2022 Starting Rotation Thread

[jacksonianmarch]

A reshuffling is needed. Rather than continue to get good starting pitching performances and blow any leads later, it might be better off to run the risk of losing some games from the outset rather than blowing them later by moving a starter to the closer's role. Houck, IMO, is the best suited for that even though he had the most recent epic pen implosion. He's a 2 pitch pitcher who's usefulness in the rotation is limited to 18 batters. I'd shuffle him back to the closer's role

[illinoisredsox]

Bingo. The reverse is a Bloom move.

[Old Red]

Doubtful they’d be 6-0, because that would imply that the Red Sox actually scored in those extra innings. In at least 2-3 of them, they didn’t. Their futility with men on second has been well documented.

 

Your MISSING the point, and facts. The Red Sox HAD THE LEAD in all six of the extra innings losses in the 8-9 innings. They didn’t need to score anymore runs. Just like yesterday they were leading 1-0 in the 9th. Facts are facts. A lead in all 6 of the extra innings losses in the 8-9 innings, so those wouldn’t have even been extra innings games. Yesterday if Whitlock had been the closer the Sox win 1-0, and no xtra innings.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Old Red

[cp176]

Why is everyone so hung up on going forward? At the moment I only care about the 2022 Boston Red Sox, and at the moment the Cora, and Bloom’s crew is a LOSING laughing stock. If everyone doesn’t care about what’s going on this year than why bother, because that’s what it looks like to me.

 

I'm with you on this one. I don't get the current strategy. It sucks.

[jacksonianmarch]

I'm with you on this one. I don't get the current strategy. It sucks.

 

Bloom took over a team that was heading downward. He presided over an abysmal 60 game sprint that was so short most people don't even remember it. He made some tweaks to that team and they came back from the dead to go to the ALCS. He further tweaked and didn't add a lot of talent, but now the team is in a freefall. The fact is, this was a downward trending team with a bloated payroll and Bloom and Cora kickstarted it to life for one magical season in which they got to eliminate the Yanks on their own turf. Honestly, I do not think Bloom wanted a winning season last year. His goal is to be like the Rays, except with the capability of spending at times. The Rays have a farm system that is deep with talent AND versatility. The sox farm was barren.

 

I honestly think Bloom has a LONG rope here because he wasn't expected to compete last year and did. The farm is way better and if he gets the chance to deal off Devers, Eovaldi, Bogaerts, Kike, Wacha, Hill, etc, he could bring back a haul for the next rise that will come. You don't spend to prop up the end of a run. You spend to kick start a young core to a championship level. While Bogey and Devers aren't old by any stretch, they're old in terms of control. Your next rise will see Bello, Mayer, Casas etc be the core and then Bloom will spend to fill the gaps around them. I think 22 and 23 are gonna be tough years. 24 is the rise, IMO

[Old Red]

Bloom took over a team that was heading downward. He presided over an abysmal 60 game sprint that was so short most people don't even remember it. He made some tweaks to that team and they came back from the dead to go to the ALCS. He further tweaked and didn't add a lot of talent, but now the team is in a freefall. The fact is, this was a downward trending team with a bloated payroll and Bloom and Cora kickstarted it to life for one magical season in which they got to eliminate the Yanks on their own turf. Honestly, I do not think Bloom wanted a winning season last year. His goal is to be like the Rays, except with the capability of spending at times. The Rays have a farm system that is deep with talent AND versatility. The sox farm was barren.

 

I honestly think Bloom has a LONG rope here because he wasn't expected to compete last year and did. The farm is way better and if he gets the chance to deal off Devers, Eovaldi, Bogaerts, Kike, Wacha, Hill, etc, he could bring back a haul for the next rise that will come. You don't spend to prop up the end of a run. You spend to kick start a young core to a championship level. While Bogey and Devers aren't old by any stretch, they're old in terms of control. Your next rise will see Bello, Mayer, Casas etc be the core and then Bloom will spend to fill the gaps around them. I think 22 and 23 are gonna be tough years. 24 is the rise, IMO

 

Whoopie doo the farm hands are better, which is a good, but it’s a lot of hoping, and praying that the highly touted ones will turn out to be something good, but you also can’t count on that happening, and turn out as well as a Mookie, Bogey, Raffy, or a Johnny Lester. If they don’t then what? Mookie, Bogey, and Raffy are proven products, and even a haul might not match what they can do.

