A Realistic View at 2021: Part II

[moonslav59]

You know your stuff. No one disputes that, and you are always right, ... except when you disagree with me.

 

I've been wrong many many times, but unlike you, I easily admit it.

[a700hitter]

I've been wrong many many times, but unlike you, I easily admit it.

Not when you disagree with me.

[moonslav59]

Not when you disagree with me.

 

Can't find one example.

[Larry Cook]

Looks like we found our lead off hitter.

 

I wish I had thought of using Arroyo in that slot!

 

Excellent call!

 

Since you are on a roll, how about posting next week’s winning lottery numbers?

[moonslav59]

Not when you disagree with me.

 

So, I was wrong about Pivetta, and you were right?

[Nick]

Christian Arroyo will leadoff for the sixth time this year, as Kiké Hernández is staying in the bottom third of the Red Sox lineup. In his previous appearances in the leadoff spot, Arroyo is batting .292 (7-for-24) with three doubles and a .320 on-base percentage. Cora explained there’s no analytical reason for Arroyo getting a crack batting first, the Sox are just trying to see who runs with the opportunity.

 

I'll give Cora credit for never throwing a player under the bus.

[moonslav59]

Christian Arroyo will leadoff for the sixth time this year, as Kiké Hernández is staying in the bottom third of the Red Sox lineup. In his previous appearances in the leadoff spot, Arroyo is batting .292 (7-for-24) with three doubles and a .320 on-base percentage. Cora explained there’s no analytical reason for Arroyo getting a crack batting first, the Sox are just trying to see who runs with the opportunity.

 

I'll give Cora credit for never throwing a player under the bus.

 

This proves this one manager does not look at the small sample size of just 2021 to use as "analytics," otherwise Arroyo looked like the clear choice.

 

[iortiz]

I will love this lineup

 

Arroyo

Verdugo

Martinez

Xander

Devers

Renfroe

Vazquez

Marwin/Kike/Santana

Santana /Chavis/Dalbec

 

1-7 can do a lot of damage.

8-9 have issues but you can’t have a 300 1-9

[a700hitter]

Can't find one example.

Of course not, because you are always right when you disagree with me.

[a700hitter]

So, I was wrong about Pivetta, and you were right?

Did I say that. Or did I admit that the change of scenery did help Pivetta? This is an example of me admitting a mistake... and a pretty recent one.

[moonslav59]

Did I say that. Or did I admit that the change of scenery did help Pivetta? This is an example of me admitting a mistake... and a pretty recent one.

 

That's how you admit a mistake? No mention that you thought he'd suck or any opinions you shared about him- just a comment on how he looks to be doing good, now.

 

You crack me up.

 

Try this as an real example of admitting I was wrong:

 

"I thought we should have signed Odorizzi. He sucks. I was horribly wrong."

 

There. Was that something you can't ever do?

 

[a700hitter]

That's how you admit a mistake? No mention that you thought he'd suck or any opinions you shared about him- just a comment on how he looks to be doing good, now.

 

You crack me up.

 

Try this as an real example of admitting I was wrong:

 

"I thought we should have signed Odorizzi. He sucks. I was horribly wrong."

 

There. Was that something you can't ever do?

 

My opinions are publicly stated. When I say that I am wrong, I am sorry that I don’t elaborate enough for you about what I was wrong about. It is accountability even though you think I should make a tearful handwringing mea culpa. You moved the goal posts from saying that I never admit that I am wrong to I don’t apologize the right way. LOL! You crack me up. You should just admit that you don’t like me and nothing I could say would get your stamp of approval.

[moonslav59]

My opinions are publicly stated. When I say that I am wrong, I am sorry that I don’t elaborate enough for you about what I was wrong about. It is accountability even though you think I should make a tearful handwringing mea culpa. You moved the goal posts from saying that I never admit that I am wrong to I don’t apologize the right way. LOL! You crack me up. You should just admit that you don’t like me and nothing I could say would get your stamp of approval.

 

You have never said "I am wrong." Maybe I missed the one time, but I doubt it.

 

Calling what you said about Pivetta some sort of admission of being wrong or an "apology" is a joke.

 

BTW, I never said anything about an apology.

 

I also didn't think I needed to say I don't like you, but if you feel the need for my stamp of disapproval, I'll oblige.

 

I dislike you and your smug self righteousness and aggrandizement.

 

One thumb down.

