A Realistic View at 2022: Part I

[Bellhorn04]

The Sox soft finishing schedule is truly a gift from MLB. There is no other way to put it. It would be very difficult not to win a wild card berth at this point.

 

It's not really a gift, it's just that we had a harder schedule than the other AL East teams before now.

[dgalehouse]

It's not really a gift, it's just that we had a harder schedule than the other AL East teams before now.

 

I much prefer to have the easy games down the stretch run.

[moonslav59]

It's not really a gift, it's just that we had a harder schedule than the other AL East teams before now.

 

Which shows we deserve our position in the standings, perhaps more than the Yanks and Jays.

[moonslav59]

I much prefer to have the easy games down the stretch run.

 

If it meant being 1-2 down, right now?

[dgalehouse]

If it meant being 1-2 down, right now?

 

There are always what-ifs and maybes. Fact is , we are not one or two down right now.

[dgalehouse]

Would any of us like it if the Yankees had the soft schedule in the home stretch ? I don't think so.

[Bellhorn04]

Would any of us like it if the Yankees had the soft schedule in the home stretch ? I don't think so.

 

Well, we wouldn't like it NOW, obviously.

 

The only point is that it's not a gift from MLB.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

Well, we wouldn't like it NOW, obviously.

 

The only point is that it's not a gift from MLB.

 

The only gift from MLB is the opportunity to play the O's.

[moonslav59]

This should all be on the 2021 thread, except that we will have the gift of playing the O's a bunch, next year, too.

 

One can argue part of that gift also means playing TR, TOR and NYY 19 times, too, so I'm not sure about this being a gift.

 

[Nick]

I see Bloom as a less is better type of a guy. DD was always the bigger the better, be loud type of a guy.

 

Bloom's goal is to make the Sox perennial contender. He loves to make incremental improvements. It's a marathon for him. DD was always in a sprint.

 

Bloom is succeeding whether we make the playoffs or not. We're competing for a spot after forgettable 2020.

 

He had some misses but Kike and Renfroe signings worked out well for Sox. They turned out to be key signings.

 

He's also not going to part company with Dalbec. 23 HR and 73 RBI rookie making $575K with 5 more years of team control. He can get better no?

 

Not sure what to make of Pivetta at times but he's at least a fifth starter. Good return on a throw away pen guys.

 

I think Arroyo will be more than serviceable at 2B. Our left side is solid.

 

You will hear the management emphasize that we'll have Sale for ENTIRE year and THAT is the best trade we made over the winter.

 

I just don't see major moves or signings coming.

[moonslav59]

I see Bloom as a less is better type of a guy. DD was always the bigger the better, be loud type of a guy.

 

Bloom's goal is to make the Sox perennial contender. He loves to make incremental improvements. It's a marathon for him. DD was always in a sprint.

 

Bloom is succeeding whether we make the playoffs or not. We're competing for a spot after forgettable 2020.

 

He had some misses but Kike and Renfroe signings worked out well for Sox. They turned out to be key signings.

 

He's also not going to part company with Dalbec. 23 HR and 73 RBI rookie making $575K with 5 more years of team control. He can get better no?

 

Not sure what to make of Pivetta at times but he's at least a fifth starter. Good return on a throw away pen guys.

 

I think Arroyo will be more than serviceable at 2B. Our left side is solid.

 

You will hear the management emphasize that we'll have Sale for ENTIRE year and THAT is the best trade we made over the winter.

 

I just don't see major moves or signings coming.

 

I don't disagree with much, here.

 

I will say Bloom's pace of building was slowed by spending limits that DD did not have, until 2019.

 

I do see at least 2 major additions being made, this winter- maybe 3 if ERod bolts. All should be pitching, but Bloom may surprise with an everyday player addition via tradeor free agency designed to improve defense without killing the O.

 

These big choices with the staff will be dictated by our role choices for Houck and Whitlock. The secondary issue is the QO or no QO for ERod.