[Nick]

But Whitlock is our best potential pitcher, period.

 

Not trying to be a smartass, but we could have Eovaldi close and Wacha pitch the 8th, too, if the philosophy is to use your best guys at the ends of games.

 

We have a winning post here.

 

Why not manage each game like the 7th game of the World Series then? In the end, that too will fail over 162 games.

 

Every time we have a lead after 7th inning, only pitcher NOT available would be next day starter.

 

We scored one run, one run, one run. That simply won't get the job done.

 

Biggest mistake Bloom has made is to extend Barnes when he did. He's back to where he was couple of years ago. Unreliable, unconfident, 5th inning reliever.

[Bellhorn04]

Extending Barnes looks like a total loss. But it's an easily survivable error financially for a rich team.

[notin]

Your MISSING the point, and facts. The Red Sox HAD THE LEAD in all six of the extra innings losses in the 8-9 innings. They didn’t need to score anymore runs. Just like yesterday they were leading 1-0 in the 9th. Facts are facts. A lead in all 6 of the extra innings losses in the 8-9 innings, so those wouldn’t have even been extra innings games. Yesterday if Whitlock had been the closer the Sox win 1-0, and no xtra innings.

 

Well, 5 of the 6.

 

The Tampa game was 0-0 after 9.

 

And in 4 of the other 5, that was a one run lead. Two games were 1-0 after 8. One was 2-1. How about giving the bullpen a two run lead? When was the last time the bullpen had a two run lead?

 

The bullpen could and should be better. But you can’t keep hoping things work out when they are constantly being asked to protect one run leads for 3 to 4 innings. Give them some leeway.

 

The Sox have played 28 games and haven’t scored 100 runs yet. Of their 97 runs scored, 24 came in 3 games. The remaining 25 games this team has scored a whopping 73 runs. They have topped 5 runs in a game 3 times and haven’t scored double digit runs in a game yet.

 

If Houck closes or whoever, fine. But this anemic offense is the problem with this team…

[notin]

Extending Barnes looks like a total loss. But it's an easily survivable error financially for a rich team.

 

DFA him.

 

I was all for giving Barnes another chance since last season his struggles really only encompassed 9 innings. But as of now he is being heavily related uponnand is simply incapable.

 

Maybe if it’s team could actually put some f***ing runs on the board and have a 7 or 8 run lead once in a while,Cora could let Barnes try to right himself. But why he is the guy with complete trust in extra innings is well beyond anyone’s grasp.

 

If maybe he was facing the 7-8-9 hitters in the 10th, I’m a little less fearful. But to use Barnes in a tie game with the lead run on second and the 3-4-5 hitters due up is a complete white flag…

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, the offensive futility is at historic levels.

 

We're averaging 3.32 runs per game.

 

In 1968, the Year of the Pitcher, the Red Sox averaged 3.79.

[Nick]

Well, 5 of the 6.

 

The Tampa game was 0-0 after 9.

 

And in 4 of the other 5, that was a one run lead. Two games were 1-0 after 8. One was 2-1. How about giving the bullpen a two run lead? When was the last time the bullpen had a two run lead?

 

The bullpen could and should be better. But you can’t keep hoping things work out when they are constantly being asked to protect one run leads for 3 to 4 innings. Give them some leeway.

 

The Sox have played 28 games and haven’t scored 100 runs yet. Of their 97 runs scored, 24 came in 3 games. The remaining 25 games this team has scored a whopping 73 runs. They have topped 5 runs in a game 3 times and haven’t scored double digit runs in a game yet.

 

If Houck closes or whoever, fine. But this anemic offense is the problem with this team…

 

And of those 5 run game was a 10-5 loss (?) with a meaningless grand slam home run by JD in 9th.

 

We're not hitting and we're asking Cora to manage games based on projected one or two run offense?

 

Hell we better start bunting every time we have a runner.

[notin]

Your MISSING the point, and facts. The Red Sox HAD THE LEAD in all six of the extra innings losses in the 8-9 innings. They didn’t need to score anymore runs. Just like yesterday they were leading 1-0 in the 9th. Facts are facts. A lead in all 6 of the extra innings losses in the 8-9 innings, so those wouldn’t have even been extra innings games. Yesterday if Whitlock had been the closer the Sox win 1-0, and no xtra innings.