 

[a700hitter]

You have never said "I am wrong." Maybe I missed the one time, but I doubt it.

 

Calling what you said about Pivetta some sort of admission of being wrong or an "apology" is a joke.

 

BTW, I never said anything about an apology.

 

I also didn't think I needed to say I don't like you, but if you feel the need for my stamp of disapproval, I'll oblige.

 

I dislike you and your smug self righteousness and aggrandizement.

 

One thumb down.

 

Thank you for admitting that you come from a place of bias. Have a good night.

[moonslav59]

Thank you for admitting that you come from a place of bias. Have a good night.

 

It's not a bad thing being biased against smug elitism.

 

Sleep tight.

[a700hitter]

It's not a bad thing being biased against smug elitism.

 

Sleep tight.

I don’t know. Self righteous hatred has never been my thing.

[moonslav59]

I don’t know. Self righteous hatred has never been my thing.

 

LOL, yea right.

[Bellhorn04]

You two do not have very productive exchanges LOL

[moonslav59]

You two do not have very productive exchanges LOL

 

Must be because I'm biased and he is not.

 

LOL.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not complaining, ut what ever happened to the stretch out Whitlock plan?

 

Tonight, he faced one batter in the 5th inning- a perfect long inning situation.

 

Has anyone said they changed their minds?

 

I'm not bitching- just wondering.

 

It certainly looks like they shelved that idea temporarily at least.

 

Maybe partly because we've been lucky enough so far not to need a #6 starter. And now Sale is on the horizon.

 

Last night's usage made perfect sense, because he pitched 1.2 innings Saturday.

[moonslav59]

It certainly looks like they shelved that idea temporarily at least.

 

Maybe partly because we've been lucky enough so far not to need a #6 starter. And now Sale is on the horizon.

 

Last night's usage made perfect sense, because he pitched 1.2 innings Saturday.

 

I guess they don't feel the need to explain every change in plans they make. It may help to keep the opps guessing, too

 

I guess I mention it a lot, because I wanted to see him pitch 3-4 innings, at times. That really takes the heat off the pen and gives them extra rest every so often.

 

I also think we have been pushing our luck, regarding starters not missing games due to injury. The only starts a non rotation pitcher started was due to double headers or wanting to give ERod some extra time at the start of the season.

 

I don't want to jinx anybody or anything, but have a look-see:

 

Notice a trend?

 

GS'd

 

2004

33 Pedro & Lowe

32 Schilling

30 Wake

29 Arroyo

5 Others

 

2007

32 Dice K

31 Wake

30 Beckett

24 Schilling

23 Tavarez

11Lester

11 Others (7 Gabbard, 3 Buch)

 

2013

33 Lester

29 Lackey

29 Dempster

27 Doubront

16 Buch

10 Peavy

18 Others (7 Webster, 6 Aceves, 3 Workman)

 

2018

33 Porcello

30 Price

27 Sale

23 ERod

13 Johnson

11 Eovaldi & PomPom

14 Others (8 Velazquez, 4 Wright)

 

Every winning season saw 4 starters get 23 of more starts.

 

Hell, last year, in a 60 game season, we started 16 different pitchers as starters and 30 in total!

 

This year, after 60 games, we have used 18 pitchers, including 3 with 3 or less IP.

 

We've used 6 starters (one barely):

 

12 Eovaldi

12 Richards

12 Pivetta

11 Perez

11 ERod

2 Houck

 

4 of those starters have an ERA under 3.88, and the one that doesn't, ERod, was supposed to be our #1!

[Hugh2]

I don't think the plan changed with Whitlock.

 

It's not as if starters sit around for 4 days doing nothing, they do throw. Physiologically there's not harm in throwing a guy out there to steal an out.

 

I have mixed feelings on the issue because you see how good Whitlock could be in the pen and how valuable that could be this year. But, if you think he's a starter, you stick to the plan. At least, that's my opinion.

[Bellhorn04]

Whitlock has been a special case from Day One with his Rule 5 status and the injury concerns.

 

The fact he's still pitching so well says to me they're handling him well.

 

This guy could be a big part of our staff for a while.

[Nick]

Whitlock has been a special case from Day One with his Rule 5 status and the injury concerns.

 

The fact he's still pitching so well says to me they're handling him well.

 

This guy could be a big part of our staff for a while.

 

He has unbelievable stuff. It's kind of amusing that he picked up his change up from a teammate during spring training. (I hope I'm not getting the pitchers confused).