 

If I had to guess, we may make Whitlock the 3 or 4 starter and Houck the closer or #1 set-up man (replacing Ottavino). They could also place both in the pen or in the rotation.

 

Here's how I see it:

 

No ERod

 

1. Sale

2. ______

3. Eovaldi

4. Whitlock

5. Pivetta

6. Seabold/Bello

 

1. Houck

2. _______

3. Barnes

4. Richards

5. Taylor

6. DHern

7. Sawamura

8. Valdez/Rioz/Davis/Brasier/Bazardo/Feltman

 

With ERod

 

1. Sale

2. Eovaldi

3. _______

4. ERod

5. Pivetta

6. Seabold/Bello

 

1. Houck

2. Whitlock

3. ________

4. Barnes

5. Taylor (No Richards option)

6. 6. DHern

7. Sawamura

8. Valdez/Rioz/Davis/Brasier/Bazardo/Feltman

 

What's the time table of offering and accepting QOs and when to accept or buy out options?

 

My thought is that if ERod is given and accepts a QO, we may say no to the Richard's option. If we say good bye to ERod, we may be more likely to keep Richards and his contract.

[Larry Cook]

I don't disagree with much, here.

 

I will say Bloom's pace of building was slowed by spending limits that DD did not have, until 2019.

 

I do see at least 2 major additions being made, this winter- maybe 3 if ERod bolts. All should be pitching, but Bloom may surprise with an everyday player addition via tradeor free agency designed to improve defense without killing the O.

 

These big choices with the staff will be dictated by our role choices for Houck and Whitlock. The secondary issue is the QO or no QO for ERod.

 

If I had to guess, we may make Whitlock the 3 or 4 starter and Houck the closer or #1 set-up man (replacing Ottavino). They could also place both in the pen or in the rotation.

 

Here's how I see it:

 

No ERod

 

1. Sale

2. ______

3. Eovaldi

4. Whitlock

5. Pivetta

6. Seabold/Bello

 

1. Houck

2. _______

3. Barnes

4. Richards

5. Taylor

6. DHern

7. Sawamura

8. Valdez/Rioz/Davis/Brasier/Bazardo/Feltman

 

With ERod

 

1. Sale

2. Eovaldi

3. _______

4. ERod

5. Pivetta

6. Seabold/Bello

 

1. Houck

2. Whitlock

3. ________

4. Barnes

5. Taylor (No Richards option)

6. 6. DHern

7. Sawamura

8. Valdez/Rioz/Davis/Brasier/Bazardo/Feltman

 

What's the time table of offering and accepting QOs and when to accept or buy out options?

 

My thought is that if ERod is given and accepts a QO, we may say no to the Richard's option. If we say good bye to ERod, we may be more likely to keep Richards and his contract.

 

I see Hang’em Chaim offering Rodriguez a q.o., but I doubt Rodriguez takes it and eventually somebody over pays for him. We get a draft pick.

 

Yes I think Hang’em Chaim signs a four pitchers, but they will be wholly based on analytics. Hang’em Chaim and his guys are looking specifically for pitchers with success the first two times through a line up. And then he wants to get to the point where he can send in the piggy back starter that can get them the third time through the line up. And then he has the game enders.

 

I think his ideal pitching staff would be;

 

5 starters (sale, pivetta, eovaldi, tbd, tbd)

3 piggy back starters - multiple up to 3 inning relievers.(Houck, Whitlock, Richards)

6 relievers (Barnes, Taylor, Hernandez, sawumura, tbd, tbd)

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Is it possible the Red Sox bring back G.Richards next year as a reliever or perhaps the closer?

 

He has been much better as a reliever, but I don't know if he likes to close or not? Maybe he wants to be a starter next year? He could have dinner with Dennis Eckersley and Eck could convince him of the benefits of moving to the bullpen at this stage of his career.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Fan_since_Boggs

[moonslav59]

Is it possible the Red Sox bring back G.Richards next year as a reliever or perhaps the closer?

