still worse. Throwing out March and April still show them as doing worse.

 

Can they turn it around to the point where their 5/1 to October numbers match or exceed their "norm," but so far they have not done so.

[Maxbialystock]

I think it is pretty fair to exclude the month of April since that was their Spring Training. When you exclude that, Sale, Price and ERod are doing just fine. There really is no justification for taking 3 game or other sample sizes unless you are making an apologist argument for Cora’s dumbass decision.

 

You are so completely off base it boggles the mind. Try these hard facts on for size--

 

ERod has pitched worse, ERA 4.79, in 2019 than in 2018, ERA 3.82. But he pitched 15 innings in ST this year vs. 0 last year. Thus: more ST innings = higher ERA.

 

Price has pitched better, ERA 3.36, in 2019 than in 2018, ERA 3.58, and pitched 6.2 innings in ST this year vs. 12 last year. Thus, fewer ST innings = lower ERA.

 

Porcello does fit your theory, sort of. He pitched 16 innings last year in ST and 12 this year, and his ERA worsened from 4.28 to 5.07. But to me it is downright silly to claim that those 4 additional innings in ST would have made all the difference. And it is absolutely laughable that to say it took the entire month of April for Porcello to recover from not pitching those 4 stinking innings.

 

Sale, like Price, also pitched 6 fewer innings in ST this year than last, 9 this year vs. 15.1 last year. And, yes, his ERA has shot up from 2.11 to 3.82. But, again, I find it laughable that you truly believe that 6 stinking innings required the entire month of April for Sale to recover, which he really has not done to this day. Sale has a bigger problem than missing those 6 innings, and a blind man can see it.

 

About Sale I might add that he ran out of gas from August onward the past two seasons, so the notion of going light in ST this year was not as stupid as you claim it to be.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Maxbialystock

[a700hitter]

You are still being as arbitrary with your sample size choice as I. Equalizing the time in ST'ing to the start of the ML season sounds fine, but holds no more special significance than my chosen May 11th date.

 

We played a minor league game on 30 days (I did not count days with 2 games.) Most of the top 4-5 starters got 2-3 starts.

 

By April 30th, most had 4-5 starts as we had played 30 games by 4/30/19.

 

It's not an equal sample size.It's just an equal calendar time.

 

My splits are meant to show "what have you done for us lately?" I showed 14 days, 28 days and from May 11th. All of those sample sizes show the staff doing worse than the end of April to mid May and worse than these pitcher's recent 3 year "norms", except for Price.

 

It doesn't seem too hard to understand the significance of using various recent sample sizes to counter the statement that our pitchers "are doing as well as their norms". The "are" means present tense and can be any variety of most recent sample sizes to choose from.

 

May first is a viable choice, but it is no better than May 11th or 22nd. The more recent you make the sample size (as long as it is large enough) the more in the present tense you get.

 

Our starters, other than Price who is not giving us the IP we need are doing worse in the past 2, 4 or 7 weeks than their 3 year norms.

 

If you count May 1 to now, 3 of the 4 are doing worse- not as bad as later sample sizes but still worse. Throwing out March and April still show them as doing worse.

 

Can they turn it around to the point where their 5/1 to October numbers match or exceed their "norm," but so far they have not done so.

My date very closely approximates the time of the delay in the start date for the starting pitchers, and I think demonstrates the negative effect of Cora's decision. What is your point in showing "what have you done for me lately?" Is it to show that the starters suck? Is it to show that they are not trying? Is it to show that the resting didn't work and that they are already tiring? Or is it something else?

[dgalehouse]

Here is how messed up baseball is : Down five runs , with one out in the ninth , Gurriel hits a sac fly for the second out . He goes back to the dugout and gets high fives . Do these guys even understand the game ?

[devildavid]

Here is how messed up baseball is : Down five runs , with one out in the ninth , Gurriel hits a sac fly for the second out . He goes back to the dugout and gets high fives . Do these guys even understand the game ?

 

Yes, they do. They understand the value of a productive out. Hitting is very difficult, so any ball hit that produces something good is rightly celebrated.

[dgalehouse]

Yes, they do. They understand the value of a productive out. Hitting is very difficult, so any ball hit that produces something good is rightly celebrated.

 

Are you serious, or do you just like being disagreeable? It is not a productive out when it's the ninth inning. If you don't get that , you don't understand the game either .

[a700hitter]

Are you serious, or do you just like being disagreeable? It is not a productive out when it's the ninth inning. If you don't get that , you don't understand the game either .

With 1 out and a man on third, being down 5 runs in the 9th inning, getting on base is paramount. Getting the guy in from 3rd with an out is meaningless, except for padding stats.