 

An article stated that he's working on a slider and he's been mixing in that pitch recently.

 

He attacks the strike zone and that's what I like most about any pitcher.

 

At some point, starters will need a break and I'm hoping to see Whitlock be the opener and let him go as long as he can.

[moonslav59]

I don't think the plan changed with Whitlock.

 

It's not as if starters sit around for 4 days doing nothing, they do throw. Physiologically there's not harm in throwing a guy out there to steal an out.

 

I have mixed feelings on the issue because you see how good Whitlock could be in the pen and how valuable that could be this year. But, if you think he's a starter, you stick to the plan. At least, that's my opinion.

 

He's never really increased his workload in even one game, since the statement was made and the one May 13th game where he went 3 IP and threw 52 pitches. That was a long time ago, and that wasn't even the most pitches he's thrown in a game. He did that in his first game (3.1 IP/ 59 pitches).

 

Days rest/IP/ Pitches

4- 2.0-20

6- 1.0-10

5- 2.2-29

5-2.1-41

5-2.0-31

4-1.0-15

3-1.0-23

2-2.0-27

6-3.0-52 (May 13)

6-0.1-15

2-1.2-35

4-2.0-36

7-1.2-35

4-1.2-20

2-0.1-2

 

This shows no signs of "stretching him out."

 

I'm fine with what they are doing, but it's not stretching him out.

 

He was used in 2 or more innings 5 out of 6 times in April (all over 29 pitches).

 

He was used 3 times in his next 10 games 2 or more innings and only went over 30 pitches 4 times.

 

If anything, they are shortening him out.

[Hugh2]

He's never really increased his workload in even one game, since the statement was made and the one May 13th game where he went 3 IP and threw 52 pitches. That was a long time ago, and that wasn't even the most pitches he's thrown in a game. He did that in his first game (3.1 IP/ 59 pitches).

 

Days rest/IP/ Pitches

4- 2.0-20

6- 1.0-10

5- 2.2-29

5-2.1-41

5-2.0-31

4-1.0-15

3-1.0-23

2-2.0-27

6-3.0-52 (May 13)

6-0.1-15

2-1.2-35

4-2.0-36

7-1.2-35

4-1.2-20

2-0.1-2

 

This shows no signs of "stretching him out."

 

I'm fine with what they are doing, but it's not stretching him out.

 

He was used in 2 or more innings 5 out of 6 times in April (all over 29 pitches).

 

He was used 3 times in his next 10 games 2 or more innings and only went over 30 pitches 4 times.

 

If anything, they are shortening him out.

 

Whitlock is a very rare case. They're in a situation where they have to keep him on the big league team because he's a rule 5 guy but they also have to be careful with him because he just recently had Tommy John. Right now, I think they care more about him being on a starter's schedule as best as possible. They're not exactly stretching him out but they're usually getting at least an inning plus from him, the one-out appearance was rare yesterday.

 

I'm not sure if they plan on ramping him up later in the year, or if they want to save him for a playoff run where they feel confident in using him out of the pen more. It's a good problem to have because of his talent level, but the downside is it either leaves us a pitcher short in the pen or a bat short on the bench and we've seen that seesaw all year.

 

I really hope Whitlock pans out, develops, and exceeds ALL expecations. I hope he's pitching 200 innings and winning Cy-Youngs and we can go shove that in all the Yankees fans faces. But, we'll probably have to wait a year for that to happen.

[Nick]

Whitlock is a very rare case. They're in a situation where they have to keep him on the big league team because he's a rule 5 guy but they also have to be careful with him because he just recently had Tommy John. Right now, I think they care more about him being on a starter's schedule as best as possible. They're not exactly stretching him out but they're usually getting at least an inning plus from him, the one-out appearance was rare yesterday.

 

I'm not sure if they plan on ramping him up later in the year, or if they want to save him for a playoff run where they feel confident in using him out of the pen more. It's a good problem to have because of his talent level, but the downside is it either leaves us a pitcher short in the pen or a bat short on the bench and we've seen that seesaw all year.

 

I really hope Whitlock pans out, develops, and exceeds ALL expecations. I hope he's pitching 200 innings and winning Cy-Youngs and we can go shove that in all the Yankees fans faces. But, we'll probably have to wait a year for that to happen.

 

You need guys like Whitlock and Houck to keep the team below the luxury tax payroll threashhold. We can't keep buying every pitcher.