 

He has been much better as a reliever, but I don't know if he likes to close or not? Maybe he wants to be a starter next year? He could have dinner with Dennis Eckersley and Eck could convince him of the benefits of moving to the bullpen at this stage of his career.

 

The $1.5M buy out makes taking the $10M on the table more and more likely with every nice game Richards gives us.

 

$8.5M is about what we are giving Barnes, so the same for one year of Richards seems probable, at this point in time.

[moonslav59]

I see Hang’em Chaim offering Rodriguez a q.o., but I doubt Rodriguez takes it and eventually somebody over pays for him. We get a draft pick.

 

I think ERod would take the QO in hopes of resetting his value with a nice 2022 season.

[moonslav59]

 

I think his ideal pitching staff would be;

 

5 starters (sale, pivetta, eovaldi, tbd, tbd)

3 piggy back starters - multiple up to 3 inning relievers.(Houck, Whitlock, Richards)

6 relievers (Barnes, Taylor, Hernandez, sawumura, tbd, tbd)

 

The piggy back starter idea interests me, but I'm not sure how practical it is.

 

Let's say you have 4 guys who fit the bill perfectly: Houck, Whitlock, Richards and Pivetta. Do they just pitch 3-4 innings every 5 days? Do you use them in short relief on their "throwing days?"

 

In theory, it might work best for them to pitch 3-4 innings every 4 days, but that would mess up the 5 day starter routines.

 

Can a pitcher thrive under this routine:

 

3 IP

rest

1 IP

rest

3 IP...

 

Over 160 games, the pitcher would have 40 three inning games and 40 one inning games for 160 IP.

 

Let's say you have 4 guys that follow this pattern: it would line up like this with 4 IP everyday from 2 players out of the 4.

 

20 games cycle with 3 five day starters

 

3-1-0-0 +5 (9)

0-0-3-1 +5 (9)

1-3-0 0 (4)

0-0-1-3 +5 (9)

3-1-0-0 (4)

0-0-3-1 +5 (9)

1-3-0 0 +5 (9)

0-0-1-3 (4)

3-1-0-0 +5 (9)

0-0-3-1 (4)

1-3-0 0 +5 (9)

0-0-1-3 +5 (9)

3-1-0-0 (4)

0-0-3-1 +5 (9)

1-3-0 0 (4)

0-0-1-3 +5 (9)

3-1-0-0 +5 (9)

0-0-3-1 (4)

1-3-0 0 +5 (9)

0-0-1-3 (4)

 

Of course these numbers would not come out perfectly, as pitchers might get yanked early when doing poorly or left in longer when doing well, but if it works out something like this, we are talking about 3 starters (5 IP x 33 starts= 165) and 4 pitchers with 160 IP (see above).

 

That leaves 5 IP needed from the pen in 3 of every 5 games (days). If we have 6 pen arms, that's 15 IP/ 6 pitchers every 5 days.

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by moonslav59

[Maxbialystock]

The piggy back starter idea interests me, but I'm not sure how practical it is.

 

Let's say you have 4 guys who fit the bill perfectly: Houck, Whitlock, Richards and Pivetta. Do they just pitch 3-4 innings every 5 days? Do you use them in short relief on their "throwing days?"

 

In theory, it might work best for them to pitch 3-4 innings every 4 days, but that would mess up the 5 day starter routines.

 

Can a pitcher thrive under this routine:

 

3 IP

rest

1 IP

rest

3 IP...

 

Over 160 games, the pitcher would have 40 three inning games and 40 one inning games for 160 IP.

 

Let's say you have 4 guys that follow this pattern: it would line up like this with 4 IP everyday from 2 players out of the 4.

