Red Sox Starting Rotation 2023

[Maxbialystock]

I keep asking the same question.

 

Agree. I think CERA is relevant, but A Red Sox fan named Hugh has a point. Last night was on Kluber, not McGuire. And Sale's great outing the night before was the result of his practice sessions, not Wong.

 

Of course, the instant analysis guys might not be serious and really are being sarcastic.

 

Also, there have definitely been instances in the past when a given pitcher insisted on a particular catcher.

[Maxbialystock]

How’s Wacha doing?

 

2-1, ERA 6.06, WAR -0.2 for the Padres. 16.1 IP's.

 

Kluber is 0-4, ERA 8.50, WAR -0.4, 18 IP's.

[mvp 78]

2-1, ERA 6.06, WAR -0.2 for the Padres. 16.1 IP's.

 

Kluber is 0-4, ERA 8.50, WAR -0.4, 18 IP's.

 

Rather not have either!

[moonslav59]

Agree. I think CERA is relevant, but A Red Sox fan named Hugh has a point. Last night was on Kluber, not McGuire. And Sale's great outing the night before was the result of his practice sessions, not Wong.

 

Of course, the instant analysis guys might not be serious and really are being sarcastic.

 

Also, there have definitely been instances in the past when a given pitcher insisted on a particular catcher.

 

Some larger sample sizes....

 

Career:

 

Sale

2.79 w Leon (436 innings)

4.08 w Vaz (132 inings)

 

Price

2.96 w Leon (204)

4.27 w Vaz (360)

 

Porcello

4.19 w Leon (576)

4.96 w Vaz (211)

 

Nate

3.39 w Plawecki (183)/ 4.94 w Leon (55)

4.64 w Vaz (176)

 

Pivetta

3.39 w Plawecki (69) NOT A large enough sample size, here

4.55 w Vaz (221)

[Hugh2]

2-1, ERA 6.06, WAR -0.2 for the Padres. 16.1 IP's.

 

Kluber is 0-4, ERA 8.50, WAR -0.4, 18 IP's.

 

Yeah I knew it wasn’t pretty. I’m happy we didn’t resign Wacha, but we could of used an upgrade not a Kluber

[Bellhorn04]

A large variance in small sample size is actually direct evidence that the small sample size is..... too small.

 

That doesn't make any sense. Small samples are small samples, regardless of variance.

[Hugh2]

That doesn't make any sense. Small samples are small samples, regardless of variance.

 

That's statistics 101. The smaller the sample size the more likely an outcome will vary from the mean. Hence, higher variances.

[Bellhorn04]

That's statistics 101. The smaller the sample size the more likely an outcome will vary from the mean. Hence, higher variances.

 

OK, but if we apply it to baseball, a small variance in a small sample size doesn't mean the sample is large enough.

 

The determination of whether the sample size is large enough is always going to be an inexact science. Just ask any baseball manager LOL

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

OK, but if we apply it to baseball, a small variance in a small sample size doesn't mean the sample is large enough.

 

The determination of whether the sample size is large enough is always going to be an inexact science. Just ask any baseball manager LOL

 

Of all the hypocritical oaths -- how can any last place team insist it's still early, but everyone agrees the Rays are really good?

[Bellhorn04]

Of all the hypocritical oaths -- how can any last place team insist it's still early, but everyone agrees the Rays are really good?

 

All I can really say to that is that the Red Sox have a better shot than some of the last place teams.

[moonslav59]

All I can really say to that is that the Red Sox have a better shot than some of the last place teams.

 

In a few weeks, you'll say the same about all 4th place teams, then...

[Hugh2]

OK, but if we apply it to baseball, a small variance in a small sample size doesn't mean the sample is large enough.

 

The determination of whether the sample size is large enough is always going to be an inexact science. Just ask any baseball manager LOL

 

That’s not how it works.

 

It’s an insanely small sample size. A large variance in a situation like this might be a bad catcher who would have allowed 1 more run in 30 innings, but instead he gave up 10 more in 30 innings; Which may easily be due to other factors such as the pitcher.

 

That’s a very large variance, that you’re using for McGuire, in an insanely small sample size.

 

Saying things like and a paraphrase “McGuire gives up 3 more runs a game” is stating a very large variance in a sample size.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes. Did you ignore the part where he said OPS was LOL random? That was hilarious. There's a reason that FanGraphs doesn't currently list CERA as a stat.

 

It's not what the guy said at all. He said that OPS, like ERA, is defense-dependent. His calculation attempts to eliminate the defense factor.

[Bellhorn04]

That’s not how it works.

 

It’s an insanely small sample size. A large variance in a situation like this might be a bad catcher who would have allowed 1 more run in 30 innings, but instead he gave up 10 more in 30 innings; Which may easily be due to other factors such as the pitcher.