 

Bloom has already made his mark by getting Nick Privetta from the Phillies. We have one of those pitchers back, Workman. It couldn't have come at a better time with injury to Brasier, who has been put on 60 day IL. Richards and Perez signings also look like winners. They are exceeding expectations and the risk was low due to one year deal and high reward due to having club option for second year if they pitched well.

 

Sox can also trade them after exercising club options. Win-win in my books.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Nick

[Nick]

Having Arroyo leading off and playing second base further lengthens our line up if he keeps hitting well. I did not realize that he was a first round draft pick coming out of college. (i hope i have the right player, going on memory).

 

That will force Kike to play CF primarily and that's where he's needed.

 

With low BA, I'm not sure platooning Santana with Dalbec is a great idea. Who knows, maybe Santana will get on a tear.

 

I'm leaning towards acquiring a low cost left handed hitter with proven track record.

 

1B is the next fix. Do it, Bloom. (And quit telling me we lead the majors in runs scored. It it's bad, you need to fix it. It's always about making the team better).

 

Watching Dalbec come to bat with runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out and striking out on a pitch not even close was the final straw for me. He needs to start hitting bombs if he continues to strike out.

 

I'm pulling for him. I want both Dalbec and Whitlock to succeed.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Nick

[a700hitter]

Must be because I'm biased and he is not.

 

LOL.

Everyone has biases, but I have not formed a negative opinion about your character based on your posts that would make me reflexively treat you with disdain, as you treat me. I know nothing about your life other than your views about baseball. The worst I can say about you is that your content is as boring and pointless as it is voluminous. Other than that, I have no reason to think you are not a good person.

[Maxbialystock]

I guess they don't feel the need to explain every change in plans they make. It may help to keep the opps guessing, too

 

I guess I mention it a lot, because I wanted to see him pitch 3-4 innings, at times. That really takes the heat off the pen and gives them extra rest every so often.

 

I also think we have been pushing our luck, regarding starters not missing games due to injury. The only starts a non rotation pitcher started was due to double headers or wanting to give ERod some extra time at the start of the season.

 

I don't want to jinx anybody or anything, but have a look-see:

 

Notice a trend?

 

GS'd

 

2004

33 Pedro & Lowe

32 Schilling

30 Wake

29 Arroyo

5 Others

 

2007

32 Dice K

31 Wake

30 Beckett

24 Schilling

23 Tavarez

11Lester

11 Others (7 Gabbard, 3 Buch)

 

2013

33 Lester

29 Lackey

29 Dempster

27 Doubront

16 Buch

10 Peavy

18 Others (7 Webster, 6 Aceves, 3 Workman)

 

2018

33 Porcello

30 Price

27 Sale

23 ERod

13 Johnson

11 Eovaldi & PomPom

14 Others (8 Velazquez, 4 Wright)

 

Every winning season saw 4 starters get 23 of more starts.

 

Hell, last year, in a 60 game season, we started 16 different pitchers as starters and 30 in total!

 

This year, after 60 games, we have used 18 pitchers, including 3 with 3 or less IP.

 

We've used 6 starters (one barely):

 

12 Eovaldi

12 Richards

12 Pivetta

11 Perez

11 ERod

2 Houck

 

4 of those starters have an ERA under 3.88, and the one that doesn't, ERod, was supposed to be our #1!

 

You didn't pick "winning," teams but rather WS-winning teams, which leaves out a whole bunch. Plus right now the talksox consensus seems to be these Sox are not WS-bound.

 

However, your stats do show that Cora has basically been able to stick with 5 starters, which is pretty amazing by itself, given the Sox are about 3 weeks from reaching the 81 game (1/2 season) mark.

 

At the same time, the average Sox starter goes just a tad over 5 innings, which leaves on average 3+ innings for the bullpen to cover. So leaving Whitlock there just might make sense for now.

 

Also interesting are the top six WAR's for the Sox pitching staff: Perez 1.4; Eovaldi 1.3; Pivetta 1.3; Whitlock 1.1; Barnes 1.0; and Richards .9.

 

The six next best are all bullpen: Ottavino .4; Hernandez .3; Sawamura .2; Taylor .2; Valdez .2.

 

Starter ERod is still at -.1.

 

I would argue that those 12 pitchers--5 starters and 7 relievers--are essentially the Sox pitching staff so far, or at least the somewhat reliable pitching staff (which is way better than I expected).

Edited June 8, 2021 by Maxbialystock