 

 

I’m 4 of the extra inning losses, the Sox scored a TOTAL of 4 runs in the 36 regulation innnings.

 

Absolutely those games happen. But 4 times in the first 28 games of the season? That’s once per week!!

 

The offense isn’t doing it’s job if the bullpen is constantly asked to protect 1-0 leads…

[notin]

And of those 5 run game was a 10-5 loss (?) with a meaningless grand slam home run by JD in 9th.

 

We're not hitting and we're asking Cora to manage games based on projected one or two run offense?

 

Hell we better start bunting every time we have a runner.

 

More than 5 runs; the Sox have a few games where they scored 5. I know that is hard to believe…

[notin]

Yes, the offensive futility is at historic levels.

 

We're averaging 3.32 runs per game.

 

In 1968, the Year of the Pitcher, the Red Sox averaged 3.79.

 

 

Exactly.

 

And the bullpen has to be perfect! Their last 3 blown saves were all for just giving up one run. Get them a 2 run lead once in a while!!

 

(Seriously when was their last 2 run lead?)

[Bellhorn04]

Exactly.

 

And the bullpen has to be perfect! Their last 3 blown saves were all for just giving up one run. Get them a 2 run lead once in a while!!

 

(Seriously when was their last 2 run lead?)

 

They beat the Angels 4-0 on May 3, back in relative good times, when Wacha was healthy.

[Bellhorn04]

If the offense does nothing again today, the Fire Fatse thread is coming.

[iortiz]

We just don’t have the ability to pitch in late innings with this pitching staff.

 

The pressure eats them alive.

[notin]

We just don’t have the ability to pitch in late innings with this pitching staff.

 

The pressure eats them alive.

 

Maybe if the offense could take the pressure off once per week …

[Old Red]

Well, 5 of the 6.

 

The Tampa game was 0-0 after 9.

 

And in 4 of the other 5, that was a one run lead. Two games were 1-0 after 8. One was 2-1. How about giving the bullpen a two run lead? When was the last time the bullpen had a two run lead?

 

The bullpen could and should be better. But you can’t keep hoping things work out when they are constantly being asked to protect one run leads for 3 to 4 innings. Give them some leeway.

 

The Sox have played 28 games and haven’t scored 100 runs yet. Of their 97 runs scored, 24 came in 3 games. The remaining 25 games this team has scored a whopping 73 runs. They have topped 5 runs in a game 3 times and haven’t scored double digit runs in a game yet.

 

If Houck closes or whoever, fine. But this anemic offense is the problem with this team…

 

Your playing the what if game that doesn’t change what actually happened. Yes if the Red Sox had scored more runs then the bullpen wouldn’t have been in all these 1 run games. We all know that, but the FACT is the offense hasn’t scored more runs, and the bullpen has been in all these 1 run games, which I believe if Whitlock would have been the closer those games would have ended up in the win column and not all losses.

[notin]

Your playing the what if game that doesn’t change what actually happened. Yes if the Red Sox had scored more runs then the bullpen wouldn’t have been in all these 1 run games. We all know that, but the FACT is the offense hasn’t scored more runs, and the bullpen has been in all these 1 run games, which I believe if Whitlock would have been the closer those games would have ended up in the win column and not all losses.

 

But saying Whitlock automatically nails down the game isn’t playing the “what if” game? High probability or not, it’s still a hypothetical…

[notin]

If the offense does nothing again today, the Fire Fatse thread is coming.

 

In a rare moment of frustration for taking it out on the coaching staff, I might be the one who starts it.

 

A realistic “Fire Cora” thread is not out of the realm of possibility either…

[moonslav59]

Your playing the what if game that doesn’t change what actually happened. Yes if the Red Sox had scored more runs then the bullpen wouldn’t have been in all these 1 run games. We all know that, but the FACT is the offense hasn’t scored more runs, and the bullpen has been in all these 1 run games, which I believe if Whitlock would have been the closer those games would have ended up in the win column and not all losses.

 

Isn't saying had Whitlock been the closer... also "playing the what if game?"

 

One could what if Houck as the closer, too, and it would negate all his games where he let up crooked numbers after 2-3 IP, as well as providing shut out 1 inning outings many times... in theory.

 

We're all "whit iffing," at this point.

 

Certianly had we used Whitlock as the closer, instead of what we did use him as, we might have a few more wins, but none of us really know how any of our what ifs would have worked out, except to say, "We could not have done much worse."