 

That’s a very large variance, that you’re using for McGuire, in an insanely small sample size.

 

Saying things like and a paraphrase “McGuire gives up 3 more runs a game” is stating a very large variance in a sample size.

 

And how exactly do you know the sample size, including 2022, is too small, considering the size of the variances? As far as I know there is no actual reference material for this, but I'd be happy to see it.

[moonslav59]

And how exactly do you know the sample size, including 2022, is too small, considering the size of the variances? As far as I know there is no actual reference material for this, but I'd be happy to see it.

 

I do think it's fair to say that sample sizes over 100 or 200 innings are more significant than 20-30 inning sample sizes.

 

Some of the sample sizes I posted, earlier are over 300 and 400.

[Bellhorn04]

I do think it's fair to say that sample sizes over 100 or 200 innings are more significant than 20-30 inning sample sizes.

 

Some of the sample sizes I posted, earlier are over 300 and 400.

 

But again, I think you also have to factor in the size of the variances. I wouldn't be bringing this up if the differences between McGuire and Wong weren't gigantic in both 2022 and 2023.

[moonslav59]

But again, I think you also have to factor in the size of the variances. I wouldn't be bringing this up if the differences between McGuire and Wong weren't gigantic in both 2022 and 2023.

 

We all see what one great day can do for a hitter in April vs August, or what one bad day can do to a pitcher in April vs August.

 

Wild swings can occur over one pitch.

 

The big difference maker in your whole Wong vs McGuire focus is that they have caught pitchers at wildly different sample sizes, and the ones that are somewhat balanced are still too small to consider as noteworthy, but it might convince you to lay off McGuire.

 

(Please don't assume that because I am posting these numbers, I think these sample sizes are significant enough to even begin to tell a worthwhile story about their skill sets as catchers.)

 

Somewhat balanced sample sizes:

 

OPS Against

 

Crawford

.310 w McGuire (29 PAs)

.891 w Wong (45)

 

Pivetta

.799 w McGuire (22)

.742 w Wong (42) Close to even

 

Winckowski

.377 w McGuire (19)

.641 w Wong (36)

 

Brasier (some pretty tiny sample sizes, here)

.880 w McGuire (30)

.465 w Wong (18)

Kelly (tiny sample sizes)

1.194 w McGuire (19)

.381 w Wong (15)

 

Schreiber (tiny samples)

.574 w McGuire (16)

.681 w Wong (23)

 

Bleier

.866 w McGuire (16)

.686 w Wong (18)

 

Jansen (Tiny SS)

.220 w McGuire (14)

.844 w Wong (10)

 

Martin (Tiny)

.482 w McGuire (11)

.918 w Wong (18)

 

Out of Balance

 

Sale

1.061 w McGuire (64) His most caught pitcher (tied w Kluber)

.430 w Wong (25) His 2nd least caught SP'er

 

Kluber

1.045 w McGuire (64) Tied for most caught pitcher w Sale

.544 w Wong (19) His least caught SP'er

 

Ort

.803 Wong (33) Not a big differential, here

.871 w McGuire (13)

 

One-Way Pitchers - VERY NOTEWORTHY! (No McGuire innings with these two!)

Houck

Zero PAs with McGuire

.728 w Wong (58) His most caught pitcher.

 

Whitlock

Zero PAs with McGuire

.819 w Wong (44) His third most pitcher caught

 

Bello (No Wong PAs)

1.289 w McGuire (18)

Zero PAs w Wong

 

It's easy to see why we shouldn't read anything into the disparity, no matter how grand.

 

How many pitchers, who have had both catchers catch them do significantly better with Wong vs McGuire?

 

I count 6 to 5. If you take away the unbalanced, it's 4-3 in McGuire's favor.

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by moonslav59

[Hugh2]

If the variance between McGuires and Wongs CERA (in as smaller sample size) is much higher than your article lays out between catchers (with much larger sample sizes) by definition your sample size is too small. That’s common sense.

[moonslav59]

If the variance between McGuires and Wongs CERA (in as smaller sample size) is much higher than your article lays out between catchers (with much larger sample sizes) by definition your sample size is too small. That’s common sense.

 

More than 1/4th of Wongs PAs with Sox pitchers have been with Houck and Whitlock. McGuire has zero PAs with those two.

 

It's apples vs watermelons, here, folks.

[Bellhorn04]

If the variance between McGuires and Wongs CERA (in as smaller sample size) is much higher than your article lays out between catchers (with much larger sample sizes) by definition your sample size is too small. That’s common sense.

 

There are no actual guidelines on any of this that are agreed on. That article took a radically different stance from the oft-mentioned one by Woolner.