 

20 games cycle with 3 five day starters

 

3-1-0-0 +5 (9)

0-0-3-1 +5 (9)

1-3-0 0 (4)

0-0-1-3 +5 (9)

3-1-0-0 (4)

0-0-3-1 +5 (9)

1-3-0 0 +5 (9)

0-0-1-3 (4)

3-1-0-0 +5 (9)

0-0-3-1 (4)

1-3-0 0 +5 (9)

0-0-1-3 +5 (9)

3-1-0-0 (4)

0-0-3-1 +5 (9)

1-3-0 0 (4)

0-0-1-3 +5 (9)

3-1-0-0 +5 (9)

0-0-3-1 (4)

1-3-0 0 +5 (9)

0-0-1-3 (4)

 

Of course these numbers would not come out perfectly, as pitchers might get yanked early when doing poorly or left in longer when doing well, but if it works out something like this, we are talking about 3 starters (5 IP x 33 starts= 165) and 4 pitchers with 160 IP (see above).

 

That leaves 5 IP needed from the pen in 3 of every 5 games (days). If we have 6 pen arms, that's 15 IP/ 6 pitchers every 5 days.

 

 

 

 

I prefer a simpler equation. 5 games = 5 starts and 45 innings = 25 starter innings and 20 bullpen innings.

 

Of the 20 bullpen innings, 12 can come from the likes of Houck, Whitlock, and Richards, and the remaining 8 from the other 4 or 5 relievers.

[moonslav59]

I prefer a simpler equation. 5 games = 5 starts and 45 innings = 25 starter innings and 20 bullpen innings.

 

Of the 20 bullpen innings, 12 can come from the likes of Houck, Whitlock, and Richards, and the remaining 8 from the other 4 or 5 relievers.

 

That is a much simple way to put it, and I'm not sure using Houck and Whitlock for 3 IP, at a time, every 3-5 days works better than using then 1-2 innings 3 out of 5 days.

[moonslav59]

Maybe we can see some gains by replacing these numbers:

 

OPS/ PAs Players

.567/271 Marwin

.497/136 Cordero

.597/127 Santana

.549/82 Chavis

 

ERA/IP Pitcher

5.00/142 ERod (QO?)

4.57/130 Richards (Option)

4.79/109 Perez (Option)

6.03/37.1 Andriese

4.95/20.0 Workman

6.59/13.2 Brice

[Hugh2]

There seems to be a lot of talk about Whitlock in the bullpen next year, but everything seems to indicate that the Sox plan on converting him BACK to starting next year. He never failed as a starter, he just got hurt and turned up in the bullpen as a rule 5 guy who needed to stay on the roster. His usage is indicative of his performance and the Sox needs, I don't think it changes how they view him in 2022. If anything Houck is the guy who ends up in the bullpen but given his performance through 5 innings almost every start you have to think you let a guy like that fail first before you make the move. Not sure you can have two question marks in your rotation like that in 2022 so it will be interesting to see how that shakes out.

[Nick]

Why can't we have five starting pitchers and have guys in the pen that can go multiple innings?

 

Can a pitcher pitch two innings every other game or two out of five games? Is it the pitch count the key or just number of times a guy gets up to warm up?

 

Not every game needs saving. Why can't Houck close two innings? Who wrote the rule that say closer just comes in for one inning?

 

I like having guys that can go two plus innings.

[moonslav59]

There seems to be a lot of talk about Whitlock in the bullpen next year, but everything seems to indicate that the Sox plan on converting him BACK to starting next year. He never failed as a starter, he just got hurt and turned up in the bullpen as a rule 5 guy who needed to stay on the roster. His usage is indicative of his performance and the Sox needs, I don't think it changes how they view him in 2022. If anything Houck is the guy who ends up in the bullpen but given his performance through 5 innings almost every start you have to think you let a guy like that fail first before you make the move. Not sure you can have two question marks in your rotation like that in 2022 so it will be interesting to see how that shakes out.

 

I hope he starts and Houck closes or is the top set up guy, but if we add some solid starters, having Houck and Whitlock in the pen would be very nice, too.

[Bellhorn04]

Not every game needs saving. Why can't Houck close two innings? Who wrote the rule that say closer just comes in for one inning?

 

I like having guys that can go two plus innings.

