2022 Starting Rotation Thread

[dgalehouse]

The thinking of the analytics crowd is that you don't spend money on a closer , or the bullpen in general. We have heard it expressed here many times. No matter what happens, they stay with that. I don't think Cora agrees with it , but he has no choice except to try and make the best of it. The problem is that you don't get a Liam Hendricks with Hansel Robles money.

[notin]

The thinking of the analytics crowd is that you don't spend money on a closer , or the bullpen in general. We have heard it expressed here many times. No matter what happens, they stay with that. I don't think Cora agrees with it , but he has no choice except to try and make the best of it. The problem is that you don't get a Liam Hendricks with Hansel Robles money.

 

 

No. We never heard that expressed here…

[Old Red]

No. We never heard that expressed here…

 

I think analytics takes the thinking, and strategy mostly out of the games, and have turned managers more into robots than ones that actually watches the game, and makes adjustments on what he sees instead of what he might see.

[moonslav59]

Thanks for correcting me, but 5 out of 6 ain’t bad. No Whitlock does not have a 0.00 era, but I’d take my chances with him for 3-4 outs at a time. No I remember opening day very well, but that was in long relief, and not as a closer.I’ve also stated more than once that was not Whitlock’s fault that the team is 0-3 in his starts, but the fact he’s only gone 4-5 innings has put more of a workload on the bullpen. I’m all for giving Houck a shot at closing, but Cora seems happy with what he has. I think we can agree that the way things are being done now isn’t working.

 

Yes, I certainly think we'd have a better chance with Whitlock or Houck closing. I think they misused Houck by piggybacking him, and I always felt Whitlock's profile was batter than Houck as a starter and both would be good to great closers.

 

The more I watch Houck pitch, the more convinced I am he'd be a better closer ( 1 or 2 innings) than starter.

 

I think Whitlock would do great in any role.

 

[moonslav59]

I think analytics takes the thinking, and strategy mostly out of the games, and have turned managers more into robots than ones that actually watches the game, and makes adjustments on what he sees instead of what he might see.

 

It seems like Cora makes a lot of "gut choices," but maybe something is telling him to do them.

 

Managers have always looked at match-ups and splits to make many choices. Sure, they do it more, now and use more stats and metrics, but I'm not sure it's changes all that much.

[Old Red]

It seems like Cora makes a lot of "gut choices," but maybe something is telling him to do them.

 

Managers have always looked at match-ups and splits to make many choices. Sure, they do it more, now and use more stats and metrics, but I'm not sure it's changes all that much.

 

Taking starting pitchers out, because of what might happen has been one of the biggest changes in the game, and also the big increase in the shift.

[notin]

I think analytics takes the thinking, and strategy mostly out of the games, and have turned managers more into robots than ones that actually watches the game, and makes adjustments on what he sees instead of what he might see.

 

 

Isn’t that exactly what having a dedicated closer does?

 

That’s actually literally why the role was created. In postgame press conferences, when asked why a certain reliever was used, rather than tap dance around whatever, managers got to say “because he’s the closer.”

[Old Red]

Isn’t that exactly what having a dedicated closer does?

 

That’s actually literally why the role was created. In postgame press conferences, when asked why a certain reliever was used, rather than tap dance around whatever, managers got to say “because he’s the closer.”

 

Bring me Dick Radtz any day.

[moonslav59]

Taking starting pitchers out, because of what might happen has been one of the biggest changes in the game, and also the big increase in the shift.

 

The shift is definitely analytics related.

 

Taking pitchers out earlier based on the 3rd time through data is related to analytics, for sure, but managers have always used data, match-up and things like pitch count, baater v pitcher data, which is also analytics- though maybe cruder- for many many years.

 

When I look at teh data, I see guys like Wacha and Hill have done better than Eovaldi and Pivettta the third time through a line-up, yet Cora chooses the opposite as the analytics I see.

[dgalehouse]

Some fans deny the existence of things like momentum. The Sox right now are in losing mode. Reverse momentum , if you will. They will find a way to lose. Almost like they expect to lose. They need a big breakout game , a walk off win or something like that to change the losing atmosphere. I do believe that they can start a winning streak if that happens. They have some weak areas , but they are not nearly as bad as they have looked. At any rate , don't give up the ship at this early stage.

[Old Red]

Some fans deny the existence of things like momentum. The Sox right now are in losing mode. Reverse momentum , if you will. They will find a way to lose. Almost like they expect to lose. They need a big breakout game , a walk off win or something like that to change the losing atmosphere. I do believe that they can start a winning streak if that happens. They have some weak areas , but they are not nearly as bad as they have looked. At any rate , don't give up the ship at this early stage.

 

I agree, but unless something happens like Morgan Magic things are looking pretty bleak.

[notin]

Taking starting pitchers out, because of what might happen has been one of the biggest changes in the game, and also the big increase in the shift.