 

I have some interest in statistics because I'm an accountant and I've worked on audits where you select samples of records to review for errors. In auditing the principle is that if you find an error in a small sample, there are likely to be plenty more and you have to expand the sample, and it's usually always the case that there are major errors.

 

The thing that can't possibly be measured is the comfort level a pitcher has with the catcher. That's where we get the "binky" word from, of course. I think that's real.

[moonslav59]

There are no actual guidelines on any of this that are agreed on. That article took a radically different stance from the oft-mentioned one by Woolner.

 

I have some interest in statistics because I'm an accountant and I've worked on audits where you select samples of records to review for errors. In auditing the principle is that if you find an error in a small sample, there are likely to be plenty more and you have to expand the sample, and it's usually always the case that there are major errors.

 

The thing that can't possibly be measured is the comfort level a pitcher has with the catcher. That's where we get the "binky" word from, of course. I think that's real.

 

I totally agree, but with this nearly brand new staff and two brand new catchers, a learning curve has to be taking place, as these guys feel each other out.

 

Maybe some early bad results can set a lasting "tone" than can never be overcome.

[Hugh2]

There are no actual guidelines on any of this that are agreed on. That article took a radically different stance from the oft-mentioned one by Woolner.

 

I have some interest in statistics because I'm an accountant and I've worked on audits where you select samples of records to review for errors. In auditing the principle is that if you find an error in a small sample, there are likely to be plenty more and you have to expand the sample, and it's usually always the case that there are major errors.

 

The thing that can't possibly be measured is the comfort level a pitcher has with the catcher. That's where we get the "binky" word from, of course. I think that's real.

 

I have a math based degree and have studied advanced statistics.

 

I don’t know what the appropriate sample size is. But saying he’s averaging 3 runs more per game this year is clearly too small.

 

If it’s large enough sample size then maybe Reese should be the DH. He’s going to be the next .400 hitter since Ted Williams.

[Bellhorn04]

Here are a few other facts to consider:

 

1. McGuire seemed to be installed as the # catcher after the trading deadline last year, and I'm fairly sure most people here expected him to be the #1 this year.

2. McGuire has much better offensive numbers than Wong.

3. Wong has started 12 of the last 18 games, including games against RH starters.

 

So maybe, just maybe, the team has somewhat rapidly adjusted its thinking on which one is the better defensive catcher. Regardless of what the conventional stats are showing.

[notin]

Here are a few other facts to consider:

 

1. McGuire seemed to be installed as the # catcher after the trading deadline last year, and I'm fairly sure most people here expected him to be the #1 this year.

2. McGuire has much better offensive numbers than Wong.

3. Wong has started 12 of the last 18 games, including games against RH starters.

 

So maybe, just maybe, the team has somewhat rapidly adjusted its thinking on which one is the better defensive catcher. Regardless of what the conventional stats are showing.

 

They might like Wong’s glove. They probably won’t DH McGuire just in case Wong goes down mid-game.

 

Catcher platoons are unlike other positions in the starter is often determined by your pitcher and not your opponents…

[Hugh2]

Here are a few other facts to consider:

 

1. McGuire seemed to be installed as the # catcher after the trading deadline last year, and I'm fairly sure most people here expected him to be the #1 this year.

2. McGuire has much better offensive numbers than Wong.

3. Wong has started 12 of the last 18 games, including games against RH starters.

 

So maybe, just maybe, the team has somewhat rapidly adjusted its thinking on which one is the better defensive catcher. Regardless of what the conventional stats are showing.

 

I figured they would sign a catcher in Vazquez or Contreras and have McGuire/Wong battle for the second spot.

 

I’m not saying Wong might not be the better catcher. My initial point was that McGuire is not a bad catcher.

[moonslav59]

Here are a few other facts to consider:

 

1. McGuire seemed to be installed as the # catcher after the trading deadline last year, and I'm fairly sure most people here expected him to be the #1 this year.

2. McGuire has much better offensive numbers than Wong.

3. Wong has started 12 of the last 18 games, including games against RH starters.

 

So maybe, just maybe, the team has somewhat rapidly adjusted its thinking on which one is the better defensive catcher. Regardless of what the conventional stats are showing.

 

Wong has started 3 out of 10 games with a RH'd SP'er.

 

He has started 7 out of 8 with a LH'd SP'er.

 

He is the only catcher to catch Houck and Whitlock.

 

The 3 games he started vs RHPs?

 

1 with Crawford vs PIT

1 with Kluber vs PIT

1 with Sale vs MN

 

[a700hitter]

I was surprised to see that Matt Strahm is a starter for the Phillies.

[moonslav59]

I was surprised to see that Matt Strahm is a starter for the Phillies.

 

He really pushed for being a starter, so maybe they gave him an assurance.

[a700hitter]

He has 10k’s through 5 innings

[Larry Cook]

Would anybody take kluber off our hands????