 

I think everybody likes guys that can go two plus innings.

 

The obvious issue is that he won't be available the next game or two.

 

The standard one-inning closer can pitch 3 games in a row sometimes.

 

There's always a trade-off.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Why can't we have five starting pitchers and have guys in the pen that can go multiple innings?

 

Can a pitcher pitch two innings every other game or two out of five games? Is it the pitch count the key or just number of times a guy gets up to warm up?

 

Not every game needs saving. Why can't Houck close two innings? Who wrote the rule that say closer just comes in for one inning?

 

I like having guys that can go two plus innings.

 

His name is Tony and he currently manages a first-place team in Chicago. His prototype's name is Dennis and he currently analyzes salad, moss, shoes and bridge pieces on NESN.

 

Before those guys, a relief ace or fireman (they weren't called closers) regularly came into games before the 9th and most were good to the last out.

[Bellhorn04]

His name is Tony and he currently manages a first-place team in Chicago. His prototype's name is Dennis and he currently analyzes salad, moss, shoes and bridge pieces on NESN.

 

Before those guys, a relief ace or fireman (they weren't called closers) regularly came into games before the 9th and most were good to the last out.

 

I don't think Eck was the first to be called a closer, but I may be wrong on that.

[moonslav59]

I think everybody likes guys that can go two plus innings.

 

The obvious issue is that he won't be available the next game or two.

 

The standard one-inning closer can pitch 3 games in a row sometimes.

 

There's always a trade-off.

 

So, maybe the typical closer can go 1 IP in half the games, tops. That's 81 IP in 81 appearances, which is more than almost all closers give. Many games, they are not needed. Other times, you need them 4-5 games in a row, but they can only give you 3 out or 4 of 5.

 

A two inning guy that can give you 2 innings twice every 5 games would be giving you 4 IP every 5 games or 145 IP/season. He may be brought in in the 5th or 6th inning and maybe not finish (close), of he could be used for the 8th and 9th.

 

I think the two inning guy, even if they can only go 4 IP every 6 games gives you 108 IP a year, and you can plan on his usage more than with a typical closer.

 

[mvp 78]

The $1.5M buy out makes taking the $10M on the table more and more likely with every nice game Richards gives us.

 

$8.5M is about what we are giving Barnes, so the same for one year of Richards seems probable, at this point in time.

 

Madness and I like Richards as the closer down the stretch.

[mvp 78]

Maybe we can see some gains by replacing these numbers:

 

OPS/ PAs Players

.567/271 Marwin

.497/136 Cordero

.597/127 Santana

.549/82 Chavis

 

ERA/IP Pitcher

5.00/142 ERod (QO?)

4.57/130 Richards (Option)

4.79/109 Perez (Option)

6.03/37.1 Andriese

4.95/20.0 Workman

6.59/13.2 Brice

 

Yes, if you replace your worst players with good players, you'll win more games.

 

However, it's hard to say which players will see a downturn next season.

[moonslav59]

Yes, if you replace your worst players with good players, you'll win more games.

 

However, it's hard to say which players will see a downturn next season.

 

Indeed. I do this every year, and we always end up with different names to replace for the following year.

 

last year's list was much longer (and worse), I might add.

 

This year, it's only about 600 PAs and 450 IP (not all of which we very bad).

[Bellhorn04]

So, maybe the typical closer can go 1 IP in half the games, tops. That's 81 IP in 81 appearances, which is more than almost all closers give. Many games, they are not needed. Other times, you need them 4-5 games in a row, but they can only give you 3 out or 4 of 5.

 

A two inning guy that can give you 2 innings twice every 5 games would be giving you 4 IP every 5 games or 145 IP/season. He may be brought in in the 5th or 6th inning and maybe not finish (close), of he could be used for the 8th and 9th.

 

I think the two inning guy, even if they can only go 4 IP every 6 games gives you 108 IP a year, and you can plan on his usage more than with a typical closer.

 

 

It's nice to have both profiles on your staff IMHO.