 

Taking starting pitchers out before they get hammered is hardly new; it’s been done for decades. That’s what pitch counts were for…

[Bellhorn04]

Taking starting pitchers out before they get hammered is hardly new; it’s been done for decades. That’s what pitch counts were for…

 

Although you must admit, reducing those pitch counts from 100-110 to 60-70 is a somewhat significant shift...

[Old Red]

Although you must admit, reducing those pitch counts from 100-110 to 60-70 is a somewhat significant shift...

 

Pitchers used to go every 4th day too, and 120-130 pitches weren’t that big a deal then either. Lonborg made 39 starts in 67, and only pitched less than 5 innings 4 times that year.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Old Red

[notin]

Although you must admit, reducing those pitch counts from 100-110 to 60-70 is a somewhat significant shift...

 

But will it be 60-70 all year? With no real ST, we had to expect those shorter outings..,

[notin]

Pitchers used to go every 4th day too, and 120-130 pitches weren’t that big a deal then either. Lonborg made 39 starts in 67, and only pitched less than 5 innings 4 times that year.

 

But for every Jim Lonborg, how many Mark Fidrych’s were there?

[Old Red]

Taking starting pitchers out before they get hammered is hardly new; it’s been done for decades. That’s what pitch counts were for…

 

But when you leave out the disparity now of pitchers thrown, and innings pitched your leaving out two very important factors.

[Old Red]

But for every Jim Lonborg, how many Mark Fidrych’s were there?

 

I’m sure you remember the famous game of 1963 between Juan Marichel, and 42 year old Warren Spahn that ended up with both throwing complete games. Juan ended up with a 16 inning shoutout, and Spahn gave up a one out HR in the 16th, and lost 1-0. Both pitchers combined threw 428 pitches. Managers, and the analytics nerds today would have to be put n straight jackets to watch something like that.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I’m sure you remember the famous game of 1963 between Juan Marichel, and 42 year old Warren Spahn that ended up with both throwing complete games. Juan ended up with a 16 inning shoutout, and Spahn gave up a one out HR in the 16th, and lost 1-0. Both pitchers combined threw 428 pitches. Managers, and the analytics nerds today would have to be put n straight jackets to watch something like that.

 

Analytics nerds would hire campus security to tackle and wrap straight jackets around managers if they tried something like that today.

[illinoisredsox]

Pitchers used to go every 4th day too, and 120-130 pitches weren’t that big a deal then either. Lonborg made 39 starts in 67, and only pitched less than 5 innings 4 times that year.

 

Pitchers didn’t throw every pitch max effort back then. Even a guy like Ryan didn’t throw every pitch 100+, he saved that for when he needed it.

[illinoisredsox]

I’m sure you remember the famous game of 1963 between Juan Marichel, and 42 year old Warren Spahn that ended up with both throwing complete games. Juan ended up with a 16 inning shoutout, and Spahn gave up a one out HR in the 16th, and lost 1-0. Both pitchers combined threw 428 pitches. Managers, and the analytics nerds today would have to be put n straight jackets to watch something like that.

 

I remember one circa 1974 when the Angels beat the Sox in 15 innings. Tiant went the distance for the loss; Ryan was removed kicking and screaming in the 13th or 14th.

[illinoisredsox]

But for every Jim Lonborg, how many Mark Fidrych’s were there?

 

A lot, most far less noteworthy than Fiderych.

[moonslav59]

Pitchers didn’t throw every pitch max effort back then. Even a guy like Ryan didn’t throw every pitch 100+, he saved that for when he needed it.

 

The analytics guys back then, told him not to.

[notin]

A lot, most far less noteworthy than Fiderych.

 

And the thing is, these “back in the day” comparisons always involve the elite arms from that time. Bob Gibson didn’t do this. Nolan Ryan did that.

 

The Sox don’t have Gibson or Ryan. The Sox don’t even have Jim Lonborg. They have Nate Eovaldi. And the only way Eovaldi becomes the next Lonborg is if he takes up skiing…

[Bellhorn04]

And the thing is, these “back in the day” comparisons always involve the elite arms from that time. Bob Gibson didn’t do this. Nolan Ryan did that.

 

The Sox don’t have Gibson or Ryan. The Sox don’t even have Jim Lonborg. They have Nate Eovaldi. And the only way Eovaldi becomes the next Lonborg is if he takes up skiing…

 

You and your injury jokes...

[mvp 78]

I remember one circa 1974 when the Angels beat the Sox in 15 innings. Tiant went the distance for the loss; Ryan was removed kicking and screaming in the 13th or 14th.

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/wins.aspx?date=1974-06-14&team=Red%20Sox&dh=0

[notin]

You and your injury jokes...

 

Lonborg got hurt over 50 years ago. Still too soon?

[Old Red]

The word on the street is that the Dodgers are trying to trade David Price so he can be a starter. Who would take the bite out of that apple?

[moonslav59]

The word on the street is that the Dodgers are trying to trade David Price so he can be a starter. Who would take the bite out of that apple?

 

Mrs. Price, only.

[mvp 78]

Mrs. Price, only.

 

If they eat that whole contract, sure. They can have Kutter for him.