[Old Red]

But saying Whitlock automatically nails down the game isn’t playing the “what if” game? High probability or not, it’s still a hypothetical…

 

Yes it is hypothetical that Whitlock closes those 6 games out, but don’t you actually believe that it would have happened? It was a fact that those 6 chances did exist.

[Old Red]

Isn't saying had Whitlock been the closer... also "playing the what if game?"

 

One could what if Houck as the closer, too, and it would negate all his games where he let up crooked numbers after 2-3 IP, as well as providing shut out 1 inning outings many times... in theory.

 

We're all "whit iffing," at this point.

 

Certianly had we used Whitlock as the closer, instead of what we did use him as, we might have a few more wins, but none of us really know how any of our what ifs would have worked out, except to say, "We could not have done much worse."

 

If Whitlock is as good as everyone says including myself my opinion is the Sox are 6-0 in those games that to me Whitlock should have closed out. Nowhere else, but a few on here have suggested Houck as the closer. I have said myself that I would try it, but only as a second option to Whitlock, and, because the rest of the cupboard is bare.

[moonslav59]

If Whitlock is as good as everyone says including myself my opinion is the Sox are 6-0 in those games that to me Whitlock should have closed out. Nowhere else, but a few on here have suggested Houck as the closer. I have said myself that I would try it, but only as a second option to Whitlock, and, because the rest of the cupboard is bare.

 

I don't disagree, except it's 5, not 6 games. We were tied in one of those games, and with this offense, counting on them scoring is a stretch. Also, Whiltock does not have a 0.00 ERA, so expecting him to be that in those 6 games is a stretch, too. You do remember, he blew his first save opportunity and game of the season.

 

Also, looking at his 3 starts, yes, we lost all three, but not because he did poorly in any of them. He put us in a position to win, but we happened to lose. It's easy to look back and say those were wasted innings, but only because we lost all 3.

 

I'm not disagreeing with those who want or wanted Whitlock closing, either as a 1 inning guy or a 1-2 inning guy, but if we look at how Houck and Whitlock have pitched, so far and go only by that, which is what you seem to be doing with Whitlock, Houck has done well in his first innings pitched, and it seems, if that is transferable, he'd have done very well as a closer, and Whitlock might have won some of those starts he made, and he'd have had more starts than just 3

 

It's all conjecture, of course.

[notin]

If Whitlock is as good as everyone says including myself my opinion is the Sox are 6-0 in those games that to me Whitlock should have closed out. Nowhere else, but a few on here have suggested Houck as the closer. I have said myself that I would try it, but only as a second option to Whitlock, and, because the rest of the cupboard is bare.

 

I was all for stretching Whitlock out and expanding his IP in the pen. But at least he has a lot of potential as a starter. Houck is useless in multiple inning roles…

[notin]

Yes it is hypothetical that Whitlock closes those 6 games out, but don’t you actually believe that it would have happened? It was a fact that those 6 chances did exist.

 

And don’t you believe they win them with 2 run leads instead of one?

 

They’ve only blown 2 multi-run leads all year. And one of them was due to an error…

[Old Red]

I don't disagree, except it's 5, not 6 games. We were tied in one of those games, and with this offense, counting on them scoring is a stretch. Also, Whiltock does not have a 0.00 ERA, so expecting him to be that in those 6 games is a stretch, too. You do remember, he blew his first save opportunity and game of the season.

 

Also, looking at his 3 starts, yes, we lost all three, but not because he did poorly in any of them. He put us in a position to win, but we happened to lose. It's easy to look back and say those were wasted innings, but only because we lost all 3.

 

I'm not disagreeing with those who want or wanted Whitlock closing, either as a 1 inning guy or a 1-2 inning guy, but if we look at how Houck and Whitlock have pitched, so far and go only by that, which is what you seem to be doing with Whitlock, Houck has done well in his first innings pitched, and it seems, if that is transferable, he'd have done very well as a closer, and Whitlock might have won some of those starts he made, and he'd have had more starts than just 3

 

It's all conjecture, of course.

 

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.

[Old Red]

And don’t you believe they win them with 2 run leads instead of one?

 

They’ve only blown 2 multi-run leads all year. And one of them was due to an error…

 

The fact is the 2 run leads wasn’t there, and the 1 run leads were, and all were losses.