[dgalehouse]

With 1 out and a man on third, being down 5 runs in the 9th inning, getting on base is paramount. Getting the guy in from 3rd with an out is meaningless, except for padding stats.

Absolutely. You only had two outs left . Now you have one . The Sox would gladly trade an out for a run in that situation.

[moonslav59]

My date very closely approximates the time of the delay in the start date for the starting pitchers, and I think demonstrates the negative effect of Cora's decision. What is your point in showing "what have you done for me lately?" Is it to show that the starters suck? Is it to show that they are not trying? Is it to show that the resting didn't work and that they are already tiring? Or is it something else?

 

30 games does not approximate the "time delay," so I don't get why you pulled May first out of this air, other than it is a neat and clean date.

 

You made the point that our starters have been at or near norm since May 1st and that May 1st held some sort of special meaning. Neither are true, and they've done even worse after May 11th.

 

I've told you what my point is a number of times, so I'll try to dumb it down:

 

Cora gave our starters a little extra rest in ST'ing with the idea that they would be fresher during the season and have less of a chance of burning out by September and October. I expected them to do as well or better than their 3 year norm as the season progressed. They have not.

 

Since May 11th, 3 of the big 4 have done worse. Since May 1st, 1 has done slightly worse and 2 worse. I'm not sure what else needs explaining. Not only did the rest not help in April, it hasn't helped afterwards either. Maybe it will make up for the first half later this year, but 3 of our top 4 starters are NOT pitching to their norm after just about any date you want to pick. You were wrong.

 

 

[a700hitter]

30 games does not approximate the "time delay," so I don't get why you pulled May first out of this air, other than it is a neat and clean date.

 

You made the point that our starters have been at or near norm since May 1st and that May 1st held some sort of special meaning. Neither are true, and they've done even worse after May 11th.

 

I've told you what my point is a number of times, so I'll try to dumb it down:

 

Cora gave our starters a little extra rest in ST'ing with the idea that they would be fresher during the season and have less of a chance of burning out by September and October. I expected them to do as well or better than their 3 year norm as the season progressed. They have not.

 

Since May 11th, 3 of the big 4 have done worse. Since May 1st, 1 has done slightly worse and 2 worse. I'm not sure what else needs explaining. Not only did the rest not help in April, it hasn't helped afterwards either. Maybe it will make up for the first half later this year, but 3 of our top 4 starters are NOT pitching to their norm after just about any date you want to pick. You were wrong.

 

 

The 30 games in the period that I chose were contiguous at the beginning of the season over 5 week period which was identical to the resting period during spring training. My point is that the first 5 weeks of the regular season were needed for the pitchers to round into shape when that should have been done during spring training. IMO, the delay negatively affected the performance of the starting pitchers for the first 5 weeks. I think Sale,Price and ERod are back to normal. For the decision to rest them to payoff, I think that their September performance will have to exceed last September's numbers to the same extend that this April's numbers fell short of last April's number.

 

You don't need to dumb anything down for me, and I don't see the need for your to be insulting. So, the numbers of late have been been worse than you would have expected despite the rest. You are still not saying what that indicates to you. That is what I am asking. What is the reason in your mind for this dropoff that you are observing?

[moonslav59]

The 30 games in the period that I chose were contiguous at the beginning of the season over 5 week period which was identical to the resting period during spring training. My point is that the first 5 weeks of the regular season were needed for the pitchers to round into shape when that should have been done during spring training. IMO, the delay negatively affected the performance of the starting pitchers for the first 5 weeks. I think Sale,Price and ERod are back to normal. For the decision to rest them to payoff, I think that their September performance will have to exceed last September's numbers to the same extend that this April's numbers fell short of last April's number.

 

You don't need to dumb anything down for me, and I don't see the need for your to be insulting. So, the numbers of late have been been worse than you would have expected despite the rest. You are still not saying what that indicates to you. That is what I am asking. What is the reason in your mind for this dropoff that you are observing?

 

It's still a dare you chose based on what you think is right. I doubt most baseball people think it takes 5 starts to round into shape, but it's fine that you believe that.

 

Even if it does, had Cora used the starters more in ST'ing would it still have take 5 starts or 4? I still think it is all arbitrary- yours and my chosen dates.

 

Either way, our starters are not pitching to their norm after May 1st or May 11th, so no matter what date we chose, you were wrong. Only Price is doing better than "norm."

 

My point was to counter your statement.

 

I don't know why they are doing worse. I'd have thought the slight extra rest would help them be stronger at a time like this when we need them to go deeper and let up less runs. We are lucky they give us just one of those needs.

 

This all started when the pen was being blamed for just about everything, and some of us pointed out that the starters were not helping and had actually been more responsible for losses than the pen.

 

You said they have been pitching to their norms after the "rest period." I showed that is not the case. I'm not sure what more needs to be said.